### 1 OFFICE OF

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND

POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

Chemical: Bifenazate  PC Code: 000586

DP Barcode: 423164

Date: December 7, 2015

MEMORANDUM       

SUBJECT: Registration Review Ecological Risk Assessment for Bifenazate (PC Code

000586; DP Barcode 423164)

TO:  Garland Waleko, Chemical Review Manager Cathryn Britton, Team Leader Kevin Costello, Chief Risk Management and Implementation Branch 4 Pesticide Reevaluation Division (7508P)

THROUGH:  Dana Spatz, Chief

Environmental Risk Branch 3

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

FROM:  James Hetrick, Ph. D., Senior Advisor Rosanna Louie

Ͳ Juzwiak, Risk Assessment Process Leader Environmental Risk Branch 3 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed the ecological risk

assessment as part of the Registration Review of the insecticide bifenazate (PC Code 000586).

This risk assessment incorporates data that became available since the Problem Formulation

(U.S. EPA, 2012a). This preliminary risk assessment (PRA) examines the potential ecological risks

associated with labeled uses of bifenazate based on the best available scientific and commercial

information on the use, environmental fate and transport, and effects on non

Ͳ target organisms. JAMES

HETRICK Digitally signed by JAMES HETRICK

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government,

ou=USEPA, ou=Staff, cn=JAMES

HETRICK, dnQualifier=0000005599

Date: 2015.12.07 16:29:10 -05'00'

### 2 Bifenazate is registered for use on several agricultural food crops and non

Ͳ agricultural use sites.

Based laboratory and field dissipation studies, it is immobile in the environment, but is not

persistent and is expected to rapidly dissipate in aquatic environments as the result of both

hydrolysis and direct aqueous photolysis. Because bifenazate degrades rapidly in soil in the

absence of light, photodegradation on soil is not expected to be important dissipation pathway.

Major and minor degradation products of bifenazate in soil and water are diazenecarboxylic

acid, 2

Ͳ [4

Ͳ methoxy(1,1’

Ͳ biphenyl)

Ͳ 3

Ͳ yl], 1

Ͳ methylethyl ester (D3598), [1,1’

Ͳ Biphenyl]

Ͳ 3,4

Ͳ diol

(D9472), and 4

Ͳ methoxybiphenyl (D1989), 4

Ͳ methoxy

Ͳ [1,1’

Ͳ biphenyl]

Ͳ 3

Ͳ ol (D9963), ’

Ͳ Biphenyl)

Ͳ

4

Ͳ ol (A1530) and desmethyl D3598.

In this assessment, acute and chronic risks to birds are predicted. For all uses, including at the

lowest single application rate of 0.35 lb a.i./A, chronic risk to mammals is predicted for both

dose

Ͳ and dietary

Ͳ based EECs (at both the NOAEL and LOAEL, based on body weight changes in

parental male and female rats). If using 200 mg/kg

Ͳ diet as the endpoint (frank reproductive

effects) and the highest application rate for crops ( i.e.

, 1.5 lb a.i./A/year), the dose

Ͳ based RQs

exceed levels of concern for all sized mammals for the majority of dietary items (chronic RQs ч

6.62), but do not exceed dietary

Ͳ based EECs (chronic RQs ч 0.76). At the lowest single

application rate, the chronic LOC is exceeded for small

Ͳ and medium

Ͳ sized mammals at dose

based

Ͳ EECs (chronic RQs ч 2).

Available toxicity data for fish and aquatic invertebrates suggest that one of the degradates, D

Ͳ

3598, is approximately 10x more toxic than the parent. When comparing the most sensitive

degradate endpoint against the EECs (using a total toxic residue approach, or TTR), the highest

acute RQ is just below the nonlisted LOC for fish (RQ is 0.48, LOC is 0.5), and is exceeded for

both non

Ͳ listed fish and aquatic invertebrates. An analysis only considering exposure to the D

Ͳ

3598 degradate was conducted, which showed that only the listed LOC for fish is exceeded, but

continued to exceed the nonlisted and listed LOCs for aquatic invertebrates. Chronic data are

unavailable to assess exposure to fish. Based on available acute toxicity data, given that the

degradate D

Ͳ 3598 appears to be more toxic than the parent to freshwater fish and aquatic

invertebrates, potential chronic risk to aquatic animals cannot be ruled out.

As expected with an insecticide, bifenazate is toxic to honey bees from both acute and chronic

exposures. Based on available toxicity data and current application rates, risk to plants are not

expected.

Since the completion of the Problem Formulation (U.S. EPA, 2012), EPA issued guidance (U.S.

EPA, et. al., 2014) on the framework to conduct risk assessments for pollinators ( e.g.

, honey

bees). EPA is unable at this time to conduct a full risk assessment for pollinators ( e.g.

, honey

bees) exposed to bifenazate because EPA does not have a full suite of toxicity data to assess

potential risk to honey bees. Additional data needed in order to conduct a full risk assessment

for pollinators include the following studies:

1. Acute oral toxicity to adult honey bees (OECD 237)

2. Chronic oral toxicity to larval honey bees (Non

Ͳ guideline)

### 3 3. Field trial of residues in pollen and nectar (contingent on Tier 1 results) (Non

Ͳ guideline)

4. Semi

Ͳ field testing for pollinator (contingent on Tier 1 results) (Non

Ͳ guideline, OECD

Guidance 75)

5. Field testing for pollinators (contingent on Tier 2 results) (Guideline 850.3040)

An acute oral toxicity study using honey bee larvae and a chronic oral toxicity study (10

Ͳ day)

using adult honey bees were recently submitted and the results of these studies were cursorily

considered in this assessment. A full evaluation to ascertain the validity of these studies is still

needed. If determined that these studies are unusable for a quantitative assessment, then new

studies would be needed in order to conduct a full risk assessment for pollinators.

II. INTRODUCTION

This preliminary risk assessment (PRA) examines the potential ecological risks associated with

labeled uses of bifenazate based on the best available scientific and commercial information on

the use, environmental fate and transport, and effects on non

Ͳ target organisms. This

assessment is focused on species that are not federally listed as threatened or endangered

(referred to as “listed”); however, some general discussion of taxa for which “no effect”

determinations are expected is included. For taxa to which potential risk is identified, specific

determinations for listed species are considered uncertain at this time.

Use Summary

Bifenazate is a selective miticide/insecticide in the carbazate class, which controls the motile

stage of mites either by direct contact or through contact with foliar residues. The mode of

action of bifenazate is to block or close the GABA (gamma aminobutyric acid)

Ͳ activated chloride

channels of susceptible pests, resulting in over

Ͳ excitation of the peripheral nervous system. Bifenazate is currently registered for use on a variety of agricultural and non

Ͳ agricultural use

sites. The chemical structure of bifenazate and some of its chemical identifiers are provided in

Table 1

.

### 4 Table 1. Bifenazate Chemical Structure and Identifiers.

Chemical Name Hydrazinecarboxylic acid, 2

Ͳ (4

Ͳ methoxy[1,1'

Ͳ biphenyl]

Ͳ 3

Ͳ yl)

Ͳ , 1

Ͳ methylethyl ester

Chemical Structure

Chemical Abstracts Service

(CAS) Registry Number 149877

Ͳ 41

Ͳ 8

Smiles Code C2=C(C1=CC=CC=C1)C=CC(=C2NNC(OC(C)C)=O)OC



### Bifenazate is formulated as a wettable powder, soluble concentrate, flowable concentrate, and

water dispersible granules. Applications may be made via aerial, ground (compressed air,

hydraulic ground boom, air blast sprayers, and hand

Ͳ held/hose

Ͳ end sprayers), and chemigation

equipment. It is currently registered for a number of agricultural use sites: avocados,

caneberries, cotton, cucurbits, dry beans (except soybean) subgroup, fruiting vegetables, small

vine climbing subgroup (except kiwi), hops, legume vegetables (succulent peas and beans

including shelled soybean), mint, okra, pome fruits, tuberous and corm vegetables, low growing

berries, stone fruit, tree nuts, and tropical fruit. Additionally, bifenazate may be applied to the

following non

Ͳ bearing crops (not to bear fruit within 1 year of application): berries (blueberry,

highbush, elderberry, and huckleberry), citrus, currants, dates, figs, and persimmons. Non

Ͳ agricultural uses include ornamentals (including bedding plants, flowering plants, foliage plants,

bulb crops, perennials, trees and shrubs) in greenhouses/shadehouses, nurseries, Christmas

tree/conifer plantations, residential areas, as well as commercial/industrial/institutional areas

including golf courses, parks, athletic fields, rights

Ͳ of

Ͳ way and other easements.

A Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) was prepared by Biological and Economical Analysis

Division (U.S. EPA, 2015) for bifenazate that provides an estimate of pesticide agricultural usage

data ( Table 2 ). The use on grapes, almonds, potatoes, and strawberries accounted for the

largest agricultural use during the timeframe (2004

Ͳ 2013) considered by the SLUA report.

Additional annual average pounds of bifenazate usage (<500 pounds) were reported for apricot,

green beans, lima beans, cantaloupes, figs, pluots, squash, sugar beets, sweet corn, tangerines,

### 5 and watermelon. Noteworthy higher reported percent crop treated include pluot (25) and

apricot (10).

Table 2. Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Bifenazate.

Crop Avg. Lbs. A.I. Applied

Per Year Percent Crop Treated

Average Maximum

1 grapes 50000 10 20

2 strawberries 20000 50 75

3 almonds 20000 5 15

4 potatoes 20000 5 5

5 tomatoes 7000 5 10

6 peaches 6000 10 20

7 pears 5000 15 30

8 apples 5000 5 10

9 walnuts 4000 5 15

10 caneberries 3000 20 30

11 plum/prune 3000 5 20

12 peppers 3000 5 15

13 cucumbers 3000 <2.5 5

14 dry beans/peas 2000 <1 <2.5

15 oranges 2000 <2.5 <2.5

16 pecans 2000 <2.5 <2.5

17 pistachios 2000 <2.5 <2.5

18 cherries 2000 5 10

19 grapefruit 2000 5 5

20 nectarines 1000 5 10

21 pumpkins 1000 <2.5 5

22 apricots <500 5 10

23 beans, green <500 <1 <2.5

24 beans, lima <500 <2.5 <2.5

25 cantaloupes <500 <1 <2.5

26 figs <500 <1 <2.5

27 pluot <500 15 25

28 squash <500 <1 <2.5

29 sugar beet <500 <1 <2.5

30 sweet corn <500 <1 <2.5

31 tangerines <500 <2.5 5

32 watermelon <500 <1 <2.5

a SLUA data reporting timeframe: 2004

Ͳ 2013 a,b ; sources include: USDA

Ͳ NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service) Private Pesticide Market Research

### 6 California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation) b All numbers rounded.

<2.5 Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated



### Table 3 is a summary of the registered uses for bifenazate, informed by the Use Summary Table

provided by the registrant and verified by the Biological Economics Analysis Division (U.S. EPA,

2015). For agricultural crops, the maximum single application rates range from 0.38

Ͳ 0.75 pound

of active ingredient per acre (lb a.i./A), with 1

Ͳ 2 applications allowed, depending on the crop.

This assessment assumes only one crop cycle per year; however, there is the potential for

multiple crop cycles and/or crop rotation that would lead to extended exposures to applied

bifenazate residues in a given year. The use rates for non

Ͳ agricultural applications to

ornamentals range from one application at 0.38 applied twice per year to one application of 0.5

lb a.i./A per year. One label for home and garden uses (EPA Reg. No. 400

Ͳ 517), lists only the

concentration of the spray (1⁄2 tsp of product per gallon) with directions to apply as a full

coverage spray to the foliage and as often as every 30 days. Assuming a finishing spray volume

of 400 gallons/A (which is what is recommended for use on ornamentals on the Floramite labels

400

Ͳ 508 and 400

Ͳ 509), the rate for the uses on EPA Reg. No. 400

Ͳ 517 is anticipated to be

equivalent to 0.5 lb a.i./A to be applied every 30 days (6 lb a.i./A per year); however, this use is

expected to be limited to smaller areas ( i.e.

, homeowner gardens) rather than several acres.

Table 3. Registered Bifenazate Uses and Application Rates.

Use Site Reg

Numbers Max

#Apps/

Year Max App

rate/Year

(lb/ A/Yr) Application

Type Max Single App Rate

(lb a.i./A) Max No.

Apps /Year Max App

rate/ Year

(lb a.i./A) MRI

(days)

ALMOND/Tree Nuts 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 503,

400

Ͳ 519 1 0.75 ground

broadcast 0.75 1 0.75 NA

ALMOND 400

Ͳ 519 1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA

AVOCADO 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 503 2 1 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 1 21

BEANS, DRIED

Ͳ TYPE (except

soybean) 400

Ͳ 514

2 1.5 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.75 2 1.5 14

CANEBERRY SUBGROUP 13

Ͳ

07A 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 503 2 1 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 1 30

COTTON (UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 514

1 0.75 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.75 1 0.75 NA

COTTON (UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 519

1 0.5 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA

CRANBERRY (part of LOW

GROWING BERRY SUBGROUP

13

Ͳ 07G) 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 503 2 1 chemigation 0.5 2 1 21

### 7 CUCURBIT VEGETABLES 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 1 0.5 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA

FRUITING VEGETABLES

GROUP 8

Ͳ 10 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 1 0.5 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA

GRAPES 400

Ͳ 572 1 0.375 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 1 0.375 NA

GRAPES 400

Ͳ 519 1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA

SMALL FRUIT VINE CLIMBING

SUBGROUP 13

Ͳ 07G 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 503 1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA

HERBS SUBGROUP 19A

(except chives and chervil) 400

Ͳ 503 1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA

HOPS 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 1 0.75 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.75 1 0.75 NA

LEGUME VEGETABLES 6A

(succulent); SUCCULENT PEAS and BEANS SUBGROUP6B;

SUCCULENT SHELLED

SOYBEAN 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 503

2 1.5 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.75 2 1.5 14

MINT 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 1 0.75 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast,

chemigation 0.75 1 0.75 NA

OKRA 400

Ͳ 519 1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA

POME FRUIT GROUP 11

Ͳ 10 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA

POTATOES (TUBEROUS AND

CORM VEGETABLES) 400

Ͳ 514

2 1.5 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast,

chemigation 0.75 2 1.5 14

STONE FRUITS 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA

LOW GROWING BERRY

SUBGROUP 13

Ͳ 07G (also see

CRANBERRY)/Strawberry 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 2 1 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 1 21

SUBTROPICAL/TROPICAL

FRUIT 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 503 2 1 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 1 21

TOMATO 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 481 2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

ALFALFA (grown for seed) 400

Ͳ 514

1 0.75 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast,

chemigation 0.75 1 0.75 NA

BEET & SPINACH (grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514

2 1.5 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.75 2 1.5 14

CLOVER (grown for seed) 400

Ͳ 514

1 0.5 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast,

chemigation 0.5 1 0.5 NA

### 8 TIMOTHY (forage and hay to

be fed only to horses) 400

Ͳ 514

1 0.75 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast,

chemigation 0.75 1 0.75 NA

BERRIES (blueberry, highbush;

elderberry; huckleberry) 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA

CHRISTMAS TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS and NURSERIES 400

Ͳ 572,

400

Ͳ 582 2 0.75 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7

CHRISTMAS TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS and NURSERIES 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 481 2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

CHRISTMAS TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS and NURSERIES 400

Ͳ 514

1 0.5 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NS

CITRUS 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA

COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONA

L/INDUSTRIAL PREMISES

(OUTDOOR) 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

CURRANT 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA

FIG 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA

FRUITS (UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 572

400

Ͳ 582 2 0.75 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7

FRUITS (UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 517 12 6 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30

FRUITS (UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

GOLF COURSE TURF 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

HOUSEHOLD/DOMESTIC

DWELLINGS OUTDOOR

PREMISES 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

NONAGRICULTURAL RIGHTS

Ͳ

OF

Ͳ WAY /FENCEROWS/

HEDGEROWS 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

ORNAMENTAL AND/OR

SHADE TREES 400

Ͳ 572

400

Ͳ 582 2 0.75 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7

ORNAMENTAL AND/OR

SHADE TREES 400

Ͳ 517 12 6 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30

ORNAMENTAL AND/OR

SHADE TREES 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

ORNAMENTAL GROUND

COVER 400

Ͳ 572

400

Ͳ 582 2 0.75 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7

ORNAMENTAL GROUND

COVER 400

Ͳ 517 12 6 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30

ORNAMENTAL GROUND

COVER 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

### 9 ORNAMENTAL HERBACEOUS

PLANTS 400

Ͳ 572

400

Ͳ 582 2 0.75 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7

ORNAMENTAL HERBACEOUS

PLANTS 400

Ͳ 517 12 6 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30

ORNAMENTAL HERBACEOUS

PLANTS 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

ORNAMENTAL

NONFLOWERING PLANTS 400

Ͳ 572

400

Ͳ 582 2 0.75 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7

ORNAMENTAL

NONFLOWERING PLANTS 400

Ͳ 517 12 6 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30

ORNAMENTAL

NONFLOWERING PLANTS 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

ORNAMENTAL WOODY

SHRUBS AND VINES 400

Ͳ 572

400

Ͳ 582 2 0.75 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7

ORNAMENTAL WOODY

SHRUBS AND VINES 400

Ͳ 517 12 6 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30

ORNAMENTAL WOODY

SHRUBS AND VINES 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

PERSIMMON 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 503,

400

Ͳ 519 1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA

RECREATIONAL AREAS 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS



### Environmental Fate and Transport  

### The environmental fate assessment considers the environmental fate of (2

Ͳ (4

Ͳ methoxy

Ͳ [1,1’

Ͳ biphenyl]

Ͳ 3

Ͳ yl)

Ͳ methylethyl ester (bifenazate) and its degradation products D3598, D9472,

and D1989. These degradation products are considered in this assessment because their

aquatic toxicity are equal to or greater than bifenazate.

Physicochemical properties of (2

Ͳ (4

Ͳ methoxy

Ͳ [1,1’

Ͳ biphenyl]

Ͳ 3

Ͳ yl)

Ͳ methylethyl ester

(bifenazate) and its degradation products are shown in Table 4

.

Table 4. Chemical Identification Information for Bifenazate Its Degradation Products D1989, D9472,

and D3598.

Property Bifenazate D3598 1 

### D1989 1 

### D9472 1



### Molecular Weight (g/mol) 300.36 298.34 184.24 186.21

Vapor Pressure (mm Hg) <1E

Ͳ 7 6.08E

Ͳ 7 3.76E

Ͳ 4 7.89E

Ͳ 7

Henry’s Constant (atm

Ͳ m3/mol) 1 

### 1.05E

Ͳ 6 6.001E

Ͳ 8 3.29E

Ͳ 6 2.422E

Ͳ 10

Solubility (mg/L) 3.76 3.977 27.7 798.2

Log Kow 3.4 4.10 3.84 2.80

Koc (L/kg) Immobile 2 

### 7485 4158 3 

### 642

1

Ͳ Properties estimated using EPIsuite.

2

Ͳ Immobile mobility classification based on soil column leaching study (MRID 44464955).

3

Ͳ Mobility based batch equilibrium data (MRID 44464956).

### 10 Based on available environmental fate data for parent, bifenazate is expected to be immobile,

but not persistent in the environment. It is expected to rapidly dissipate in aquatic

environments as the result of both hydrolysis (t 1/2 

### = 7.7 hours at pH 7) and direct aqueous

photolysis (t 1/2 

### = 16 hours). Because bifenazate degrades rapidly in soil (t 1/2 

### =7.2 hours) in the

absence of light, photodegradation of bifenazate on soil is not expected to be important

dissipation pathway. Major hydrolysis degradation products (>10% of applied radioactivity) of

bifenazate include D3598, D9472, and D1989. A major photodegradation product in water is 4

Ͳ methoxy

Ͳ [1,1’

Ͳ biphenyl]

Ͳ 3

Ͳ ol (D9963).

Bifenazate degrades in aerobic soil (t 1/2 

### = 7.2 hours) to form D3598 (92% of applied @ 0.48

hours), which subsequently degrades to form D1989. In anaerobic environments, bifenazate is

degraded with a half

Ͳ life of 77.9 days. The major degradation products in anaerobic

environments are ’

Ͳ Biphenyl)

Ͳ 4

Ͳ ol (A1530) and desmethyl D3598. Structures of degradation

products are shown in Appendix E.

Based on soil column leaching data and HPLC soil column Koc estimation, bifenazate is

immobile in most soils). The low vapor pressure and Henry’s Law constant limits the potential

of bifenazate to volatilize from soil and water. Given that bifenazate is rapidly hydrolyzed,

photodegraded, and microbially

Ͳ degraded, it has low potential for bioaccumulation.

Terrestrial field dissipation studies in Washington and North Carolina confirm laboratory study

results that bifenazate degrades rapidly (t 1/2 

### =5 days) and is immobile in bare

Ͳ ground soil. Major

degradation products, D1989 or D3598, were detected at a maximum concentration of 0.03

mg/kg. No bifenazate residue detections were found in soil depths > 6 inches.

An analysis of the degradation product profiles among laboratory studies indicates a common

degradation profile for bifenazate; it degrades to form D3598, which is a precursor to D1989,

D9472, D9963, and A1530 ( Table 5 )

. Additionally, a large fraction of 14 

### C residue was detected

(51.5

Ͳ 73.8%) in bound soil/sediment fractions. Data indicate that the biphenyl moiety of

bifenazate is prone to incorporation into soil/sediment organic matter.

Table 5. Maximum Concentration of Bifenazate Degradation Products in Environmental Fate Studies.

Environmental Fate

Study MRID Study Conditions Degradation

Product Maximum

Percentage

Formed (%)

Hydrolysis 44464952 pH=4 D3598 22@14 days

D1989 9.7@14 days

D9472 83.6@ 30 days

pH=7 D3598 63@ 1 day

D1989 7.2@339 hours

D9472 43.4@2 days

D9963 5.2@768 hours

pH=9 D3598 23.5@1.8 hour

D1989 9.9@20.6 hours

D9472 64.1@2.8 hours

### 11 D9963 6.6@18.6 hours

Photolysis in Water 44464953 Dark Control; pH=5 D3598 55.9@78 hours

D9472 45.5@150 hours

D1989 11.6@150 hours

Irradiated; pH=5 D3598 74.4@27.9 hours

D9472 15.9@149.8 hours

D1989 13.8@53.8 hours

D9963 31.7@150.5 hours

Photolysis on Soil 44522601 Dark Control;SL;pH

Ͳ 6.7 D3598 77.5@2 hours

D1989 22.1@3 days

Irradiated; SL;pH

Ͳ 6.7 D3598 84.3@2 hours

D1989 11.2@3 days

Aerobic Soil

Metabolism 44464954 SL; pH=6.9;1.9%OM D3598 92@0.5 hours

D1989 26.8@3days

Anaerobic Aquatic

Metabolism 44522602 Loam sediment

(pH=6.6;

6.9% OM) with natural

water (pH=7) A1530 24.@294 days

Desmethyl 3598 14.7@231 days

D3598 3.7@ 0 days

Terrestrial Field

Dissipation 44464958 Washington State;

Sand soil; bareground;

application rate (0.6 lb

a.i./A) D1989 or D3598 1 

### 0.02 mg/kg @ 4

days

posttreatment in

0

Ͳ 6 inch soil

44464957 North Dakota; SL soil;

bareground;

application rate (0.61

lb a.i./A) D1989 or D3598 1 

### 0.03 mg/kg (10%

of applied) @ 7

days post

Ͳ

treatment in 0

Ͳ 6

inch soil

1 

### Common moiety extraction for D3598 and D1989.



### Experimental environmental fate data showed that D1989 degraded in loamy sandy soil with a

half

Ͳ life of 24.4 days (MRID 45144002). It is slightly mobile (Koc=3011

Ͳ 6189) in mineral soils

(MRID 44464956). However, D1989 may exhibit sufficient persistence and hydrophobicity (log

Kow=3.8) to allow bioaccumulation. This is further evidenced based on the steady

Ͳ state and

kinetic

Ͳ derived BCF for D1989 in fish tissue (1127

Ͳ 1393X) (MRID 49544202). D1989 depurated

rapidly from all fish tissues; tissue concentrations of D1989 were 2% or less by Day 10 of the

depuration period. No major degradates were found in fish tissue. Based on the steady

Ͳ state

and kinetic derived BCF for D3598, D3598 has a low accumulation potential in fish tissue (17

Ͳ 28X). D3598 depurated or degraded rapidly from whole fish tissues; tissue concentrations of

D3598 were less than LOQ by Day 7 of the depuration period. The major degradate of D3598 in

fish tissue was D1989; D1989 was found in edible and non

Ͳ edible tissue. Although the vapor

pressure and Henry’s Constant of D1989 indicate volatilization as a potential route of

dissipation, volatilization of D1989 was not observed in laboratory studies.

### 12 Aquatic Exposure Modeling

Table 6 summarizes the input parameters used in estimating concentrations of bifenazate and

its degradates in surface water using the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC,

version 1.106). The aquatic exposure assessment was conducted for total toxic residues 1



### including bifenazate, D1989, D3598, and D9472. Half

Ͳ lives for summed total toxic residues were

calculated from laboratory degradation studies. The K

oc 

### used in the modeling represents the

lowest K

oc 

### among the total toxic residues. The estimated EPISuite K

oc 

### for D9472 is 642. Selection of input parameters was conducted according to standard input parameter guidance

( Brady, 2009 ).

Table 6. Input Parameters Used in SWCC Modeling to Estimate Estimated Environmental

Concentrations of Bifenazate, D1989, D3598, and D9472.

Parameter Value Comment Source

Molecular Weight 300.36 g/mol

 ͲͲ ͲͲ

Vapor Pressure 1E

Ͳ 7 torr

 ͲͲ ͲͲ

Koc 642 K

oc 

### prediction for

D9472 EPISuite

Hydrolysis Half

Ͳ life (pH=7) (days) 4.92 TTR @pH 7 MRID 44464952

Photodegradation in Water Half

Ͳ life (days) 5.68 TTR MRID 44464953

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half

Ͳ life 22.37 days 90 th 

### % confidence

bound of the mean

TTR half

Ͳ life

Mean

Ͳ 10.16 days

SD

Ͳ 17.81 days

T 90,n

Ͳ 1 

### Ͳ 1.533

N=5 MRID 45144002

MRID 47607902

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half

Ͳ life 14.49 days 90 th 

### % confidence

bound of the mean

TTR half

Ͳ life

Mean

Ͳ 5.04 days

SD

Ͳ 6.81 days

T 90,n

Ͳ 1 

### Ͳ 3.078

N=2 MRID 49570301

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half

Ͳ life 351 3*117 MRID 44522602



### A subset of the use sites with the highest surface water exposure estimates for bifenazate and

its degradates of concern are listed in Table 7

. The full output of EECs can be found in Appendix

A. The highest environmental exposure concentrations (EEC) are associated with two aerial

applications of bifenazate at an application rate of 0.75 lb a.i./A on dried beans in Illinois. The

EECs for total toxic residue are not expected to exceed 21.9 μ g/L for 1 in 10 year daily peak

concentration, 6.27 μ g/L for 1 in 10 year 21

Ͳ day average concentration, and 3 μ g/L for 1 in 10

1 Total toxic residues estimation method is consistent with input received by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

(FIFRA SAP, 2008).

### 13 year 60

Ͳ day average concentration. For the same application conditions, the EECs for D3598

are not expected to exceed 5.69 μ g/L for 1 in 10 year daily peak concentration, 0.72 μ g/L for 1

in 10 year 21

Ͳ day average concentration, and 0.29 μ g/L for 1 in 10 year 60

Ͳ day average

concentration.

Table 7. SWCC Estimated Environmental Concentrations of Total Toxic Bifenazate Residues

(Bifenazate, D1989, D3598, and D9472) in Surface Water.

Use Site

Scenario Reg.

Number Max

#Apps/

Year Max Single

App Rate

(lb a.i. /A) Max App

rate/Year

(lb a.i./A) MRI

(days) Peak 21

Ͳ day 60

Ͳ day

Beans, dried

Ͳ type

(except soybean)

Aerial

ILbeansNMC 400

Ͳ 514 2 0.75 1.5 14 21.9 6.27 3

Potato

Aerial FLpotato NMC 400

Ͳ 514 2 0.75 1.5 14 13.8 4.15 2.01

Grapes Ground

NYgrapes 400

Ͳ 519 1 0.5 0.5 NA 3.45 1.31 0.562

Fig

Ground

CAfruit 400

Ͳ 514

400

Ͳ 519

400

Ͳ 503 1 0.25 0.25 NA 2.27 0.715 0.276



### Because the degradation product D3598 is an order of magnitude more toxic to aquatic

organisms than parent, D1989, and D9472, additional modeling was conducted for D3598. Because aerobic soil metabolism data (MRID 47607902) showed a maximum of 92% conversion

from bifenazate to D3598, the modeling assumed 100% conversion of bifenazate to D3598. This

assumption is not very conservative given that laboratory studies show up to 92% conversion to

D3598. Table 8 summarizes the input parameters used in estimating concentrations of D3598

in surface water using the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC, version 1.106). Table 9 is a summary of the EECs for D

Ͳ 3598 only, based on the dried beans scenario

(ILbeansNMC SWCC scenario).

Table 8. Input Parameters Used in SWCC Modeling to Estimate Estimated Environmental

Concentrations of D3598.

Parameter Value Comment Source

Molecular Weight 298.34 g/mol

 ͲͲ ͲͲ

Vapor Pressure 6.08E

Ͳ 7 torr

 ͲͲ ͲͲ

Koc 7485  EPISuite

Hydrolysis Half

Ͳ life (pH=7) (days) 1.13  MRID 44464952

Photodegradation in Water Half

Ͳ life (days) 7.61  MRID 44464953

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half

Ͳ life 0.93 days 90 th 

### % confidence

bound of the mean

D3598 half

Ͳ life MRID 45144002

MRID 47607902

### 14 Mean

Ͳ 0.71 days

SD

Ͳ .32 days

T 90,n

Ͳ 1 

### Ͳ 1.533

N=5

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half

Ͳ life Stable D3598 was stable in

a water

Ͳ system MRID 49570301

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half

Ͳ life Stable MRID 44522602

Table 9. SWCC Estimated Environmental Concentrations of D

Ͳ 3598 Residues in Surface Water.

Use Site

Scenario Reg.

Number Max

#Apps/

Year Max Single

App Rate

(lb a.i. /A) Max App

rate/Year

(lb a.i./A) MRI

(days) Peak 21

Ͳ day 60

Ͳ day

Beans, dried

Ͳ type

(except soybean)

Aerial

ILbeansNMC 400

Ͳ 514 2 0.75 1.5 14 5.96 0.721 0.285



### Clean Water Act Programs

Bifenazate 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

=885

. In addition, no Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) have been developed for bifenazate

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/

.

Monitoring Data

There are no water monitoring data for bifenazate or D1989 in the USGS National Water

Ͳ Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA), USEPA/USGS Pilot Reservoir Monitoring Program,

USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP), and California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR).

III. EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Summaries of the most sensitive aquatic and terrestrial toxicity data being evaluated in this

assessment for bifenazate and its degradates are provided in Table 10 and Table 11

, respectively. A full list of toxicity studies for bifenazate and its degradates considered can be

found in Appendix B

. Below is a discussion on additional data that are newly considered in this

assessment. This includes an update to the chronic mammalian risk assessment with existing

data.

### 15 Effects to Aquatic Organisms

The registrant submitted additional degradate aquatic toxicity data (refer to Appendix B for the

list of studies) for aquatic organisms tested with D

Ͳ 3598 (Rainbow trout, MRID 48929504;

Daphnia magna

, MRID 48929503; green algae, MRID 48929502), which showed comparable

toxicity for aquatic plants, and greater toxicity (~10x) than that of the parent for fish and

aquatic invertebrates. Additional toxicity tests conducted using D

Ͳ 1989 (freshwater

invertebrate, MRID 45141801) or D

Ͳ 9472 (acute freshwater fish, MRID 4892906; acute aquatic

invertebrate, MRID 48929508; aquatic plant, MRID 48929509) did not show greater toxicity.

Table 10. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Submitted Aquatic Toxicity Studies for

Bifenazate and D

Ͳ 3598.

Taxonomic

Group Study Type Surrogate

Species Toxicity Values (all

units in terms of

measured a.i.) MRID and

Classification Acute Toxicity

Classification

Freshwater

fish Acute,

bifenazate Bluegill sunfish LC 50 = 580 μ g/L

44464931

(Acceptable) Highly toxic (Lepomis

macrochirus) NOAEC = 300 μ g/L Endpoint: survival

and sublethal effects

Acute, D

Ͳ 3598 Rainbow trout

( Oncorhynchus

mykiss ) 96 hr LC 50 : 45.6 μ g/L 48929504

( Acceptable ) Very highly

toxic

Chronic No Data

Freshwater

Invertebrate Acute,

bifenazate Water flea

(Daphnia

magna) EC 50 = 500 μ g/L

NOAEC = ND

Endpoint:

Immobilization 44464933

(Acceptable) Highly toxic

Acute, D

Ͳ 3598 Freshwater

invertebrate

acute (Daphnia

magna) 48 hr EC 50 : 55.5 μ g/L 48929503

( Acceptable) Very highly

toxic

Chronic,

bifenazate Water flea

(Daphnia

magna) NOAEC = 150 μ g/L

LOAEC = 270 μ g/L Endpoint:

reproductive and

growth effects 45052216

(Supplemental 1 ) ͲͲ

Estuarine/

Marine Fish Acute,

bifenazate Sheepshead

minnow LC 50 = 416 μ g/L

45052214

Highly toxic (Cyprinodon

variegatus) NOAEC = 136 μ g/L Endpoint: Survival (Acceptable)

Chronic No data

### 16 Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrate Acute,

bifenazate Saltwater mysid LC 50 = 50 μ g/L

45052213 Very highly

toxic (Americamysis

bahia) NOAEC = 40 μ g/L Endpoint: Survival (Supplemental 2 )

Chronic No data

Aquatic

nonvascular

plant Acute, D

Ͳ 3598 Green algae

( Selenastrum

capricornutum ) Yield

Ͳ IC 50 : 0.7453

IC 05 : 0.2099 mg a.i./L

NOAEC: 0.38 mg/L 48929502

 ͲͲ



### Effects to Terrestrial Organisms

This assessment considers a recently

Ͳ submitted avian acute oral toxicity study using the canary

(MRID 49565905). The reported LD 50 

### is ш 2,000 mg a.i./kg; therefore, passerines do not appear

to be more sensitive than the most sensitive tested species ( i.e.

, bobwhite quail).

For chronic exposure to mammals, there was a reduction in body weight and cumulative weight

gain for both males and females (slightly more in females) in the F 1 

### generation compared to the

controls in a two

Ͳ generation reproductive study with the laboratory rat (NOAEL

= 20 mg/kg

Ͳ

diet; LOAEL = 80 mg/kg

Ͳ diet). These weight changes were not attributed to food aversion ( i.e.

, bifenazate did not appear to affect food efficiency). No other effects were observed in the adult

rats. Additionally, no effects (including body weight change) were observed in the F 2



### generation, up to the highest tested concentration of 200 mg/kg

Ͳ diet (16.4/18.3 mg/kg

Ͳ bw). In

other chronic mammalian toxicity studies, there were noted hematologic and hepatoxic effects,

and the associated decrease in body weight and body weight gain across several studies

(870.3800, reproduction and fertility effects, rat, MRID 45076503; 870.4100b, chronic toxicity,

dog, MRID 45052221; 870.4300 carcinogenicity, mouse, MRID 45052222). Treatment

Ͳ related

increase in early resorptions in the rat developmental occurred at the same doses where

maternal toxicity (including weight changes) were observed. No maternal or developmental

effects were observed in the rabbit developmental study (MRIDs 44464943, 44464944).

The registrant recently submitted three new honey bee toxicity studies conducted with

bifenazate. These studies have not yet been fully evaluated by EPA, but our preliminary

findings are discussed here.

The acute contact with adult honey bee study (MRID 49713501) reported an LD 50 

### >99.7 μ g

a.i./bee.

The chronic oral (10

Ͳ day) with adult honey bee (MRID 49713502) study tested a range of

concentrations from 0.03 to 2.3 μ g a.i./bee, and reported a NOED of 0.092 μ g a.i./bee and LOED

of 0.25 μ g a.i./bee. There is uncertainty with the reported magnitude of effects observed in the

bifenazate treatment groups due to high mortalities observed in the solvent (acetone) control

### 17 (relative to the negative control). Mortality was observed in all test concentrations, with a

notable trend of increasing mortality with increasing doses. Some bees were moribund in

various replicates, times, and doses.

The acute oral with larvae study (MRID 49713503) evaluated a range of doses from 0.125 g to

2.0 μ g a.i./larvae, with a reported 72

Ͳ hour LD 50 

### of 1.246 μ g a.i./larvae. Significant decrease in

food consumption was observed in the two highest test concentrations by test termination

(>94.2% food uneaten). Mortality observations began on day 5; there were notable increases in

mortality by day 6 in the three highest test concentrations.

The Pesticide Properties Database 2 

### includes an oral acute (48

Ͳ hour) LD 50 

### value of >98.0 μ g

product per bee; however, there are no additional details about the product or the study.

A study was found in the open literature using adult bumblebees ( Bombus terrestris ), which

assessed acute oral and contact exposure to various pesticide product formulations

(individually), including bifenazate (Besard, et. al., 2010 3 

### ). The hives were exposed for 11 weeks

ad libitum either to spiked sucrose solution or ‘saturated’ pollen, based on the study author’s

defined ‘maximum field recommended concentration (MFRC 4 

### ),’ which is equal to approximately

0.8 lb a.i./A. In the negative control, workers were exposed to either water alone, untreated

sucrose solution, or pollen with water; and, either dimethoate or imidacloprid was used in the

positive control. For each treatment, four replicates were conducted, and each nest consisted

of five workers each. Observations were made daily for the first 3 days post

Ͳ treatment, then on

a weekly basis. Impacts on mortality, any sublethal effects, and reproduction (number of

drones produced) were assessed over the 11

Ͳ week observation period. No acute toxicity

(mortality) or reproductive effects ( e.g.

, number of drones produced) via contact route of

exposure was observed ( i.e.

, <25%; reported figure shows no mortality when dosed at 50 μ L, or

4.8 μ g a.i.); the acute contact LD 50 

### was estimated to be 8.5 μ g/bee at 48

Ͳ hour post

Ͳ contact

exposure. However, high worker bee toxicity was observed via oral exposure to bifenazate

Ͳ

containing sugar water at the MFRC. Observed mortalities occurred within the first week of

exposure. Additional dose

Ͳ response tests were evaluated (at 10x intervals ranging from 1/1 to

1/10,000 of the MFRC), which resulted in an LC 50 

### value 1/10 th 

### of the MFRC, or 0.48 μ g a.i./bee

(NOEC at 1/1000 th 

### of the MFRC), or 0.0048 μ g a.i./L product. Worker mortality was observed

within the first week of exposure, with the highest mortality (relative to the negative control)

attributed to exposure to spiked sucrose solution at approximately 95%; exposure to treated

pollen led to approximately 45% mortality. This study also notes that no drones were produced

in the hive exposed to the spiked sucrose solution during the 11

Ͳ week period.

2 Lewis, K.A., Green, A., Tzilivakis, J. and Warner, D. (2015). The Pesticide Properties DataBase (PPDB) developed by

the Agriculture & Environment Research Unit (AERU), University of Hertfordshire, 2006

Ͳ 2015. Record last updated

June 22, 2015. Last accessed November 4, 2015.

3 Besard, L., et. al. (2010). Compatibility of Traditional and Novel Acaricides with Bumblebees ( Bombus terrestris ): A

First Laboratory Assessment of Toxicity and Sublethal Effects. Pest Manag. Sci 2010; 66: 786

Ͳ 793.

4 MFRC of 96 mg a.i./L x 3.7854 L/gallon x 1 lb/453.59 gram у 0.8 lb a.i./A, the highest single application rate.

### 18 Table 11. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Submitted Terrestrial Toxicity Studies.

Taxonomic

Group Study

Type Surrogate

Species Toxicity Values (all units

in terms of measured

a.i.) MRID and

Classification Acute Toxicity

Classification

Mammals Acute Oral Laboratory rat LD 50 >5000 mg/kg

Ͳ bw 44464934

(Acceptable) Practically non

Ͳ

toxic

Chronic Laboratory rat NOAEL = 20 mg/kg

Ͳ diet

LOAEL= 80 mg/kg

Ͳ diet

Endpoint: Decreased

body weight and

cumulative body weight

gains in males and

females

NOAEL ш 200 mg/kg

Ͳ diet

in offspring 45076503

(Acceptable) ͲͲ

Birds Acute Oral Canary

(Serinus canaria) LD 50 = >2,000 mg a.i./kg 49465905

(Acceptable) Practically non

Ͳ

toxic

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus

virginianus) LD 50 = 1032 mg/kg bw

NOAEL= Not determined Endpoint: Mortality and

sublethal effects 44464928

(Acceptable) Slightly toxic

Subacute

Dietary Mallard

(Anas

platyrhynchos) LC 50 = 656 mg/kg

Ͳ diet 44464929 

Endpoint: Survival (Acceptable) Moderately

toxic

Chronic Mallard

(Anas

platyrhynchos) NOAEC = 20 mg/kg

Ͳ diet

LOAEC = 65 mg/kg

Ͳ diet Endpoint: Reduction in #

eggs laid and set per

female 44872901

(Acceptable) ͲͲ

Terrestrial

Insects Acute

Contact Honey Bee, adult

(Apis mellifera) LD 50 = 7.8 μ g/bee

NOAEC = 2.7 μ g/bee Endpoint: Survival 44462315

(Acceptable) Moderately

toxic

Acute

Contact Honey Bee, adult

(Apis mellifera) LD 50 ш 99.7 μ g/bee 49713501

In review Practically

nontoxic

Acute Oral Honey Bee, larvae

(Apis mellifera) LD 50 = 1.246 μ g/bee 49713503

In review ͲͲͲ

### 19 Chronic

Oral Honey Bee, adult

(Apis mellifera) NOED = 0.092 μ g/bee

LOED = 0.25 μ g/bee 49713502

In review

Residues

on Foliage Honey bee

adult

(Apis mellifera) RT 25 < 3 hours

13.33% mortality @ 3 hrs

5.33% mortality @t 8 hrs

4% mortality @ 24 hours 49052305

 ͲͲ



### IV. RISK ESTIMATION AND CHARACTERIZATION

The deterministic RQ method, which compares exposure estimates to toxicity endpoints (i.e.,

RQ = EEC/toxicity endpoint), was used to provide a metric of potential risks. The resulting RQs

are compared to the EPA’s levels of concern (LOC) to identify the potential for acute or chronic

risk. These criteria are used to indicate when the use of a pesticide, as directed on the label, has

the potential to cause adverse effects to non

Ͳ target organisms. For acute and chronic risks to

animals, the LOCs are 0.5 and 1.0, respectively, and for plants, the LOC is 1.0. The acute LOC for

terrestrial invertebrates (bees) is 0.4. For listed aquatic animals, the acute LOC is 0.05 and for

listed terrestrial animals the acute LOC is 0.1. For each taxa, RQs are generated and risks are

discussed.

Freshwater Fish and Invertebrates

Acute

New degradate acute toxicity data for fish and aquatic invertebrates were submitted at the

time of the Problem Formulation, which are approximately an order of magnitude more

sensitive than the available toxicity data on the parent. Previously, LOC exceedances were only

identified for listed estuarine

Ͳ marine invertebrates. Based on these new data, there is a

potential for acute risk to listed freshwater fish and both invertebrates for the majority of uses.

The highest acute RQ is just below the nonlisted LOC for freshwater fish. When considering

exposure to the D

Ͳ 3598 degradate alone, the listed LOC is exceeded for freshwater fish and

both freshwater and estuarine

Ͳ marine invertebrates. Table 12 is a subset of the modeled uses

compared against the D

Ͳ 3598 degradate acute toxicity data for freshwater fish and aquatic

invertebrates.

Table 12. Acute Fish and Aquatic Invertebrate Risk Quotients.

### 20 Crop

SWCC Model Scenario Peak



### μ g/L Acute RQ

Freshwater Fish

MRID 48929504 FW Invertebrate

MRID 48929503 EM Invertebrate

MRID 45052213

LC 50



### = 45.6 

### μ g a.i./L NOAEC

= 55.5 

### μ g a.i./L LC 50 

### = 50 

### μ g a.i./L

Bifenazate TTR EECs

Beans, dried (except soybean)

ILbeansNMC, aerial 21.9 0.48 0.39 0.44

Potato

FLpotato NMC 13.8 0.30 0.25 0.28

Grapes

NYgrapes, ground 3.46 0.076 0.06 0.07

Fig

Cafruit, ground 2.15 0.047 0.039 0.043

D

Ͳ 3598 EECs

Beans, dried (except soybean)

ILbeansNMC, aerial 5.96 0.13 0.11 0.12

Italicized values exceed the LOC for listed species of 0.05 for acute risk.



### Chronic

There are limited data on chronic toxicity for aquatic invertebrates and no chronic toxicity data

for fish. As such, an acute

Ͳ to

Ͳ chronic ratio cannot be used with the present data. Considering

the available NOECs from acute studies and the chronic data for the Daphnia magna (150 μ g/L

[MRID 45052216 ]), 

### the LOC would not be exceeded based on the highest predicted EECs

(ILbeansNMC, 21

Ͳ day ч 6.27 μ g/L; 60

Ͳ day ч 3 μ g/L). Based on the available data for bifenazate

parent

, risk would be expected to be low. However, given that the available acute toxicity data

for D

Ͳ 3598 is approximately an order of magnitude more toxic than the parent, there is

uncertainty with the potential chronic risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates.

Terrestrial Animals

For exposure to residues of bifenazate on food items for birds and mammals, exposure

estimates were modeled using T

Ͳ REX (version 1.5). These exposures are based on a default

foliar half

Ͳ life of 35 days, and consider upper

Ͳ bound Kenaga values. Additional exposure and

effects analyses were considered investigating lower application rates ( e.g.

, down to a single

application at 0.35 lb a.i/A),

Birds (Surrogate for Terrestrial

Ͳ phase Amphibians and Reptiles)

In recent ecological risk assessments, EFED identified risk concerns for birds (and as surrogate,

terrestrial

Ͳ phase amphibians and reptiles) on an acute and chronic exposure basis. Based on

### 21 recently submitted avian acute oral toxicity study using the canary (MRID 49565905),

passerines do not appear to be more sensitive than the most sensitive tested species ( i.e.

, bobwhite quail). Therefore, risk conclusions are the same as previously predicted ( i.e.

, acute

and chronic LOC exceedances for nonlisted and listed birds)

– refer to Table 13 for a summary

of the results.

Table 13. Summary of RQs for Birds at Various Bifenazate Application Rates

Application Rate EECs RQs Comment

Dry beans (except soybean); Legume Vegetables (succulent); Potatoes; Beet and Spinach (for seed)

0.75 lb a.i./A

2 applications

14

Ͳ day interval Acute: 0.01

– 0.48

Chronic: 6.20

– 15.82 ͲͲ

Ornamentals (homeowner use only)

0.5 lb a.i./A

12 applications

30

Ͳ day interval Acute: 0.01

– 0.41

Chronic: 5.24

– 13.38 ͲͲ

Cucurbit; fruiting vegetable; small fruit (vine climbing); herb; pome fruit; stone fruit; clover; berries;

Christmas Tree, conifer, nursery; currant; persimmon; almond; cotton; grape; okra

0.5 lb a.i./A

1 application Acute: <0.01

– 0.18

Chronic: 2.35

– 6.00 ͲͲ

Grape

0.35 lb a.i./A

1 application Acute: <0.01

– 0.13

Chronic: 1.65

– 4.20 Lowest labeled application

rate



### Mammals

As discussed in the Problem Formulation, prior risk assessments have not identified risk

concerns for mammals; however, with the update to the chronic endpoint, it was anticipated

that there would be chronic LOC exceedances. The updated chronic mammalian endpoint is

based on a reduction in body weight and cumulative weight gain for the males and females in

the F1 generation in a two

Ͳ generation reproductive study with the laboratory rat (NOAEC

= 20

mg/kg

Ͳ diet; LOAEC = 80 mg/kg

Ͳ diet) (MRID 45076503). There were noted hematologic and

hepatoxic effects, and the associated decrease in body weight and body weight gain across

several chronic mammalian studies (870.3800, reproduction and fertility effects, rat, MRID

45076503; 870.4100b, chronic toxicity, dog, MRID 45052221; 870.4300 carcinogenicity, mouse,

MRID 45052222). Using the 2

Ͳ generation rat NOAEC, the chronic LOC is exceeded for all uses,

including at the lowest application rate of 0.35 lb a.i./A. This is the case when considering both

upper or mean Kenaga values, and dose

Ͳ based or dietary

Ͳ based EECs.

As discussed earlier in the effects characterization, the chronic LOAEL for mammals is based on

reduced body weight gains in both F1 males and females; however, there were no other effects

observed and no effects (including body weight) observed in the F2 generation, up to the

### 22 highest concentration tested ( i.e.

, at 200 mg/kg

Ͳ diet). If using the 200 mg/kg

Ͳ diet as the NOEC,

the highest application rate for crops ( i.e.

, 1.5 lb a.i./A/year), the dose

Ͳ based RQs exceed for all

mammals sizes for the majority of dietary items at both upper

Ͳ bound (chronic RQs ч 7.5) and

mean Kenaga values, but do not exceed dietary

Ͳ based EECs (upper

Ͳ bound Kenaga chronic RQs ч

0.86). At the lowest single application rate, the chronic LOC is exceeded for small

Ͳ and medium

Ͳ

sized mammals at dose based

Ͳ EECs (chronic RQs ч 2) for upper

Ͳ bound Kenaga values, only.

Table 14 is a summary of the RQs for mammals.

Table 14. Summary of RQs for Mammals at Various Bifenazate Uses

Application Rate Crop/Use Represented RQs Comment

NOAEC = 20 mg/kg

Ͳ diet, concentration at which no effects were observed

0.75 lb a.i./A

2 applications

14

Ͳ day interval Dry beans (except soybean)

Legume Vegetables (succulent)

Potatoes

Beet and Spinach (for seed) Acute: <0.01

– 0.03

Chronic: 0.87

–

137.26

Chronic LOC is exceeded

for all mammal sizes and

the majority of food

items. 0.5 lb a.i./A

1 application Several crops

(Cucurbit; fruiting vegetable;

small fruit (vine climbing);

herb; pome fruit; stone fruit;

clover; berries; Christmas Tree,

conifer, nursery; currant;

persimmon; almond; cotton;

grape; okra) Acute: ч 0.01

Chronic: 0.33

– 52.06

0.35 lb a.i./A

1 application Grape Acute: ч 0.01

Chronic: 0.23

– 36.44

Chronic, mean

Kenaga: 0.11

– 12.91 Ͳ Chronic LOC is

exceeded for all

mammal sizes and the

majority of food items.

Ͳ Lowest labeled

application rate

NOAEC = 200 mg/kg

Ͳ diet (16.4 mg/kg

Ͳ bw), concentration at which no reproductive effects occurred

0.75 lb a.i./A

2 applications

14

Ͳ day interval Dry beans (except soybean)

Legume Vegetables (succulent)

Potatoes

Beet and Spinach (for seed) Chronic: 0.05

– 7.5

Chronic, mean

Kenaga: 0.02

– 2.66 Ͳ

0.35 lb a.i./A

1 application Grape Chronic: 0.01

– 1.99

 Ͳ



### Terrestrial Invertebrates

The Tier I exposure method is intended to account for the major routes of pesticide exposure

that are relevant to bees ( i.e.

, through diet and contact). Exposure routes for bees differ based

on application type. Bees foraging in a field treated with a pesticide through foliar spray, such

as bifenazate, could potentially be exposed to the pesticide through direct spray as well

through consuming contaminated food. Foraging honey bees may also be exposed to pesticides

### 23 via consumption of water from surface water, puddles, dew droplet formation on leaves, and

guttation fluid; however, the Tier I exposure method does not include quantification of

exposures via these routes.

Contact and oral EECs were estimated consistent with the guidance document to assess risk to

bees (USEPA et al.

, 2014). Below is a summary of the available bee studies conducted with

bifenazate, and an analysis for potential exposure routes of concern based on the available

data. Based on these analyses, the contact exposure route (for both honey bee and bumble

bees) appears to be of low risk. However, the oral toxicity route appears to be the greater

exposure route of concern for adult and larvae honey bee, as well as bumble bee.

Acute Contact Exposure to Adult Bees

This acute contact adult honey bee study (MRID 44462315) showed an LD 50 

### of 7.8 μ g a.i./bee

(NOAEC of 2.7 μ g a.i./bee). The contact EECs for a single foliar application of bifenazate at the

maximum and lowest application rates are calculated below.

0.75 lb a.i./A * 2.7 μ g a.i./bee

= 2.025 μ g a.i./bee

0.375 lb a.i./A * 2.7 μ g a.i./bee

= 1.013 μ g a.i./bee

When comparing the highest contact EEC of 2.025 μ g a.i./bee with the LD 50 

### of 7.8 μ g a.i./bee,

the resulting RQ is 0.26, below the LOC of 0.4. Similar results were found in Besard et. al. ( 2010 )

in that no acute toxicity via contact route of exposure (exposed to 50 μ L, or 4.8 μ g a.i.) was

observed ( i.e.

, <25%; reported figure shows no mortality), as well as in the more recently

Ͳ

submitted acute adult contact honey bee study, indicating that the LD50 is ш 99.7 μ g a.i./bee

(MRID 49713501). Thus, acute toxicity to adult bees by contact is not expected to be an

exposure route of concern at the current labeled rates.

Acute Oral Exposure to Honey Bee Larvae, MRID 49713503

In the acute toxicity study tested using honey bee larvae, the study author

Ͳ reported an LD 50 

### of

1.246 μ g a.i./larvae. The oral EECs for a single foliar application of bifenazate at the maximum

and lowest application rates are calculated below. 5



### 0.75 lb a.i./A * 110 ʅ g a.i /g * 0.124 g/day

= 10.23 μ g a.i./bee

0.35 lb a.i./A * 110 ʅ g a.i /g * 0.124 g/day

= 4.77 μ g a.i./bee

When comparing both EECs to the reported acute LD 50 

### , the RQs well exceed the LOC of 0.4 for

acute oral exposure to honey bee larvae at both application rates.

5 Based on food consumption rates for larvae (0.124 g/day) and adult (0.292 g/day) worker bees and concentration

in pollen and nectar.

### 24 Chronic Oral Exposure to Adult Honey Bee, MRID 49713502

In the chronic oral study tested using adult honey bees, the study author reported NOED was

0.092 μ g a.i./bee and an LOED of 0.25 μ g a.i./bee. The oral EECs for a single foliar application of

bifenazate at the maximum and lowest application rates are calculated below. 5



### 0.75 lb a.i./A * 110 ʅ g a.i /g * 0.292 g/day

= 24.09 μ g a.i./bee

0.35 lb a.i./A * 110 ʅ g a.i /g * 0.292 g/day

= 11.24 μ g a.i./bee

When comparing both EECs to the reported acute LD 50 

### , the RQs well exceed the chronic LOC of

1 for oral exposure to adult honey bee at both application rates.

Acute Oral Exposure to Adult Bumblebees

Dietary exposure to spiked sucrose solution or saturated pollen were evaluated separately in

Besard et. al.

, resulting in a reported LC 50 

### of 0.48 μ g a.i./bee. In this RQ analysis, Tier 1 EECs 6



### were estimated individually for dietary exposure to nectar and pollen), adjusted for adult

bumblebee consumption rates. The EECs for a single foliar application of bifenazate at the

maximum and lowest application rates are calculated below. 7



### 0.75 lb a.i./A * 110 μ g a.i./g * 0.372 g/day

= 30.69 μ g a.i./bee/day

0.375 a.i./A * 110 μ g a.i./g * 0.372 g/day

= 15.35 μ g a.i./bee/day

The Tier 1 EECs are well above the reported LC 50 

### of 0.48 μ g a.i./bee. While there are

uncertainties with using the reported LC 50 

### ( e.g.

, bifenazate versus product formulation; dose

spacing; continuous exposure to the spiked sucrose solution or pollen versus exposure to

limited periods of time each day; amount of diet consumed per group), this study suggests that

oral exposure to bifenazate may be more toxic than contact exposure to bumble bees.

Terrestrial Plants

As noted in previous assessments, risk from exposure to bifenazate is not expected for

terrestrial plants.

Review of Ecological Incident Data

6 Tier 1 EEC Equation from Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees (USPEA, 2014), and bumble bee

consumption rate from White Paper in Support of the Proposed Risk Assessment Process for Bees (USEPA, 2012a).

7 Based on food consumption rate for adult (0.292 g/day) worker bees and concentration in pollen and nectar.

### 25 As of December 7, 2015, the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS, version 2.1), which is

maintained by the Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, returned one terrestrial plant incident in California attributed to bifenazate use with “possible” certainty ( Table 15)

. Incident #

I016036

Ͳ 006 occurred in 2004 when a registered agricultural use product containing bifenazate

was applied to almonds. Fifty

Ͳ four acres of basil were reported to be damaged from possible

spray drift from the airblast treatment to almonds.

Table 15. Ecological Incidents Associated with Bifenazate.

Incident

Number Taxa

Involved Magnitude Year Location Use Legality of

Use Certainty

Category Residues Other

Chemicals

Involved

I016036

Ͳ

006 Terrestrial

Plant 54 Acres

(Basil) 2004 CA Almonds Registered

Use Possible None

reported None

reported



### The Avian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS), a database administered by the American Bird

Conservancy, was not working properly and was not queried; however, the AIMS database has

not been updated since the last bifenazate assessment was conducted and no incidents to birds

were reported at that time. No wildlife ecological incidents were reported in the IDS Aggregate

Incident Reports’ database maintained by EPA.

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)

As required by FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA reviews

numerous studies to assess potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals.

Collectively, these studies include acute, subchronic and chronic toxicity, including assessments

of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, developmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity.

These studies include endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influence, including

effects on endocrine target organ histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual

maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For

ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies that assess

growth, developmental and reproductive effects in different taxonomic groups. As part of the

Preliminary Problem Formulation for Registration Review (U.S. EPA, 2012b), EPA reviewed

these data and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios

from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), bifenazate is

subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

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

active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect

produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the

Administrator may designate.” The EDSP employs a two

Ͳ tiered approach to making the

statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to

identify the potential of a chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or

### 26 thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are

found to have the potential to interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the

next stage of the EDSP where EPA will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary

based on the available data. Tier 2 testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine

Ͳ related

effects caused by the substance, and establish a dose

Ͳ response relationship between the dose

and the E, A, or T effect.

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between October

2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call

Ͳ ins for the first group of 67 chemicals,

which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. A second list of chemicals

identified for EDSP screening was published on June 14, 2013 [1] 

### and includes some pesticides

scheduled for registration review and chemicals found in water

. Neither of these lists should be

construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors. Bifenazate is not on List 1. For

further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the lists of

chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our

website [2]



### .

Endangered Species Assessments

In November 2013, the EPA, along with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services), and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) released a summary of their joint Interim Approaches for assessing risks to

listed species from pesticides. The Interim Approaches were developed jointly by the agencies

in response to the National Academy of Sciences’ (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. The NAS report 8 

### outlines recommendations on

specific scientific and technical issues related to the development of pesticide risk assessments

that EPA and the Services must conduct in connection with their obligations under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and FIFRA.

The joint Interim Approaches were released prior to a stakeholder workshop held on November

15, 2013. In addition, the EPA presented the joint Interim Approaches at the December 2013

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) and State

Ͳ FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation

Group (SFIREG) meetings, and held a stakeholder workshop in April 2014, allowing additional

opportunities for stakeholders to comment on the Interim Approaches. As part of a phased,

iterative process for developing the Interim Approaches, the agencies will also consider public

comments on the Interim Approaches in connection with the development of upcoming

[1] See http://www2.epa.gov/endocrine

Ͳ disruption/final

Ͳ second

Ͳ list

Ͳ chemicals

Ͳ tier

Ͳ 1

Ͳ under

Ͳ endocrine

Ͳ disruptor

Ͳ

screening

Ͳ program for the final second list of chemicals.

[2] See http://www2.epa.gov/endocrine

Ͳ disruption

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

### 27 Registration Review decisions. The details of the joint Interim Approaches are contained in the

white paper “Interim Approaches for National

Ͳ Level Pesticide Endangered Species Act

Assessments Based on the Recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences April 2013

Report,” 9 

### dated November 1, 2013.

Given that 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 risk assessment for bifenazate does not contain a

complete ESA analysis that includes effects determinations for specific listed species or

designated critical habitat. Although EPA has not yet completed effects determinations for

specific species or habitats, for this preliminary assessment EPA conducted a screening

Ͳ level

assessment for all taxa of non

Ͳ target wildlife and plants that assumes for the sake of the

assessment that listed species and designated critical habitats may be present in the vicinity of

the application of bifenazate. This screening level assessment will allow EPA to focus its future

evaluations on the types of species where the potential for effects exists once the scientific

methods being developed by the agencies have been fully vetted. This screening

Ͳ level risk

assessment for bifenazate indicates potential risks of direct effects to listed fish, aquatic and

terrestrial invertebrates, birds, and mammals on some of its registered use sites. Listed species

of other taxa may also be affected through indirect effects because of the potential for direct

effects on listed and non

Ͳ listed species upon which such species may rely. Potential direct

effects on listed plants from the use of bifenazate may be associated with modification of

Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) of designated critical habitats, where such designations

have been made. Once the agencies have fully vetted the scientific methods necessary to

complete risk assessments for endangered and threatened (listed) species and their designated

critical habitats, these methods will be applied to subsequent analyses for bifenazate as part of

completing this registration review.

V. REFERENCES

Besard, L., et. al. (2010). Compatibility of Traditional and Novel Acaricides with Bumblebees

( Bombus terrestris ): A First Laboratory Assessment of Toxicity and Sublethal Effects. Pest

Manag. Sci 2010; 66: 786

Ͳ 793.

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. October 28, 2008. Selected Issues Associated with the Risk

Assessment Process for Pesticides with Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Characteristics.

http://www2.epa.gov/sap.

Brady, D., 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate

and Transport of Pesticides

. Donald Brady, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

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

### 28 U.S. EPA, et. al., 2012a. White Paper in Support of the Proposed Risk Assessment Process for

Bees

. Submitted to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel for Review and Comment. September 11

– 14, 2012. Office of Pesticide Programs. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Washington,

D.C.

U.S. EPA, 2012b. Registration Review: Preliminary Problem Formulation for Bifenazate

. Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. November 12, 2012.

U.S. EPA, et. al. 2014. Guidance to Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Health Canada Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency, and California

Department of Pesticide Regulation. June 23, 2014.

U.S. EPA, 2015. Usage Report in Support of Registration Review Draft Risk Assessment Purposes

for Bifenazate. Office of Pesticide Programs, Biological and Economical Analysis Division. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. May 7, 2015.

### 29 APPENDIX A.

SWCC Estimated Environmental Concentrations of Total Toxic Bifenazate Residues

(Bifenazate, D1989, D3598, and D9472) in Surface Water

Use Site Reg Nos. App.

Method Max

Single App. Rate (lb a.i. /A) Max

No.

Apps

/Year Max

Annual

App. Rate (lb a.i./A) MRI

(days) SWCC

Batch

Run ID Peak 21

Ͳ day 60

Ͳ day

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA TXalfalfa

OP 13.4 4.64 1.81

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA TXalfalfa

OP 10.9 3.66 1.39

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA NCalfalfa

OP 9.93 3.17 1.33

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA NCalfalfa

OP 7.42 2.31 0.932

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA PAalfalfa

OP 6.84 1.8 0.776

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA ILalfalfa

NMC 5.48 1.98 1.02

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA CAalfalfa

_WirrigO

P 5.28 1.38 0.522

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA ILalfalfa

NMC 4.67 1.49 0.791

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA PAalfalfa

OP 4.26 1.14 0.545

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA CAalfalfa

_WirrigO

P 2.67 0.766 0.309

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA MNalfalf

aOP 2.6 0.88 0.389

BEANS, DRIED

Ͳ

TYPE (except

soybean) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 ILbeansN

MC 21.9 6.27 3

BEANS, DRIED

Ͳ

TYPE (except

soybean) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 2 1.5 14 ILbeansN

MC 21.2 5.81 2.6

BEANS, DRIED

Ͳ

TYPE (except

soybean) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 MSsoybe

anSTD 10 3.06 1.87

BEANS, DRIED

Ͳ

TYPE (except

soybean) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 MSsoybe

anSTD 10 3.06 1.87

### 30 BEANS, DRIED

Ͳ

TYPE (except

soybean) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 2 1.5 14 MSsoybe

anSTD 9.85 2.65 1.47

BEANS, DRIED

Ͳ

TYPE (except

soybean) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 2 1.5 14 MSsoybe

anSTD 9.85 2.65 1.47

BEANS, DRIED

Ͳ

TYPE (except

soybean) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 MIbeans

STD 7.52 2.49 1.66

BEANS, DRIED

Ͳ

TYPE (except

soybean) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 ORsnbea

nsSTD 5.93 2.1 1.27

BEANS, DRIED

Ͳ

TYPE (except

soybean) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 2 1.5 14 MIbeans

STD 5.43 1.86 1.18

BEANS, DRIED

Ͳ

TYPE (except

soybean) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 WAbean

sNMC 5.39 1.42 1

BEANS, DRIED

Ͳ

TYPE (except

soybean) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 2 1.5 14 ORsnbea

nsSTD 3.66 1.42 0.776

BEANS, DRIED

Ͳ

TYPE (except

soybean) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 2 1.5 14 WAbean

sNMC 2.68 0.708 0.501

BEET &

SPINACH

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 Mnsugar

beets 7.45 3.15 1.43

BEET &

SPINACH

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 2 1.5 14 Mnsugar

beets 6.18 2.01 0.949

BEET &

SPINACH

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 CAsugar

OP 6.18 2.66 1.2

BEET &

SPINACH

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 2 1.5 14 CAsugar

OP 3.56 1.47 0.684

BERRIES

(blueberry,

highbush;

elderberry;

huckleberry) 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA CAStraw

berry

Ͳ noplastic

RLF_V2 6.86 2.33 1.27

BERRIES

(blueberry,

highbush;

elderberry;

huckleberry) 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA ORberrie

sOP 2.52 1.06 0.694

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES 400

Ͳ 514  ground 0.5 1 0.5 NS GAPecan

sSTD 11.9 3.01 1.29

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS 400

Ͳ 514  aerial 0.5 1 0.5 NS GAPecan

sSTD 6.1 1.83 0.842

### 31 and

NURSERIES

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES 400

Ͳ 572,

400

Ͳ 582 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7 GAPecan

sSTD 5.39 1.36 0.599

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES 400

Ͳ 514  aerial 0.5 1 0.5 NS ORXmas

TreeSTD 3.49 0.943 0.351

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES 400

Ͳ 514  aerial 0.5 1 0.5 NS MICherri

esSTD 3.49 1.16 0.467

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES 400

Ͳ 514  ground 0.5 1 0.5 NS MICherri

esSTD 3.34 1.18 0.518

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES 400

Ͳ 514  ground 0.5 1 0.5 NS ORXmas

TreeSTD 1.71 0.679 0.285

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES 400

Ͳ 572,

400

Ͳ 582 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7 ORXmas

TreeSTD 1.3 0.356 0.143

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES 400

Ͳ 572,

400

Ͳ 582 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7 MICherri

esSTD 1.3 0.563 0.248

CITRUS 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA FLcitrusS

TD 5.44 1.94 0.81

CITRUS 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA CAcitrus

_WirrigS

TD 1.76 0.435 0.159

CLOVER

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.5 1 0.5 NA NCalfalfa

OP 5.5 1.56 0.788

CLOVER

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial, 0.5 1 0.5 NA NCalfalfa

OP 5.29 1.69 0.92

CLOVER

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial, 0.5 1 0.5 NA CAalfalfa

_WirrigO

P 3.56 0.907 0.342

CLOVER

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial, 0.5 1 0.5 NA MNalfalf

aOP 3.49 1.03 0.456

CLOVER

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.5 1 0.5 NA CAalfalfa

_WirrigO

P 1.81 0.498 0.193

### 32 CLOVER

(grown for

seed) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.5 1 0.5 NA MNalfalf

aOP 1.8 0.601 0.205

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA STXcotto

nNMC 12.6 3.48 1.45

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA STXcotto

nNMC 12.3 3.59 1.62

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA TXcotton

OP 11.3 3.74 1.41

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA MScotto

nSTD 10.6 3.04 1.25

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA TXcotton

OP 9.91 3.23 1.22

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA MScotto

nSTD 8.48 2.48 1.05

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA STXcotto

nNMC 8.42 2.32 0.966

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 519 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA STXcotto

nNMC 8.22 2.39 1.08

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 519 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA TXcotton

OP 7.53 2.5 0.94

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 519 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA MScotto

nSTD 7.07 2.02 0.835

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA TXcotton

OP 6.6 2.15 0.816

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA NCcotto

nSTD 6.54 2.48 1.06

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA CAcotton

_WirrigS

TD 5.94 1.61 0.591

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA MScotto

nSTD 5.65 1.66 0.702

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA NCcotto

nSTD 5.47 1.88 0.839

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 519 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA NCcotto

nSTD 4.36 1.66 0.707

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 519 aerial,

ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA CAcotton

_WirrigS

TD 3.96 1.07 0.394

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA NCcotto

nSTD 3.65 1.26 0.559

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA CAcotton

_WirrigS

TD 3.33 0.961 0.355

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA CAcotton

_WirrigS

TD 2.22 0.641 0.237

FIG 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA Cafruit 2.27 

FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP 8

Ͳ 10 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 aerial 0.5 1 0.5 NA FLtomat

oSTD_V2 16 4.95 1.91

### 33 FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP 8

Ͳ 10 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground 0.5 1 0.5 NA FLtomat

oSTD_V2 15.8 4.71 1.83

FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP 8

Ͳ 10 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 aerial 0.5 1 0.5 NA FLpepper

sSTD 13.8 4.23 1.6

FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP 8

Ͳ 10 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground 0.5 1 0.5 NA FLpepper

sSTD 13.1 3.97 1.51

FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP 8

Ͳ 10 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 aerial 0.5 1 0.5 NA PAtomat

o 3.61 0.606 

FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP 8

Ͳ 10 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 aerial 0.5 1 0.5 NA CAfruit 3.49 0.459 

FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP 8

Ͳ 10 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground 0.5 1 0.5 NA PAtomat

o 2.22 0.448 

FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP 8

Ͳ 10 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground 0.5 1 0.5 NA CAfruit 1.76 0.29 

FRUITS

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30 Cafruit 7.09 1.12 

FRUITS

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS Cafruit 2.27 0.276 

FRUITS

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ 572

400

Ͳ 582 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7 Cafruit 2.15 0.387 

GOLF COURSE

TURF 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS TurfBSS 2.63 0.839 0.343

GOLF COURSE

TURF 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS CATurfRL

F 1.73 0.465 0.173

GOLF COURSE

TURF 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS FLturfST

D 1.73 0.45 0.22

GOLF COURSE

TURF 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS PAturfST

D 1.73 0.523 0.267

GRAPES 400

Ͳ 519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA NY

grapes 3.46 0.562 

GRAPES 400

Ͳ 519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA CAgrape

s_Wirrig

STD 1.74 0.44 0.161

GRAPES 400

Ͳ 519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA CAWine

GrapesR

LF_V2 1.74 0.464 0.172

GRAPES 400

Ͳ 572 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 1 0.375 NA CAgrape

s_Wirrig

STD 1.3 0.33 0.121

GRAPES 400

Ͳ 572 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 1 0.375 NA CAWine

GrapesR

LF_V2 1.3 0.348 0.129

GRAPES 400

Ͳ 572 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 1 0.375 NA NY

grapes

### 34 HERBS

SUBGROUP

19A (except

chives and

chervil) 400

Ͳ 503 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA Cagarlic 2.09 0.328 

HOPS 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.75 1 0.75 NA Orhops 2.6 0.326 

HOUSEHOLD/D

OMESTIC

DWELLINGS

OUTDOOR

PREMISES 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS Careside

ntial 1.73 0.113 

MINT 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA ORMint 5.24 0.546 

MINT 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA ORMint 2.6 0.306 

NONAGRICULT

URAL RIGHTS

Ͳ

OF

Ͳ WAY

/FENCEROWS/

HEDGEROWS 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS RightOf

WayBSS 9.17 2.83 1.22

NONAGRICULT

URAL RIGHTS

Ͳ

OF

Ͳ WAY

/FENCEROWS/

HEDGEROWS 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS CArighto

fwayRLF

_V2 1.73 0.466 0.191

OKRA 400

Ͳ 519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA Gaonion 2.82 0.327 

ORNAMENTAL USES 400

Ͳ 517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30 CAnurser

ySTD_V2 16 5.59 2.84

ORNAMENTAL USES 400

Ͳ 517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30 NJnurser

ySTD_V2 12.4 4.42 2.08

ORNAMENTAL USES 400

Ͳ 517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30 FLnurser

ySTD_V2 11 3.2 2.09

ORNAMENTAL USES 400

Ͳ 517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30 TNnurser

ySTD_V2 10.2 3.3 1.8

ORNAMENTAL USES 400

Ͳ 517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30 NurseryB

SS_V2 9.5 3.63 2.05

ORNAMENTAL USES 400

Ͳ 517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30 MInurser

ySTD_V2 5.27 1.77 1.01

ORNAMENTAL USES 400

Ͳ 517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30 ORnurse

rySTD_V

2 4.48 2.02 1.21

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ 572

400

Ͳ 582 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7 NurseryB

SS_V2 8.86 2.53 1.14

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ 572

400

Ͳ 582 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7 FLnurser

ySTD_V2 7.55 2.55 1.24

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS NurseryB

SS_V2 5.16 1.61 0.744

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS FLnurser

ySTD_V2 4.87 1.68 0.769

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ 572

400

Ͳ 582 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7 NJnurser

ySTD_V2 4.81 1.65 0.833

### 35 ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ 572

400

Ͳ 582 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7 TNnurser

ySTD_V2 4.79 1.9 0.758

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS NJnurser

ySTD_V2 3.82 1.22 0.508

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS TNnurser

ySTD_V2 3.31 1.31 0.535

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ 572

400

Ͳ 582 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7 MInurser

ySTD_V2 2.66 1.08 0.501

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ 572

400

Ͳ 582 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7 ORnurse

rySTD_V

2 1.91 0.843 0.366

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS ORnurse

rySTD_V

2 1.88 0.588 0.24

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS MInurser

ySTD_V2 1.86 0.765 0.353

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ 572

400

Ͳ 582 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7 CAnurser

ySTD_V2 1.84 0.662 0.274

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ 508,

400

Ͳ 509,

400

Ͳ 481 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS CAnurser

ySTD_V2 1.73 0.467 0.183

PERSIMMON 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 503,

400

Ͳ 519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA Cafruit 3.55 0.446 

POME FRUIT

GROUP 11

Ͳ 10 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA CappleST

D 5.33 1.65 0.672

POME FRUIT

GROUP 11

Ͳ 10 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA PAapple

STD_V2 2.61 0.759 0.412

POME FRUIT

GROUP 11

Ͳ 10 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA ORapple

STD 1.73 0.529 0.215

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 NCSweet

PotatoST

D 15.1 4.45 2.21

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 FLpotato

NMC 13.8 4.15 2.01

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 FLpotato

NMC 13 4.17 2.36

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 MEpotat

oSTD 11.5 5.01 2.55

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 NCSweet

PotatoST

D 8.14 2.89 1.48

### 36 POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 IDNpotat

o_Wirrig

STD 6.03 2.69 1.33

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 CAPotat

oRLF_V2 5.82 2.56 1.09

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 WApotat

oNMC 5.81 2.57 1.2

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 IDNpotat

o_Wirrig

STD 5.25 1.77 0.895

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 MEpotat

oSTD 5.22 2.3 1.27

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 CAPotat

oRLF_V2 3.29 1.44 0.629

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 WApotat

oNMC 2.87 1.27 0.565

STONE FRUITS 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA GAPeach

esSTD 2.71 0.751 0.279

STONE FRUITS 400

Ͳ 514,

400

Ͳ 519,

400

Ͳ 503 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA ICherries

STD 1.73 0.751 0.331

TIMOTHY

(forage and

hay to be fed

only to horses) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA RangeBS

S 11.1 3.77 1.6

TIMOTHY

(forage and

hay to be fed

only to horses) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA RangeBS

S 9.67 3.25 1.43

TIMOTHY

(forage and

hay to be fed

only to horses) 400

Ͳ 514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA CArangel

andhayR

LF_V2 5.24 1.35 0.497

TIMOTHY

(forage and

hay to be fed

only to horses) 400

Ͳ 514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA CArangel

andhayR

LF_V2 2.6 0.669 0.246

### 37 APPENDIX B

Summary of Ecotoxicity Data

The following tables provide summaries of the aquatic and terrestrial taxonomic groups and the

most sensitive surrogate species tested to characterize the potential acute and chronic

ecological effects of bifenazate. In addition, the tables provide a preliminary overview of the

potential acute toxicity of bifenazate by providing the acute toxicity classifications.

Table B

Ͳ 1. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Aquatic Toxicity Studies for Bifenazate and

D

Ͳ 3598

Taxonomic

Group Study Type Surrogate

Species Toxicity Values (all

units in terms of

measured a.i.) MRID and

Classification Acute Toxicity

Classification

Freshwater

fish Acute,

bifenazate Bluegill sunfish LC 50 = 580 ug/L

44464931

(Acceptable) Highly toxic (Lepomis

macrochirus) NOAEC = 300 ug/L Endpoint: survival

and sublethal effects

Acute, D

Ͳ 3598 Rainbow trout

( Oncorhynchus

mykiss ) 96 hr LC 50 : 45.6 ug/L 48929504

( Acceptable ) Very highly

toxic

Chronic No Data

Freshwater

Invertebrate Acute,

bifenazate Water flea

(Daphnia

magna) EC 50 = 500 ug/L

NOAEC = ND

Endpoint:

Immobilization 44464933

(Acceptable) Highly toxic

Acute, D

Ͳ 3598 Freshwater

invertebrate

acute (Daphnia

magna) 48 hr EC 50 : 55.5 ug/L 48929503

( Acceptable) Very highly

toxic

Chronic,

bifenazate Water flea

(Daphnia

magna) NOAEC = 150 ug/L

LOAEC = 270 ug/L Endpoint:

reproductive and

growth effects 45052216

(Supplemental 1 ) ͲͲ

Estuarine/

Marine Fish Acute,

bifenazate Sheepshead

minnow LC 50 = 416 ug/L

45052214

Highly toxic (Cyprinodon

variegatus) NOAEC = 136 ug/L Endpoint: Survival (Acceptable)

Chronic No data

Acute,

bifenazate Saltwater mysid LC 50 = 50 ug/L

45052213 Very highly

toxic

### 38 Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrate (Americamysis

bahia) NOAEC = 40 ug/L Endpoint: Survival (Supplemental 2 )

Chronic No data

Aquatic

Plants Acute, D

Ͳ 3598 Green algae

( Selenastrum

capricornutum ) Yield

Ͳ IC 50 : 0.7453

IC 05 : 0.2099 mg a.i./L

NOAEC: 0.38 mg/L 48929502

 ͲͲ

Non

Ͳ vascular Green algae EC 50 = 0.89 mg/L 45052219

ͲͲ (Selenastrum

capricornutum) NOAEC = 0.252 mg/L Endpoint: Reduction

in cell density (Acceptable)

Vascular Duckweed EC 50 = >3.82 mg/L

NOAEC = 3.82 mg/L No effect on frond

number 45052218

 ͲͲ

B

– 2. Submitted Ecological Toxicity Data for Bifenazate Degradates D1989 and D

Ͳ 9472 Ecological Toxicity Data for D

Ͳ 1989

Guideline # Data

Requirement Submitted

Studies MRID # Study

Classification Toxicity Values (all

units in terms of

measured a.i.) Comments

850.1010 Freshwater

invertebrate

acute EC 50

(Daphnia

magna) 45141801

( Supplemental) Highly toxic EC 50 : 242 ug/L

C.I.: 224

– 262 ug /L 80% mortality

observed at 300

ug/L

Ecological Toxicity Data for D

Ͳ 9472

850.1010 Freshwater

invertebrate

acute EC 50 (Daphnia

magna) 48929508 Highly toxic 48 hr. EC 50 :

764 ug/L

C.I.: 0.58

– 1.1 mg/L 100% mortality at

1.8 mg/L next dose

up; 520 ug/L with

20% mortality

850

Ͳ 4400 Aquatic plant

( Scenedesmus

subspicatus ) 48929509

 ͲͲ IC05: 58.33 ug/L

IC50: 901.7 ug/L

NOAEC 203 mg/L Unstable; 72

Ͳ hour

measured

concentration 1

–

8%

### 39 850.1075 Freshwater fish

acute LC 50 ( Oncorhynchus

mykiss ) 48929506

( Supplemental) Highly toxic 96 hr LC 50 : 201 ug/L

C.I.: 0.142

– 0.283

ug/L 100% mortality in

550 ug/L (highest);

57% at 210 ug/L

Sublethal effects at

210 and 550 mg/L



### Table B

Ͳ 3. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Terrestrial Toxicity Studies for Bifenazate

Taxonomic

Group Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity Values (all units

in terms of measured a.i.) MRID and

Classification Acute Toxicity

Classification

Mammals Acute Oral Laboratory rat LD 50 >5000 mg/kg

Ͳ bw 44464934 

(Acceptable) Practically non

Ͳ

toxic

Chronic Laboratory rat NOAEL 20 mg/kg

Ͳ diet 45076503

ͲͲ LOAEL= 80 mg/kg

Ͳ diet

Endpoint: Decreased body

weight and cumulative

body weight gains in

males and females (Acceptable)

Birds Acute Oral Canary

(Serinus canaria) LD 50 = >2,000 mg a.i./kg 49465905

(Acceptable) Practically non

Ͳ

toxic

Bobwhite quail LD 50 = 1032 mg/kg bw 44464928

Slightly toxic (Colinus

virginianus) NOAEL= Not determined  Endpoint: Mortality and

sublethal effects (Acceptable)

Subacute

Dietary Mallard LC 50 = 656 mg/kg

Ͳ diet 44464929 Moderately

toxic (Anas

platyrhynchos) Endpoint: Survival (Acceptable)

Chronic Mallard NOAEC = 20 mg/kg

Ͳ diet 44872901

ͲͲ (Anas

platyrhynchos) LOAEC = 65 mg/kg

Ͳ diet Endpoint: Reduction in #

eggs laid and set per

female (Acceptable)

Terrestrial

Insects Acute

Contact Honey Bee LD 50 = 7.8 μ g/bee

NOAEC = 2.7 μ g/bee Endpoint: Survival 44462315

Moderately

toxic (Apis mellifera) (Acceptable)

Terrestrial

Plants Seedling

Emergence Monocot

Ͳ corn EC 25 = >2.0 lb a.i./A 45052217

ͲͲ NOAEC = 2.0 lb a.i./A (Acceptable)

### 40 Dicot

Ͳ soybean EC 25 = >2.0 lb a.i./A

NOAEC = 2.0 lb a.i./A 45052217

(Acceptable) ͲͲ

Vegetative

Vigor Monocot

Ͳ wheat EC 25 = >2.0 lb a.i./A 45076502

ͲͲ

NOAEC = 2.0 lb a.i./A (Acceptable)

Vegetative

Vigor Dicot

Ͳ cabbage EC 25 = >2.0 lb a.i./A 45076502

ͲͲ

NOAEC = 2.0 lb a.i./A (Acceptable)

1 Birds represent surrogates for terrestrial

Ͳ phase amphibians and reptiles.

###  

### 41 APPENDIX C

Summary of Recent Ecological Risk Assessments

EPA has conducted multiple ecological risk assessments in recent years for bifenazate and the

degradate D

Ͳ 1989.

Uses Assessed Date

Grasses, dry beans, field and sweet corn; rate

increase for the edible podded legumes and

succulent soybeans February 2009

Increases in rate for Tree Nuts and the

number of allowable annual applications for

Caneberries, Tropical Fruit, and Potatoes October 2009

Avocado, tropical fruit, low growing berries,

and small tree climbing fruit April 2010

Herb 19A (except chive and chervil), fruiting

vegetables (Group 8

Ͳ 10), pome fruit (Group

11

Ͳ 10), and Timothy Grass forage and hay December 2011 

### 42 APPENDIX D.

Bibliography of Submitted Studies



## 71

Ͳ 1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference 

44464928 Pedersen, C. (1996) Acute Avian Oral Toxicity (LD50) Study with D2341 Technical in Bobwhite

Quail: Lab Project Number: 109

Ͳ 025

Ͳ 03. Unpublished study prepared by Bio

Ͳ Life Associates, Ltd.

54 p.  

## 71

Ͳ 2 Avian Dietary Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference 

44464929 Pedersen, C.; Helsten, B. (1997) Acute Avian Dietary Toxicity (LC50) Study with D2341 Technical

in Bobwhite Quail: Lab Project Number: 109

Ͳ 023

Ͳ 01: CHV 798

Ͳ 231: 658. Unpublished study

prepared by Bio

Ͳ Life Associates, Ltd. 97 p.

44464930 Pedersen, C.; Helsten, B. (1997) Acute Avian Dietary Toxicity (LC50) Study with D2341 Technical

in Mallard Ducklings: Lab Project Number: 109

Ͳ 024

Ͳ 02: CHV 798

Ͳ 231: 798

Ͳ 231. Unpublished

study prepared by Bio

Ͳ Life Associates, Ltd. 96 p.  

## 71

Ͳ 4 Avian Reproduction

MRID Citation Reference 

44779601 Lengen, M. (1999) Bifenazate: Preliminary Data from Avian Reproduction Studies: Lab Project

Number: 109

Ͳ 030

Ͳ 07: 109

Ͳ 031

Ͳ 08. Unpublished study prepared by Bio

Ͳ Life Associates Ltd. 17 p.

44872901 Pedersen, C. (1999) Avian Reproductive Toxicity Study in Mallard Ducks with D2341 Technical:

Lab Project Number: 109

Ͳ 031

Ͳ 08. Unpublished study prepared by Bio

Ͳ Life Associates, Ltd. 496

p.

45052212 Pedersen, C. (1999) Avian Reproductive Toxicity Study with D2341 Technical in Bobwhite Quail:

Lab Project Number: 109

Ͳ 030

Ͳ 07: D2341 32

Ͳ 05. Unpublished study prepared by Bio

Ͳ Life

Associates, Ltd. 493 p.

45144003 Frey, L.; Casey, C.; Martin, K. et al. (2000) D2341 Technical: A Reproduction Study with the

Mallard: Lab Project Number: 117

Ͳ 174. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International,

Ltd. 137 p.

45144004 Pedersen, C. (2000) Avian Reproductive Toxicity Study with D2341 Technical in Bobwhite Quail:

Lab Project Number: 109

Ͳ 030

Ͳ 07. Unpublished study prepared by Bio

Ͳ Life Associates, Ltd. 495

p.  

## 72

Ͳ 1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

MRID Citation Reference 

44464931 Graves, W.; Swigert, J. (1997) D2341 Technical: A 96

Ͳ Hour Flow

Ͳ Through Acute Toxicity Test

with the Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117A

Ͳ 101: GRL

Ͳ

11089. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 64 p.

### 43 44464932 Graves, W.; Swigert, J. (1997) D2341 Technical: A 96

Ͳ Hour Flow

Ͳ Through Acute Toxicity Test

with the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117A

Ͳ 102:

GRL

Ͳ 11089: GRL

Ͳ SOP

Ͳ 1079. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 64 p.  

## 72

Ͳ 2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

MRID Citation Reference  44464933 Graves, W.; Swigert, J. (1997) D2341 Technical: A 48

Ͳ Hour Flow

Ͳ Through Acute Toxicity Test

with the Cladoceran (Daphnia magna): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117A

Ͳ 103A.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 63 p.

45141801 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (2000) D1989: A 48

Ͳ Hour Flow

Ͳ Through Acute Toxicity Test with the

Cladoceran (Daphnia magna): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117A

Ͳ 115. Unpublished study

prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 44 p. {OPPTS 850.1010}  

## 72

Ͳ 3 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms

MRID Citation Reference  45052213 Graves, W.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 96

Ͳ Hour Flow

Ͳ Through Acute

Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia): Final Report: Lab Project Number:

117

Ͳ 105. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 63 p.

45052214 Graves, W.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 96

Ͳ Hour Flow

Ͳ Through Acute

Toxicity Test with the Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus): Final Report: Lab Project

Number: 117A

Ͳ 104. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 64 p.

45052215 Graves, W.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 96

Ͳ Hour Shell Deposition Test

with the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117A

Ͳ 106.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 71 p.  

## 72

Ͳ 4 Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study

MRID Citation Reference  44881301 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): An Early Life

Ͳ Stage Toxicity Test

with the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117A

Ͳ 108.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 107 p.

45052216 Graves, W.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A Flow

Ͳ Through Life Cycle Toxicity

Test with the Cladoceran (Daphnia magna): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117A

Ͳ 107.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 78 p.



## 83

Ͳ 4 2

Ͳ generation repro.

Ͳ rat

MRID Citation Reference 

### 44 45076503 Schardein, J. (1999) A Two Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study of D2341 in Rats: Final

Report: Lab Project Number: WIL

Ͳ 155039. Unpublished study prepared by Wil Research Labs.

6615 p. {OPPTS 870.3800}



## 122

Ͳ 1 Seed Germination/ Seedling Emergence and Vegetable Vigor

MRID Citation Reference  45052217 Porch, J.; Krueger, H. (1999) UCC

Ͳ D2341

Ͳ 50W: A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the

Test in Seedling Emergence of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117

Ͳ 172.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 85 p. {OPPTS 850.4100, 850.4225}  

## 122

Ͳ 2 Aquatic plant growth

MRID Citation Reference  44896001 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 96

Ͳ Hour Toxicity Test with the

Freshwater Alga (Navicula pelliculosa): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117A

Ͳ 110.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 60 p. {OPPTS 850.5400}

44896002 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 96

Ͳ Hour Toxicity Test with the

Marine Diatom (Skeletonema costatum): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117A

Ͳ 112A.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 59 p. {OPPTS 850.5400}

45052218 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 7

Ͳ Day Toxicity Test with

Duckweed (Lemna gibba): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117A

Ͳ 113. Unpublished study

prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 56 p. {OPPTS 850.4400}

45052219 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 96

Ͳ Hour Toxicity Test with the

Freshwater Alga (Selenastrum capricornutum): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117A

Ͳ 111.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 61 p. {OPPTS 850.5400}

45052220 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 96

Ͳ Hour Toxicity Test with the

Freshwater Blue

Ͳ Green Alga (Anabaena flos

Ͳ aquae): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117A

Ͳ

109A. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 60 p. {OPPTS 850.5400}  

## 123

Ͳ 1 Seed germination/seedling emergence and vegetative vigor

MRID Citation Reference  45052217 Porch, J.; Krueger, H. (1999) UCC

Ͳ D2341

Ͳ 50W: A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the

Test in Seedling Emergence of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117

Ͳ 172.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 85 p. {OPPTS 850.4100, 850.4225}

45076502 Porch, J.; Krueger, H. (1998) UCC

Ͳ D2341

Ͳ 50W: A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the

Test Substance on Vegetative Vigor of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report: Lab Project Number:

117

Ͳ 173. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 82 p. {OPPTS 850.4250}



## 141

Ͳ 1 Honey bee acute contact

### 45 MRID Citation Reference 

44462315 Palmer, S.; Beavers, J. (1997) D2341 Technical: An Acute Contact Toxicity Study with the Honey

Bee: (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 117

Ͳ 170. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife

International Ltd. 45 p.  

## 141

Ͳ 2 Honey bee residue on foliage

MRID Citation Reference 

45052305 Hummel, R. (1999) Final Report for the Evaluation of Toxicity of Residues of Bifenazate (UCC

D2341 50 WP) on Alfalfa to Honey Bees (Apis mellifera): Lab Project Number: 11521A002:

010851

Ͳ 1: 1412

Ͳ 99

Ͳ 115

Ͳ 05

Ͳ 21F

Ͳ 02. Unpublished study prepared by Landis International, Inc.

91 p. {OPPTS 850.3030}  

## 143

Ͳ 2 Toxicity to Predators and Parasites in Fruit and Nut Crops

MRID Citation Reference 

48935102 Buttle, V.; Walker, H. (2001) A Tier 1 Laboratory Study to Estimate the LR(50) of a 480 G L(

Ͳ 1)

SC Formulation of Bifenazate to the Parasitic Wasp Aphidius rhopalosiphi (Hymenoptera:

Braconidae). Project Number: ER/00/HMA372, HMA/372. Unpublished study prepared by

Ecotox Limited. 42p.  

## 161

Ͳ 1 Hydrolysis 

MRID Citation Reference 

44464952 Shah, J. (1997) A Hydrolysis Study of D2341: Lab Project Number: 6337

Ͳ 95

Ͳ 0006

Ͳ EF

Ͳ 001: 95

Ͳ

0006: 6337

Ͳ 95

Ͳ 0006

Ͳ EF

Ͳ 000. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 182 p.

44796701 Findak, D.; DiFrancesco, D.; Shah, J. (1999) A Hydrolysis Study of D2341: Lab Project Number:

6337

Ͳ 95

Ͳ 0006

Ͳ EF

Ͳ 001

Ͳ 001: 95

Ͳ 0006. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 45 p.  

## 161

Ͳ 2 Photodegradation

Ͳ water

MRID Citation Reference 

44464953 Shah, J. (1997) Aqueous Photolysis of (carbon 14)D2341 at pH 5: Lab Project Number: 6394

Ͳ

95

Ͳ 0032

Ͳ EF

Ͳ 001: 95

Ͳ 0032: 6394

Ͳ 95

Ͳ 0032

Ͳ EF

Ͳ 000. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc.

131 p.

45052308 Shah, J. (1998) Photolysis of (carbon

Ͳ 14)D2341 in Natural Water: Lab Project Number: 6394

Ͳ

95

Ͳ 0217

Ͳ EF

Ͳ 001: 95

Ͳ 0217: 96092. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 134 p.

### 46 

## 161

Ͳ 3 Photodegradation

Ͳ soil

MRID Citation Reference 

44522601 Shah, J. (1997) Photolysis of (carbon 14)D2341 on Soil: Lab Project Number: 96022: 96

Ͳ 0001:

6687

Ͳ 96

Ͳ 0001

Ͳ EF

Ͳ 001. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 118 p.  

## 162

Ͳ 1 Aerobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference 

44464954 Lee, D.; Lentz, N.; McCall, B. et al. (1996) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (carbon 14)D2341: Lab

Project Number: 95233: 95

Ͳ 0022: 6375

Ͳ 95

Ͳ 0022

Ͳ EF

Ͳ 001. Unpublished study prepared by

Ricerca, Inc. 143 p.

45144002 Nag, J.; Regis, J. (2000) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (carbon

Ͳ 14)

Ͳ 4

Ͳ Methoxybiphenyl: Lab

Project Number: 99009. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. and

Agvise Laboratories. 149 p.

49055501 Nag, J.; Regis, R. (2000) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (Carbon 14)

Ͳ 4

Ͳ Methoxybiphenyl. Project

Number: 99009. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. and Agvise, Inc.

149p.  

## 162

Ͳ 3 Anaerobic aquatic metab.

MRID Citation Reference 

44522602 Lentz, N. (1998) Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of (carbon 14)D2341: Lab Project Number:

95235: 95

Ͳ 0115: 6492

Ͳ 95

Ͳ 0115

Ͳ EF

Ͳ 001. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 143 p.

44859702 Lentz, N. (1998) Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of (carbon

Ͳ 14) D2341: Report Amendment

Number One: Lab Project Number: 95

Ͳ 0115: 6492950115EF

Ͳ 001

Ͳ 001. Unpublished study

prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 9 p.  

## 163

Ͳ 1 Leach/adsorp/desorption

MRID Citation Reference 

44464955 Hatzenbeler, C. (1997) Soil Column Leaching Study of (carbon 14)D2341: Lab Project Number:

96

Ͳ 0024: 6728

Ͳ 96

Ͳ 0024

Ͳ EF

Ͳ 001: 6728

Ͳ 96

Ͳ 0024

Ͳ EF

Ͳ 000. Unpublished study prepared by

Ricerca, Inc. 78 p.

44464956 Huhtanen, C. (1997) Soil Adsorption and Desorption of (carbon 14)D1989: Lab Project

Number: 96

Ͳ 0056: 6790

Ͳ 96

Ͳ 0056

Ͳ EF

Ͳ 001: 6790

Ͳ 96

Ͳ 0056

Ͳ EF

Ͳ 000. Unpublished study prepared

by Ricerca, Inc. 82 p.  

## 164

Ͳ 1 Terrestrial field dissipation

### 47 MRID Citation Reference 

44464957 Jablonski, J. (1997) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of D2341 Applied to Bareground in North

Carolina: Lab Project Number: 6737

Ͳ 96

Ͳ 0034

Ͳ CR

Ͳ 001: 6737: 6737

Ͳ 96

Ͳ 0034

Ͳ CR

Ͳ 000.

Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 296 p.

44464958 Jablonski, J.; Kenyon, R. (1997) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of D2341 Applied to Bareground in

Washington: Lab Project Number: 6739: 6739

Ͳ 96

Ͳ 0035

Ͳ CR

Ͳ 001: 6739

Ͳ 96

Ͳ 0035

Ͳ CR

Ͳ 000.

Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 328 p.

45052306 Jablonski, J. (1998) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of D2341 Applied to Bareground in California:

Lab Project Number: 6738

Ͳ 96

Ͳ 0033

Ͳ CR

Ͳ 001: 96

Ͳ 003: 6738. Unpublished study prepared by

Ricerca, Inc. 318 p.

45052307 Jablonski, J. (1999) Stability of D2341 and Metabolites D1989 and D3598 in Soil during Freezer

Storage: Lab Project Number: 96

Ͳ 0036: 6743

Ͳ 96

Ͳ 0036

Ͳ CR

Ͳ 001: 6743. Unpublished study

prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 229 p.

45052309 Jablonski, J. (1998) Analytical Method for the Analysis of D2341, D1989 and D3598 in Soil: Lab

Project Number: 6616

Ͳ 96

Ͳ 0269

Ͳ CR

Ͳ 001: 6616. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 106

p.



## 835.1230 Sediment and soil absorption/desorption for parent and

degradates

MRID Citation Reference  48929514 Tognucci, A. (2001) Estimation of the Adsorption Coefficient of Bifenazate on Soil Using High

Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC): Final Report. Project Number: 795093.

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 20p.

48929515 Tognucci, A. (2001) Estimation of the Adsorption Coefficient of D3598 on Soil Using High

Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC): Final Report. Project Number: 795115.

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Ltd. 20p.

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1

Ͳ 2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.  

## 835.1240 Soil column leaching

MRID Citation Reference  48929514 Tognucci, A. (2001) Estimation of the Adsorption Coefficient of Bifenazate on Soil Using High

Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC): Final Report. Project Number: 795093.

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 20p.

48929515 Tognucci, A. (2001) Estimation of the Adsorption Coefficient of D3598 on Soil Using High

Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC): Final Report. Project Number: 795115.

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Ltd. 20p.

### 48 48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1

Ͳ 2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.  

## 835.2120 Hydrolysis of parent and degradates as a function of pH at 25 C

MRID Citation Reference  48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1

Ͳ 2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.  

## 835.2240 Direct photolysis rate of parent and degradates in water

MRID Citation Reference  48929512 Lewis, C. (2001) (Carbon 14)

Ͳ Bifenazate: Photodegradation in Sterile, Aqueous Solution: Final

Report. Project Number: 217/27 217/27/D2142. Unpublished study prepared by Covance

Laboratories, Ltd. 96p.

48929518 Nag, J. (2000) Quantum Yield Calculation for Bifenazate (D2341). Project Number: 2000/205.

Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 24p.  

## 835.2370 Photodegradation of parent and degradates in air

MRID Citation Reference  48929517 Schocken, M. (2001) Gas

Ͳ phase Oxidation Rate and Half

Ͳ life of Bifenazate in the Troposphere.

Project Number: 2001/015. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 11p.  

## 835.3110 Ready biodegradability

MRID Citation Reference  48929511 Armstrong, K. (2000) Technical Bifenazate: Determination of Ready Biodegradability of the

Modified Sturm Test. Project Number: 18944. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk

Research International. 21p.  

## 835.3300 Soil biodegradation

MRID Citation Reference 

### 49 47607902 Volkl, S. (2001) Degradation Rate of (Carbon 14)

Ͳ Bifenazate in Four Soil Incubated Under

Aerobic Conditions. Project Number: 772740. Unpublished study prepared by Research &

Consulting Co., Ltd. 105 p.

49055502 Volkl, S. (2001) Degradation Rate of (Carbon 14)

Ͳ Bifenazate in Four Soils Incubated Under

Aerobic Conditions. Project Number: 772740. Unpublished study prepared by RCC

Umweltchemie Ag. 104p.  

## 835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference  48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1

Ͳ 2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

49055501 Nag, J.; Regis, R. (2000) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (Carbon 14)

Ͳ 4

Ͳ Methoxybiphenyl. Project

Number: 99009. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. and Agvise, Inc.

149p.

49055502 Volkl, S. (2001) Degradation Rate of (Carbon 14)

Ͳ Bifenazate in Four Soils Incubated Under

Aerobic Conditions. Project Number: 772740. Unpublished study prepared by RCC

Umweltchemie Ag. 104p.  

## 835.4200 Anaerobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference  48929516 Volkl, S. (2001) (Carbon 14)

Ͳ Bifenazate: Anaerobic Soil Degradation. Project Number: 778926.

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Ltd. 81p.

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1

Ͳ 2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

49570302 Miner, P. (2014) Anaerobic Soil Metabolism of (Carbon 14)

Ͳ Bifenazate in One European Soil.

Project Number: 032163, 032163/0, 2013/176. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca

Biosciences, LLC. 211p.  

## 835.4300 Aerobic aquatic metabolism

MRID Citation Reference  48929513 Mamouni, A. (2001) (Carbon 14)

Ͳ Bifenazate: Route and Rate of Degradation in Aerobic Aquatic

Systems: Final Report. Project Number: 763356. Unpublished study prepared by RCC, Ltd. 97p.

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

### 50 Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1

Ͳ 2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

49570301 Miner, P. (2015) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of [Carbon 14]Bifenazate. Project Number:

031951, 031951/0, 2013/174. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca Biosciences, LLC. 565p.  

## 835.4400 Anaerobic aquatic metabolism

MRID Citation Reference  48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1

Ͳ 2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.  

## 835.6100 Terrestrial field dissipation

MRID Citation Reference  48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1

Ͳ 2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.  

## 850.1010 Aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity, test, freshwater daphnids

MRID Citation Reference  48929503 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2001) D3598: A 48

Ͳ Hour Flow

Ͳ through Acute Toxicity Test

with The Cladoceran (Daphnia magna): Final Report. Project Number: 117A/12A. Unpublished

study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 41p.

48929507 Seyfried, B. (2000) Acute Toxicity of a 480 G/L SC Formulation of Bifenazate to Daphnia magna

in a 48

Ͳ hour Immobilisation Test: Final Report. Project Number: 968205. Unpublished study

prepared by RCC, Ltd. 38p.

48929508 Seyfried, B. (2001) Acute Toxicity of D9472 to Daphnia magna in a 48

Ͳ hour Immobilisation

Test: Final Report. Project Number: 802574. Unpublished study prepared by RCC

Umweltchemie Ag. 34p.

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1

Ͳ 2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.  

## 850.1075 Fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine

MRID Citation Reference 

### 51 48929504 Kendall, T. ; Krueger, H. ; Palmer, S. (2001) D3598: A 96

Ͳ Hour Flow

Ͳ through Acute Toxicity Test

with the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Final Report. Project Number: 117A/121A.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 42p.

48929505 Seyfried, B. (2000) Acute Toxicity of a 480 G/L SC Formulation of Bifenazate to Rainbow Trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) in a 96

Ͳ Hour Flow

Ͳ through Test: Final Report. Project Number: 768183

768194. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 41p.

48929506 Seyfried, B. (2001) Acute Toxicity of D9472 to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in a 96

Ͳ

hour Flow

Ͳ through Test: Final Report. Project Number: 802552. Unpublished study prepared

by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 42p.

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1

Ͳ 2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

48929523 Unknown (1992) D

Ͳ 3598: Acute Toxicity to the Freshwater Fish, Lepomis macrochirus, Under

Static Conditions (Screening Test). Project Number: J9207008B. Unpublished study prepared

by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 6p.

48929524 Unknown (1992) D

Ͳ 3598: Acute Toxicity to the Freshwater Fish, Oncorhynchus mykiss, under

Static Conditions (Screening Test). Project Number: J9207008C. Unpublished study prepared

by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 6p.  

## 850.1300 Daphnid chronic toxicity test

MRID Citation Reference  48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1

Ͳ 2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

48935101 Batscher, R. (2000) Acute Toxicity of a 480 G/L SC Formulation of Bifenzate to the Earthworm

Eisenia foetida in a 14

Ͳ Day Test. Project Number: 786870. Unpublished study prepared by

RCC, Ltd. 24p.  

## 850.1400 Fish early

Ͳ life stage toxicity test

MRID Citation Reference  48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1

Ͳ 2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.  

## 850.1730 Fish BCF  MRID Citation Reference 

### 52 49465906 Schneider, S.; Bodle, E.; Martin, K.; et al. (2014) Bifenazate: An Aqueous Exposure

Bioaccumulation Test with the Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Final Report. Project Number:

616A/110, 2013/136. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 328p.

49540501 Schneider, S.; Bodle, E.; Martin, K.; et al. (2014) Bifenazate: An Aqueous Exposure

Bioaccumulation Test with the Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Final Report. Project Number:

616A/110, 2013/136. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 329p.

49544201 Schneider, S.; Bodle, E.; Martin, K.; et al. (2014) Bifenazate Metabolite D3598: An Aqueous

Exposure Bioaccumulation Test with the Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Final Report. Project

Number: 616A/111, 2013/137. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd.

312p.

49544202 Schneider, S.; Bodle, E.; Schutt, W.; et al. (2014) Bifenazate Metabolite D1989: An Aqeuous

Exposure Bioaccumulation Test with the Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Final Report. Project

Number: 616A/112, 2013/138. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd.

179p.  

## 850.2100 Avian acute oral toxicity test

MRID Citation Reference  49465905 Hubbard, P.; Beavers, J. (2014) Bifenazate: An Acute Oral Toxicit Study with the Canary. Project

Number: 616/109, 2013/152. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 34p.  

## 850.3020 Honey bee acute contact toxicity

MRID Citation Reference  48935106 Kelly, C.; Allan, J. (2001) A Laboratory Study to Evaluate the Effects of a 480 G L SC Formulation

of Bifenazate to the Honey Bee (Apis melifera): 48

Ͳ Hour Contact and Oral LD(50). Project

Number: 19404, 399904. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk Research International. 30p.

49713501 Vinall, S. (2010) Laboratory Bioassay to Determine the Acute Contact Toxicity of Technical

Ͳ

Grade Bifenazate to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera. Project Number: CHEM/10/2. Unpublished

study prepared by Mambo

Ͳ Tox, Ltd. 26p.  

## 850.3030 Honey bee toxicity of residues on foliage

MRID Citation Reference  47737801 Walsh, D. (2009) Pollinator Pesticide Safety Trials 2007: Flonicamid. Project Number:

IB/2009/PH/002/01. Unpublished study prepared by Washington State University. 19 p.  

## 850.4400 Aquatic plant toxicity test using Lemna spp. Tiers I and II

MRID Citation Reference 

### 53 48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1

Ͳ 2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.  

## 850.5400 Algal toxicity, Tiers 1 and II

MRID Citation Reference  48929502 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2011) D3598: A 96

Ͳ Hour Toxicity Test with the Freshwater

Alga (Selenastrum capricornutum): Final Report. Project Number: 117A/122. Unpublished

study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 50p.

48929509 Seyfried, B. (2001) Toxicity of D9472 to Scenedesmus subspicatus in a 72

Ͳ hour Algal Growth

Inhibition Test: Final Report. Project Number: 802596. Unpublished study prepared by RCC

Umweltchemie Ag. 39p.

48929510 Seyfried, B. (2000) Toxicity of a 480 G/L SC Formulation of Bifenazate to Scenedesmus

subspicatus in a 72

Ͳ hour Algal Growth Inhibition Test: Final Report. Project Number: 768227.

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 44p.

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1

Ͳ 2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.  

### 850.6100 Environmental Chemistry Methods and Associated Independent Laboratory

Validation

MRID Citation Reference  49465901 Batorewicz, W.; Blaszczynski, E. (2002) Analytical Method for the Determination of Bifenazate

Metabolite, 4

Ͳ Methoxy

Ͳ 1, 1''

Ͳ Biphenyl, in Water: Amended Final Report. Project Number:

01/0190, 2000/184. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. and Agvise,

Inc. 91p.

49465902 Habeeb, S. (2014) Independent Laboratory Validation of 4

Ͳ Methoxy

Ͳ 1, 1''

Ͳ Biphenyl (D1989) in

Water: Final Report. Project Number: 032238, 032238/1, 2014/022. Unpublished study

prepared by Ricerca Biosciences, LLC. 86p.

49465903 Stanislowsky, T. (2014) Independent Laboratory Validation (ILV) of an Analytical Method for

the Determination of Bifenazate and Metabolites D3598 and D9472 in Surface and in Drinking

Water. Project Number: P/3176/G, 2014/020. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL Europe

Gmbh. 64p.

49465904 Merdian, H.; Sahvorost, N. (2014) Independent Laboratory Validation (ILV) of an Analytical

Method for the Determination of Bifenazate and its Metabolites D3598 and D1989 in Soil.

Project Number: P/3193/G, 2014/021. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL Europe Gmbh.

55p.



# Other studies

### 54 48929501 Eyre, D.; Webster, D. (2003) A Laboratory Study to Determine the Median Lethal

Concentration (LC50) of D3598 to the Earthworm, Eisenia fetida. Project Number:

ER/03/HMA478, HMA/478. Unpublished study prepared by Ecotox Limited. 45p.

49713502 Odemer, R. (2014) Bifenazate: Toxicity Effects to Adult Worker Honeybees (Apis mellifera L.)

After Chronic Oral Exposure under Laboratory Conditions. Project Number: 20130213.

Unpublished study prepared by Innovative Environmental Services, Ltd. 35p.

49713503 Odemer, R. (2014) Bifenazate: Toxicity to Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) Larvae after Acute

Exposure under in vitro Laboratory Conditions. Project Number: 20130214. Unpublished study

prepared by Innovative Environmental Services, Ltd. 58p.

#  

### 55 APPENDIX E.

CHEMICAL STRUCTURES