Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division

2 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3

II. Scientific Assessments ............................................................................................................ 6

A. Environmental Assessment ................................................................................................ 6

B. Human Health Assessment ............................................................................................... 11 

C. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ....................................................................... 11 

D. Incident Report ................................................................................................................. 12 

E. Public Comments............................................................................................................... 13 

F. Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 14 

 G. Characterization of Economic Benefits of Sulfur.............................................14 

III. Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision ............................................................... 15 

A. Ecological Risk .................................................................................................................. 15 

B. Endangered Species Risk Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 16 

C. Voluntary Adoption of Risk Mitigation Measuares....................................................... 17 

IV. Next Steps and Timeline ...................................................................................................... 19 

A. Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision ............................................................ 19 

B. Bulletins Live! Comment Period ...................................................................................... 19 

C. Implementation of Mitigation Measures......................................................................... 19 

D. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................... 19 

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. 21 

Appendix B...................................................................................................29 

Label Table .................................................................................................................................. 31 

 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

3 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 

This document is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA or the Agency) Proposed 

Interim Registration Review Decision for Sulfur and is being issued pursuant to 40 CFR sections 

155.56 and 155.58. A registration review decision is the Agency's determination whether a 

pesticide meets, or does not meet, the standard for registration in the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Agency may issue, when it determines it to be 

appropriate, an interim registration review decision before completing a registration review. 

Among other things, the interim registration review decision may (1) require new risk mitigation 

measures; (2) impose interim risk mitigation measures; (3) identify data or information required 

to complete the review; and (4) include schedules for submitting the required data, conducting the 

new risk assessment and completing the registration review. 

FIFRA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, mandated the 

continuous review of existing pesticides. All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States 

generally must be registered by the EPA based on scientific data showing that they will not cause 

unreasonable risks to human health or to the environment when used as directed on product 

labeling. The registration review program is intended to make sure that, as the ability to assess and 

reduce risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet 

the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects. Changes in science, public policy, and 

pesticide use practices will occur over time. Through the registration review program, the Agency 

periodically reevaluates pesticides to make sure that as these changes occur, products in the 

marketplace can continue to be used safely. Information on this program is provided as 

www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/. 

In 2006, the Agency implemented the registration review program pursuant to FIFRA 

section 3(g) and will review each registered pesticide every 15 years to determine whether it 

continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR §155.50, the Agency formally initiated registration review for sulfur 

(Case 0031). The Agency’s registration review of sulfur (Case 0031) includes all pesticidal uses 

of sulfur which include agricultural as well as gas cartridge uses. Gas cartridge products that 

contain sulfur may also contain carbon and sodium or potassium nitrate. Sodium and potassium 

nitrate (Case 4052) and carbon and carbon dioxide (Case 4019) are also undergoing registration 

review. Consequently, there are several common support documents and regulatory conclusions 

shared among these cases. Furthermore, the registration review proposed and proposed interim 

decisions for all compounds with gas cartridge uses are being made available for public comment 

simultaneously. 

Sulfur has been used as a pesticide in the United States since the 1920s. A Reregistration 

Eligibility Decision (RED) was signed in 1991. Sulfur is currently registered for use as an 

insecticide, acaricide and fungicide on a wide range of field and greenhouse-grown food and feed 

crops, livestock (and livestock quarters; ex. horse, dairy cattle, goats, poultry, and sheep spray), 

and indoor and outdoor residential sites (ex. dog spray). Use sites include tree fruit, nuts, berries, 

vegetables, root crops, field crops, pets (dogs), ornamentals, and turf (including residential lawns 

and golf courses). Formulations include dust, water dispersible granules or dry flowable, 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

4 

emulsifiable concentrate, flowable concentrate, liquid, liquid ready-to-use, wettable powder, and 

wettable powder/dust and may be applied by chemigation, soil band treatment (ground sprayer, 

aircraft), soil treatment (soil incorporation treatment), low volume spray concentrate (low volume 

ground concentrate), high volume spray or dilute (high volume ground sprayer), or dust (ground 

or aircraft). Products containing elemental sulfur are registered for use on crops at relatively high 

rates up to 122.5 lb a.i./A per application, but can also be used as a soil amendment (non-pesticidal 

use) to increase fertility and/or reduce the pH of highly alkaline soils at much higher rates (up to 

approximately 3,300 lb a.i./A for highly alkaline clay soils that need extensive acidification, 

Mullen et al. 20071

). 

In addition to the uses listed above, sulfur is also registered for use in gas cartridge 

products. Gas cartridges are registered to control burrowing mammals and are available in small 

and large sizes, where the large products are registered and labeled for use to control mammals 

such as coyotes, red foxes, and skunks. Gas cartridges are registered for outdoor use only. To use 

the products, the user lights the fuse, places the cartridge in the burrow or den and seals the 

entrance. Animals within the burrow or den are asphyxiated by the release of carbon dioxide and 

other toxic gases. The following timeline highlights significant events that have occurred during 

the registration review of sulfur and can be found in the public docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176): 

 March 26, 2008 – The Agency published the Sulfur Registration Review Summary 

Document, dated March 19, 2008 in docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 for a 90-

day public comment period. The Summary Document included the Agency’s Preliminary 

Work Plan for Sulfur, a Sulfur Fact Sheet, the Problem Formulation for Ecological Risk 

Assessment for Sulfur, dated February 7, 2008, the Problem Formulation for Ecological 

Risk Assessment, for Carbon Dioxide and Gas Fumigant Producing Cartridges: Carbon, 

Sawdust, Sodium Nitrate, Potassium Nitrate, and Sulfur, dated March 17, 2008 and the 

Sulfur Human Health Risk Scoping Document in Support of Registration Review, dated 

January 17, 2008. The Agency received one comment concerning the Sulfur Summary 

Document. The comment did not change the work plan for the registration review of sulfur. 

 September 4, 2008 – The Agency published the Sulfur Final Work Plan, dated August 15, 

2008 which stated that the Agency would conduct a comprehensive ecological risk 

assessment that included an endangered species risk assessment, and that EPA would 

conduct new occupational and residential exposure risk assessments for registration 

review. The Sulfur Final Work Plan also stated that the Agency then anticipated requiring 

a subchronic inhalation study for use in quantitatively assessing risk to handlers. 

 February 18, 2009 – The Agency published Sulfur. Human Health Risk Scoping Document 

in Support of Registration Review – Addendum, dated January 29, 2009. This addendum 

explained why the subchronic inhalation study for sulfur would no longer be required. 

 April 8, 2010 – The Agency initiated informal consultation under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) section 7(a)(2) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the gas 

cartridge uses of sulfur, carbon and inorganic nitrate. 

 

1

 Mullen, R., Lentz, E. and M. Watson. 2007. The Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet (Soil Acidification: 

How to lower the soil pH, by R. Mullen, E. Lentz, and M. Watson, AGF-507-07, dated 2007) 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

5 

 May 26, 2010 – The Agency published the draft Registration Review Ecological Risk 

Assessment and Effects Determinations, Carbon, Carbon Dioxide, Sawdust, Sodium 

Nitrate, Potassium Nitrate and Sulfur Gas Cartridges, dated March 30, 2010 for a 60-day 

public comment period. During that time, one comment was received from USFWS Region 

4. EPA made a “May Affect and Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA)” determination for 

federally listed terrestrial mammals, terrestrial birds, and terrestrial invertebrates and 

designated critical habitats. EPA also concluded “No Effect” for aquatic species given the 

expected lack of exposure to non-target taxa (75 FRN 29534 FRL–8826–6). 

 December 17, 2010 – The Agency published the EFED Response to Comments for 

Registration Review for Carbon, Nitrates, and Sulfur Gas Cartridges, dated October 20, 

2010 and Input for Mitigation Options for Endangered and Threatened Species Identified 

in EFED’s Carbon, Nitrates, and Sulfur Gas Cartridges Registration Review Ecological 

Risk Assessment and Effects Determination, dated November 16, 2010. This document 

responded to comments received concerning the draft ecological risk assessment. 

 July 16, 2012 – The Agency provided an Addendum to the environmental fate and 

ecological risk assessment for carbon dioxide and for carbon, sawdust, sodium nitrate, 

potassium nitrate and sulfur containing cartridges. This document updated the EPA’s list 

of threatened and endangered species with “LAA” determinations as a result of direct 

effects from gas cartridge use. The document also outlined potential mitigation that, if 

adopted by the registrants, would result in changing the determination to “No Effect” for 

certain species. 

 June 26, 2013 – The Agency published draft human health and ecological risk assessments 

for uses of sulfur other than gas cartridges: Sulfur. Summary of Human Health Risk 

Assessments to Support Registration Review, dated May 1, 2013, and Sulfur Environmental 

Fate and Ecological Preliminary Risk Assessment, dated May 29, 2013. During the 60 day 

comment period for these draft risk assessments, one comment was received. The comment 

did not challenge or impact the conclusions of the draft risk assessments.

 June 28, 2013 – The Agency finalized the Revision to the environmental fate and ecological 

risk assessment for carbon dioxide and for carbon, sawdust, sodium nitrate, potassium 

nitrate and sulfur containing cartridges. This document provides an updated list of 

potentially affected species and additional mitigation options.

 June 2014 – The Agency is now publishing the Sulfur Proposed Interim Registration 

Review Decision, dated May 28, 2014 in docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 for a 

60-day public comment period.

Because the Agency’s endangered species risk assessment of sulfur found the potential for 

direct and indirect adverse effects to federally listed terrestrial organisms from exposure to some 

uses of sulfur, and because sulfur has not been evaluated under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening 

Program (EDSP), the Agency’s issuance of a Final Registration Review Decision for sulfur is 

dependent upon the result of Section 7 Endangered Species consultation with the U.S. Fish and 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

6 

Wildlife Service and a conclusion under the EDSP. Pending the outcome of these actions, EPA 

intends to issue an Interim Registration Review Decision for sulfur. 

For further information on Sulfur, additional documents can be found in EPA’s public 

docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176) at www.regulations.gov. 

II. SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENTS 

A. Environmental Assessment

A summary of the Agency’s environmental risk assessment is presented below. A 

qualitative risk assessment was conducted for terrestrial organisms and a quantitative risk 

assessment was conducted for aquatic organisms. For detailed discussions of all aspects of the 

environmental risk assessment, see the Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects Preliminary 

Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of Sulfur, dated May 29, 2013; the Inorganic Nitrate 

– Nitrite, Carbon and Carbon Dioxide, and Sulfur Registration Review Draft Ecological Risk 

Assessment and Endangered Species Effects Determination, dated March 30, 2010; and, 

subsequent Addendum documents, dated July 16, 2012 and June 28, 2013, in the public docket 

EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176) which can be accessed on http://www.regulations.gov. The latter risk 

assessment evaluated the active ingredients from three different registration review cases that are 

co-formulated into fumigant gas cartridges containing sulfur, carbon and carbon dioxide, and 

potassium and sodium nitrate. The findings of the gas cartridge assessment are applicable to all 

three registration review cases. Therefore, the products that were the subject of the assessment are 

referred to hereafter as “gas cartridges.” The subsequent sections of this document will distinguish 

sulfur uses by conventional (i.e., non-gas cartridge) uses and gas cartridge uses, respectively, with 

appropriate headers. 

 Exposure Assessment 

Conventional uses 

Potential transport mechanisms include runoff, spray drift, wind erosion, and direct 

deposition. For aquatic organisms (i.e., plants and animals), primary routes of exposure include 

spray drift and runoff. However, the Agency believes aquatic exposure to be negligible because 

sulfur is practically insoluble in water. For birds, mammals, reptiles and terrestrial-phase 

amphibians, primary routes of exposure to sulfur include consumption of contaminated feed items 

and surface water. Due to the high application rates of sulfur, terrestrial exposure values estimated 

through modeling would exceed the highest dose tested in toxicity studies for these taxa. However, 

as described below in the Risk Characterization section, the Agency considers the potential for 

risk to these taxa to be very low for a number of reasons. Exposure to terrestrial plants may occur 

mostly through direct contact, since root uptake is unlikely, due to the low solubility or insolubility 

of sulfur. Furthermore, exposure to terrestrial invertebrates may occur via direct contact and 

consumption of contaminated feed items. 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

7 

Gas cartridge uses

Given that exposure from gas cartridge uses is limited to sealed burrows, estimated 

environmental concentrations (EECs) based on aquatic and terrestrial exposures were not derived. 

The primary route of exposure is transport of cartridge by-products (i.e., gases produced through 

ignition of the cartridges) via diffusion, which will occur entirely within a sealed burrow if 

products are used as directed. As a result, neither runoff nor spray drift is expected to be a potential 

transport mechanism to aquatic or terrestrial habitats. 

Effects Characterization 

Terrestrial Organism Toxicology 

Acute studies indicate that sulfur is practically nontoxic on an acute basis to terrestrial 

animals including birds, and by extension, terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles, mammals, 

and honeybees. In the bird and mammal studies, no definitive toxicity endpoints were reached 

because the necessary effects were not observed up to and including the highest test concentrations. 

Toxicity data on terrestrial plants are not available. 

Conventional uses

Because sulfur is registered for use as an insecticide, it is conceivable that adverse effects 

are possible for some invertebrates, even though honeybee toxicity data suggest that sulfur is 

practically nontoxic on an acute contact exposure basis to honeybees. 

Adverse effects may be possible to some plant species due to well established 

documentation on sulfur use that suggest or require that certain crops should or must be avoided. 

The use of inorganic fungicides, such as sulfur and copper, has been well documented in the 

literature (Elis and Bradley, 19922

). Beckerman (20083) stated, “Sulfur is the oldest recorded 

fungicide and has been used for more than 2,000 years, early in agriculture history, the Greeks 

recognized its efficacy against rust on wheat. Sulfur can be used as a preventative fungicide against 

powdery mildew, rusts and other diseases. Sulfur prevents fungal spores from germinating, so it 

should be applied before the disease develops”. Beckerman (2008) and others recommend against 

using sulfur when temperatures are expected to exceed 80o

F to reduce the risk of phytotoxicity. It 

is also documented that certain varieties of gooseberries, currants, apricots, raspberries, and 

cucurbits are susceptible to sulfur phytotoxicity. 

Gas cartridge uses 

The primary effect expected from exposure to the gases produced by the ignition of 

cartridge use is acute mortality to the organisms within the treated area. Findings of various 

efficacy studies show high levels of mortality for most of the organisms tested. No direct exposure 

to listed and non-listed terrestrial plants or terrestrial invertebrates is anticipated. 

 

2

 Ellis, B.W and Bradley, F.M. 1992. The organic Gardner’s Handbook of Natural Inset and 

Disease Control, Rodale Press. Emmaus, PA. 534pp. 

3

 Beckerman, J. 2008. Using Organic Fungicides. Disease Management Strategies. Purdue 

Extension BP-69-W. 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

8 

Aquatic Organism Toxicology 

Acute studies indicate that sulfur is practically nontoxic on an acute basis to aquatic 

animals including freshwater fish, and by extension aquatic-phase amphibians, freshwater 

invertebrate, and estuarine/marine invertebrates. The available aquatic studies indicated no 

mortality at the solubility limit in water (4.87 ppb). Furthermore, available toxicity data from the 

open literature also indicate sulfur is practically non-toxic to freshwater fish, freshwater aquatic 

invertebrates and aquatic-phase amphibians on an acute basis. 

Risk Characterization 

Terrestrial Organisms 

Conventional uses 

Due to the ubiquitous nature of elemental sulfur, its rapid incorporation into the sulfur 

cycle, and its low toxicity, the Agency concludes that risk to terrestrial animals is low. However, 

the potential for risk to certain types of terrestrial plants and terrestrial invertebrates exists. 

Given the insecticidal uses of sulfur, it stands to reason that some non-target terrestrial 

arthropods may be adversely affected when exposed. The data available on the honey bee, 

however, indicates low toxicity based on acute contact and oral exposure. A subset of arthropods 

located within the target area may be adversely affected from sulfur applications, for example, 

flying or leaf-dwelling insects. 

For terrestrial plants, two lines of evidence suggest that some plant species may be 

adversely affected by conventional sulfur applications. First, all five of the available ecological 

incident reports for sulfur involve terrestrial plants. Second, current label requirements and 

agricultural extension guidance indicate that certain crops are not to be treated with sulfur due to 

their increased sensitivity. These include, but may not be limited to, certain varieties of 

gooseberries, currants, apricots, raspberries, and cucurbits. However, the number and spatial extent 

of these potentially susceptible species is not presently known. 

Gas cartridge uses 

The labeled use for the gas cartridges containing sulfur is to kill target pests living in the 

treated burrows and dens. Therefore, the risk assessment assumes that non-listed and listed 

terrestrial vertebrate and invertebrate animals living in treated burrows or dens will be killed. 

However, adverse effects from the application of the cartridges are localized to the application site 

based on the label instructions to seal the burrow or den following the application. As a result, 

exposure to terrestrial animals is expected to impact only the small number of individuals that may 

be found in the burrow or dens of target pests. For terrestrial non-listed and listed species that do 

not inhabit burrows or dens, no significant exposure to the cartridge’s by-products is expected 

based on the labeled use pattern. 

Although there is no fate or toxicity data available for modeling and no reported major 

incidents, the Agency has made a “May Affect, LAA” determination for listed burrowing species 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

9 

including birds (and by extension reptiles and amphibians), and mammals due to mortality as an 

acute direct effect based on asphyxiation from the combustion products. However, given the life 

history of listed invertebrate species, EPA has determined that the cartridges will have no direct 

effect on listed invertebrates (see the June 28, 2013 Revision to the environmental fate and 

ecological risk assessment for carbon dioxide and for carbon, sawdust, sodium nitrate, potassium 

nitrate and sulfur containing cartridges). Specifically, the burrows of burrowing listed 

invertebrates are not large enough to allow for gas cartridge insertion and use. In addition, listed 

cave dwelling spiders are unlikely to be either exposed to or affected by gas cartridges because the 

cave entrance(s) is too large and/or not feasible to seal as required by the gas cartridge labels. 

Furthermore, it is expected that a cave would be too large for the gas cartridge to effectively 

remove all of the oxygen, which is required for the product to be used appropriately, regardless of 

the entrance size. 

Aquatic Organisms 

Conventional uses 

Sulfur is a natural and ubiquitous component of U.S. waters and the addition of elemental 

sulfur from pesticidal uses is not likely to be a concern. Based on low toxicity of sulfur to aquatic 

organisms, the lack of ecological incidents for these taxa, and the rapid incorporation of elemental 

sulfur into the natural sulfur cycle once released, the Agency has determined that there are no 

potential risks to listed and non-listed aquatic organisms. 

Gas cartridge uses 

Aquatic exposure to gas cartridges is not expected given the method of application. Based 

on the lack of exposure and low toxicity potential of sulfur to aquatic organisms, the Agency has 

determined that there is no potential risk to listed and non-listed aquatic organisms. 

Endangered Species Assessment 

Conventional uses 

The Agency is making a No Effect determination for all listed aquatic species, and a No Effect 

determination for direct effects to listed terrestrial vertebrates that do not rely on insects as a 

primary food source. Given the possibility of risk to some listed terrestrial invertebrates and 

terrestrial plants, the Agency is not able to make an endangered species determination on terrestrial 

invertebrates, terrestrial plants, indirect effects to terrestrial vertebrates with insects as a primary 

food source or indirect effects for listed taxa that are dependent on terrestrial plants. Sulfur is 

registered as an insecticide, even though the Agency classifies sulfur as practically non-toxic to 

honeybees. Regarding risk to plants, users are required by product labels to avoid sulfur use on 

certain plants. Users also receive information from agricultural extension agents regarding use 

considerations. To address these uncertainties, further evaluation of listed species life history is 

needed to determine whether terrestrial invertebrates co-occur with sulfur use sites, whether 

obligate relationships exist with listed terrestrial vertebrates, and whether listed terrestrial plants 

co-occur with sulfur use sites. 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

10 

Gas cartridge uses 

EPA’s endangered species assessment for the gas cartridges, completed on March 30, 2010, 

found the potential for direct effects to 64 listed species from gas cartridge use. Since then, the risk 

assessment has undergone several levels of refinement as a result of public comment, internal 

deliberation, and an ongoing informal consultation with the FWS. Based on its most recent 

assessment, EPA has concluded that 55 listed species may be directly affected by gas cartridge 

use. Please see the Revision to the environmental fate and ecological risk assessment for carbon 

dioxide and for carbon, sawdust, sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate and sulfur containing 

cartridges, dated June 28, 2013 for additional information. This document is available in the public 

docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176). At the time of this assessment, the Island night lizard was 

among 56 species with a direct effect finding. In April 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

removed the night lizard from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife [79 FR 

18190 (April 1, 2014)]. 

The March 30, 2010, list of species with potential for direct effects was revised based on 

the following: 

 Comments received from FWS Region 4 were considered in refining the “direct 

effects” list for species whose range is solely within the boundary of FWS Region 

4. 

 The life history traits of each species on the list were re-evaluated to ensure all such 

species inhabit dens or burrows at some point in their life-cycle and confirm that 

the burrow or den would accommodate either of the two sizes of gas cartridge. 

Species were added or removed from the direct effects list depending on den type 

use and the potential for exposure to gas cartridges. 

EPA has made “LAA” determinations for 55 listed terrestrial vertebrate species (birds, 

mammals, reptiles and amphibians) that burrow or use small dens at some point in their life-cycle 

based on acute direct effects from asphyxiation from the gas cartridge product at the application 

site. Supporting evidence for selection of listed species with “LAA” determinations is based on 

habitat and life history information for taxa representing listed species. 

EPA has also concluded that a number of species may be indirectly affected by gas 

cartridge use from direct effects to target species. For instance, the burrow of a listed species, such 

as a snake, may not receive a direct gas cartridge application, but if nearby burrows are treated 

which shelter potential prey for the snake, the snake is indirectly affected in that its available food 

supply has been reduced. Gas cartridges may also indirectly affect plant species through effects on 

pollinators and animals involved in seed dispersal. 

EPA has made a “No Effect” determination for all listed aquatic organisms based on both 

the lack of exposure and the low toxicity potential of sodium and potassium nitrate to aquatic 

organisms. 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

11 

Water Quality 

Sulfur is not identified as a cause of impairment for any water bodies listed as impaired 

under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.4

 In addition, no Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDL) have been developed for sulfur.5 More information on impaired water bodies and 

TMDLs can be found at the Agency’s website.6

B. Human Health Assessment 

The Agency considered the sulfur human health scoping document, its supporting 

documents, and the most updated Agency science policies and risk assessment methodologies to 

prepare a qualitative risk assessment in support of the registration review of sulfur. The human 

health conclusions apply to conventional and gas cartridge uses. Because of the low toxicity of 

sulfur, the Agency determined that a quantitative human health risk assessment was not required 

under registration review. In this Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision, EPA is making 

no human health or environmental safety findings associated with the EDSP screening of sulfur. 

Before completing this Registration Review, the Agency will make an EDSP FFDCA section 

408(p) determination. 

For detailed discussions of all aspects of the human health risk assessment, see the Sulfur. 

Summary of Human Health Risk Assessments to Support Registration Review, dated May 1, 2013. 

A summary of the Agency’s human health risk assessment is presented below. 

Exposure to sulfur from conventional uses is possible via the diet, as well as from 

residential and occupational use. However, the Agency believes that worker and bystander 

exposures are not likely to occur from gas cartridge uses. Acute toxicity of sulfur is low, although 

it is recognized as an eye and skin irritant. Available data do not indicate any systemic toxicity and 

no endpoints of toxicological concern have been identified. Therefore, the Agency does not believe 

that any quantitative dietary, residential, aggregate or occupational risk assessments are needed for 

conventional or gas cartridge uses of sulfur. 

Qualitatively, dietary risk is low because of sulfur’s low toxicity to mammals. Sulfur is 

exempt from tolerances on commodities due to its low toxicity. Residential and occupation risks 

are low due to protective requirements on product labels for preventing eye and skin irritation. 

Furthermore, sulfur is a naturally occurring, ubiquitous element in the environment that is also 

essential to the human body and needed at relatively high levels. Therefore, there are no dietary, 

residential, occupational, or aggregate (dietary + drinking water) risks of concern for sulfur. 

C. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program 

 

4 http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation_cy.cause_detail_303d?p_cause_group_id=885

5

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation.tmdl_pollutant_detail?p_pollutant_group_id=885&p_pollutant_

group_name=PESTICIDES

6 http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

12 

EPA has developed the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program to determine whether 

certain substances (including pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans 

or wildlife similar to an effect produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or other such 

endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency 

must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between October 2009 and November 2010, EPA issued test 

orders/data call-ins for the first group of 67 chemicals and published a second list of chemicals 

proposed for order issuance in the future. Sulfur was not among the group of 58 pesticide active 

ingredients on the initial list nor is it proposed on the second list of chemicals to be screened under 

the EDSP. Accordingly, as part of registration review, EPA may issue future EDSP orders/data 

call-ins for registration review chemicals, including sulfur. For further information on the status 

of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the list of 67 chemicals, future chemical lists proposed 

for screening, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our 

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

In the interim, EPA is not making an EDSP determination for sulfur. Before completing 

this Registration Review, the Agency will make an EDSP FFDCA section 408(p) determination. 

D. Incident Reports 

 Human Incidents 

The U.S.EPA 2008 human health scoping document (see EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176-0003 

in sulfur docket) cites an occupational risk assessment that concluded that additional precautionary 

language and personal protective equipment (PPE) should be required for pesticide handlers (i.e., 

those mixing/loading and applying the products) in addition to a longer Restricted Entry Interval 

(REI) to prevent skin and eye irritation incidents among field workers re-entering treated fields. 

The PPE requirements, along with a 24-hour REIs have been incorporated into sulfur product 

labels in response to incident reports. 

 The most current incident report, completed in 2013 is consistent with the analyses 

conducted previously, in 2009. In the 2009 review, there were 10 single chemical incidents 

identified in Incident Data System (IDS) from 2000 to 2008; there were 958 incidents identified 

in Poison Control Center Data from 1993 to 2005; there were 63 incidents identified in CA PISP 

data from 2002-2006; and 189 incidents were reported to Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH) Sentinel Event 

Notification System for Occupational Risk-Pesticides (SENSOR) data from 1998 to 2005. 

The 2013 incident report includes analyses of incidents reported to the Main and Aggregate IDS 

from January 1, 2009, to January 24, 2013 and from incidents reported to NIOSH SENSORPesticides database from 2006-2009. One incident of moderate severity was reported to the Main 

IDS; 43 incidents of minor severity to the Aggregate IDS; and, 50 incidents involving the single 

active ingredient sulfur. Of the 50 single AI cases, 33 were low in severity, 16 were moderate in 

severity and 1 case was high in severity. 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

13 

Across the databases and incidents reviewed in 2009 and 20137,8, the relative number of reported 

incidents is low, the severity of reported health effects is low, and for most databases the dermal, 

ocular and respiratory symptoms/health effects were reflective of the known irritating properties 

of sulfur. The incident information supports the risk conclusions in the RED and the EPA 

poisoning manual, which state that sulfur has irritating properties but it is a relatively low 

mammalian toxicity pesticide. 

 Ecological Incidents 

 

A review of the Ecological Incident Information System EIIS (see EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-

0176-0051, i.e. 2013 EFED Risk Assessment), which is maintained by the Agency’s Office of 

Pesticide Programs, indicates that a total of five incidents between 1999 and 2001 have been 

reported to the Agency that included sulfur. It was determined that sulfur exposure was “probable” 

for only one incident, while the nature or sulfur exposure in the remaining four incidents was not 

as clear. It is not known if the reported incidents were the result of product misuse. 

A review of the Aggregate Incident Reports (v. 1.0) database contained in the Incident Data 

System (IDS), and the Avian Monitoring Information System (AIMS) for ecological incidents 

involving sulfur was completed on March 12, 2013. AIMS did not report any incidents in relation 

to avian species. IDS reported one minor fish and wildlife incident. 

For the incidents review conducted as part of the 2010 Registration Review Ecological Risk 

Assessment and Effects Determinations, Carbon, Carbon Dioxide, Sawdust, Sodium Nitrate, 

Potassium Nitrate and Sulfur Gas Cartridges, no gas cartridge incidents were reported to the EIIS. 

E. Public Comments 

 On May 26, 2010, the Agency formally issued the Inorganic Nitrate – Nitrite, Carbon and 

Carbon Dioxide, and Sulfur Registration Review; Draft Ecological Risk Assessment and 

Endangered Species Effects Determination; Notice of Availability in the Federal Register and 

initiated a 60-day public comment period. During that time, one comment was received from FWS 

Region 4. FWS Region 4 suggested the removal of three species including the Key Largo cotton 

mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), lower keys marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri), and the 

red hills salamander (Phaeognathus hubrichti), and provided additional information about the 

Anastasia Island beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus phasma), Choctawhatchee beach mouse 

(Peromyscus polionotus allophrys), and southeastern beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus 

niveiventris). 

EPA removed three species (red hills salamander, lower keys marsh rabbit, and Key Largo 

cotton mouse) as a result of the comments from FWS Region 4 stating that these species would 

not likely be exposed to gas cartridge uses. EPA initially removed the three species of beach mice 

from the direct effects list. However, these species were returned to the direct effects list due to 

the potential for the habitat of the house mouse, which is a pest species not specifically excluded 

by the gas cartridge labels, to overlap in some areas with the habitat of the three beach mice, 

 

7U.S.EPA 2013. Sulfur: Updated Review of Human Incidents. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. DP 410259. March 21, 2013.

8

 The 2013 HED incident review will be posted to the docket with this Proposed Interim Decision for Sulfur. 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

14 

although they inhabit separate burrows. According to the information from FWS Region 4, gas 

cartridges may potentially be used to control the house mouse and therefore mistakenly used in 

beach mice burrows. 

On June 26, 2013, the Agency issued draft human health and ecological risk assessments 

for uses of sulfur other than gas cartridges: Sulfur. Summary of Human Health Risk Assessments 

to Support Registration Review, dated May 1, 2013, and Sulfur Environmental Fate and Ecological 

Preliminary Risk Assessment, dated May 29, 2013. During the 60 day comment period for these 

draft risk assessments, one comment was received from Landis Int. on behalf of Georgia Gulf 

Sulfur. The comment did not challenge or impact the conclusions of the draft risk assessments as 

it concurred with statements made in the HED and EFED Risk Assessments.

 F. Environmental Justice 

 EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help 

address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or 

segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, 

may have atypical, unusually high exposure to sulfur, compared to the general population. The 

Agency did not receive any comments concerning any environmental justice issues. At this time, 

EPA does not believe that use of the registered pesticide products containing sulfur will cause 

harm to or a disproportionate impact on at-risk communities. 

 For additional information regarding environmental justice issues, please visit EPA’s 

website at: www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/index.html. 

G. Characterization of Economic Benefits of Sulfur 

Sulfur is an inorganic pesticide that is reported to play an important role in plant 

disease/pest management on many major and minor crops and in pest resistance management 

because no pest has been reported to be resistant to sulfur. Sulfur is important for the organic 

growers because of a limited number of compounds available for controlling pests. Of the high 

sulfur use crops (from 2004-2012) including grapes, tomatoes, peaches, oranges, apples, cherries, 

carrots, grapefruit, pistachios, and strawberries, the average cost of sulfur per acre (i.e., over 1998-

2012) is lower than the average cost per acre for the available and crop respective alternative 

pesticides (An Overview of the Benefits of Sulfur Use on Agricultural Crops). Therefore, available 

information suggests that sulfur is a relatively inexpensive fungicide compared to most of its 

alternatives. 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

15 

III. PROPOSED INTERIM REGISTRATION REVIEW DECISION 

 Per the Sulfur Preliminary Work Plan, EPA has completed human health and ecological 

risk assessments, including an endangered species risk assessment, for sulfur as part of registration 

review. The Agency is, therefore, issuing a Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

pursuant to 40 CFR sections 155.56 and 155.58. The registration review timeline in the Sulfur 

Final Work Plan projected that the Agency would issue the preliminary risk assessments in 

December 2012 and issue the proposed registration review decision in June 2013. However, due 

to comments received, mitigation discussions with the registrants, and informal consultation with 

the FWS concerning geospatial information for the listed species of concern, the anticipated 

timeframes needed to be revised. The Agency now anticipates issuing an Interim Registration 

Review Decision in late 2014. 

 

Conventional uses 

Based on the screening-level risk assessments, there are potential risks of direct effects to 

listed terrestrial invertebrates and terrestrial plants (monocots and dicots) from the use of sulfur on 

some of its registered use sites. Listed species of birds, mammals, reptiles and terrestrial-phase 

amphibians may also be affected through indirect effects because of the potential direct effects on 

listed and non-listed terrestrial invertebrate and terrestrial plant species. Potential direct effects on 

listed terrestrial invertebrates and terrestrial plants from the use of sulfur may be associated with 

modification of primary constituent elements of designated critical habitats, where such 

designations have been made. However, at this current stage of the Registration Review process, 

it is premature to make effects determinations for listed species until further refinements are 

conducted. 

Gas cartridge uses 

According to the Agency’s endangered species risk assessment of sulfur, potential for 

adverse effects to a number of listed species exists from use in gas cartridge products. 

Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

In this Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision, EPA is making no human health 

or environmental safety findings associated with the EDSP screening of sulfur. That is, EPA 

proposes that sulfur be eligible for continued registration, provided that mitigation measures are 

incorporated onto product labels. In addition, before completing this Registration Review, the 

Agency will make an EDSP FFDCA section 408(p) determination. Therefore, issuance of the 

Agency’s final registration review decision is dependent upon (1) the completion of Section 7 

Endangered Species consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and (2) a conclusion 

under the EDSP FFDCA section 408(p). Pending the outcome of these actions, the Agency intends 

to issue this Interim Registration Review Decision for sulfur. 

A. Ecological Risk 

Conventional uses 

EPA has determined that there is potential for adverse effects to some non-target terrestrial 

invertebrate and terrestrial plant species. For example, the potential for terrestrial plant exposure 

exists from off-site transport via the various application forms and high application rates of sulfur. 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

16 

However, given the long use history, the lack of incidents since 2001 –and that the three of five 

incidents taken from 1999-2001 include other pesticides while the two remaining incidents are not 

associated with a high degree of certainty for sulfur – as well as the fact that sulfur is quickly 

incorporated into the sulfur cycle upon contact with water or soil, the Agency considers these risks 

to be low and does not anticipate further data needs for terrestrial plants. The Agency will conduct 

a more thorough evaluation prior to the issuance of a final Registration Review Decision for sulfur. 

Gas cartridge uses

EPA has determined that there is potential for adverse effects to non-target, non-listed 

terrestrial animals that inhabit burrows or dens. However, adverse effects to non-listed terrestrial 

animals from the application of the gas cartridges are localized to the application site. In addition, 

all gas cartridge product labels include the statement, “Check all burrows for signs of non-target 

species. If present, do not treat burrows”, which would limit the potential for exposure. The 

combination of the localization of adverse impacts as well as the protective label language for nontarget species leads EPA to conclude that exposure to non-target, non-listed terrestrial animals is 

expected to impact only a small number of non-target organisms, if any. For the ecological risk 

assessment, the Agency reviewed available ecological incident data and found that there were no 

reported ecological incidents attributed to gas cartridge use. 

EPA has determined that the use of gas cartridge products containing potassium and 

sodium nitrate, carbon and carbon dioxide, and sulfur is likely to adversely affect (LAA) 55 listed 

species. Although an individual from a listed species may not be more likely than an individual 

from a non-listed species to be adversely affected by a gas cartridge, under the ESA, an action is 

“ likely to adversely affect” a listed species if even a single member of that species is likely to be 

adversely affected. Please see Appendix A for a summary of individual listed species which may 

be directly affected by gas cartridges. The Agency has also concluded that a number of non-listed 

species may be indirectly affected by gas cartridge use. 

B. Endangered Species Risk Mitigation Measures 

In developing this Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision, the Agency considered 

a number of mitigation measures that would reduce risk to many listed species from gas cartridge 

use. Possible measures include: 

 Limiting the potential target species for gas cartridge applications to only those 

listed explicitly on product labels. 

 Prohibiting gas cartridge use in areas where certain listed species are known to 

occur. 

 Permitting gas cartridge use in areas where certain listed species are known to occur 

only at times of year when the species is not likely to inhabit potential cartridge use 

sites. 

 National level adoption of application parameters for United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

17 

Service’s (WS) personnel that resulted from USDA/APHIS WS’ consultations with 

FWS. 

 National level adoption of protective measures the California Department of 

Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) introduced to protect affected endangered and 

threatened species in California. CDPR received concurrence on the effectiveness 

of these measures through consultation with FWS. The EPA intends to revisit the 

CDPR consultation with the FWS to ensure adequate protections remain in place 

for federally listed species that are likely to be affected by gas cartridge use. 

For additional information on these mitigation measures and which listed species they 

apply to, please refer to the June 28, 2013, Revision to the Environmental Fate and Ecological 

Risk Assessment for Carbon Dioxide and for Carbon, Sawdust, Sodium Nitrate, Potassium Nitrate 

and Sulfur Containing Cartridges, available in the public docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176) at 

www.regulations.gov. 

C. Voluntary Adoption of Risk Mitigation Measures 

In discussions with the Agency, the gas cartridge registrants have all agreed to adopt some 

but not all of the above mitigation measures. Pending the result of Section 7 Endangered Species 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Agency does not intend to require all of 

the risk mitigation measures identified above to be adopted at this time. The following list 

represents the mitigation measures that the gas cartridge registrants have voluntarily agreed to 

incorporate into their gas cartridge registrations. These changes will serve to mitigate risk to 18 

listed species of concern from use of the gas cartridges: 

1) A label amendment incorporating a reference to the Bulletins Live! internet application, 

(Bulletins Live!), which will identify county or sub-county level restrictions for 5 of 

the listed species found to be directly affected by gas cartridge use. The geographically 

specific areas where gas cartridge use would be prohibited are based on available listed 

species’ range information obtained from FWS field offices. The Agency received this 

information as part of informal Section 7 Endangered Species consultation with FWS. 

Based on the information provided by FWS, the Agency has developed maps that 

depict the proposed geographic areas of prohibited gas cartridge use. With this label 

change, the LAA determination can be changed to a “No Effect” determination for 5 

listed species: Hualapai Mexican vole, Morro Bay kangaroo rat, Utah prairie dog, 

Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, and gopher tortoise. 

2) Prohibiting gas cartridge use within specific federally-managed areas for 6 listed 

species through the Bulletins Live! internet application. The Agency verified with 

managers/representatives of these federal lands that gas cartridges are not used in these 

areas, so this limitation would not impact any current use. With this label change, the 

LAA determination would be changed to a “No Effect” determination for the following 

species due to their range inhabiting only federal lands: Mount Graham red squirrel 

(Coronado National Forest), Carolina northern flying squirrel (Cherokee National 

Forest, Jefferson National Forest, Nantahala National Forest, Pisgah National Forest, 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

18 

Middle Prong Wilderness, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and Blue Ridge 

Parkway), Desert slender salamander (Santa Rosa Wilderness), Santa Rosa Island fox

(Channel Island National Park), San Miguel Island fox (Channel Island National Park), 

and Santa Cruz Island fox (Channel Island National Park). 

3) Creation of sub-labels for USDA’s gas cartridge registrations, EPA Reg. Nos. 56228-

2 and 56228-21. One sub-label would be intended for use only by USDA APHIS WS’ 

personnel and one sub-label would be intended for broad consumer use, including 

homeowners. The creation of the sub-labels would serve two purposes. First, the USDA 

APHIS WS’ use sub-label would adopt the application parameters for USDA APHIS 

WS’ personnel resulting from USDA APHIS WS’ consultations with FWS, which 

allows EPA to change the effects determination for certain species from LAA to “not 

likely to adversely affect” (NLAA). The consumer use sub-label would, like all other 

gas cartridge labels, restrict use of the product to only target species, which allows EPA 

to make a “no effect” determination on 7 additional listed species, but only for the 

consumer use products. Since the WS’ use product will not have target species only 

restriction, EPA will make an NLAA determination for those 7 species and seek 

concurrence on that finding from FWS. 

To implement these mitigation measures, gas cartridge product registrations and labels will 

be amended to include a reference to the Bulletins Live! internet application. The labels will require 

gas cartridge users to refer to Bulletins Live! to view applicable Endangered Species Protection 

Bulletins before using the product to ensure that they do not use the product in a prohibited area. 

The bulletins will be available through the EPA Bulletins Live! website 

(http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/bulletins). A telephone number that users can call for 

Bulletin information if they do not have internet access will also be provided. 

The gas cartridge registrants have agreed to prohibit use in the areas where 11 of the listed 

species with potential for direct effects from the gas cartridge use are known to occur. The 

proposed Bulletins Live! label language required to implement these prohibitions can be found in 

the label table section of this Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision. Appendix B 

provides a list of the counties, by state, that will have geographic restrictions. The draft Bulletins, 

organized by state, are available for viewing in the docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176). 

The Agency believes that implementation of mitigation measures to address the risk to the 

directly affected listed species will also provide protection for many listed species which may be 

indirectly effected by the use of the gas cartridges. 

Although these mitigation measures would result in “No Effect” determinations for 18 (11 

No Effect determinations based on geographic use prohibitions and 7 No Effect determinations for 

target species only restriction, for consumer use products) of the listed species identified in the risk 

assessment, 44 listed species remain for which the EPA would make either a “LAA” or “NLAA” 

determination from direct effects of gas cartridge use (37 with no mitigation and 7 with mitigation 

only on consumer use products; USDA APHIS WS’ use would remain “NLAA”). There are also 

LAA determinations for listed terrestrial mammals, birds, invertebrates, and plants for indirect 

effects from the use of the cartridges. The Agency will continue through informal consultation 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

19 

with FWS to further refine this list of directly affected species and explore other mitigation options. 

However, with regards to the Agency’s finding of “LAA” for a number of listed species, the 

Agency is required to initiate formal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation with 

the FWS. 

Therefore, due to the remaining work EPA will undertake with the FWS, and also due to 

EDSP- related considerations, the Agency is issuing a proposed interim registration review 

decision at this time, which will be finalized upon completion of the formal ESA consultation with 

FWS and the EDSP determination. 

IV. NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE 

A. Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

In accordance with 40 CFR 155.56 and 155.58, the Agency is issuing this Sulfur Proposed 

Interim Registration Review Decision and placing it in the sulfur registration review docket (EPAHQ-OPP-2008-0176). A Federal Register Notice will announce its availability and allow a 60-day 

public comment period. If there are no significant comments or additional information submitted 

to the docket during that comment period that would lead the Agency to change its decision, EPA 

will issue an Interim Registration Review Decision for sulfur (Case 0031). The Agency anticipates 

the Sulfur Interim Registration Review Decision will be issued in late 2014. The Agency expects 

to issue a final decision on the sulfur registration review case after both (1) conclusion of ESA 

Section 7 consultation with the FWS and (2) an EDSP FFDCA section 408(p) determination has 

been made. 

B. Bulletins Live! Comment Period 

The Agency will make the individual draft Bulletins, which illustrate the geographic 

prohibitions protecting the listed species for the gas cartridges, available for stakeholder comment 

concurrent with this Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision. Appendix B provides a list 

of the counties, by state, that will have geographic restrictions. The draft Bulletins, organized by 

state, are available for viewing in the docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176). 

C. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 

Once the Interim Registration Review Decision is issued in final, registrants will be 

required to submit proposed amendments and registered and amended labels that include the 

agreed-upon endangered species risk mitigation to the Agency for approval within 60 days of 

issuance of the Interim Registration Review Decision. 

D. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Under Section 7 of the ESA, EPA is required to consult with the relevant federal agency 

when it determines that the registered uses may affect listed species (or any designated critical 

habitat for those species). As discussed above, the latest revision to the gas cartridge risk 

assessment (Revision to the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Carbon 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

20 

Dioxide and for Carbon, Sawdust, Sodium Nitrate, Potassium Nitrate and Sulfur Containing 

Cartridges, dated June 28, 2013) describes the listed species found that may be affected from the 

use of gas cartridges and the proposed risk mitigation solutions for many of those species. For 

those species where a mitigation solution has been implemented on the product labels that 

eliminates risk to such species, the Agency will change its endangered species risk finding from 

“LAA” to “no effect,” eliminating the requirement for the Agency to consult on these species. In 

the case of the USDA sub-label specifically for WS applicators, as well as the species covered by 

California DPR’s consultation with FWS, the Agency may change its endangered species risk 

finding from “likely to adversely affect” to “not likely to adversely affect” where an acceptable 

mitigation solution based on previous consultations has been implemented allowing use in the 

range of a listed species of concern. For these species with a “not likely to adversely affect” 

determination, the Agency intends to seek concurrence from the FWS through the current informal 

Section 7 Endangered Species consultation. Additionally, EPA will continue informal consultation 

with FWS to further refine the list of gas cartridge “LAA” species. Communication with FWS 

species experts may provide certain insight on the life history of listed species that may lead to 

further changes in EPA’s effects determinations. For those species where an acceptable mitigation 

solution has not been implemented on the product labels that allows EPA to make either a “no 

effect” or “not likely to adversely affect” determination, the Agency intends to initiate formal 

Section 7 Endangered Species consultation with the FWS following issuance of the Interim 

Registration Review Decision. 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

Appendix A 

Listed Non-Target Species Subject to an LAA Determination Based on Direct E

No. Species Common 

Name 

Scientific Name No. of 

Counties 

County (State)a

1 Alabama Beach 

Mouse 

Peromyscus 

polionotus 

ammobates 

1 Baldwin (AL) 

2 Alameda Whipsnake Masticophis 

lateralis 

euryxanthus 

4 Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Santa Clara (CA) 

3 Amargosa Vole Microtus 

californicus 

scirpensis 

1 Inyo (CA) 

4 Anastasia Island 

Beach Mouse 

Peromyscus 

polionotus phasma 

1 St. John’s (FL) 

5 Arroyo Southwestern 

Toad 

Bufo californicus 

(=microscaphus) 

8 Los Angeles, Monterey, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San D

Barbara, Ventura (CA) 

6 Black-footed Ferret, 

Endangered 

Mustela nigripes 141 Apache, Coconino, Navajo, Yavapai (AZ) 

County-level range not defined (CO) Logan (KS) Big Horn, Blaine, Carbon, Carter, Chouteau, Custer, Fergus, Garfi

Valley, Hill, Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, McCone, MussePetroleum, Phillips, Powder River, Prairie, Rosebud, Stillwater, S

Toole, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, Yellowstone (MT) Adams, Antelope, Arthur, Banner, Blaine, Boone, Box Butte, BoyBuffalo, Chase, Cherry, Cheyenne, Clay, Colfax, Custer, Dawes, DFilmore, Franklin, Frontier, Furnas, Garden, Garfield, Gosper, GraHall, Hamilton, Harlan, Hayes, Hitchcock, Holt, Hooker, HowardKearney, Keith, Keya Paha, Kimball, Knox, Lincoln, Logan, LoupMcPherson, Merrick, Morrill, Nance, Nuckrolls, Perkins, Phelps, 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

No. Species Common 

Name 

Scientific Name No. of 

Counties 

County (State)a

Polk, Red Willow, Rock, Saline, Scotts Bluff, Seward, Sheridan, SSioux, Thayer, Thomas, Valley, Webster, Wheeler, York (NE) Colfax (NM) Adams, Billings, Bowman, Dunn, Golden Valley, Grant, HettingeMercer, Morton, Oliver, Sioux, Slope, Stark (ND) Corson, Custer, Dewey, Gregory, Jackson, Lyman, Mellette, PennShannon, Todd, Tripp, Ziebach (SD) County-level range not defined (UT) Big Horn, Carbon, Fremont, Hot Springs, Lincoln, Natrona, Park, Sweetwater, Uinta, Washakie (WY) Counties in addition to the above which contain only experimentaAdams, Alamosa, Arapahoe, Archuleta, Baca, Broomfield, ConejoDelta, Douglas, Kiowa, Kit Carson, La Plata, Larimer, Las AnimaMontezuma, Montrose, Morgan, Otero, Prowers, Pueblo, Rio BlanSaguache, San Miguel, Washington, Weld (CO) County-level range not defined (SD) Uintah (UT) Albany (WY) 

7 Blunt-nosed Leopard 

Lizard 

Gambelia silus 5 Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura (

8 Bog Turtle Clemmys 

muhlenbergii 

49 Fairfield, Litchfield (CT) 

New Castle (DE) Baltimore, Carroll, Cecil, Harford (MD) Burlington, Gloucester, Hunterdon, Mercer, Monmouth, Morris, OSomerset, Sussex, Union, Warren (NJ) 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

No. Species Common 

Name 

Scientific Name No. of 

Counties 

County (State)a

Cayuga, Columbia, Dutchess, Genesee, Onondaga, Orange, OsweRensselaer, Rockland, Seneca, Sullivan, Ulster, Wayne, WestchesAdams, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Cumberland, Delaware, LLebanon, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkil

9 Buena Vista Lake 

Ornate Shrew 

Sorex ornatus 

relictus 

2 Kern, San Luis Obispo, Additional portions of the range within CA 

be refined (CA) 

10 California Redlegged Frog Rana draytonii 30 Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno, Kern, Los Ang

Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa BarbClara, Santa Cruz, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, TehamaTuolumne, Ventura (CA) 

11 California Tiger 

Salamander (Santa Barbara DPS) 

Ambystoma 

californiense 

1 Santa Barbara (CA) 

12 California Tiger 

Salamander (Central Valley DPS) 

Ambystoma 

californiense 

5 Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Sonoma (CA

13 California Tiger 

Salamander (Sonoma DPS) 

Ambystoma 

californiense 

31 Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, El Do

Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Merced, Napa, PlaSacramento, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa ClaCruz, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tulare, Tuolumne, YoloAdditional portions of the range within this state still need to be re

14 Carolina Northern 

Flying Squirrelb

Glaucomys 

sabrinus coloratus 

20 Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Caldwell, Graham, Haywood, Henderso

McDowell, Mitchell, Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey (NCCarter, Monroe, Sevier, Unicoi (TN) Grayson, Smyth (VA) 

15 Choctawhatchee 

Beach Mouse 

Peromyscus 

polionotus 

allophrys 

3 Bay, Okaloosa, Walton (FL) 

16 Coachella Valley 

Fringe-toed Lizardb

Uma inornata 2 Riverside, San Bernardino (CA) 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

No. Species Common 

Name 

Scientific Name No. of 

Counties 

County (State)a

17 Copperbelly Water 

Snake 

Nerodia 

erythrogaster 

neglecta 

12 Kosciusko, St. Joseph, Steuben (IN) 

Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Eaton, Hillsdale, St. Joseph (MI) Defiance, Hardin, Williams (OH) 

18 Desert Slender 

Salamanderb

Batrachoseps 

aridus 

1 Riverside (CA) 

19 Desert Tortoise Gopherus agassizii 13 Mohave (AZ) 

Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, SaClark, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye (NV) Washington (UT) 

20 Eastern Indigo Snake Drymarchon corais 

couperi 

98 Appling, Atkinson, Bacon, Berrien, Bryan, Bulloch, Camden, Cha

Coffee, Echols, Emanuel, Evans, Irwin, Jeff Davis, Lanier, LibertyLowndes, McIntosh, Randolph, Tattnall, Telfair, Wayne, Wheeler Alachua, Bay, Brevard, Broward, Calhoun, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay

Columbia, DeSoto, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Franklin, Gadsden, GGlades, Gulf, Hamilton, Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, HHolmes, Indian River, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lake, Lee, LLiberty, Madison, Manatee, Marion, Martin, Miami-Dade, MonroOkaloosa, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, PinPutnam, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, St. Lucie, SumSuwannee, Taylor, Union, Volusia, Wakulla, Walton, Washington Baldwin, Coffee, Covington, Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Houston, MWashington (AL) 

21 Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys 

nitratoides exilis 

1 Fresno (CA) 

22 Giant Garter Snake Thamnophis gigas 31 Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, El Do

Glenn, Kern, Kings, Lake, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Napa, NevSacramento, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, Santa CrStanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Tuolumne, Yolo, Yuba, Additof the range within this state still need to be refined (CA) 

23 Giant Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys ingens 4 Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Ventura (CA) 24 Gopher Tortoiseb Gopherus 

polyphemus 

25 Choctaw, Mobile, Washington (AL) 

St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Washington (LA) Clarke, Covington, Forrest, George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, J
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

No. Species Common 

Name 

Scientific Name No. of 

Counties 

County (State)a

Jasper, Jefferson Davis, Jones, Lamar, Marion, Pearl River, Perry, Walthall, Wayne (MS) 

25 Gray Wolf Canis lupus 221 County level range not defined (CO) 

Alger, Baraga, Cheboygan, Chippewa, Delta, Dickinson, Emmet, Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw, Luce, Mackinac, Marquette, Menomi

Ontonagon, Presque Isle, Schoolcraft (MI) Adams, Antelope, Arthur, Banner, Blaine, Boone, Box Butte, BoyBuffalo, Burt, Butler, Cass, Cedar, Chase, Cherry, Cheyenne, ClayCuming, Custer, Dakota, Dawes, Dawson, Deuel, Dixon, Dodge, DDundy, Fillmore, Franklin, Frontier, Furnas, Gage, Garden, Garfie

Grant, Greeley, Hall, Hamilton, Harlan, Hayes, Hitchcock, Holt, H

Howard, Jefferson, Johnson, Kearney, Keith, Keya Paha, KimballLancaster, Lincoln, Logan, Loup, Madison, McPherson, Merrick, Nance, Nemaha, Nuckolls, Otoe, Pawnee, Perkins, Phelps, Pierce, Red Willow, Richardson, Rock, Saline, Sarpy, Saunders, Scotts BSheridan, Sherman, Sioux, Stanton, Thayer, Thomas, Thurston, VWashington, Wayne, Webster, Wheeler, York (NE) Elko (NV) Catron, Grant, Hidalgo, Sierra (NM) Adams, Barnes, Benson, Billings, Bottineau, Bowman, Burke, BuCavalier, Dickey, Divide, Dunn, Eddy, Emmons, Foster, Golden VForks, Grant, Griggs, Hettinger, Kidder, LaMoure, Logan, McHenMcKenzie, McLean, Mercer, Morton, Mountrail, Nelson, Oliver, PPierce, Ramsey, Ransom, Renville, Richland, Rolette, Sargent, Sh

Slope, Stark, Steele, Stutsman, Towner, Traill, Walsh, Ward, Wel(ND) County-level range not defined (OR) County-level range not defined (SD) County-level range not defined (UT) 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

No. Species Common 

Name 

Scientific Name No. of 

Counties 

County (State)a

Chelan, Kittitas, Klickitat, Okanogan, Snohomish, Whatcom, YakAdams, Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Chippewa, Clark, DoClaire, Florence, Forest, Iron, Jackson, Juneau, Langlade, LincolnMarinette, Marquette, Menominee, Monroe, Oconto, Oneida, PolkPrice, Rusk, Sawyer, Shawano, Taylor, Vilas, Washburn, WaupacCounties in addition to the above which contain only experimentaBig Horn, Fremont, Hot Springs, Lincoln, Park, Sublette, Teton (WApache, Gila, Greenlee, Navajo (AZ) County-level range not defined (NM) County-level range not defined (TX) 

26 Houston Toad Bufo houstonensis 9 Austin, Bastrop, Burleson, Colorado, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Milam, R

(TX) 

27 Hualapai Mexican 

Voleb

Microtus mexicanus 

hualpaiensis 

1 Mohave (AZ) 

28 Key Largo Woodrat Neotoma floridana 

smalli 

1 Monroe (FL) 

29 Mississippi Gopher 

Frog 

Rana capito sevosa 2 Harrison, Jackson (MS) 

30 Morro Bay Kangaroo 

Ratb

Dipodomys 

heermanni 

morroensis 

1 San Luis Obispo (CA) 

31 Mount Graham Red 

Squirrelb

Tamiasciurus 

hudsonicus 

grahamensis 

1 Graham (AZ) 

32 Northern Idaho 

Ground Squirrel 

Spermophilus 

brunneus brunneus 

3 Adams, Valley, Washington (ID) 

33 Pacific Pocket Mouse Perognathus 

longimembris 

pacificus 

3 Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego (CA) 

34 Perdido Key Beach 

Mouse 

Peromyscus 

polionotus 

trissyllepsis 

2 Baldwin (AL) 

Escambia (FL) 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

No. Species Common 

Name 

Scientific Name No. of 

Counties 

County (State)a

35 Petrel, Hawaiian 

dark-rumped 

Pterodroma 

phaeopygia 

sandwichensis 

3 Hawaii, Kauai, Maui 

36 Point Arena 

Mountain Beaver 

Aplodontia rufa 

nigra 

1 Mendocino (CA) 

37 Pygmy Rabbit Brachylagus 

idahoensis 

3 Benton, Douglas, Grant, Additional portions of the range within W

to be refined (WA) 

38 Red WolfEndangered Canus rufus 4 County-level range not defined - FL, NC, SC 

Counties in addition to the above which contain only experimentaBeaufort, Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell (NC) County-level range not defined (TN) 

39 San Bernardino 

Merriams Kangaroo Rat 

Dipodomys 

merriami 

4 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino (CA) 

40 San Francisco Garter 

Snake 

Thamnophis sirtalis 

tetrataenia 

1 Santa Cruz (CA) 

41 San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis 

mutica 

21 Alameda, Calaveras, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, 

Merced, Monterey, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, San LuiSanta Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Stanislaus, Tulare(CA) 

42 San Miguel Island 

Foxb

Urocyon littoralis 

littoralis 

1 Santa Barbara (CA) 

43 Santa Catalina Island 

Fox 

Urocyon littoralis 

catalinae 

1 Los Angeles (CA) 

44 Santa Cruz Island 

Foxb

Urocyon littoralis 

santacruzae 

1 Santa Barbara (CA) 

45 Santa Cruz Long-toed 

Salamander 

Ambystoma 

macrodactylum 

croceum 

2 Monterey, Santa Cruz (CA) 

46 Santa Rosa Island 

Foxb 

Urocyon littoralis 

santarosae 

1 Santa Barbara (CA) 

47 Shearwater, Newell's 

Townsend's 

Puffinus auricularis 

newelli 

4 Hawaii, Honolulu, Kauai (HI) 

Manu’a (American Samoa) 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

No. Species Common 

Name 

Scientific Name No. of 

Counties 

County (State)a

48 Sonora Tiger 

Salamander 

Ambystoma 

tigrinum stebbinsi 

2 Cochise, Santa Cruz (AZ) 

49 Southeastern Beach 

Mouse 

Peromyscus 

polionotus 

niveiventris 

7 Brevard, Broward, Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, V

50 St. Andrew Beach 

Mouse 

Microtus 

pennsylvanicus 

dukecampbelli 

2 Bay, Gulf (FL) 

51 Stephens Kangaroo 

Rat 

Dipodomys 

stephensi 

4 Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego (CA) 

52 Tipton Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys 

nitratoides nitratoides 

5 Fresno, Kern, Kings, San Luis Obispo, Tulare, Additional portion

within CA still need to be refined (CA) 

53 Utah Prairie Dogb Cynomys parvidens 7 Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Piute, Sevier, Wayne (UT) 54 Vole, Florida Salt 

Marsh 

Microtus 

pennsylvanicus 

dukecampbelli 

1 Levy (FL) 

55 Wyoming Toad Bufo baxteri 

(=hemiophrys) 

1 Albany (WY) 

a List of counties obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species website: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/spespecies.html. The counties include populations that are threatened, endangered, and experimental. When the counties only contain epopulations, these counties are listed separately. b The registrants have voluntarily agreed to mitigate risk to this species resulting in a No Effect determination. 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

Appendix B 

Index 

Counties with Proposed Gas Cartridge Endangered Species Protection Bulletins 

Alabama Counties: Baldwin, Choctaw, Clarke, Marengo, Mobile, Sumter, Washington Arizona Counties: Graham, Mohave California Counties: Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura Louisiana: Livingston, St. Helena, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Washington Mississippi: Amite, Clarke, Covington, Forrest, George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson Davis, Jones, Lawrence, Marion, Newton, Pearl River, Perry, Pike, Rankin, Scott, Simpson, Smith, Stone, Walthall, Wayne North Carolina: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, MaMitchell, Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division Tennessee: Blount, Carter, Cocke, Greene, Johnson, Monroe, Sevier, Sullivan, Unicoi Utah: Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, Washington, Wayne 

Virginia: 

Grayson, Russell, Smyth, Washington, Wythe 
Sulfur Case 0031 Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0176 Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

Gas Cartridge Label Table 

(For gas cartridge products containing the active ingredient sulfur) 

Summary of Labeling Changes for Gas Cartridge Uses 

Description Amended Labeling Language for Gas Cartridge Use Products 

End Use Products

Language to restrict use to target species only 

“Only use for sites, pests, and application methods specified on this labeling.” 

Language to restrict use to target species only 

“This product may only be used to control [insert pests and sites]...” 

Endangered Species considerations 

“Endangered Species: It is a Federal offense to use any pesticide in a manner that results in the death of an 

endangered species. Use of this product may pose a hazard to endangered or threatened species. When using thi

product, you must follow the measures contained in the Endangered Species Protection Bulletin for the county iwhich you are applying the product. To obtain Bulletins, no more than six months before using this product, conhttp://www.epa.gov/espp/ or call 1-800-447-3813. You must use the Bulletin valid for the month in which you wapply the product.” 

Endangered species considerations “It is a Federal offense to use any pesticide in a manner that results in the death of an endangered species. See th

Endangered Species section in the Directions for Use section of this labeling.”