### 1 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

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

S eptember8, 2015

P C Code s : 147500

MEMORANDUM DP Barcode: D425808

S UBJECT : EFED Registration Review Problem Formulation for Pinoxaden

F ROM : N.E. Federoff, Wildlife Biologist Edmund Wong , Environmental Chemist

Environmental Risk Branch 2 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

REVI EWED Elyssa Arnold, Risk Assessment Process Leader

BY: Jim Lin, Environmental Engineer

Environmental Risk Branch 2 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

TH RU : Brian Anderson, Chief

Environmental Risk Branch 2 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

TO: Linsey Walsh , C hemical Risk Manager Tracy Perry, Team Leader Kelly Sherman, Acting Branch Chief Risk Management and Implementation Branch 3

Pesticide Re -Evaluation Division (7508P)

T he Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed the preliminary problem

formulation (attached) for the ecological risk, environmental fate, endangered species, and drinking water assessments to be conducted as par t of the registration review of pinoxaden. The problem formulation describes the preliminary risk hypothesis and the processes that will be used during the completion of drinking water and ecological r isk assessments in support of registration review . This document draws on information from both open literature and studies

submitt ed by the registrants in response to data requirements in order to provide an overview of the environmental fate and ecological effects associated with the use of pinoxaden as well as to
outline uncertain ties regarding residues and taxa of concern . This document also identifies

additional studies that would be beneficial to complete an ecological risk assessment. If use rates increase substantially in the future, other studies may be needed.

### 2 Studies Needed

Environmental Chemistry Method and Independ ent Laboratory Validation for Water (850.6100)

A guideline compliant study is needed for environmental chemistry method (ECM) and independent laboratory validation (ILV) for p inoxaden and degradates ( NOA

- 407854 and NOA

447204) in water. A n unclassified study (MRID 47293209 ) was submitted in 2007 titled:

“ Pinoxaden: Analytical Method Verification for the Determination of NOA

- 407855 and its Hydrolysis Product NOA

- 407854 in Freshwater, Saltwater, and 50% Sucrose Solution: Final Report ” to fulfill the guide lines of 835.3160 and 835.3180

. However, this study does not fulfill the OCSPP guideline for 850.6100 on ECM/ILV in water. An ILV is required and the degradate

NOA

- 447204 needs to be addressed.

Honeybee Toxicity (non

- guideline)

I n keeping with the Agenc y’s new paradigm for determining potential adverse effects to insect pollinators from conventional pesticides (USEPA et al. 201 4 ), additional studies are being requested in addition to the acute contact study already submitted

. A cute and chronic larval

to xicity stud ies are necessary to evaluate the potential for pinoxaden to adversely affect bees and other pollinators through other routes of exposure

. Several of the treated crop areas may be considered attractive to honey bees and this is a systemic chemi cal that is transported throughout the plant. Thus, residues may be available to pollinators via pollen and/or nectar.

Although pinoxaden is categorized as practically non

- toxic to adult honeybees on contact exposure basis (48 hr LD50>100 ug/bee) , and b y extension, to other beneficial terrestrial invertebrates on an acute exposure basis, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the potential effects of the compound on honeybee larval development and survival as well as potential for

chronic effects. Therefore, additional data on pollinators is needed to fully characterize risk to all developmental stages of honeybees, as sensitivity may vary according to life

- stage and length of exposure (adult vs. larval and acute vs. chronic, respectively). Pinoxade n is systemic in plants so exposure via pollen and nectar is possible; and therefore, residues of pollen and nectar of crops are an additional data need. H igher tier effects toxicity tests ( i.e., semi

- field and/or field

studies

– Tier II and Tier III, respectively) may be needed, based on the results of the larval and chronic adult toxicity studies. Higher tier studies are recommended if the ratio of the EEC and

larval or adult bee acute LD50> 0.4 or the ratio of the EEC and the chronic NOAEC> 1 . Incident data and/or compelling open literature studies can also be used to support the need for higher tier studies. Should the screening level risk assessment identify that there are risk concerns to bees, the reg istrant may need to conduct Tier II or Tier III effects studies ( e.g. OECD Guideline 75 and/or 850.3040 guideline studies) in order to better understand potential effe cts at the whole

colony level.

The studies requested include:

• Non

- guideline (Tier 1): Honey bee adult acute oral toxicity

• Non

- guideline (Tier 1): Honey bee larvae acute toxicity

• Non

- guideline (Tier 1): Honey bee adult chronic oral toxicity

• Non

- guideline (Tier 1): Honey bee larvae chronic toxicity

• Non

- guideline (Tier 2): Semi

- field testing for pollinators (tunnel or colony feeding studies)

### 3 • Non

- guideline (Tier 2): Field trial of residues in pollen and nectar

• OCSPP 850.3040 (Tier 3): Field testing for pollina t ors

Additional Information Requested

T he MSDS for the adjuvant ADIGOR® reports acute toxicity endpoints for rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ), Daphnia magna , and green algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata )

. EFED requests that the registrant send copies of these study reports for review to su pport the analysis in Section 7.1 determin ing the stressors of concern for the registration review ecological

risk assessment

.



# Table of Contents

1. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 4

2. Use Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4

3. Con clusions from Previous Risk Assessments

................................ ................................ ....... 7

3.1. Ecological Risk Assessments

................................ ................................ ........................... 7

3.2. Drinking Water Exposure Assessments

................................ ................................ ........... 7

3.3. Clean Water Act Programs

................................ ................................ ............................... 7

3.3.1. Aquatic Life Criteria and Aquatic Life Benchmarks

................................ .................... 7

3.3.2. Impaired Water Bodies

................................ ................................ ................................ . 8

4. Environmental Fate and Transport

................................ ................................ .......................... 9 4.1. Chemical Identity and Mode of Action

................................ ................................ ............... 9 4.2 Environmental Fate and Transport

................................ ................................ ..................... 11

5. Receptors

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 21

5.1. Effects to Aquatic Organisms

................................ ................................ ........................ 22

5.2. Effects to Terrestrial Organisms

................................ ................................ .................... 24

5.3. Ecological Incidents

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 26

6. Exposure Pathways of Concern

................................ ................................ ............................ 26

7. Analysis Plan

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 27

7.1. Stresso rs of Concern

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 27

7.2. Measures of Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 28

7.3. Measures of Effect

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 28

8. E ndangered Species Assessments

................................ ................................ ......................... 28

9. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

................................ ................................ .............. 29

10. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps

................................ ................................ ............ 29

10.1. Environmental Fate

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 29

10.2

. Ecological Effects

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 31

11. References

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 41 APPENDIX A: Eco and Fate Bibliography for Pinoxaden

................................ .......................... 42 Pinoxaden Eco Effects Bibliography

................................ ................................ ....................... 42 Pinoxaden Fate/Chemistry Bibliography

................................ ................................ ................. 49

APPENDIX B: ECOLOGICAL TOXICITY DATA

................................ ................................ ... 54 APPENDIX C: Example of SIP INPUT and OUTPUT

................................ ............................... 63 APPENDIX D: STIR inputs and outputs

................................ ................................ ...................... 65

APPENDIX E: PESTDF Half

- Lives Calculations & Data

................................ ........................... 66

### 4 

# 1. Introduction

EFED evaluated the most recent ecological risk assessment for pinoxaden in association with the updated toxicity, exposure, and usage information to determine if sufficient data are available and if further updates are nee ded to support registration review. Recent risk assessments include

a new chemical assessment in 2005

. In addition, EFED considered the latest Agency science policies and risk assessment methodologies. The structure of pinoxaden , as well as t he chemical

names and other identifiers can be found in the environmental fate section

.

As described in the 2005 assessment, p inoxaden is a p henylpyrazolin herbicide and is registered for use on wheat and barley

. Pinoxaden inhibits the acetyl

- coenzyme A carboxylase

, which inhibits the production of fatty acids

. Pinoxaden is absorbed mainly through the leaves and is translocated both up (acropetally) and down (basipetally) the plant to the growing shoot or root tips. When applied with methyl esters of Canola oil

, upt ake is almost complete with in an hour of application. With mineral oils high levels of uptake may take 24 hours and when applied with wetting agents uptake may take more than 30 hours in Wild Oats. Without adjuvants uptake appears to plateau at about 10% o f the applied product for Wild Oats. There is limited root uptake



## . Susceptible plants stop growing within 48 hours of absorbing pinoxaden. Discoloration of leaves and swelling usually occur s within 7

- 14 days and leaves can generally be easily pulled

fro m their bases. Tissue death follows a week or two later. Final effects are usually evident by 6

weeks after treatment.



# 2. Use Characterization

Pinoxaden is a systemic, postemergence herbicide. The end

- use product (NOA 407855 100 EC

Herbicide ) is used to control several grass

- weed species in all types of wheat and barley. A total of five labels are currently registered for use in the Unite d States. An adjuvant ( ADIGOR ®


### A12127S) is required for use with two labels ( Registration Numbers: 100

- 1199 & 100

- 1314), but

not with the other three (Registration Numbers: 100

- 1256, 100

- 1389, & 100

- 1429). The adjuvant (A12127S) is a mixture of emulsified fatty acid esters (mainly). Pinoxaden is applied as a foliar spray in a single ground or aerial application w hen the crop is at the 2

- leaf to pre

- boot stage. Thorough spray coverage of grass weed s is essential for good control. Optimum control occurs when the application is made to actively growing weeds. Susceptible grass weeds generally stop growing within 4 8 hours of treatment, turn yellow within one to three weeks, and are completely

controlled within three to five weeks.

### 5 Table 1 . Maximum use patterns for current uses of pinoxaden

Site Max Single
App Rate (lb ai / A) Max #Apps/CC Max Dose/CC

(lb ai / A/CC) Max #Apps/Year Max Dose/Year

(lb ai / A/Yr) MRI (days) Reg Numbers

Barley 0.0535 1 NS NS NS NS 100

- 1199,100

- 1314 (2) C
Barley 0.0534 1 NS NS NS NS 100

- 1389 (1) C
Barley 0.0537 1 NS NS NS NS 100

- 1256 (1) C

Wheat 0.0535 1 NS NS NS NS 100

- 1199,100

- 1314,

100

- 1429 (3) A , E

Wheat 0.0534 1 NS NS NS NS 100

- 1389 (1) C

Wheat 0.0537 1 NS NS NS NS 100

- 1256 (1) C

Wheat 0.0267 1 NS NS NS NS 100

- 1429 (1) B , D

NS

- Not Specified

A For use only in MN, MT, ND, SD.

B For use only in WY.

C For weed postemergence use.

D Foliar application only

E For weed postemergence and foliar application.



### Figure 1 depicts a national

- level summary of the estimated agricultural usage of pinoxaden in 2 01 2 (USGS, 201 5 ). National agricultural usage of pinoxaden started in 200 6 and have been steadily increasing to 2012

. No usage data is available after 2012.

### 6 Figure 1. Agricultural Usage of Pinoxaden in 201 2 (USGS, 201 5 )

### 7 

# 3. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments

**3.1. Ecological Risk Assessments** 

The Agency previously conducted a new chemical ecological risk assessment on pinoxaden in

2005 ( USEPA 2005b, DP299585) that serve s as a basis for this scoping document. The following are conclusions from that p revious assessment

.

Risk did not exceed concern levels for aquatic or terrestrial animals at application rates up to

0.0624 lbs a.i./Acre.

Terrestrial Plants

The LOC is exceeded for non

- listed and listed monocots and non

- flowering plants inhabiting lowland areas subject to channelized runoff from either an aerial or ground application. The LOC also is exceeded for any listed monocots and non

- flowering plants exposed to drift from an aerial application. No LOC is exceeded for the dicots exposed to she et or channelized runoff or drift alone from either aerial or ground application. Risk to terrestrial plants is presumed only for

monocots and non

- flowering plants.



## 3.2. **Drinking Water Exposure Assessments**

A Tier II Drinking Water Exposure Assessment was con ducted for pinoxaden and its major transformation products (NOA

- 407854 and NOA

- 447204) in 2005 (USEPA 2005a, DP299583) based on its registered use for aerial and ground application on wheat

. T he t ier II model PRZM

EXAMS indicated that the Index Reservoir and P ercent C rop A rea corrected (PCA

- corrected) pinoxaden concentrations in surface source drinking water were 0.76 μg/L (aerial) and 0.589 μg/L (ground) for the annual peak concentration (1

- in

- 10

- year peak)

, 0.473 μg/L (aerial) and

0.37 μg/L (gr ound) for the annual concentration (1

- in

- 10

- year annual mean) , and 0.324 μg/L (aerial) and 0.208 μg/L (ground) for the overall mean concentration (36

- year annual mean)

. Overall, acute and annual EDWCs were 0.324, 0.76 μg/L

, and 0.473 μg/L

, respectively.

SCI

- GROW estimated the concentration of pinoxaden in shallow ground water sources to be

0.133 μg/L

.



## 3.3. **Clean Water Act Programs**

**3.3.1. Aquatic Life Criteria and**  **Aquatic Life Benchmarks**

The Clean Water Act requires the Agency to publish water quality criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all identifiable ef fects on health and

### 8 welfare that might be expected from the presence of pollutants in any body of water, including ground water. While these recommended criteria do not, in themselves, impose any requirements, states and authorized tribes can use them to develop water quality standards. An Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria document has not been published for pinoxaden (see url: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ ).

The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) publishes aquatic life benchmarks for freshwater species based on toxicity values for the most sensitive species from the most recent risk assessments. For pinoxaden , aquatic life benchmarks have been published 1



### . Acu te benchmarks have been established for fish ( 10 ,000 μ g∙L

- 1 

### ) and aquatic plants (1, 2 00

– 4, 3 00 μ g∙L

- 1 

### ), while no chronic

benchmarks were established for fish and invertebrates

. The chronic benchmark is based on the acute toxicity value (which was lower tha n the lowest available chronic toxicity value), and therefore may underestimate chronic toxicity. In addition, acute benchmarks have been established

for the degradates NOA 447204 ( >60,000 μ g∙L

- 1 

### for fish and invertebrates) and NOA 497854 ( >51,500 μg∙L

- 1 

### for fish and >50,500 μg∙L

- 1 

### for invertebrates) degradates.

Table 2

. OPP Freshwater Aquatic Life Benchmarks for Pinoxaden and Degradates (in μg/L)

. 

### Chemical Fish Invertebrates Nonvascular

Plants Vascular P lants

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Acute

Pinoxaden 10,000 NS NS NS 1

, 200 4

, 300

NOA 447204 >60,000 NS >60,000 NS 95,600 >93,500

NOA 497854 >51,500 >960 >50,500 5

, 800 >100,000 10,000

1 NS

– not specified. There were no benchmarks published for these categories.



## 3.3.2. **Impaired Water Bodies**

Pinoxaden is not identified as a cause of impairment for any water bodies listed as impaired under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, based on information provided at http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation_cy.cause_detail_303d?p_cause_group_id=88

5

.

No Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) criteria have been developed for pinoxaden , based on information provided at http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation.tmdl_pollutant_detail?p_pollutant_group_id =885&p_pollutant_group_name=PESTICIDES . More information on impaired water bodies and

TMDLs can be found at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/ . The Agency invites submission of water quality data for this pesticide. To the extent possible, data shoul d conform to the quality standards in Appendix A of the OPP Standard Operating Procedure: Inclusion of Impaired Water Body and Other Water Quality Data in OPP’s Registration Review Risk Assessment and Management Process (see:

1 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/aquatic_life_benchmark.htm

### 9 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/water_quality_sop.htm ), in order to ensure they can be used quantitatively or qualitatively in pesticide risk assessments.



# 4. Environmental Fate and Transp ort

**4.1. Chemical Identity and Mode of Action**

Pinoxaden (NOA 407855), a phenylpyrazolin, is a n herbicidal active ingredient for control of grass weeds. According to the registrant (Syngenta Crop Protection), "The mode of action is the

inhibition of the enzyme, acetyl

- coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase). ACCase catalyses the formation of malonyl

- coenzyme A from acetyl

- coenzyme A and bicarbonate with concomitant consumption of ATP. ACCase activity in plants can be attributed to two isoenzymes located in

diffe rent compartments of the plant cell, the chloroplast and the cytosol. The chloroplastic enzyme is responsible for the de novo biosynthesis of all fatty acids in the cell. The malonyl

coenzyme A produced by the cytosolic ACCase is required for fatty acid elongation to form very long

- chain fatty acids, and for the biosynthesis of flavonoids and malonylated metabolites

. ”

Table 3 below provide a summary of the physi cal

- chemical properties and environmental fate

parameters of pinoxaden

.

Table 3

. Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of Pinoxaden

Parameter Value Source

Selected Physical/Chemical Parameters

Molecular mass (molecular formula) 400.5 g/mol ( C 23 

### H 32 

### N 2 

### O 4 

### ) 

### USEPA

Vapor pressure (25 °C) 3. 45 x10

- 9 

### mm Hg 

### USEPA

Density (24 ° C) 1.16 x 10 3 

### Kg/m 3 

### USEPA

Aqueous solubility (25 ° C) 22 0 mg/L 

### PubChem

Henry’s Law Constant ( 25°C) 9.1 x10

- 12 

### atm

- m 3 

### /mol 

### USEPA

Log octanol

- to

- water partition

coefficient (log K OW 

### ) ( 25°C) 3.2 

### USEPA

Persistence

Hydrolysis half

- life (25 ° C) pH 4 (18.1 d) pH 5 (17.2 d) pH 7 (9.9 d) pH 9 (0.21 d) MRID 46203005

Aqueous photolysis half

- life
(25 ° C) 14 d MRID 46203008

Soil photolysis half

- life (25 ° C) Loamy sand, pH 8.0 0.4 d (Irradiated) 0.21 d (Dark) MRID 46203009

### 10 Parameter Value Source

Loamy sand, pH 7.7 0.42 d (Irradiated) 0.28 d (Dark) MRID 46224803

Aerobic soil metabolism half

life (25°C) 0.17 d A 

### (Loamy sand, pH 8.0) MRID 46203011

0.21 d A 

### (Loamy sand, pH 7.7) MRID 46203012

0.25 d A 

### (Loamy sand, pH 7.7) MRID 46203013

Anaerobic soil metabolism half

life NA NA

Aerobic aquatic metabolism

half

- life (20 °C) 0.27 d A 

### (Swiss River Water

- Loam Sediment System ) MRID 4 6203015

0.27 d A 

### ( Swiss Pond Water

- Silty Clay Loam Sediment System )

A na erobic aquatic metabolism

half

- life < 1 d (20 °C) (Swiss River Water

- Loam &

Pond Water

- Silty Clay Loam Sediment System ) MRID 4 6203015

< 6 hours (25 °C) MRID 4 6203014

Mobility



### Adsorption, K d 

### (mL/g)
(24 °C) N D loamy sand , pH 7.7: 5.36 ND loam, pH 6.8: 13.1 WA sand, pH 7.0: 1.09 Canada loam, pH 7.8: 11 KS silty clay loam, pH 6.4: 8.87 MRID 4 6203019

Field Dissipation

Terrestrial field dissipation half

life; leaching depth Grand Forks County, North Dakota

, Gardena

silt loam , pH 7. 1

- 7.3 A 

### : 2.3 d (bare plot)

3 d (cropped plot) MRID 46203023

Grant County, Washington

, Quincy loamy fine sand pH 6.7

- 7.1 A 

### : 0.64 d (bare plot) 4.2 d (winter wheat cropped plot) Leaching depth: 0

- 6” MRID 46203024

Armstrong County, Texas

, Bippus fine sandy loam pH 8.2 A 

### : 5 d (bare plot) 7.1 d (winter wheat cropped plot) Leaching depth: 0

- 6” MRID 46203025

### 11 Parameter Value Source

Minto, Manitoba

, loam pH 8.0 A 

### : 2.1 d (bare plot)

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

, loam pH 5.8 A 

### : 5.2 d (bare plot)

Lacombe, Alberta

, clay loam pH 6.4 A 

### : 5.7 d (bare plot) MRID 46203026

A Half

- lives recalculated with PESTDF Software. Calculations and d ata in Appendix E

.



# 4.2 Environmental Fate and Transport

Persistence Microbial degradation in soil and aquatic media is the primary dissipation route for pinoxaden

. Acceptable laboratory studies showed that pinoxaden degrades rapidly under aerobic soil and aquatic metabolism conditions, with half

- lives ranging from 4

- 6.5 hours. The major degradate (NOA

- 407854) further degrades to form NOA

- 447204 (MRID 46203011

- 13 ). Although the studies contained up to 50% of unextracted residues in some sampling point, the samples were treated through three extraction procedures with harsh conditions and elevated temperatures to

account for unextracted residues associated with hu mic acids, fulvi c acids and humins.

Under aerobic aquatic conditions, pinoxaden degrades rapidly (half

- life 6.5 hours) to major transformation product NOA

- 407854, with maximums of 96.6%, 16.7% and 103.5% of the applied in water layer, sediment, and total system, respectively. NOA

- 407854 was the major product detected in the treated water

- sediment systems under both anaerobic and aerobic conditions. Minor transformation product NOA

- 447204 was identified with maximums of 0.3%, 0.1% and 0.4% in water, sediment, and total system, respectively. Under aerobic aquatic conditions, more tha n 86% of applied activity remains (in total system) in form of the m ajor degradate NOA

- 407854 (MRID 46203014

- 15).

Aqueous photolysis of pinoxaden is not a major dissipation route when exposed to sunlight. In soil, photolysis is also not a significant pat hway for degradation for pinoxaden without hydrolytic degradation

. Meanwhile, r esults f ro m acceptable hydrolysis study indicated that pinoxaden is more persistent under acidic conditions but degrades rapidly at higher pH. Pinoxaden hydrolyzes with the ha lf

- lives of 18.1 days at pH 4, 17.2 days at pH 5, 9.9 days at pH 7, and 0.21 days (5 hours) at pH 9.

Mobility Pinoxaden is relatively mobile with K d 

### values range from 1.09 to 13.1 mL/g. However, supplemental terrestrial dissipation field studies shown th at pinoxaden was not detected above the LOQ in soil below the 6” depth, as evident from the medium to low leaching potential Koc range of 299

– 852 mL/g (MRID 46203019).

### 12 Volatility is not a significant route of dissipation. Due to low vapor pressure ( 3. 45 x10

- 9 

### mm Hg 

### ) and low Henry’s Law Constant ( 9.1 x10

- 12 

### atm

- m 3 

### /mol 

### ), volatilization is not a concern.

Field Studies Results from supplemental terrestrial field dissipation studies showed that pinoxaden dissipated

with half

- lives significantly greater than those from laboratory soil dissipation studies. Studies were conducted in North Dakota, Texas, Washington State and three locations in Canada, Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Pinoxaden dissipated with the half

- lives of 15 hours

– 5.7 days on bare plot and 3

– 7 days on cropped plot planted with winter wheat. These studies were classified as supplemental because the soil was stored f or up to 355 days prior to extractio n. Thus, the field samples at the time of analysis may not accurately represent t he concentration in the field at the time of sampling and it is possible that pinoxaden degradation may have occurred during their prolonged frozen storage prior to analysis. However, this does not affect the validity of the study. No additional terrestria l field dissipation study is required. A study submitted (MRID 46203022) indicated that pinoxaden was not stable in frozen storage.

Degradates The most significant degradate of pinoxaden is NOA

- 407854 and the minor transformation product is NOA

- 447204 . No trend of degradation was observed for NOA

- 407854 in the hydrolysis study (MRID 46203005). In soil photolysis studies conducted on loamy sand soil,

NOA

- 407854 degraded with the half

- lives of 3.6

- 4.1 days in irradiated soils, and 6

- 7.14 days under dark control samples (MRID 4620300 8

- 9 )

.

The major degradation pathway for NOA

- 407854 is via aerobic soil metabolism. Both laboratory and field dissipation studies s how ed that NOA

- 407854 degraded with the half

- lives of 2.5

- 6 days

and 2.1

- 15 days in bare plot; 1.3

- 8.1 days in cropped plot, respectively. In aquatic systems however, NOA

- 407854 indicated that it has the tendency to persist for years. In aerobic aquatic

m etabolism study, NOA

- 407854 remained in the system with half

- lives of 1213

- 1976 days (3.3

- 5.4 years), while in anaerobic system, it showed no pattern of decline. For the study MRID

4 6203014, the length of experiment was too short and it was terminated befo re any pattern of decline

c ould be established.



### Meanwhile, the minor degradate NOA

- 447204 is likely to persist in soil for a great length of

time. Studies show ed that NOA

- 447204 exhibited half

- lives of 34

- 127 days in laboratory soil

studies and 17

- 563 days (bare plot); 25

- 227 (cropped plot) in terrestrial field studies. No data is

available for NOA

- 447204 in the aquatic environment.

Both NOA

- 407854 and NOA

- 447204 are considered to be mobile based on Freundlich K ads 

### values ranging from 0.06

- 128 mL /g, and 0.28

- 0856 m L /g, respectively, in three test soils: loamy sand, loam, and silty clay loam textures (MRID 46203016

- 19). Degradate NOA

- 407854 was

detected in the 0

- 15 cm soil depth at a maximum concentration of 10.5% of the applied pinoxaden , but was not detected above the LOQ in soil below the 0

- 15 cm depth. The degradate

NOA

- 447204 was initially detected in the 0

- 15 cm soil depth at a maximum concentration of 10.4% of the applied pinoxaden, but was not detected above the LOQ in soil below the 0

- 15 cm depth (MRID 46203023

- 26).

### 13 Primary degradation pathway of pinoxaden is shown in Figure 2

. The major degradates of pinoxaden are listed in Table 4

. Pinoxaden major degradates NOA

- 407854 and NOA

- 447204

are considered to be mobile based on Freund lich K ads 

### values ranging from 0.06

- 0.28 ml/g, and

0. 125

- 0 .941 ml/g, respectively, in three test soils (loamy sand, loam, sand, silty clay loam textures).

Due to the persistence of pinoxaden degradates

, the Total Toxic Residue (TTR; Ruhman, M.,

draft docum ent) approach will be used for modeling exposure to all three residues for future risk

assessments . To account for total toxic pinoxaden residues, each relevant environmental fate study (hydrolysis, aqueous photolysis, aerobic soil metabolism, etc.) will be used to calculate the

amount of pinoxaden , NOA

- 407854 and NOA

- 447204 present in each study at each sampling interval. The total concentrations are used to recalculate the rate constant and the corresponding

half

- life value for each study.

### 14 Figure 2

. Primary Degradation Pathway of Pinoxaden 

### (PINOXADEN)

CO 2 

### and M inor Degradates

### 15 Table 4

. Pinoxaden and Its Major Environmental Degradates

Code Name/ Synonym Chemical Name Chemical Structure Study Type Ref.
(MRID) System Maximum %AR (day) A 

### Final %AR (study length)

PARENT



### Pinoxaden /

NOA

- 407855 IUPAC: 8

- (2,6

- Diethyl

- p

tolyl)

- l,2,4,5

- tetrahydro

- 7

-

oxo

- 7H

- pyrazolo[l,2

- d] [l,4,5]oxadiazepin

- 9

- yl 2,2

- dimethylpropiona te

CAS Name: 8

- (2,6

- Diethyl

- 4

- methylpheny l )

- 1 ,2,4,5

- tetrahydro

- 7

- oxo

7H

- pyrazolo[1,2

- d] [l,4,5]oxadiazepin

- 9

- yl 2,2

- dimethylpropanoa te

CAS No.: 243973

- 20

- 8

Formula: C 23 H 32 N 2 O 4 MW: 400.51 g/mol

SMILES: O=C1C(=C(N2Nl CCOCC2) OC(=O)C(C)(C) C)clc(cc(cclCC)C)CC

MAJOR TRANSFORMATION PRODUCTS

### 16 Code Name/ Synonym Chemical Name Chemical Structure Study Type Ref.
(MRID) System Maximum %AR (day) A 

### Final %AR (study length)

NOA

- 407854 /

M2 IUPAC Name: 8

- (2,6

- diethyl

- 4

- methyl

- phenyl)

- tetrahydro

- pyrazolo [ 1,2

- d ] [1,4,5]oxadiazepin

- 7,9

- dione

CAS Name: 8

- (2,6

- D iethyl

- 4

- methyl phenyl)tetrahydro

- 7H

- pyrazolo[1 ,2

- d ] [1,4,5]oxadiazepin

- 7,9(8H)

- dione

CAS No.: 314020

- 44

- 5 (keto form)

Formula: C 18 H 24 N 2 O 3 MW: 316.4 g/mol

SMILES: O=C1C(c2c(cc(cc2CC)C) CC)C(=O)N2N1CCOCC2 (keto form)

O=C 1C(=C(N2Nl CCOCC 2)O)c1c(cc(cc1 CC)C)CC (enol form ) Aq photolysis 46203008 Irradiated 72% (29 d) 72% (29 d)

Hydrolysis 46203005 pH 4 pH 5 pH 7 pH 9 64% (30 d)

73% (30 d)

89% (30 d)

101% (30 d) 64% (30 d)

73% (30 d)

89% (30 d)

101% (30 d)

Soil photolysis 46203009 Irradiated 67% (1 d) 21% (30 d)

Dark 72% (1 d) 6.3% (30 d)

46224803 Irradiated 74% (1 d) 0.2 % (30 d)

Dark 85% (1 d) 8.4 % (30 d)

Aerobic soil 46203011 Loamy sand 90% (1 d) 1.6% (181 d)

46203012 Loamy sand 67 % (1 d) 1.2 % (1 00 d)

46203013 Loamy sand 75 % (1 d) 0.9 % (1 00 d)

Aerobic aquatic 46203015 Water

- sediment 10 1 % ( 14 d) 84 % (1 47 d)

A na erobic

aquatic 46203015 Water

- sediment 103% (1 d) 101% (100 d)

46203014 Water

- sediment 94 % (28 d) 74 % (372 d)

Terr estrial field

dissipation 46203023 Silt loam (bare plot) 36 % (0.5 d) 1.9% (21 d)

(cropped plot) 11 % (0 d) 3.4% (7 d)

46203024 Loamy sand (bare plot) 32 % (1 d) 1.6% (14 d)

(cropped plot) 48 % (1 d) 2.2% (14 d)

46203025 Sandy loam (bare plot) 4 5 % (1 d) 4.2% (31 d)

(cropped plot) 41% (3 d) 5.4% (21 d)

46203026 Minto loam 4 4 % (1 d) 1.5% (12 d)

Saskatoon loam 27 % (1 d) 2.8% (24 d)
Lacombe clay

loam 14 % (6 d) 0.3% (83 d)



### NOA

- 447204 /

M4 IUPAC Name: 8

- (2,6

- diethyl

- 4

- methyl

- phehyl)

- 8

- hydroxy

- tetrahydropyrazolo[1,2

- Soil photolysis 46203009 Irradiated 43% (14 d) 26% (30 d)

Dark 19% (21 d) 18% (30 d)

46224803 Irradiated 4 4 % ( 7 d) 30 % (30 d)

### 17 Code Name/ Synonym Chemical Name Chemical Structure Study Type Ref.
(MRID) System Maximum %AR (day) A 

### Final %AR (study length)

d][1,4,5]oxadiazepine

- 7,9

- dione

Formula: C 18 H 24 N 2 O 4 MW: 332.4 g/mol

SMILES: O=C1C(c2c(cc(cc2CC)C) CC) ( C(=O)N2N1CCOCC2 )O Dark 1 9 % ( 30 d) 1 9 % (30 d)

Aerobic soil 46203011 Loamy sand 18 % ( 30 d) 2.3 % (181 d)

46203012 Loamy sand 17 % ( 7 d) 6.6 % (1 00 d)

46203013 Loamy sand 16 % ( 14 d) 4.6 % (1 00 d)

Aerobic aquatic 46203015 Water

- sediment 5.0 % ( 70 d) 1.2 % (1 47 d)

A na erobic

aquatic 46203015 Water

- sediment 0.3 % (1 00 d) 0.3 % (1 00 d)

46203014 Water

- sediment 6.2 % ( 0 d) 2.1 % ( 372 d)

Terr estrial field

dissipation 46203023 Silt loam (bare plot) 11 % ( 7 d) 1.5 % ( 494 d)

(cropped plot) 10 % ( 45 d) 1.9 % ( 494 d)

46203024 Loamy sand (bare plot) 26% ( 21 d) 1.8 % ( 90 d)

(cropped plot) 34% ( 21 d) 1.7 % ( 457 d)

46203025 Sandy loam (bare plot) 7.2 % ( 21 d) 1.9 % (1 24 d)

(cropped plot) 5.1 % ( 3 & 7 d) 1.5 % (1 85 d)

46203026 Minto loam 17 % ( 7 d) 5.9% (326 d)

Saskatoon loam 9.1% ( 49 d) 2.5% (325 d)
Lacombe clay

loam 7.5 % ( 107 d) 4.2% (324 d)



### Carbon dioxide IUPAC: Carbon dioxide

Formula: CO 2 MW: 44 g/mol

SMILES: C(=O)=O C O O Soil photolysis 46203009 Irradiated 12% (21 d) 11% (30 d)

Dark 13% (30 d) 13% (30 d)

46224803 Irradiated 45% (30 d) 45% (30 d)

Dark 25% (30 d) 25% (30 d)

Aerobic aquatic 46203015 Water

- sediment 1.8 % ( 147 d) 1.8 % (1 47 d)



### Unextracted

Residues Soil photolysis 46203009 Irradiated 11% (14 d) 7.6 % (30 d)

Dark 42% (30 d) 42% (30 d)

### 18 Code Name/ Synonym Chemical Name Chemical Structure Study Type Ref.
(MRID) System Maximum %AR (day) A 

### Final %AR (study length)

46224803 Irradiated 21 % ( 21 d) 17 % ( 30 d)

Dark 38 % ( 21 d) 37 % (30 d)

Aerobic soil 46203011 Loamy sand 50 % ( 30 d) 40% (181 d)

46203012 Loamy sand 46 % ( 30 d) 36 % (1 00 d)

46203013 Loamy sand 37 % ( 30 d) 30 % (1 00 d)

Aerobic aquatic 46203015 Water

- sediment 6.7 % ( 147 d) 6.7 % (1 47 d)

A na erobic

aquatic 46203015 Water

- sediment 1.2 % ( 70 d) 0.6 % (1 00 d)

46203014 Water

- sediment 13 % ( 0 d) 12% ( 372 d)

A AR means “applied radioactivity”. MW means “molecular weight”. LOD means “limit of detection”. NA means “not applicable”.

B Bolded values indicate a major degradate was formed or that a degradate is of toxicological significance

### 19 The environmental fate parameters of pinoxaden degradates are listed in Table 5

.

Table 5

. Environmental Fate Parameters of Pinoxaden Degradates

Parameter Value Source

Persistence

Hydrolysis half

- life (25 ° C) NOA

- 407854 Stable @ pH 4, 5, 7, 9 MRID 46203008

Soil photolysis half

- life (25 ° C) NOA

- 407854 

### ( Loamy sand, pH 8.0)



### 3.6 d (Irradiated) 6 d (Dark) MRID 46203009

NOA

- 407854 

### ( Loamy sand, pH 7.7) 

### 4.1 d (Irradiated) 7.14 d (Dark) MRID 46224803

Aerobic soil metabolism half

life (25 ° C) NOA

- 407854 : 6 d A


### NOA

- 447204 : 51 d A 

### MRID 46203011

NOA

- 407854 : 3.3 d A


### NOA

- 447204 : 127 d A , B 

### MRID 46203012

NOA

- 407854 : 2.5 d A , B


### NOA

- 447204 : 33.7 d A , B 

### MRID 46203013

Aerobic aquatic metabolism

half

- life (20 °C) NOA

- 407854

Swiss River Water

- Loam Sediment System : 1976 d A



### Swiss Pond Water

- Silty Clay Loam Sediment System : 1213 d A 

### MRID 4 6203015

A na erobic aquatic metabolism

half

- life NOA

- 407854 : No observed pattern of decline (20 °C) MRID 4 6203015

NOA

- 407854 : >2 years (25 °C) MRID 4 6203014

Mobility



### Adsorption, K d 

### (mL/g) NOA

- 407854 (2 4

- 26 ° C)

N D loamy sand , pH 7.7: 0. 064 ND loam, pH 6.8: 0.18 WA sand, pH 7.0: 0.082 Canada loam, pH 7.8: 0.136 KS silty clay loam, pH 6.4: 0.28 MRID 4 6203017

### 20 Parameter Value Source

NOA

- 447204 ( 25 ° C)

N D loamy sand , pH 7.7: 0. 295 ND loam, pH 6.8: 0.822 WA sand, pH 7.0: 0.125 Canada loam, pH 7.8: 0.941 KS silty clay loam, pH 6.4: 0.528 MRID 4 6203018

Field Dissipation

Terrestrial field dissipation half

life; leaching depth Grand Forks County, North Dakota

, Gardena

silt loam , pH 7. 1

- 7.3 A 

### : NOA

- 407854 3.3 d (bare plot) 5.8 d (cropped plot) Leaching depth: 0

- 6”

NOA

- 447204

152 d (bare plot)

227 d (cropped plot) Leaching depth: 0

- 6” MRID 46203023

Grant County, Washington Quincy loamy fine sand pH 6.7

- 7.1 A 

### : NOA

- 407854 2.1 d (bare plot) 1.3 d (cropped plot) Leaching depth: 6

- 12 ”

NOA

- 447204

17 d (bare plot)

25 d (cropped plot) Leaching depth: 18

- 24 ” (0.50

- 0.57 ppb, 40

- 58 days) MRID 46203024

### 21 Parameter Value Source

Armstrong County, Texas

, Bippus fine sandy loam pH 8.2 A 

### : NOA

- 407854 10 d (bare plot) 8.1 d (winter wheat cropped plot) Leaching depth: 0

- 6 ”

NOA

- 447204

95 d (bare plot)

132 d (cropped plot) Leaching depth: 12

- 18 ” (0.52

- 0.58 ppb, 124 days) MRID 46203025

Minto, Manitoba

, loam pH 8.0 A 

### : NOA

- 407854 : 2.8 d (bare plot)

NOA

- 447204: 247 d (bare plot) Leaching depth: 0

- 4 ”

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

, loam pH 5.8 A 

### : NOA

- 407854 : 8 d (bare plot)

NOA

- 447204: 190 d (bare plot) Leaching depth: 6

- 12 ”

Lacombe, Alberta

, clay loam pH 6.4 A 

### : NOA

- 407854 : 15 d (bare plot)

NOA

- 447204: 563 d C 

### (bare plot) Leaching depth: 0

- 4 ” MRID 46203026

A Half

- lives recalculated with PESTDF Software. Calculations and Data in Appendix E

. B Half

- li fe values are t R IORE

. C Half

- li fe values are DFOP.



### Bioconcentration/Bioaccumulation

No fish bioaccumulation study has been submitted for pinoxaden. The fish bioaccumulation studies for pinoxaden is not required due to its rapid degradation in water, on both aerobic (0.27 days) and anaerobic (<6 hours

- < 1 day) systems

.



# 5. Receptors

Consiste nt with EFED’s standard methodology , the risk assessment for pinoxaden will rely on a surrogate species approach. T oxicological data generated from surrogate test species, which are intended to be representative of broad taxonomic gr oups, are used to extrapolate to potential effects on a variety of species (receptors) included under these taxonomic groupings.

The Agency evaluates the potential for adverse e ffects as a result of p inoxaden usage. T he most sensitive endpoint for each taxon is used for RQ calculations . Assessment endpoints include

### 22 direct toxic effects on the survival, reproduction, and growth of terrestrial and aquatic life, as well as indirect effects, such as reduction in prey base and/or modification of habitat. The evaluated taxa include freshwater fish, freshwater aquatic invertebrates, birds, small mammals, terrestrial invertebrates, algae, and terrestrial plants.

Acute (short

- term) and chronic (long

- term) toxicity informati on is characterized based on registrant

- submitted studies

. Other sources of information, including use of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS), are consulted to further refine the characterization of potential ecological effects asso ciated with exposure to p inoxaden

.

Table 6 and Table 7 provide a summary of the aquatic and terrestrial taxonomic groups, respectively, and most sensitive surrogate species tested to characterize the potential acute and chronic ecological effects of p inoxaden

. A complete list of the available toxicity data for pinoxaden can be found in Appendix B

.



## 5.1. **Effects to Aquatic Organisms**

Under neutral to alkaline environmental conditions the parent is expected in aquatic systems to degrade relatively rapidly to degradates N OA

- 4078 5 4 and NOA

- 447204. There are acute warmwater fish and freshwater invertebrate toxicity data available for the formulated product with adjuvant (0.16 and 0.14 ppm ai, respectively). Chronic data were available for freshwater

fish and invertebrates o n NOA

- 407854. On a ppm ai basis, the formulated product with adjuvant is more toxic than the parent alone or the degradates.

Table 6

. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Aquatic Toxicity Studies for

Pinoxaden

Taxonomic

Group Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity

Value ( m g ai/L ) Acute Toxicity

Classification Source

Freshwater fish Acute Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 96 hr LC 50 = 20 pp m ai

96 hr LC 50 = 12.3 ppm (407855 100EC) Slight ly toxic

Slightly toxic 462030

- 36,

2003

472932

- 02,

2007

Chronic Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) NOAEC

>0.96 pp m (NOA 407854) N/A 462031

- 01,

2003

Freshwater

invertebrates Acute Water Flea ( Daphnia magna ) 48 hr EC 50 = 6 pp m (A12127R

form + adj) Moderate ly

toxic 462030

- 31,

2003

### 23 Taxonomic

Group Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity

Value ( m g ai/L ) Acute Toxicity

Classification Source

Chronic Water Flea ( Daphnia magna ) NOAEC= 5.8 ppm

L OAEC=

11.9 pp m (NOA

407854) N/A 462030

- 42,

2003

Estuarine/marine

fish Acute Sheepshead Minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) 96 hr LC 50 >
16 pp m Slightly toxic 462030

- 38,

2003

Chronic Sheepshead Minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) No data N/A NA

Estuarine/marine

invertebrates Acute Mysid Shrimp ( Americamysis

bahia )

Mysid Shrimp ( Americamysis

bahia )

Eastern Oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) 96 hr LC 50 = 8.3 ppm

96 hr LC 50 = 4.3 ppm (407855 100EC)

96 hr EC 50 = 0.32 ppm Moderately

toxic

Moderately

toxic

Highly toxic 462030

- 33,

2003

472932

- 01,

2007

462030

- 32,

2003

Chronic Mysid Shrimp ( Americamysis

bahia ) No data N/A N/A

Aquatic plants and algae Vascular Duckweed
( Lemna gibba ) EC50 = 2.9

ppm (biomass)

NOAEL=

0.731 ppm N/A 472932

- 06,

2007

Non

V ascular Green Algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata )

Marine diatom

Skeletonema

costatum EC50 =

0.035 ppm NOAEL=

0.0037 p pm ( 10.10 EC )

EC50 =

1. 3 ppm NOAEL=

0.92 p pm N/A 462031

- 21

, 2003

462031

- 22,

2002

### 24 

## 5.2. **Effects to Terrestrial Organisms**

Parent pinoxaden is practically nontoxic to birds on an acute

- oral and dietary basis. Because the acute oral and dietary values classify pinoxaden as practically nontoxic to birds and no mortality was reported at the highest test concentration , which is far above expecte d exposure levels

, minimal risk is presumed and acute avian RQs are not ca lculated in the risk assessment. No acute or subacute testing was done for the degradates or the product formulation and adjuvant. Parent pinoxaden also is practically nontoxic to the laboratory rat, but one degradate (NOA 447204) is slightly toxic (LD50 = 1098 mg/kg). The formulation (without adjuvant) also was tested and found to be practically nontoxic to the rat.

The avian reproduction tests were conducted using only the degr adate NOA 407854 (which EFED agreed to prior to testing), whereas the two

- generation reproductive test with the laboratory rat was conducted using parent pinoxaden. Adverse effects on the number of viable embryos and number of hatchlings was reported at 3 18 ppm of the degradate in the diet of northern bobwhite. No adverse effects were observed at test concentrations up to 1050 ppm with the mallard. Parent pinoxaden was found to have adverse effects on offspring body weight at 500 ppm in the diet of the l aboratory rat.

Tests with the honey bee exposed via oral and contact routes of exposure were conducted with parent pinoxaden, the 10.1% ai formulation, the formulation with adjuvant, and the adjuvant

alone. Parent pinoxaden is nontoxic to bees by both oral and contact routes of exposure, but

the formulated product is moderately toxic via contact exposure. Only the formulation displayed toxicity that might be of concern, but an LD was not established (LD50 >6.3 μg ai/bee) nor shown to exceed 11 μg ai/be e. In a 48

- hour acute oral LC 50 

### test, the honey bee was exposed to NOA

- 407855 (Pinoxaden 100EC) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent controls), 6.3, 13, 25, 50 and 100 μ g ai/bee . By 48 hours, there was 0% mortality in the controls and 3, 0, 0, 3 and 3% in the 6.3, 13, 25, 50 and 100 μg ai/bee treatment groups, respectively. The LC 50 

### and NOAEC values were >100 and 100 μg ai/bee, respectively.
However, t he recovery of NOA

- 407855 in the 50% sucrose solution was determined during the definitive acute oral toxicity test. The nominal 6.3, 13, 25, 50 and 100 μg ai/bee treatment levels yielded recoveries of 86, 75, 42, 15 and 6.5% of nominal, respectively. Th e nominal 6.3 μg ai/bee treatment diet was clear following preparation, the nominal 13 and 25 μg ai/bee diets were opaque, and the nominal 50 and 100 μg ai/bee diets contained particulate matter and there was residue on the glass of the volumetric flask us ed for preparation. The particulate matter and residue on the preparation flasks could account for the low recoveries observed at the three highest treatment levels (6.5

- 42% of nominal).

Seedling emergence and vegetative vigor tests were conducted by exp osing 10 species (4 monocots, 6 dicots) to the formulated product with adjuvant. Impacts on seedling emergence were tested at concentrations up to 0.125 lb ai/acre, with only one species (ryegrass EC25 = 0.016 lb ai/acre) showing any adverse effects. In the vegetative vigor test, only one dicot species (cabbage EC25 = 0.093 lb ai/acre) was adversely affected. Three of four monocot species were affected, with oats (EC25 = 0.005 lb ai/acre) the most sensitive species tested.

### 25 Table 7

. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Terrestrial Toxicity Studies for pinoxaden

Taxonomic

Group Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity Value (all units in terms of

measured active ingredient) Acute Toxicity

Classification Source

Acute Northern

Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) Acute Oral LD 50 >
2250 mg ai/kg

- bw Practically

non

- toxic 462031

- 03,

2003

Sub

- acute dietary Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) Acute Dietary LC 50 >5970 ppm Practically

non

- toxic 462031

- 04,

2003

Chronic Northern

Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) NOAEL = 107 ppm
L OAEL = 318 ppm (NOA

- 407854) N/A 462031

- 07,

2003

Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) NOAEL = 1050 ppm
L OAEL = 1050 ppm (NOA

- 407854) N/A 462031

- 08,

2003

Mammals Acute Oral Laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) LD 50 > 5000 mg/kg

bw Practicall y

non

- toxic 462032

- 14

, 2002

Acute

Inhalation Laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) L C 50 > 5 mg/L N/A Pesticide

Fac t Sheet

Chronic Laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) NOAEL = 250 ppm LOAEL = 500 ppm N/A 462033

- 08,

2003

Insects Acute

contact Honey bee ( Apis mellifera

L. ) 48 hr LD50 >100 ug/bee ( NOA

- 407855) Practical ly

non

- toxic 462031

- 13,

2003

Terrestrial

Invertebrates Acute Earthworm ( Eisenia fetida ) 14 da LC50 >1000 mg/kg N/A 462031

- 28,

2002

Terrestrial plants non

target (NOA

- 407855

100EC with adjuvant) Seedling Emergence Monocots Ryegrass/Biomass

EC25=0.016 lbs ai/A

NOAEC=0.008 lbs

ai/A N/A 462031

- 14,

2003

Dicots None

EC25>0.125 lbs ai/A

NOAEC=0.125 lbs

ai/A N/A 462031

- 14,

2003

Vegetative Vigor Monocots Oats/Dry wt

EC25= 0.005 lbs ai/A

NOAEC= 0.002 lbs

ai/A N/A 462031

- 15,

2003

Dicots Cabbage/Dry wt

EC25= 0.093 lbs ai/A

NOAEC= 0.031 lbs

ai/A N/A 462031

- 15,

2003

### 26 

## 5.3. **Ecological Incidents**

The ecological incident information system (EIIS) is an OPP database that houses ecological incidents that have been reported to the Agency. When available, EIIS includes date and location of an incident, type and magnitude of effects observed in various species, use(s) of pesticides known or suspected of contributing to the incident, and results of any chemical residue analysis or other analyses conducted during incident investigation. EIIS incidents are

cat e gorized according to the certainty that the in cident resulted from pesticide exposure. The Avian Monitoring System (AIMS) is a database administered by the American Bird Conservancy that contains publicly available data on reported avian incidents involving pesticides. Many of

the incidents listed i n this database are also in the EIIS.

Additionally, the U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Incident Data System (IDS) compiles aggregate incidents reported to the agency. These reports do not include detailed information

about the incidents. There we re no aggregate incidents for pinoxaden listed. An absence of reports does not necessarily equate to an absence of incidents given the nature of incident reporting.

Reported incidents from the EIIS database included possible damage to non

- target terrestrial plants (winter wheat) o n small acreage in KY and VA

.

Table 8

. EIIS Pesticide Summary Report for Pinoxaden

Incident# Date County, State Certainty Legal. Appl.

Method Species Response Rt. Exposure Magnitude

PLANTS

I02 2450

- 001 5 / 20 / 201 0 Todd, KY 2 UN Broadcast Winter

wheat Plant damage Treated directly 25 acres

I023444

- 002 7/26/2011 Franklin, VA 2 UN Broadcast Winter

wheat Plant damage Treated directly 20 acres

Certainty code: 0=Unrelated, 1=Unlikely, 2=Possible, 3 =Probabl e , 4=Highly Probable Legality Code: RU=Registered Use, M=Misuse, MA=Misuse (Accidental), MI=Misuse (Intentional), U N =Unknown

, NR=Not Reported



# 6. Exposure Pathways of Concern

The environmental fate properties and use patterns of pinoxaden indicate that direct spray, spray drift, leaching for areas with shallow ground water tables, and runoff represent potential transport mechanisms of pinoxaden residues to aqua tic and terrestrial organisms.

Drinking water exposure pathways were screened us ing the SIP (Screening Imbibition Program) screening method and was found not to be exposure pathways of concern (no LOC exceedances are expected).

Volatilization of pinoxaden is not a conc ern, due to low vapor pressure (3.45 x10

- 9 

### mm Hg) and low Henry’ s Law Constant ( 9.1 x10

- 12 

### atm

- m 3 

### /mol 

### ). Additionally

, the toxicity endpoints used to

### 27 evaluate whether the inhalation exposure pathway is of concern using the STIR (Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk) model ( i.e. , acute oral endpoints for birds and mammals and the acute inhalation endpoint for mammals) are non

- definitive. Therefore, screening using the STIR model

was not conducted for pinoxaden.

Appendix C and D contain details on the SIP and STIR analyses. SIP and STIR are described in

detail at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/index.htm

.



# 7. Analysis Plan

**7.1. Stressors of Concern** 

Ecological Risk Assessment

P inoxaden degrades rapidly forming the major degradate NOA

- 407854, which degrades further to form the degradate NOA

- 447204

. The parent compound and these two degradates are the stressors of concern for the ecological risk assessment.

The adjuvant, ADIGOR® is also a potential concern and is specifically mentioned on two labels (Reg. Numbers: 100

- 1199 & 100

- 1314). The use rate for the adjuvant is 9.6 fl. oz./A or 0.58 lbs/A, for both labels, with the assumption of 15% spray drift, (Calculation s : 0.15 drift fraction x

0.58 lbs/A → 0. 087 lbs drift/A / 0.405 hectare/A → 0.21 48 lbs drift/ h ectare x 453,593 mg/lbs → 97,438 mg drift/hectare / 20,000,000 L pond), which results in an estimated exposure

concentration of approx imately 4.9 μg/L or 0.0049 mg/L . Based on the MSDS for the adjuvant,

the highest toxic ity of the adjuvant is to algae with the concentration of 0.51 mg/L in a 72 hour

EC 50 

### Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata study. Hence, the exposure of 4. 9 μg/L is two orders of magnitude lower than the to xicity level. Therefore, risks from the adjuvant are expected to be below concern levels, and additional toxicity or environmental fate studies are not needed at this

time.

Drinking Water Exposure Assessment

The Health Effects Division (HED) has determi ned that the degradates NOA

- 407854 ( also

referred to as M2) and NOA

- 447204 ( also referred to as M4) are of toxicological concern (USEPA 2005 a )

. An updated drinking water exposure assessment will be conducted to support

future human health risk assessment of pinoxaden incorporat ing model estimates of pinoxaden residues of concern, which include the parent compound and its degradates ( NOA

- 407854 and

NOA

- 447204 ) in surface and ground waters

. Exposure estimates reported for potential acute, chronic, and cancer assessment are the 1

- in

- 10

- year peak, 1

- in

- 10

- year annual mean, and 30

- year mean in a vulnerable reservoir with a drinking water intake.

### 28 

## 7.2. **Measures of Exposure**

EFED will use standard available models to evaluate potential exposures to aquatic and terrestrial organisms as described at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models _db.htm

. For surface water, the measure of exposure for acute risks is the 1

- in

- 10

- year peak concentration at a site more vulnerable than 90% of sites where a pesticide use site occurs. For chronic risks, the measures of exposure are 1

- in

- 10

- year 21

- day and 60

- day means. For terrestrial risks the measure of exposure is the peak exposure on (and at the edge of) the field.



## 7.3. **Measures of Effect**

Toxicity data presented in Section 5 of this problem formulation will be used to calculate risk quotients. Any additional information submitted by the registrant or found in the open literature prior to conduct of the risk assessment will also be considered. The open literature studies are identified using EPA’s ECOTOXicology dat abase ( ECOTOX) (USEPA, 2007 c ), which employs a literature search engine for locating chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. The evaluation of both sources of data can also provide insight into the direct and

indirect ef fects of pesticides on biotic communities from loss of species that are sensitive to the chemicals and from changes in structure and functional characteristics of the affected

communities.



# 8. Endangered Species Assessments

Consistent with EPA’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Agency will evaluate risks to federally listed threatened and endangered (listed) species from registered uses of pesticides in accordance with the Joint Interim Approaches developed to implement the

recommendat ions of the April 2013 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. The NAS report 2 

### outlines recommendations on specific scientific and technical issues related to the development of

pest icide risk assessments that EPA and the Services must conduct in connection with their obligations under the ESA and FIFRA. EPA will address concerns specific to pinoxaden in connection with the development of its final registration review decision for pi noxaden. In November 2013, EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries (the Services), and USDA released a white paper containing a summary of their joint Interim Approaches for assessing risks to listed species from pesticides. These Interi m Approaches were developed jointly by the agencies in response to the NAS recommendations, and reflect a common approach to risk assessment shared by the agencies as a way of addressing scientific

differences between the EPA and the Services. Details of the joint Interim Approaches are contained in the November 1, 2013 white paper, Interim Approaches for National

- Level Pesticide Endangered Species Act Assessments Based on the Recommendations of the National

Academ y of Sciences April 2013 Report 3



### .

2 http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18344

3 http://www.epa.gov/espp/2013/nas.html

### 29 Given t hat the agencies are continuing to develop and work toward implementation of the Interim Approaches to assess the potential risks of pesticides to listed species and their designated critical habitat, this ecological problem formulation supporting the Prel iminary Work Plan for pinoxaden does not describe the specific ESA analysis, including effects determinations for specific listed species or designated critical habitat, to be conducted during registration

review. While the agencies continue to develop a common method for ESA analysis, the planned risk assessment for the registration review of pinoxaden will describe the level of ESA analysis completed for this particular registration review case. This assessment will allow EPA to

focus its future evaluati ons on the types of species where the potential for effects exists, once the scientific methods being developed by the agencies have been fully vetted. Once the agencies have fully developed and implemented the scientific methods necessary to complete risk assessments for listed species and their designated critical habitats, these methods will be applied to subsequent analyses of pinoxaden as part of completing this registration review.



# 9. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

Pinoxaden is not on List 1 for which EPA has received all the required Tier 1 assay data For further information on EDSP, the policies and procedures, the lists of chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website. 4



# 10. Preliminary Id entification of Data Gaps

**10.1. Environmental Fate** 

Table 9 identify environmental fate studies by their Master Record Identification (MRID)

number that off er data for each guideline requirement, as well as study classifications and whether or not further data are needed in order to support risk assessment.

Table 9 Submitted Environmental Fate Data for P inoxaden

OCSPP

Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study

Classifications Sufficient

for

EFED? Current Additional Data Need

835.2120 Hydrolysis 46203005 Acceptable Yes No

835.2240 Aqueous photolysis 4620300 8 Acceptable Yes No

835.2410 Soil photolysis 46203009 Acceptable Yes No

46224803 Acceptable

835.2370 Air photolysis NA NA NA Waived

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

### 30 OCSPP

Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study

Classifications Sufficient

for

EFED? Current Additional Data Need

835.4100 Aerobic soil

metabolism 462030 11 Acceptable Yes No

462030 12 Acceptable Yes

462030 13 Acceptable Yes

835.4200 Anaerobic soil

metabolism No studies NA NA No

835.4300 Aerobic aquatic

metabolism 462030 15 Supplemental Yes No

835.4400 Anaerobic aquatic

metabolism 462030 14 Acceptable Yes No

835.1410 Laboratory Volatility NA NA NA Waived

835.1230

835.1240 Adsorption/ desorption and leaching 46203016 Unacceptable Yes No

46203017 Acceptable

46203018 Acceptable

46203019 Acceptable

835.6100 Terrestrial field dissipation 46203022 Acceptable Yes No

462030 23 Supplemental

462030 24 Supplemental

462030 25 Supplemental

462030 26 Supplemental

835.6200 Aquatic field dissipation 00094799 Unacceptable No Not Required

00101940 Unacceptable

850.6100 Environmental Chemistry

Method and Independent Laboratory

Validation in

Soil 46203020 Supplemental Yes No

850.6100 Environmental Chemistry

Method and Independent Laboratory

Validation in

Water Not Available NA No Yes

850.1730 Fish

bioconcentration NA NA NA Not Required

*NA = Not Applicable

### 31 

## 10.2. **Ecological Effects** 

Table 10 and Table 11 identify ecological effects studies by MRID that offer data for each

gu ideline requirement, as well as study classifications and whether or not further data are needed in order to support risk assessment. Rationale for the additional data requested is presented

below the tables.

Table 10 . Submitted Aquatic Ecological Effe cts Data for pinoxaden or its degr a dates.

OCSPP

Guideline Data Requirement Submitted

Studies (MRID) Study

Classifications Are data

needed to

conduct risk

assessment? Current Additional Data Need

850.1010 Freshwater

invertebrate acute toxicity 462030

- 30

462030

- 31 Acceptable Supplemental No None

850.1025

850.1035

850.1045

850.1055 Saltwater

invertebrate acute toxicity 472932

- 01 Acceptable No None

462030

- 32 Acceptable

850.1075 Freshwater fish acute toxicity 472932

- 02 Acceptable No None

850.1075 Saltwater fish acute toxicity 462030

- 38 Supplemental No None

850.1300 Freshwater

invertebrate life cycle 462030

- 42 Supplemental No None

850.1350 Saltwater

invertebrates life cycle 462030

- 42 Supplemental No None

850.1500 Freshwater fish life cycle N/A N/A No None

850.1400 Freshwater fish early

- life stage 462031

- 01 Supplemental No None

850.1400 Saltwater fish early

- life stage N/A N/A No None

850.4400 Aquatic plant growth: Lemna gibba vascular plants 472932

- 04

472932

- 05

472932

- 06 All a cceptable

but Supplemental No None

850.4 5 00 Aquatic Plant

Growth: algae 462031

- 25

462031

- 21

462031

- 22 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable No None

### 32 OCSPP

Guideline Data Requirement Submitted

Studies (MRID) Study

Classifications Are data

needed to

conduct risk

assessment? Current Additional Data Need

850.4550 Cyanobacteria (Anabaena flos

aquae) 462031

- 20 Acceptable No None



### Table 11 . Submitted Terrestrial Ecological Effects Data for pinoxaden or its degradates

OCSPP

Guideline Data Requirement Submitted

Studies (MRID) Study

Classifications Are data

needed for

risk

assessment? Current Additional Data Need

850.2100 Avian oral toxicity 462031

- 03 Acceptable No None

850.2200 Avian dietary toxicity 462031

- 04 Acceptable No None

462031

- 05 Acceptable

850.2300 Avian reproduction (NOA407854) 462031

- 07

462031

- 08 Acceptable Acceptable No None

850.3020 Honey bee

acute contact toxicity 462031

- 13 Acceptable No None

850.3030 Honey bee

residue on foliage N/A N/A No None

850.3040 Field testing for pollinators N/A N/A No None

850.4100 Terrestrial plant toxicity: seedling

emergence 462031

- 14 Acceptable No None

850.4150 Terrestrial plant toxicity: vegetative vigor 462031

- 15 Acceptable No None

Non

guideline

Tier I Honeybee

larval oral N/A N/A Yes See explanation below

Non

guideline

Tier I Honeybee

acute adult

oral 472932

- 03 Invalid Yes See explanation below

Non

guideline

Tier I Honey bee

adult chronic 10d toxicity N/A N/A Yes See explanation below

### 33 OCSPP

Guideline Data Requirement Submitted

Studies (MRID) Study

Classifications Are data

needed for

risk

assessment? Current Additional Data Need

Non

guideline

Tier I Honey bee

larvae chronic toxicity N/A N/A Yes See explanation below

Non

guideline

Tier II Semi

- field testing for pollinators (tunnel or colony feeding studies) N/A N/A Yes See explanation below

Non

guideline

Tier II Field trial of

residues in pollen and

nectar N/A N/A Yes See explanation below



### In 2007, a response to comments and data waiver document (MRID 47293210) was submitted to

the Agency and was never formally reviewed. A number of toxicity studies were also

submitted. Submitted studies have been reviewed, and all available data were considered as part of this problem formulation to determine whether or not additional information is needed to support an ecological risk assessment. The database is relatively complete; however, under the current risk assessment plan, additional studies are needed to support an ecological risk assessment for Registration Review including environment al chemistry methods and honeybee toxicity studies. Without these data, assumptions will be made which may be overly

conservative. If use rates increase substantially in the future, other studies may be needed.

Honeybee Toxicity (non

- guideline)

I n keepin g with the Agency’s new paradigm for determining potential adverse effects to insect pollinators from conventional pesticides (USEPA et al. 201 4 ), additional studies are being requested in addi tion to the acute contact study already submitted

. Acute and chronic larval toxicity stud ies are necessary to evaluate the potential for pinoxaden to adversely affect bees and other pollinators through other routes of exposure

. Several of the treated crop areas may be considered attractive to honey bees and this is a systemic chemical that is transported throughout the plant. Thus, residues may be available to pollinators via pollen and/or nectar.

Although pinoxaden is categorized as practically non

- toxic to adult honeybees on contact exposure basis (48 hr LD50>1 00 ug/bee), and by extension, to other beneficial terrestrial invertebrates on an acute exposure basis, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the potential effects of the compound on honeybee larval development and survival as well as potential for

c hronic effects. Therefore, additional data on pollinators is needed to fully characterize risk to all developmental stages of honeybees, as sensitivity may vary according to life

- stage and length of exposure (adult vs. larval and acute vs. chronic, respec tively). Pinoxaden is systemic in plants so exposure via pollen and nectar is possible; and therefore, residues of pollen and nectar of

### 34 crops are an additional data need. Higher tier effects toxicity tests ( i.e., semi

- field and/or field

studies

– Tier II and Tier III, respectively) may be needed, based on the results of the larval and chronic adult toxicity studies. Higher tier studies are recommended if the ratio of the EEC and

larval or adult bee acute LD50> 0.4 or the ratio of the EEC and the chronic NOA EC> 1 . Incident data and/or compelling open literature studies can also be used to support the need for higher tier studies. Should the screening level risk assessment identify that there are risk concerns to bees, mitigation measures may need to be conside red or the registrant may need to conduct Tier II or Tier III effects studies ( e.g. OECD Guideline 75 and/or 850.3040 guideline studies) that reduce uncertainty by characterizing effects at the whole

- colony level.

Study Title: Pollinator Acute Oral Toxici ty, Adult
Rationale for Requiring the Data
Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings. Pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to the hive. Therefore, potential acute effects to adult honeybees and other pollinators from oral exposure to some pesticides could exist. Currently available toxicity studies do not address possible effects of oral exposure on adult terrestrial inse ct survival. Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine the acute oral toxicity of this compound to adult honeybees and other insect pol linators.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for terrestrial invertebrates using the honeybee as a surrogate test species. The guidance discusses Tier I laboratory

- based acute oral toxicity studies of individual adult bees as a critical component of the screening

- level risk assessment process for examining potential adverse effects from specific routes of exposure. The guidance can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator

- protection/pollinator

- risk

assessment

- guidance . Additional guidance on the honeybee oral toxicity test design can be found in

OECD Test Guideline 213 http://www.oecd

- ilibrary.org/environment/test

- no

- 213

- honeybees

- acute

oral

- toxicity

- test_9789264070165

- en

. Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

The Tie r I acute oral toxicity d ata on adult bees serve as a foundation for the screening

- level assessment of potential risk to non

- target organisms such as federally listed threatened or endangered

and non

- listed terrestrial invertebrate insects, including pollinators, from acute oral exposures to pesticides. The data will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk assessment for terrestrial invertebrates and will improve EPA’s understanding of the potential direct and indirect

effects on a bro ad range of taxa. This study will also provide information with which to compare whether oral toxicity estimates differ from contact toxicity estimates obtained from other Tier I studies. If acute oral effects data for adult honeybees and insect pollinator s are not available, risks to terrestrial insects from acute oral exposure will be assumed.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision

- making? The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non

- target species or is likely to adversely affect listed threatened or endan gered species and/or modify their designated critical habitat. Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide

### 35 products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions.

Study Title: Pollinator Acute Oral Toxicity, Larvae
Rationale for Requiring the Data
Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings. Pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to the hive where larvae and pupae may be ex posed. Therefore, potential adverse effects to developing bees and other insect pollinators could result from exposure to pesticide residues. Available toxicity studies do not address possible effects on brood (larvae and pupae) survival/development.

Becau se of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine the acute oral toxicity of this compound to bee brood.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for terrestrial invertebrates using the honeybee as a surrogate test species. The guidance discusses Tier I laboratory

- based acute toxicity studies of individual honeybee larvae as a critical component of the screening

- level risk assessment process for examining potential risks from specific routes of exposure. The guidance can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator

- protection/pollinator

- risk

- assessment

guidance . Additional guidance on larval honeybee toxicity test design can be found in OECD Test

Guideline 237 http://www.oecd

- ilibrary.org/environment/test

- no

- 237

- honey

- bee

- apis

- mellifera

- larval

toxicity

- test

- single

- exposure_9789264203723

- en

. Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used? The Tier I acute oral toxicity d ata on honeybee larvae serve as a foundation for the screening

- level assessment of potential risk to non

- target organisms such as federally listed threatened or endangered

and non

- listed terrestrial invertebrate insec ts, including pollinators, and/or modify their designated critical habitat from acute oral exposures to pesticides. The data will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk assessment for terrestrial invertebrates and will improve EPA’s under standing of the potential effects on terrestrial species and whether there is a differential sensitivity of larval bees relative to adult bees. If acute oral effects data for larvae are not available, risks to terrestrial insects from acute oral exposure w ill be assumed.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision

- making? The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non

- target species or is likely to adversely affect listed threatened or endan gered species and/or modify their designated critical habitat. Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions.

Study Title: Pollinator Chronic Oral Toxicity, Adult
Rationale for Requiring the Data
Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings. Pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to the hive. Therefore, potential chronic e ffects to adult honeybees and other pollinators from oral

### 36 exposure to some pesticides could exist. Currently available toxicity studies do not address possible lethal and sublethal effects of chronic oral exposure on adult terrestrial invertebrates and wil l assist in determining whether the sensitivity of adult bees differs from that of earlier life stages. Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine the chronic oral toxicity of this compound to adult honeybees and other pollinators.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for invertebrates with the honeybee. The guidance discusses Tier I laboratory

- based chronic oral toxicity studies of individual adult honeybees as a critical component of the screening

- level risk assessment process for examining potential risks from specific routes of exposure. The guidance can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator

- protection/pollinator

- risk

- assessment

- guidance . Study design elements

for the chronic 10

- day oral toxicity test with honeybees are similar to the OECD Test Guideline 213 acute oral toxicity test http://www.oecd

- ilibrary.org/environment/test

- no

- 213

- honeybees

- acute

- oral

toxicity

- test_9789264070165

- en

. Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used? The Tier I chronic oral toxicity d ata on adult bees serve as a foundation for the screening

- level assessment of potential risk to non

- target organisms including federally listed threatened or endangered species and non

- listed terrestrial invertebrate insects, including pollinators, from chronic oral exposures to pesticides. The data will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk assessment for terrestrial invertebrates and will improve EPA’s understanding of the potential direct and indirect lethal and sublethal effects on a broad range of terrestrial species, particularly insect p ollinators and to determine whether adult toxicity differs substantially from other life stages evaluated in other Tier I tests. If chronic oral effects data for adults are not available, risks to terrestrial insects from chronic oral exposure will be assu med.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision

- making? The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non

- target species or is likely to adversely affect listed threatened or endan gered species and/or their designated critical habitat. Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions.

Study Title: Pollinator Chronic Oral Toxicity, Larvae
Rationale for Requiring the Data
Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings. Pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to the hive where larvae and pupae may be ex posed. Therefore, potential effects to developing bees could result from chronic oral exposure to pesticide residues. Available toxicity studies do not address possible chronic effects on brood (larvae and pupae) survival. Because of the potential for poll en and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine chronic larval/pupal toxicity and whether adult emergence is adversely affected. This study will provide information on whethe r honeybee larvae differ in sensitivity from adult bees following chronic exposure.

### 37 The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for invertebrates with the honeybee. The guidance discusses Tier 1 laboratory

- based chronic oral toxicity studies of individual honeybee larvae as a critical component of the screening

- level risk assessment process for examining potential risks from specific routes of exposure. The guidance can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator

- protection/pollinator

- risk

- assessment

- guidance

. Additional information on larval honeybee toxicity repeat exposure test design can be found in the

OECD draf t guidance http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/testing/Draft_GD_honeybees_rep_exp_for_2nd_CR_25_November_201 3.pdf

. Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used? The Tier I chronic oral toxicity d ata on bee larvae serve as a foundation for the screening

- level assessment of potential risk to non

- target organisms including federally listed threatened or endangered

and non

- listed terrestrial inv ertebrate insects, including pollinators, from chronic oral exposures to pesticides. The data will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk assessment for terrestrial invertebrates and will improve EPA’s understanding of the potential direc t and indirect lethal and sublethal effects on a broad range of terrestrial species, particularly insect pollinators. These data will also assist in determining whether early life stages of the bee differ in their sensitivity to pesticides

relative to adul ts. If chronic oral effects data for larvae are not available, risks to terrestrial insects from chronic oral exposure will be assumed.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision

- making? The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non

- target species or is likely to adversely affect listed threatened or endan gered species and/or modify their designated critical habitat. Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions.

Study Title: Pollinator Tier II Semi

- Field Toxicity Testing (tunnel/enclosure studies)
Rationale for Requiring the Data
Tier II studies are conditional on the outcome of the screening

- level assessment where acute and/or

chronic risk levels of concern have been exceeded for terrestrial invertebrates. Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings. Pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to t he hive and may adversely affect developing brood (egg, larvae, and pupae) and adult bees . Screening

- level (Tier I) studies of individual bees do not address possible effects and/or exposure to pesticide residues at the colony

- level. Because of the potenti al for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine whether bee colonies may be negatively affected under relatively controlled exposure conditions of a semi

- field stu dy. In addition to providing effects data, these studies can provide data on exposure as pesticide residues in pollen/nectar of treated plants.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for

invertebrates w ith the honeybee. The guidance describes the tiered testing process and can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator

- protection/pollinator

- risk

- assessment

- guid ance . Additional information on honeybee colony studies under semi

- field conditions can be found in the OECD Guidance 75

### 38 http://www. oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono%28

. Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used? Tier II colony

- level data will be used to assess potential risk to non

- target organisms including listed

and non

- listed terrestrial social invertebrate species and to determine whether effects observed in the screening

- level (Tier I) laboratory

- based studies of individual bees are evident in colony

- level studies

under semi

- field conditions. The Tier II semi

- field te st of whole colonies is a relatively controlled study, i.e ., bees are confined to a specific area, that is designed to represent potential field

- level exposure and account for hive dynamics, which are not achievable from other pollinator studies. This study will be used to determine whether adverse effects to insect pollinators at the whole colony level, may result for the use of pesticides and will help to refine risk estimates derived in the screening

- level

risk assessment for beneficial terrestrial i nvertebrates. Measured residues in pollen/nectar can also be

used to refine risk estimates derived from model

- based or default values in the screening

- level

assessment.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision

- making?

The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non

- target species or is likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered speci es or their designated critical habitat. Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Study Title: Pollinator Tier II Semi

- Field Toxicity Testing (feeding studies)
Rationale for Requiring the Data
Pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to the hive, and may adversely affect developing brood (egg, larvae, and pupae) and adult bees

. Tier II feeding studies are conditional on the outcome of the screening

- level assessment where acute

and/or chronic risk levels of concern have been exceeded for terrestria l invertebrates based on Tier I studies of individual bees. Feeding studies utilize free foraging bee colonies that are “dosed” with specific quantities of test material and represent a means of ensuring exposure to the test material through spiked pollen and/or sugar solutions fed to the colony while still allowing the bees to forage freely. Since bee colonies are not confined to enclosures, colonies can be exposed for longer duration periods without subjecting the bees to stress that typically results fro m Tier II tunnel studies. Available toxicity studies of individual bees (Tier 1) conducted to support screening

- level assessments do not address possible effects and/or exposure to pesticide residues at the colony

- level. Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine whether bee colonies may be negatively affected where bees are free foraging and have the option to collect/consume alternative forage items beyond the spiked food. Since multiple dose levels can be more readily tested, feeding studies can help to define

dose

- response relationships at the whole colony level.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for
invertebrates with the honeybee. The guidance describes the tiered testing process and can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator

- protection/pollinator

- risk

- assessment

- guidance

. Additional information

### 39 on honeybee colony feeding studies can be found in the EPPO Guidance 170 at:
http://ww w.nationalbeeunit.com/index.cfm?pageId=187

. Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used? Tier II colony feeding data will be used to assess potential risk to non

- target organisms including listed

and non

- listed terrestrial social invertebrate species. The colony feeding study is designed to represent potential field

- level exposure and account for hive dynamics using longer duration exposure periods than are possible in Tier II tunnel studies. The study will be used to determine whether potential adverse effects to insect pollinators at the whole colony level when bees are able to forage natural ly beyond the spiked food. Results from the feeding study will help to refine the screening

- level risk

assessment for beneficial terrestrial invertebrates that were based on Tier I studies on individual bees. Since feeding studies can help to define a dose

- response relationship at the colony level, the studies can provide a means of determining exposure thresholds below which the likelihood of adverse effects on colonies may be low.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision

- making?

Tier II colony

- level data will be used to refine screening

- level risk estimates derived using Tier I laboratory

- based data on individual bees. The Tier II data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable

adverse effects to non

- target species or is likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat. Without these data, EPA may need to presume

risk wh ich will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.

Study Title: Residues in Pollen and Nectar
Rationale for Requiring the Data
Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticide residues in various use settings. Pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to hive where all life stages may be exposed. For some pesticides, the

qu antification of pollinator

- relevant residues in treated flowering plants is needed, since pollinators will be exposed to residues from either current or prior season applications (due to the potential for residues to accumulate in plants and trees). Residu es in edible/transportable

- to

- hive parts of treated trees and plants, including (where appropriate), but not limited to, guttation water, sap/resins, whole plant tissue ( e.g., leaves, stems), as well as blooming, pollen

- shedding, and nectar producing parts ( i.e. , flowers and, if present, extra

- floral nectaries) of plants may inform the potential for risk. Studies should be designed to provide residue data for crops and application methods of concern.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a gu idance regarding ecological testing for invertebrates with the honeybee. The guidance can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator

protection/pollinator

- risk

- a ssessment

- guidance

. Practical Utility of the Data

### 40 How will the data be used?

Measured residue d ata will be used to refine conservative estimates of pesticide exposure and reduce uncertainties associated with the Tier I exposure assessment by providing direct measurements of pesticide concentrations resulting from actual use settings. Measured residues may provide a more realistic understanding of exposure through contact or ingestion with which to calculate risk quotients

for individual bees as well as to characterize exposure to the colony. If measured residue data are not available, risk estimates for terrestrial insects will be based on model

- generated or default values used to support the screening

- level assessment.

How could the data impact the Age ncy’s future decision

- making? The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non

- target species or is likely to adversely aff ect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat. Without these data, EPA will have to rely on conservative estimates of exposure which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use

restrictions.

### 41 

# 11. References

US EPA 2005 a . Ab del

- Saheb, I. EFED Drinking Water Assessment for Pinoxaden Use on Wheat and Barley. DP299583. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, January 28, 2005.

US EPA 2005 b . EFED Risk Assessment for the New Herbicide Pinoxaden. DP299585. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Apr. 29, 2005.

US EPA 2005 c . Generic Format and Guidance for the Level I Screening Ecological Risk

Assessments Conducted in the Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. January 24, 2005.

United States Geological Survey 2015. Estimated Agricultural Use for Pinoxaden 2012. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=2012&map=PINOX

ADEN&hilo=L

. June 22, 2015.

USEPA, PMRA, and CDPR. 2014. Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. Office of Pesticide Progr ams, USEPA, Washington D.C. Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Ottawa, ON, Canada. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA. June 23, 2014.

### 42 

# APPENDIX A: Eco and Fate Bibliography for Pinoxaden

Pinoxaden Eco E ffects Bibliography

850.2100 Avian acute oral toxicity test

MRID Citation Reference

46203103 Gallagher, S.; Grimes, J.; Beavers, J.; et. al. (2003) NOA

- 407855: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Northern Bobwhite: Final Report. Project Number: 528/114, 97/01, 528/053101/QLD/SUB528. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 63 p.



## 850.2 2 00 Avian Dietary Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

46203103 Gallagher, S.; Grimes, J.; Beavers, J.; et. al. (2003) NOA

- 407855: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Northern Bobwhite: Final Report. Project Number: 528/114, 97/01, 528/053101/QLD/SUB528. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 63 p.

46203104 Gallagher, S.; Grimes, J.; Beavers, J.; et. al. (2003) NOA

- 407855: A Dietary LC50 Study with the Northern Bobwhite: Final Report. Project Number: 99/01, E857/87, 528/124. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 75 p.

46203105 Gallagher, S.; Grimes, J.; Beavers, J.; et. al. (2003) NOA

- 407855: A Dietary LC50 Study with the Mallard: Final Report. Project Number: E857/87, 528/125, 98/01. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 76 p.

46203106 Martin, K.; Nixon, W. (2003) Analytical Method Verification for the Determination of
NOA

- 407855 in Avian Diet: Final Report. Project Number: 528C/106, 2208/01, 528/050101/MVFD/SUB528. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 63 p.



## 850.2 3 00 Avian Reproduction

MRID Citation Reference

46203107 Temple, D.; Grimes, J.; Martin, K.; et. al. (2003) NOA

- 407854: A Reproduction Study with the Northern Bobwhite: Final Report. Project Number: 528/147, 101/01, 1887/02. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 170 p.

46203108 Temple, D.; Martin, K.; Beavers, J.; et. al. (2003) NOA

- 407854: A Reproduction Study with the Mallard: Final Report. Project Number: 528/148, 100/01, 1887/02. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 167 p.

### 43 

## 850. 1075 Fish acute toxicity test, freshwater

MRID Citation Reference

46203034 Rufli , H. (2000) Acute Toxicity Test of NOA 407855 Technical to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Under Flow

- Through Conditions: Final Report. Project Number: 2001806, 102448, ELECTRONIC/COPY. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, AG and Nov artis Crop Protection Muenchwilen Ag. 65 p.

46203035 Rufli, H. (1999) Acute Toxicity Test of NOA 407854 to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Under Static Conditions: Final Report. Project Number: 991505. Unpublished study prepared by Novartis Crop Prote ction, AG. 50 p.

46203036 Maynard, S. (2003) NOA

- 407855 Tech.: Acute Toxicity to Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas): Final Report. Project Number: BL7449/B, 2021627, 02/0271/E. Unpublished study prepared by Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. 24 p.

46203037 Wallace, S . (2001) NOA 447204: Acute Toxicity to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Final Report. Project Number: B7156/B, 2011580, LO1/003847. Unpublished study prepared by Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. 27 p.

46203039 Peither, A. (2003) Acute Toxicity of NOA 407855 EC (10 0) (A12303C) + A12127R to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in a 96

- Hour Static Test: Final Report. Project Number: 846713, 2021700, 846714. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 44 p.

46421507 Peither, A. (2003) Acute Toxicity of A12127R to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in a 96

- Hour Static Test. Project Number: 846686, 2021555. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, AG. 22 p.

46421508 Rufli, H.; Albuquerque, R. (2000) Acute Toxicity Test of NOA 407855 Technical to

R ainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Under Flow

- Through Conditions (Includes Final Report Amendment/Addendum nNo. 1) (Supercedes MRID# 46203034): Final Report. Project Number: 2001806. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, AG. 75 p.

472932 02 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2007) Pinoxaden: A 96

- Hour Flow

- Through Acute Toxicity Test with the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Final Report. Project Number: 528A/156, T009977/05. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd . 69 p.



## 850.2100 Aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity, test, freshwater daphnids

MRID Citation Reference

46203029 Knauer, K. (2003) Acute Toxicity Test of NOA 407855 Technical to Cladoceran Daphnia magna STRAUS Under Flow Through Conditions: Final Report. Project Number: 2011581. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, AG. 48

p.

### 44 46203030 Grade, R. (2000) Acute Toxicity of NOA 407854 to the Cladoceran Daphnia magna STRAUS in the Static System: Final Report. Project Number: 991504. Unpublished study prepared by Novartis Crop Protection, AG. 48 p.

46203031 Peither, A. (2003) Acute Toxicity of NOA 407855 EC (100) (A12303C) + A12127R to Daphnia magna in a 48

- Hour Immobilization Test: Final Report. Project Number: 846715, 202170 1, 846721. Unpublished study prepared by Research & Consulting Co., Ltd. 43 p.

46421506 Peither, A. (2003) Acute Toxicity of A12127R to Daphnia magna in a 48

- Hour Immobilization Test: Final Report. Project Number: 846685, 2021554. Unpublished study prepar ed by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 20 p.



## 850. 1025 Oyster acute toxicity test (shell deposition)

MRID Citation Reference

46203032 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2003) NOA

- 407855: A 96

- Hour Shell Deposition Test with the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica): Final Report. Project Number: 528A/122A, 107/01, 10702/OYS/DEP/SUB528. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 59 p.



## 850. 1035 Mysid acute toxicity test

MRID Citation Reference

46203033 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2003) NOA

- 407855: A 96

- Hour Flow

- Through Acute Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Mysid (Americamysis bahia): Final Report. Project Number: 528A/120, 106/01, 0702/MYS/96H2/SUB528. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International , Ltd. 57 p.

47293201 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2007) Pinoxaden: A 96

- Hour Flow

- Through Acute Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Mysid (Americamysis bahia): Final Report. Project Number: 528A/157, T003572/06. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 70 p.



## 850. 1075 Fish acute toxicity test, marine

MRID Citation Reference

46203038 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2003) NOA

- 407855: A 96

- Hour Flow

- Through Acute Toxicity Test with the Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus): Final Report. Project Number: 528A/121, 104/01, 0702/SHE/96H2/SUB528. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 57 p.



## 850. 1300 Daphnid chronic toxicity test

MRID Citation Reference

### 45 46203041 Wallace, S. (2001) NOA 447204: Acute Toxicity to Daphnia magna: Final Report. Project Number: BL7157/B, 2011578, AJ0226/C. Unpublished study prepared by Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. and Syngenta Crop Protection Muenchwilen Ag. 28 p.

46203042 Batscher , R. (2001) NOA 407854 (Metabolite of NOA 407855): Final Report. Project Number: 848337, 2031514, 848338. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 28 p.



## 850. 14 00 Fish early

- life stage toxicity test

MRID Citation Reference

46203101 Maynard, S. (2003) NOA 407854 (Metabolite of NOA 407855): Early

- Life Stage Toxicity Test to the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas): Final Report. Project Number: BL7550/B, 2021708. Unpublished study prepared by Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. 71

p.



## 850. 4100 or 4225 Terrestrial plant toxicity, Tier 1 or II (seeding emergence)

MRID Citation Reference

46203114 Porch, J.; Martin, K.; Krueger, H. (2003) A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of A12303C (NOA

- 407855 100EC) on Seedling Emergence of Ten Species of Plants. Project Number: 528/160, 103/SEEDEM/10/SUB528, 127/01. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 146 p.



## 850. 415 0 or 4250 Terrestrial plant toxicity, Tier 1 or II (vegetative vigor)Avian acute oral toxicity test

MRID Citation Reference

46203115 Porch, J.; Mitchell, L.; Krueger, H. (2003) A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of A12303C (NOA

- 407855 100EC) on Vegetative Vigour of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report. Project Number: 528/161, 2021748, 127/01. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 175 p.



## 850. 44 00 Aquatic plant toxicity test using Lemna spp. Tiers I and II

MRID Citation Reference

46203116 Grade, R. (2002) Growth Inhibition Test of NOA 407855 Technical to the Duckweed Lemna gibba G3 Under Static Conditions: Final Report. Project Number: 2011599. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, AG. 49 p.

### 46 46203117 Grade, R. (2 000) Acute Toxicity Test of NOA 407854 to the Duckweed Lemna gibba G3 Under Static Conditions: NOA 407854 (Metabolite of NOA 407855): Final Report. Project Number: 991533. Unpublished study prepared by Novartis Crop Protection, AG. 47 p.

46203118 Grade, R . (2003) Growth Inhibition Test of NOA 447204 (Metabolite of NOA 407855) to the Duckwood Lemna gibba G3 Under Static Conditions: Final Report. Project Number: 2021657. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, AG. 48

p.

46421509 Batscher, R. (2003) Toxicity of NOA 407855 EC (100) (A121303) + A12127R to the Aquatic Higher Plant Lemna gibba in a 7

- Day Static Growth Inhibition Test. Project Number: 848759, 203543, 848760. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 50 p.

47293204 Gallagh er, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2007) NOA407854 (Metabolite of Pinoxaden):

A 7

- Day Static

- Renewal Toxicity Test with the Duckweed (Lemna gibba G3): Final Report. Project Number: 528A/153, T003573/06. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 66 p.

47293205 Gallagher, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2007) NOA447204 (Metabolite of Pinoxaden):

A 7

- Day Static

- Renewal Toxicity Test with the Duckweed (Lemna gibba G3): Final Report. Project Number: 528A/155, T009985/05. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 67 p.

47293206 Gallagher, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2007) Pinoxaden: A 7

- Day Static

- Renewal Toxicity Test with the Duckweed (Lemna gibba G3): Final Report. Project Number: 528A/154, T009979/05. Unpublished study prepar ed by Wildlife International, Ltd. 76

p.



## 850. 54 00 Algal toxicity, Tiers 1 and II

MRID Citation Reference

46203119 Knauer, K. (2002) Growth Inhibition Test of NOA 407855 to Green Algae (Selenastrum capricornutum) Under Static Conditions: Final Report. Project Number: 2011594. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, AG. 49 p.

46203120 Grade, R. (2003) Growth Inhibition Test of NOA 407855 Technical to Blue Algae (Anabaena flos

- aquae) Under Static Conditions: Final Report. Project Number: 2011593. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, AG. 42 p.

46203121 Peither, A. (2003) Toxicity of NOA 407855 EC (100) (A12303C) + A12127R to Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (Formerly Selenastrum capricornutum) in a 96

- Hour Algal Growth Inhibition Test: Final Report. Project Number: 846717, 2021702, 846718. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 50 p.

46203122 Maynard, S.; Swarbick, R. (2002) NOA 407855 Technical: Toxicity to the Marine Alga
Skeletonema costatum: Final Report. Project Number: 02/0271/D, 2021695, BL7448/B. Unpublished study prepared by Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. 25 p.

46203123 Maynard, S.; Stewart, K. (2002) NOA 407855 Technical: Toxicity to the Freshwater Diatom Navicula pelliculosa: Final Report. Project Number: 02/0271/C, 2011595, BL7447/B. Unpublished study prepared by Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. 26 p.

### 47 46203124 Grade, R. (2000) Gro wth Inhibition Test of NOA 407854 to Green Algae (Selenastrum capricornutum) Under Static Conditions: Final Report. Project Number: 991503, 69242. Unpublished study prepared by Novartis Crop Protection, AG. 56 p.

46203125 Wallace, S. (2001) NOA 447204: To xicity to the Green Alga Selenastrum capricornutum: Final Report. Project Number: BL7158/B, 2011584, 84043. Unpublished study prepared by Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. 27 p.

46421510 Peither, A. (2003) Toxicity of A12127R to Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (Formerl y Selenastrum capricornutum) in a 96

- Hour Algal Growth Inhibition: Final Report. Project Number: 846684, 2021501. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 26 p.

46421511 Grade, R. (2000) Growth Inhibition Test of NOA 407854 to Green Algae (Selen astrum capricornutum) Under Static Conditions: Final Report Amendment. Project Number: 991503. Unpublished study prepared by Novartis Crop Protection, AG. 56 p.



## 850. 3020 Honey bee acute contact

MRID Citation Reference

46203109 Sindermann, A.; Porch, J.; Krueger, H. (2003) NOA

- 407855: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Honey Bee: Final Report. Project Number: 528/163A, 924/03, 32003/BEFORAL/SUB528. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 35 p.

46203110 Sindermann, A.; Porch, J.; Krueger, H. (2003) A12303C (NOA

- 407855 100EC): An Acute Oral and Contact Toxicity Study with the Honey Bee: Final Report. Project Number: 528/182, T002951/03, 92203/BEECONT/SUB528. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 52 p.

46203113 Sindermann, A.; Porch, J.; Krueger, H. (2004) NOA

- 407855: An Acute Contact Toxicity Study with the Honey Bee: Amended Final Report. Project Number: 528/144, 109/01, 52102/BEECONT/SUB528. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 40 p.

47293203 Sindermann, A.; Porch, J.; Krueger, H. (2007) Pinoxaden: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Honey Bee: Final Report. Project Number: 528/262A, T010173/06. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 40 p.

46203111 Bocksc h, S. (2003) NOA 407855: Acute Toxicity of a 100 g L(

- 1) EC Formulation (A12303C), Applied in Conjunction with the Adjuvant A12127R, to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera L. in the Laboratory: Final Report. Project Number: 20031066/S1/BLEU, 2021706. Unpublished study prepared by Arbeitsgemeinschaft GAB Biotechnologie. 37 p.

46203112 Bocksch , S. (2003) A12127R: Acute Toxicity of the Adjuvant A12127R to the Honey Bee, Apis mellifera L. in the Laboratory (Includes Report Amendment No. 1): Final Report. Project Number: 20031075/S1/BLEU, 2021778, A12127R. Unpublished study prepared by Arbeitsgeme inschaft GAB Biotechnologie. 35 p.



## Non Guideline

### 48 MRID Citation Reference

47293210 Wall, S.; Hamer, M. (2007) Pinoxaden: Syngenta Response to EPA and PMRA Ecological Toxicity Data Conditions of Registration for Pinoxaden and Axial 100EC: Response. Project Number: T010330/05. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 60 p.

46203126 Pfeifle, V. (1999) Acute Toxicity of NOA 407854 to the Earthworm, Eisenia fetida: Final Report. Project Number: G/586/25, 9551534, SOP/A/11/525/01. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, AG and Novartis Crop Protection, AG. 28 p.

46203127 Batscher, R. (2002) Acute Toxicity of NOA 447204 (Metabolite of NOA 407855) to the

Earthworm Eisenia Fetida in a 14

- Day T est: Final Report. Project Number: 842530, 2011587, 84043. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65 p.

46203128 Batscher, R. (2002) Acute Toxicity of NOA 407855 to the Earthworm Eisenia fetida in

a 14

- Day Test: Final Report. Project Number: 8 12103, 2011582, 905422. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65 p.

46203130 Rumbeli, R. (2002) The Metabolism of (Phenyl

- 1

- (Carbon 14)) NOA 407855 After Multiple Oral Administration to Laying Hens: Final Report. Project Number: 046AM06. Unpu blished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, AG and Syngenta Crop Protection. 168 p.

46455301 Wall, S. (2005) Appendix to Pinoxaden (NOA 407855)

- Endangered Species Assessment (MRID No. 46203027): Refined Assessment for Non

- Target Monocots:

Final Report. Project Number: T002667/05. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 24 p.

### 49 

# Pinoxaden Fate/Chemistry Bibliography

(Revised 13 May 2015)

835.2120 Hydrolysis

MRID Citation Reference

46203005 2026998 Phaff , R. (2003) Hydrolysis of (Carbon 14) Phenylring Labelled NOA 407855 under Laboratory Conditions: Final Report. Project Number: 00RP05. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, AG. 133 p.

46203006 2026999 Murphy, T.; Purdy, J.; Speth, R.; e t. al. (2004) Environmental Fate Summary and
Assessment of NOA

- 407855. Project Number: T000842/03. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 65 p.

46421505 Buckel, T. (2003) Hydrolysis of [Pyrazol

- 7

- 14C]

- Labeled NOA 447204 Under

Labora tory Conditions: Final Report. Project Number: 02TB02. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, AG. 109 p.



# 835.2240 Photodegradation

- water

MRID Citation Reference

46203006 2026999 Murphy, T.; Purdy, J.; Speth, R.; et. al. (2004) Environmental Fate Summary and
Assessment of NOA

- 407855. Project Number: T000842/03. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 65 p.

46203008 2026999 Reischmann, F. (2001) Aqueous Photolysis of (Carbon14)

- Phenyl Labelled NOA

407855 Unde r Laboratory Conditions: Final Report. Project Number: 00RF06, 1657/00. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, AG. 140 p.



# 835.2410 Photodegradation

- soil

MRID Citation Reference

46203006 2026999 Murphy, T.; Purdy, J.; Speth, R.; et. al. (2004) Environmental Fate Summary and
Assessment of NOA

- 407855. Project Number: T000842/03. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 65 p.

46203009 2027000 McKillican, C. (2003) Photodegradation of (Carbon 14)

- Phenyl

- NOA

- 407855 on Soil Surface Under Artificial Light: Final Report. Project Number: 129/01, 1815/01. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and Agvise Inc. 156 p.

46203010 McKillican, C. (2003) Photodegradation of (Carbon 14)

- Pyrazolo

- NOA

- 407855 on Soil Surface Under Artificial Light: Final Report. Project Number: 128/01.

### 50 Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and Agvise Inc. 159 p.

46224803 2027015 McKillican, C. (2003) Photodegradation of (Carbon 14)

- Pyrazolo

- NOA

- 407855 on Soil Surface under Artificial Light (Includes Final Report Amendment 1 to Replace MRID 46203010): Final Report . Project Number: 128/01. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and Agvise Laborato ries, Inc. 163 p.



# 835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

46203006 2026999 Murphy, T.; Purdy, J.; Speth, R.; et. al. (2004) Environmental Fate Summary and
Assessment of NOA

- 407855. Project Number: T000842/03. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 65 p.

46203011 2027004 Clark, A. (2003) Metabolism of (Carbon 14)

- Phenyl

- NOA

- 407855 in Viable Soil Under Aerobic Conditions: Final Report. Project Number: 131/01. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Agvise Inc. and North Dakota State University. 157 p.

46203012 2027001 McKillican, C. (2003) Metabolism of [Oxadiazepin

- 3

- 6

- (Carbon 14)]

- NOA

- 407855 in Viable Soil Under Aerobic Conditions: Final Report. Project Number: 1815/01, H407855GBL001C. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Agv ise Inc. and North Dakota State University. 127 p.

46203013 2027002 Clark, A. (2003) Metabolism of (Carbon 14)

- Pyrazolo

- NOA

- 407855 in Viable Soil Under Aerobic Conditions: Final Report. Project Number: 130/01. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop P rotection, Inc., Agvise Inc and North Dakota State University. 112 p.



# 835.4200 A na erobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

46203006 2026999 Murphy, T.; Purdy, J.; Speth, R.; et. al. (2004) Environmental Fate Summary and
Assessment of NOA

- 407855. Project Number: T000842/03. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 65 p.

46203014 2027003 Schwartz, B. (2003) Anaerobic Aquatic Degradation of Phenyl 1

- (Carbon 14)

- Labeled NOA

- 407855: Final Report. Project Number: 132/01. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Agvise Inc and North Dakota State University. 192 p.

46203015 2027005 Adam, D. (2003) Metabolism and Rate of Degradation of (Carbon 14)

- Phenylring
Labelled NOA 407855 Under Aerobic and Anaerob ic Laboratory Conditions in Aquatic Systems: Final Report. Project Number: 01DA02. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, AG. 165 p.

### 51 

# 835.4300 Aerobic aquatic metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

46203006 2026999 Murphy, T.; Purdy, J.; Speth, R.; et. al. (2004) Environmental Fate Summary and
Assessment of NOA

- 407855. Project Number: T000842/03. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 65 p.

46203015 2027005 Adam, D. (2003) Metabolism and Rate of Degradation of (Carbon 14)

- Phenylring Labelled NOA 407855 Under Aerobic and Anaerobic Laboratory Conditions in Aquatic Systems: Final Report. Project Number: 01DA02. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, AG. 165 p.



# 835.1230/1240 Leac h/adsorp tion /desorption

MRID Citation Reference

46203006 2026999 Murphy, T.; Purdy, J.; Speth, R.; et. al. (2004) Environmental Fate Summary and
Assessment of NOA

- 407855. Project Number: T000842/03. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 65 p.

46203016 2027006 Moore, P. (2003) Soil Desorption of (Carbon 14)

- Phenyl

- NOA

- 407855 in Representative Agricultural Soils: Aged Kd Study: Final Report. Project Number: 137/01. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Agvise Inc., and North Dakota State University. 305 p.

46203017 2027007 Spare, W. (2002) Adsorption and Desorption Study to Determine the Mobility and Distribution of (Carbon 14)

- NOA

- 407854 in Soil: Final Report. Project Number: 003/037, 135/01, 01P/003/037. Unpublished study prepared by Exygen Research and Agvise Inc. 399 p.

46203018 2027008 Spare, W. (2003) Adsorption and Desorption Study to Dete rmine the Mobility and Distribution of (Carbon 14)

- NOA

- 447204 in Soil: Final Report. Project Number: 003/040, 136/01, 137/01. Unpublished study prepared by Exygen Research and Agvise Inc. 404 p.

46203019 2027009 Spare, W. (2003) Adsorption and Desorption Study to Determine the Mobility and Distribution of (Carbon 14)

- NOA

- 407855 in Soil: Final Report. Project Number: 01P/003/036, 003/036, 134/01. Unpublished study prepared by Exygen Research, Agvise Inc and North Dakota State University. 410 p.



# 835.6100 Terrestrial field dissipation

MRID Citation Reference

### 52 46203006 2026999 Murphy, T.; Purdy, J.; Speth, R.; et. al. (2004) Environmental Fate Summary and
Assessment of NOA

- 407855. Project Number: T000842/03. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 65 p.

46203020 2026997
ref Chamkasem, N. (2003) Analytical Method 35

- 01 for the Determination of NOA

407855 and its Degradates NOA

- 407854 and NOA

- 447204 and (Inert Ingredient) (Safener) and its Degradate CGA

- 153433 in Soil by High Pe rformance Liquid Chromatography with Mass Spectrometric Detection: Amendment 1. Project Number: 35/01, RI/MV/009/01, H407855GBL001C. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 89 p.

46203022 2027010 Speth, R.; Bruns, G. (2003) Stability of NOA

- 407855, NOA

- 407854, NOA

447204, (Inert Ingredient) and CGA

- 153433 in Soil Under Freezer Storage Conditions: Interim Report. Project Number: 03SYN122/REP, 1309/02, MS/262/02. Unpublished study prepared by Enviro

- Test Laboratories (ETL), Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and Agvise Inc. 145 p.

46203023 2027011 Speth, R. (2004) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of NOA

- 407855 120EC on Bare Soil and Spring Wheat in North Dakota: Final Report. Project Number: 32/01, 242/52, 03SYN125/REP. Unpublished study prepared by Waterborne Environmental, Inc. (WEI), Enviro

- Test Laboratories (ETL) and Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 388 p.

46203024 2027012 Speth, R. (2004) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of NOA

- 407855 120EC on Bare Soil and Winter Wheat in Washington: Fin al Report. Project Number: 33/01, 242/51, 03SYN124/REP. Unpublished study prepared by Waterborne Environmental, Inc. (WEI), Enviro

- Test Laboratories (ETL) and Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 468 p.

46203025 2027013 Speth, R. (2004) Terrestrial Field Dissip ation of NOA

- 407855 120EC on Bare Soil and Winter Wheat in Texas: Final Report. Project Number: 1297/01, 242/58, 990113. Unpublished study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Waterborne Environmental, Inc. (WEI) and Central California Research

Labo ratories. 384 p.

46203026 2027014 Purdy, J. (2003) Soil Dissipation Trial to Determine Persistence and Leaching Movement of NOA 407855 and its Siginificant Soil Degradation Products After Application as a 120 EC Formulation: Final Report. Project Number: CER/0701/01. Unpublished study prepared by University of Guelph and Enviro

Quest and Enviro

- Test Laboratories (ETL). 429 p.



# 835.3160 Biodegradability in sea water

MRID Citation Reference

47293209 Kendall, T.; Nixon, W. (2007) Pinoxaden: Analytical Method Verification for the
Determination of NOA

- 407855 and its Hydrolysis Product NOA

- 407854 in Freshwater, Saltwater, and 50% Sucrose Solution: Final Report. Project Number: 528C/135, T001016/07. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife Internat ional, Ltd. 77 p.

### 53 

## 835.3180 Sediment/water microcosm biodegradation test

MRID Citation Reference

47293209 Kendall, T.; Nixon, W. (2007) Pinoxaden: Analytical Method Verification for the
Determination of NOA

- 407855 and its Hydrolysis Product NOA

- 407854 in Freshwater, Saltwater, and 50% Sucrose Solution: Final Report. Project Number: 528C/135, T001016/07. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 77 p.



## Non

- Guideline

MRID Citation Reference

462030 22 2027010 Speth, R. M. and G. Bruns. 2003. NOA

- 407855 Interim Report: Stability of NOA

407855, NOA

- 407854, NOA

- 447204, CGA

- 185072 and CGA

- 153433 in soil
under freezer storage conditions. Unpublished study performed by Environ

- Test Laboratories, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada and submitted by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Greensboro, NC. Syngenta No. 1309

- 02. Study initiation August 12,2002. Final report issued November 17,2003

### 54 

# APPENDIX B : ECOLOGICAL TOXICI TY DATA



# Summary of Toxicity Data for Pinoxaden

Terrestrial Organisms:

Avian Acute Oral Toxicity

Species % ai LD50 (mg/kg bw) Toxicity Category MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Northern bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus ) 98.5 >2250 a practically

nontoxic 462031

- 03 (Gallagher et al. 2003) acceptable

a no mortality at any test concentration, but treatment

- related signs of toxicity (e.g., lethargy, slight lower

- limb weakness) observed at the 1350 and 2250 ppm test concentrations



### Avian Dietary Toxicity

Species % ai LC50 (ppm) Toxicity Category MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Northern bobwhite 98.5 >5970 a practically

nontoxic 462031

- 04 (Gallagher et al. 2003) acceptable

Mallard 98.5 >5970 b practically

nontoxic 462031

- 05 (Gallagher et al. 2003) acceptable

a no mortality at any test concentration

b no mortality at any test concentration , but body

- weight gain and food consumption adversely affected at the highest

test concentration



### Avian Reproductive Toxicity

Species % ai NO A EC /

LO A EC

(ppm) Endpoints

affected MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Mallard 99 (NOA

407854) a 1050 none 462031

- 08 (Temple et al. 2003) acceptable

Northern

bobwhite 99 (NOA

407854) a 107/318 viable embryos; no. hatchlings 462031

- 07 (Temple et al. 2003) acceptable

a degradate

### 55 Mammalian Acute Oral Toxicity a

Species % ai LD50 (mg ai/kg) Toxicity Category MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) 97.2 >5000 practically

nontoxic 462032

- 14 (Johnson 2002) acceptable

99 (NOA

- 447204) b 1098 c slightly toxic 462032

- 15 (Johnson 2002) n/a

99 (SYN

- 502836) b >2000 c practically

nontoxic 462032

- 16 (Johnson 2003) n/a

96 (SYN

- 519312) b >2000 c practically

nontoxic 462032

- 18 (Johnson 2003) n / a

10.10 (formulation) 3129 c practically

nontoxic 462032

- 17 (Merkel 2003) acceptable

a information obtained from studies required by OPP’s Health Effects Division

b degradate; note: degradate studies were not reviewed and classified by EPA

c determined from up

- and

- down test



### Mammalian Two

- generation Reproductive Toxicity

Species % ai NO A EC /

LO A EC

(ppm) Endpoints

affected MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Laboratory rat 97 250/500 offspring body weight 462033

- 08 (Khalil 2003) acceptable



### Beneficial Insect Acute Toxicity

Species % ai LD50 (μg ai/bee) Toxicity Category MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

### 56 Honey bee ( Apis mellifera) 98.3
(NOA

407855) >100 (acute contact) practically

nontoxic 462031

- 13 (Sindermann et al. 2003) acceptable

99.1 (NOA

407855) N/A (acute oral) N/A 472932

- 03 (Sindermann et al. 2007) IN VALID c

97.7
(NOA

407855) >200 (acute oral) practically

nontoxic 462031

- 09 (Sindermann et al. 2003) supplemental a

10.10 (formulation) >6.3 (contact) 19.1 (oral) moderately

toxic 462031

- 10 (Sindermann et al. 2003) supplemental b supplemental a

formulation w/adjuant (A12127R) 84 (contact) 93 (oral) practically

nontoxic 462031

- 11 (Bocksch 2003) acceptable supplemental a

adjuvant (A12127R) >200 (contact) >220 (oral) practically

nontoxic 462031

- 12 (Bocksch 2003) acceptable supplemental a

a the acute

- oral test is not a guid e line study (refer to OECD guideline)

b the test did not establish an LD50 nor demonstrate that it exceeds 11 μg ai/bee c Low recoveries in highest 3 treatment groups (only 42%, 15% & 6.5%) . At the 6.3 ug/bee treatment level there was 86% recovery and 3 mortali ties. The study produce no dose response likely because of the poor recoveries in the upper treatment groups.



### Nontarget Terrestrial Plant Seedling Emergence Toxicity (Tier II using NOA 407855 100EC [10.10% ai] with adjuvant)

Species Endpoint

Affected EC25 (lb ai/A) NO A EC (lb ai/A) MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Monocots: 462031

- 14 (Porch et al. 2003) acceptable

Corn none >0.125 0.125

Oat none >0.125 0.125

Onion none >0.125 0.125

Ryegrass biomass 0.016 0.008

Dicots:

Flax none >0.125 0.125

Soybean none >0.125 0.125

Tomato none >0.125 0.125

Lettuce none >0.125 0.125

Cucumber none >0.125 0.125

Cabbage none >0.125 0.125

### 57 a earthworm test is not required by EPA

b metabolite



### Aquatic Organisms: Information summaries from the submitted studies for aquatic organisms are tabulated below. Data gaps that were identified include the following tests for pinoxaden: acute te sts with a coldwater and warmwater fish (juvenile); acute freshwater invertebrate; an early life stage test with a freshwater fish; a life cycle test with a freshwater invertebrate; an acute test with a

Nontarget Terrestrial Plant Vegetative Vigor Toxicity (Tier II using NOA 407855 100EC [10.10% ai] with adjuvant)

Species Endpoint

Affected EC25 (lb ai/A) NO A EC (lb ai/A) MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Monocots: 462031

- 15 (Porch et al. 2003) acceptable

Corn dry weight 0.023 0.007

Oat dry weight 0.005 0.002

Ryegrass dry weight 0.01 0.008

Onion none >0.125 0.125

Dicots:

Cabbage dry weight 0.093 0.031

Flax none >0.125 0.125

Soybean none >0.125 0.125

Cucumber none >0.125 0.125

Lettuce none >0.125 0.125

Tomato none >0.125 0.125



### Earthworm Toxicity

Species % ai 14

- day LC50 (mg/kg) MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Earthworm ( Eisenia fetida ) 97 >1000 462031

- 28 (Batscher 2002) supplemental a

97 (NOA 447204) b >1000 462031

- 27 (Batscher 2002) supplemental a

99.6 (NOA 407854) b >1000 462031

- 26 (Pfeifle 1999) supplemental a

### 58 marine/estuarine fish; and an acute test with a marin e/estuarine shrimp. Although the mollusk shell deposition study was found to be acceptable, based on this value mollusks appear to be over 60 times more sensitive than fish and 30 times more sensitive than mysid shrimp

.

Freshwater Fish Acute Toxicity (Parent and Degradates)

Species % ai 96

- h LC 50 (ppm) Toxicity Category MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) 97.2

-- -- 462030

- 34 (Rufli 2000) unacceptable b

Parent (407855 100EC) 12.3 Slightly toxic 472932

- 02 (

Palmer et al 2007)) acceptable

99.6
(NOA 407854) a >103 practically

nontoxic 462030

- 35 (Rufli 1999) acceptable

99
(NOA 447204) a >120 nd c, d 462030

- 37 (Wallace 2001) supplemental d

(TOC

concentration

unknown)

10.79 (formulation w/adjuvant A12127R) 2.3 (total) (0.16 ppm a.i., total) nd e 462030

- 39 (Peither 2003) supplemental e
(total basis

rather than

soluble)

Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ), approximately six

months old 97.2 20 ppm a.i. slightly toxic 462030

- 36 (Maynard 2003) supplemental f

a Degradate

b The test material was unstable (potentially >50% decline) and the study methods were insufficient to address this instability. Given the instability, the frequency of sampling was insufficient to determine exposure concentrations.

c Not determined (nd)

d Organic carbon content in the dilution water was not documented, therefore unknown if response is less sensitive than what would have been observed under low guideline TOC (<2 mg/l) environmental test conditions. e Precipitant was observed in test solutions but no filtering or centrifugation of water samples were performed prior to analysis. Analytical results are for total rather than soluble.

f Six month old fish, which are considered p re

- spawning adults, were used rather than young juveniles. Potentially values underestimates toxicity to young juveniles.



### Freshwater Fish Early Life

- stage Toxicity (Pinoxaden degradate)

Species % ai NO A EC /

LO A EC

(ppm) Endpoints

affected MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

### 59 Fathead minnow 99 (NOA 407854) >0.96 a none 462031

- 01 (Maynard 2003) supplemental b

a The highest concentration tested

b An LOAEC was not established and not all required endpoints were assessed for treatment

- related effects.



### Freshwater Invertebrate Acute Toxicity (Parent and Degradates)

Species % ai 48

- h EC 50 (ppm) Toxicity Category MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Waterflea ( Daphnia

magna ) 97.2

-- -- 462030

- 29 (Knauer 2003) unacceptable c

99
(NOA

- 447204) a >120
nd b 462030

- 41 (Wallace 2001) supplemental d

99.6
(NOA

- 407854) a >101 practically

nontoxic 462030

- 30 (Grade 2000) acceptable

10.5 (formulation

w/adjuant A12127R) 6 (total) (0.14 ppm a.i., total) moderately toxic 462030

- 31 (Peither 2003) supplemental e
(total rather than soluble)

a degradate

b Not determined (nd)

c The test material is known to be unstable. A flow through test system was used but the stock solutions feeding mixing chambers were renewed. Timing of water samples with renewal of stock solutions was not provided so that stability of test material thro ughout the exposure duration is unknown.

d Total organic carbon and total suspended solid concentrations in the dilution water (15.6 mg/l and 2.8 mg/l) were higher than the 2 mg/L guideline level, potentially reducing the bioavailable form. Therefore, the LC 50 value may be biased high. e Precipitant was observed in test solutions but no filtering or centrifugation of water samples were performed prior to analysis. Analytical results are for total rather than soluble.

### Page 60 of 66 

### Freshwater Invertebrate 21

- day Life

- cycle Toxicity (Pinoxaden Degradate)

Species % ai NO A EC /

LO A EC

(ppm) Endpoints

affected MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Waterflea 99.8

(NOA

- 407854) a 5.8 / 11.9 (total) survival, reproduction, body length 462030

- 42 ( Batscher 2003) supplemental b

a degradate b Undissolved test material was observed in test solutions but samples were not filtered or centrifuged prior to analysis. T herefore, analytical results represent total rather than soluble concentrations.



### Estuarine/Marine Fish Acute Toxicity (Parent)

Species % ai 96

- h LC50 (ppm a.i.) Toxicity Category MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) 97.7 >16 (total) nd a 462030

- 38 (Palmer et al. 2003) supplemental b

(total rather than dissolved)

a Not determined (nd)

b The sample processing method appears to result in a measurement biased toward total versus soluble because the test concentration samples were acidified before centrifugation and the total organic carbon (TOC) concentration was not reported such that it is unknown if pinoxaden was in its most bioavailable form.



### Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Acute Toxicity (Parent)

Species % ai. 96

- h LC 50 or EC 50 (ppm) Toxicity Category MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Mysid ( Mysidopsis bahia ) 97.7 8.3 nd a 462030

- 33 (Palmer et al. 2003) supplemental b

(total rather than soluble) Mysid ( Mysidopsis bahia ) tech 4.3 Slightly toxic 472932

- 01 (Palmer et al. 2007) acceptable

Eastern Oyster ( Crassostrea virginica) 97.7 0.32 H ighly toxic 462030

- 32 (Palmer et al. 2003) acceptable

a Not determined (nd)

b The sample processing method appears to result in a measurement biased toward total versus soluble because the test concentration samples were acidified before centrifugation and the total organic carbon (TOC) concentration was not reported such that it i s unknown if pinoxaden was in its most bioavailable form.

### Page 61 of 66 

### A quatic Plant Toxicity (Parent and Degradates)

Species % ai EC 50 (ppm) NO A EC (ppm) MRID No.

Author/Year Study

Classification

Vascular species:

Duckweed (Lemna gibba) 97.2 (NOA 407854) a 4.3 0.5 462031

- 16 (Grade 2002) acceptable

99.9 ( NOA 407854 ) a 11 4.01 472932

- 04 (Gallagher et al, 2007) supplemental d

98.9 ( NOA 447204 ) a >97.7 11.6 472932

- 05 (Gallagher et al, 2007) supplemental d

98.9 ( NOA 407855 ) 2.9 0.731 472932

- 06 (Gallagher et al, 2007) su pplemental d

99
(NOA 407854) a 10 4 462031

- 17 (Grade 2000) acceptable

99
(NOA 447204) a >93.5 49.2 462031

- 18 (Grade 2003) acceptable

Non

- vascular species:

Blue

- green algae (Anabaena flos

- aquae) 97.2 (NOA 407855) 5 0.6 462031

- 20 (Grade 2003) acceptable

Green algae ( Psuedokirchneria subcapitata ) 97.2 (NOA 407855) 16 b 2 462031

- 19 (Knauer 2002) supplemental b

99.6
(NOA 407854) a >102 b 102 462031

- 24 (Grade 2000) supplemental b

97
(NOA 447204) a 9 7 1 4 462031

- 25 (Wallace 2001) acceptable

10.10 (100 EC) 0. 0 3 5 0. 0037 462031

- 21 (Peither 2003) acceptable

Green algae ( Selenastrum capricornutum ) 99.6
(NOA 407854) a >100 100 464215

- 11 (Grade 2000) supplemental b

Freshwater diatom Navicula pelliculosa 97.2 10.2 7.5 462031

- 23 (Maynard and Stewart 2002) supplemental c

Marine diatom

Skeletonema costatum 97.2 1. 3 0.9 2 462031

- 22 (Maynard and Swarbick 2002) acceptable

a degradate b the study was conducted for 72 hours rather than 96 hours as required by the guideline

. c Undissolved test material

### Page 62 of 66 was observed in test solutions. No filtration or centrifugation was performed on analytical samples to document soluble

concentrations

. d S tudies failed to report TOC and TSS in the dilution water

### Page 63 of 66 

# A PPENDIX C : Exam ple of SIP INPUT and OUTPUT

Drinking Water Exposure Drinking water for the purposes of terrestrial organism risk assessment is defined as that portion of an organism’s daily water intake that is not met by dietary or metabolic sources and must be consumed in liquid form. Typical drinking water sources for wildlife in pesticide use areas may

include on

- field puddles, irrigation equipment (e.g., drip irrigation in grape cultivation), dew deposited on treated plants, and off

- field surface water exposures.

The S creening I mbibition P rogram (SIP v.1.0, Release d June 15, 2010) was used to calculate an upper bound estimate of exposure using pinoxaden ’s solubility in water ( 200 mg/L at 25 o 

### C). Using TGAI data for the most sensitive acute ( LD 50 

### >2250 mg a.i./kg

- bw for the Bobwhite quail

, MRID 462031

- 03 ) and chronic ( NOAEC 107 mg a.i./kg

- diet, Bobwhite quail , MRID 462031

- 07 ) avian toxicity endpoints and the most sensitive acute ( LD 50 

### >5000 mg a.i./kg

- bw, male rat,

MRID 462032

- 14 ) and chronic ( reproduction NOAEC = 250 mg a.i./kg

- diet, MRID 462033

- 08 ) mammalian toxicity endpoints. Drinking water exposure alone was determined not to be a potential pathway of concern for avian and mammalian species on an acute basis. However, even though exposure was not a potential pathway chronically for mammals, it was a concern for avian species. However, this concern is uncertain because the avian chronic data used tested the

NOA

- 407854 degradate and the solubility used was for parent pinoxaden. Detailed information about the SIP v.1.0, as well as the tool, can be found on the EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_pg.htm#terrestrial

.

Table 1. Inputs

Parameter Value

Chemical name p inoxaden

Solubility (in water at 25 o C; mg/L) 200 parent
Unknown for NOA

- 407854 degradate

Mammalian LD 50 (mg/kg

- bw) 5000 Mammalian test species laboratory rat Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg

- bw) 250 Mammalian test species laboratory rat Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Avian LD 50 (mg/kg

- bw) 2250 Avian test species Duck Mineau scaling factor 1.15

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 107 (NOA

- 407854 degr a date) Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 1050 (NOA

- 407854 degr a date)

### Page 64 of 66 Table 2. Mammalian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg

- bw) 34.4000 34.4000 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg

- bw) 3845.8028 192.2901 Ratio of exposure to toxicity 0.0089 0.1789

Conclusion* Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential concern for mammals Drinking

water

exposure alone is

NOT a potential

concern for

mammals

Table 3. Avian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg

- bw) 162.0000 162.0000 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg

- bw) 1620.9664 11.3739 Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 0.0999 14.2431

Conclusion* Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential concern for birds Drinking

water

exposure alone IS

a potential

concern for birds

*Conclusion is for drinking water exposure alone. This does not combine all routes of exposure. Therefore, when aggregated with other routes ( i.e ., diet, inhalation, dermal), pesticide exposure through drinking water may contribute to a total exposure that has potential for effects to non

- target animals.

### Page 65 of 66 

# APPENDIX D: STIR inputs and outputs

Inhalation Exposure Volatilization of pinoxaden is not a concern due to low vapor pressure ( 3. 45 x10

- 9 

### mm Hg 

### ) and low Henry’s Law Constant ( 9.1 x10

- 12 

### atm

- m 3 

### /mol 

### ). Additionally, the toxicity endpoints used to evaluate whether the inhalation exposure pathway is of concern using the STIR (Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk) model ( i.e. , acute oral endpoints for birds and mammals and the acute inhalation endpoint for mammals) are non

- definitive. Therefore, screening using the STIR model was not conducted for pinoxaden.

### Page 66 of 66 

# APPENDIX E : PESTDF Half

- Lives Calculations & Data

147500_46203011_4 6203012_46203013_D 147500_46203014_4 6203015_DER-Fate-C 147500_46203023_4 6203024_46203025_4