-Page 1 of 86- OFFICE OF
CHEMICAL SAFETY AND
POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMEN TAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

PC Code: 101701

DP Barcode: D410292

Date: September 15, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of the Herbicide Propyzamide and Propos ed New Use on Leaf Lettuce

TO : Wilhelmena Livingston, Chemical Review Manager Kevin Costello, Branch Chief Risk Management and Implementation Branch IV Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, 7508P

Mindy Ondish, Risk Manager Reuben Baris, Product Manager 25 Daniel Kenny, Branch Chief

Herbicide Branch Registration Division (7505P)

FROM: Karen Milians, Ph.D., Chemist Andrew Sayer, Ph.D., Biologist

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

REVIEWED Catherine Aubee, Senior Scientist

BY: Jim Carleton, Ph.D., Senior Scientist

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

APPROVED

BY: Jean Holmes, DVM, MPH, Branch Chief

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

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFE D) has completed a review of the herbicide propyzamide ( also known as pronamide; PC Code 101701) and its current uses on artichoke, blackberry, raspberry, boysenberry, blueberry, alfa lfa, clover, birdsfoot, trefoil, head lettuce,-Page 2 of 86- 

### radicchio, endive, apple, apricot, winter peas, ch erry, nectarines, plum pear, grape, ornamentals, Christmas tree, rhubarb, and othe r agricultural and non- agricultural areas. In addition, a proposed

use on leaf lettuce is addressed in this assessm ent. Propyzamide is a systemic, restricted–use, organochlorine herbicide that is formulated as a wettable powder in water soluble pouches and as a suspension concentrate that can be applied pr e-plant, pre-emergence, or post-emergence by chemigation, ground or aerial spray equipment.

This evaluation is limited to th e effects and exposure associat ed with propyzamide specifically, and where data are sufficient to permit such analyses , also to its degradates of concern (degradates containing the 3,5-dichlo robenzoyl moiety).

Based on estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) and the most sensitive ecotoxicity data across multiple taxa, propyzamide exposure at th e maximum proposed application rates may result in risk to federally listed threatened and enda ngered (hereafter referred to as “listed”) and nonlisted species of terrestrial and semi-aquati c monocotyledonous (monocot) and dicotyledonous (dicot) plants. There are chronic risk concerns for avian taxa and acute and subacute risk quotients (RQs) exceed the listed and non-listed level of c oncern (LOC) for avian taxa and therefore for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians exposed through the terrestrial diet. Use of propyzamide on artichoke and apples, alfalfa, blueberries, and head/leaf lettuce, and turf may result in chronic risk to listed and non-listed small (15 g), medi um (35 g), and large (1000 g) size classes of

mammals. No acute mammalian exceedances were seen, nor exceedances to honey bees via contact exposure. There were no exceedances to listed and non-listed freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, or listed and non-listed vascular a nd non-vascular plants.

Label Recommendations

Current propyzamide labels fail to state maximu m application rates for certain crops in annual terms. Application rates for these crops are instead given on per season ( e.g. , for turf, leaf lettuce) or per crop basis (e.g., h ead lettuce, endive, escarole, and radicch io greens), or else are not given in terms of any particular time frame ( e.g., alfalfa seed). For these crops, conservative assumptions were employed in this assessment, to estimate plausible maximum annual application rates.-Page 3 of 86- 

# Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of the Herbicide Propyzamide

Propyzamide (CAS 23950-58-5)

PC Code 101701



### 15 September 2015

Prepared by Karen Milians, Ph.D., Chemist Andrew Sayer, Ph.D., Biologist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED)

Environmental Risk Branch IV 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P Washington, DC 20460 Reviewed by Catherine Aubee, Senior Scientist Jim Carleton, Ph.D., Senior Fate Scientist Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor Jean Holmes, D.V.M., M.P.H., Branch Chief Cl

Cl N H O-Page 4 of 86- 

# Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. .............................. 6

2. Problem Formulation ........................................................................................................... ............................. 8

2.1. Nature of Chemical Stressor ................................................................................................... .................. 8

2.1. Stressor Source and Distribution .............................................................................................. ................ 8

2.2. Receptors...................................................................................................................... ............................... 9

2.3. Assessment Endpoints .......................................................................................................... ...................... 9

2.4. Conceptual Model .............................................................................................................. ........................ 9

2.4.1. Risk Hypothesis ............................................................................................................... .................. 9

2.4.2. Conceptual Model Pathways and Effects ...................................................................................... 10

2.5. Analysis Plan ................................................................................................................. ........................... 11

2.5.1. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments .............................................................................. 11

2.5.2. Propyzamide Ecological Risk Assessments ................................................................................... 11

2.5.3. Drinking Wat er Assess ment ..................................................................................................... ...... 12

2.5.4. Identification of Data Gaps and Uncert ainties ............................................................................. 13

2.5.5. Measures of Exposure .......................................................................................................... ........... 14

2.5.6. Measures of Effect ............................................................................................................ ............... 15

2.5.7. Integration of Expo sure and Effects ........................................................................................... ... 16

3. Analysis ...................................................................................................................... ....................................... 16

3.1. Use Characterization .......................................................................................................... ..................... 16

3.2. Exposure Charac terization ..................................................................................................... ................. 17

3.2.1. Environmental Fate and Transport .............................................................................................. . 17

3.2.2. Aquatic Exposure .............................................................................................................. .............. 19

3.2.3. Terrestrial Ex posure .......................................................................................................... ............. 24

3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization ........................................................................................... ............. 27

3.3.1. Ecotoxicity Data .............................................................................................................. ................. 27

3.3.1. Terrestrial Organism and Mamm alian Chronic Endpoints ........................................................ 35

3.3.2. Terrestrial Plants ............................................................................................................ ................. 37

3.3.3. Incident Reports .............................................................................................................. ................ 38

4. Risk Characterization ......................................................................................................... ............................. 38

4.1. Risk Esti mation ............................................................................................................... ......................... 38

4.1.1. Aquatic Or ganisms ............................................................................................................. ............. 39

4.1.2. Terrestrial Or ganisms ......................................................................................................... ............ 40

4.2. Risk Description and Conclusions .............................................................................................. ............ 42

4.2.1. Aquatic Or ganisms ............................................................................................................. ............. 42

4.2.2. Terrestrial Or ganisms ......................................................................................................... ............ 43

4.2.3. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... ................... 47

4.2.4. Endangered Sp ecies Act ........................................................................................................ .......... 48

4.2.5. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ..................................................................................... 49

5. Uncertain ties ................................................................................................................. .................................... 49

6. References .................................................................................................................... ..................................... 52



## List of Tables

Table 1. List of the various models and the related taxa for which the mode ls will be used to assess risk. ...... 10

Table 2. Maximum Use Pattern s for Propyzam ide Uses. ........................................................................... ............ 16 Table 3. General Chemical Properties and Enviro nmental Fate Parameters of Propyzamide. ......................... 18 Table 4. SWCC Input Parameters for Propyzamid e (TR). Source Data are in Table 3. .................................... 20 Table 5. SWCC Application-Specific Input Parameters fo r Propyzamide .......................................................... 21 Table 6. PRZM-GW Input Parameters ............................................................................................. ...................... 21

Table 7. Tier II Total Residue of Concern Estimated En vironmental Concentrations in Surface Water (Pond).

.............................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 22 Table 8. PRZM-GW (100 year simulation) in Groundw ater Resulting from the Use of Propyzamide. ............ 23

Table 9. Terrestrial EECs as food residues for animals exposed to pr opyzamide as a result of the proposed
pre-emergent use. ............................................................................................................. .......................................... 25 Table 10. Contact exposure estimates for ho ney bees exposed to propyzamide uses ........................................... 26-Page 5 of 86- Table 11. EECs for non-target terrestr ial and semi-aquatic plants based on registered uses and proposed new leaf lettuce use of pr opyzamide (T errPlant). ................................................................................. ......................... 26 Table 12. Acute toxicity endpoints us ed in risk estimation and charact erization for freshwater organisms exposed to propyzamide. ....................................................................................................... .................................... 29 Table 13. Acute toxicity endpoints used in risk es timation and characterizati on for estuarine/marine organisms exposed to propyzamide. ............................................................................................. ............................ 29 Table 14. Sediment toxicity testing with freshw ater organisms exposed to propyzamide. ................................. 30 Table 15. Toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for aquatic plants and algae exposed to propyzamide. ....................................................................................................... .................................... 30 Table 16. Chronic toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for fish and aquatic invertebrates exposed to propyzamide. ......................................................................................... .......................... 32 Table 17. Acute toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and char acterization for birds and mammals exposed to propyzamide. ....................................................................................................... .................................... 34 Table 18. Acute toxicity endpoints us ed in risk estimation and charact erization for terrestrial invertebrates exposed to propyzamide. ....................................................................................................... .................................... 34 Table 19. Chronic toxicity endpoints used in risk es timation and characterization for terrestrial animals exposed to propyzamide. ....................................................................................................... .................................... 36 Table 20. Toxicity endpoint s used in risk estimation and characterization for terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants exposed to propyzamide. ................................................................................................ ................................ 37 Table 21. Acute and Chronic RQs for Freshwater Fi sh, Aquatic-Phase Amphibians, and Invertebrates Exposed to Pr opyzamide ........................................................................................................ ................................... 39 Table 22. Acute and Chronic RQs for Estuarine/Marine Fish, Aquatic-Ph ase Amphibians, and Invertebrates Exposed to Pr opyzamide ........................................................................................................ ................................... 39 Table 23. RQ values for listed and non-listed vascul ar and nonvascular aquatic plants exposed to propyzamide in surface water as a result of sp ray drift. ...................................................................... .................. 40 Table 24. Acute Mammalian Dose-Based RQ Values for Proposed Uses of Propyzamide 1,2 .............................. 41 Table 25. Chronic Mammalian Dose-Based RQ Values for Uses of Propyzamide 1 ............................................ 41 Table 26. Contact RQ values for honey bees exposed to pr opyzamide uses ........................................................ . 42

Table 27. Acute a,b Dose-based Avian (20 g) and Dietary-based RQ Values for Propyzamide Based on the Canary ........................................................................................................................ ................................................ 44

Table 28. Acute a,b Dose-based Avian (20 g) and Dietary-based RQ Values for Propyzamide Based on Japanese quail ................................................................................................................ ............................................ 45

Table 29. Chronic a Avian Dietary-based RQ Values for Propyzamide ................................................................ 45 Table 30. Propyzamide RQ values for non-listed species 1 of non-target terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants (TerrPlant ). .................................................................................................................. .............................................. 46 Table 31. Propyzamide RQ values for listed species 1 of non-target terrestria l and semi-aquatic plants (TerrPlant ). .................................................................................................................. .............................................. 46 Table 32. Seedling Emergence RQ values for listed and non-listed species 1 of non-target plants based on propyzamide using groundwater- derived irriga tion water......................................................................... ........... 47 Table 33. Vegetative vigor RQ values for listed and non-listed species 1 of non-target plants based on propyzamide using groundwater- derived irriga tion water......................................................................... ........... 47



## Appendices

Appendix A. Propyzamide Uses ................................................................................................. ............................. 62 Appendix B. Propyzamide and its Enviro nmental Transformation Products ..................................................... 67 Appendix C. SW CC Results ...................................................................................................... ............................... 70 Appendix D. Ecotoxicity data gaps and un certainties ........................................................................... ................. 72 Appendix E. Example T-REX (v. 1. 5.2) input and output data ................................................................... ......... 77 Appendix F. Example TerrPlant (v. 1.2.2) input and output data ................................................................ ........ 78 Appendix G. Output from OPP Aggregate Incident Database for Propyzamide ................................................ 79 Appendix H. Example STIR (v. 1.0) input and output data ...................................................................... ........... 80 Appendix I. SIP Results ...................................................................................................... ..................................... 81 Appendix J. Accepted ECOTOX Data Table (sorted by effect; double c lick) .................................................... 8 2 Appendix K. Complete List of Propyzamide Studies ............................................................................. ............... 83-Page 6 of 86- 

## 1. Executive Summary

Propyzamide (also known as pronamide) is a selec tive, systemic, restricted–use, organochlorine herbicide that is formulated as a wettable pow der in water soluble pouches and a suspension concentrate that may be applie d pre-plant, pre-emergence, or post-emergence by chemigation, ground or aerial spray equipment, depending on the use. Wetting-in of applications is recommended with rainfall or irrigation so that the compound is available for uptake into plant root systems. Most applicati on timing occurs in the fall or early winter prior to freezing. Propyzamide is currently registered for use on a va riety of outdoor crops, or chards, turf, Christmas

trees and ornamentals.

Propyzamide has relatively low volatility and is sol uble in water. Therefore, potential transport mechanisms considered in this assessment include leaching, spray drift and runoff, but not volatilization and atmospheric trans port as these are not expected to be important. The compound is stable to hydrolysis, from moderately mobile to slightly mobile (FAO, 2000), and has been detected in both surface and ground water, in monitoring studies. The major routes of degradation appear to be aerobic metabolism in soil and phot olysis in water. In anaerobic environments, propyzamide may be moderately persistent.

Toxicity data are not available for degradates of propyzamide; however, a ll identified degradates

other than carbon dioxide retain the 3,5-dichlorobenzoyl moiety and in the absence of data to the contrary are considered residues of concern for a ll taxa.. Therefore, a total residues of concern (TRC) approach was used to evalua te the potential exposure to the residues of risk concern, which include propyzamide and all iden tified degradates other than carbon dioxide, for drinking water and aquatic organisms. In this assessment, the pr oposed new use on leaf lettuce is considered.

Propyzamide is classified as slightly-to-moderately toxic to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish (and to aquatic-phase amphibians for which freshwa ter fish serve as surrogates) as well as to

freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute e xposure basis. Propyzamide is practically non-toxic to birds (and to terrestrial-phase amphibian s and reptiles for which birds serve as surrogates) on an acute oral and subacute di etary exposure basis. Th e compound is classified as practically non-toxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis and is practically non-toxic to young adult honey bees ( Apis mellifera ) on an acute contact basis.

Chronic studies demonstrated; 1) impaired reproducti on in birds, freshwater fish and invertebrates; and 2) adverse growth effects in mammals.

Toxicity to aquatic to aquatic and terrestrial plants was observed upon exposure to propyzamide.-Page 7 of 86- 

### Propyzamide exposure at the labeled application ra tes may result in risk to federally listed threatened and endangered (hereafter referred to as “listed”) species of terrestrial and semi-aquatic monocotyledonous (monocot) and dicotyledonous (dicot ) plants. Listed terr estrial plants exposed to residues of propyzamide in irriga tion water are at risk as well. Risk estimates do not exceed the levels of concern (LOC) for listed and non-listed freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and amphibians, or listed and non-liste d vascular and non-vasc ular aquatic plants. Chronic risk LOC’s are exceeded for mammals. Although propyzamide is classified as practic ally non-toxic to avian taxa (and therefore reptiles and amphibians exposed through terrestrial diet), acute and dietary risk

exceed the LOC. There are also chronic risk con cerns for avian taxa. Uses of propyzamide on artichoke and apples, alfalf a, blueberries, and head/l eaf lettuce, and turf may result in chronic risk to small (15 g), medium (35 g), and large (1000 g) size classes of mammals. No acute mammalian exceedances were seen, nor exceedances to honey bees via contact exposure.

Data Gaps/Uncertainties

Environmental Fate

There are no environmental fate data gaps for propyzamide.

Ecological Effects

No data have been submitted for chronic toxicity to estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates. Therefore, a mysid chronic toxicity test (O CSPP 850.1350) and estuarine/marine fish early-life stage test (OCSPP 850.1400) are classified as data gaps. An acute-to chronic ratio (ACR) based on freshwater invertebrate toxicity values has been calculated to estimate estuarine/marine invertebrate toxicity values. An ACR cannot be calculated for estuarine/marine fish because a different species of freshwater fish was used in the acute and chronic freshwater fish toxicity tests.

Additional estuarine marine fish and invertebrate data are not needed because there is minimal risks to aquatic organisms from propyzamide use.

The avian reproduction study (OCSPP 850.2300) with the Mallard (MRID 48931803) was classified as supplemental. The reported NOAEC was a non-definitive “less than” (<) the lowest concentration tested. Although the avian reprod uction study did not establish a lower bound for effects on avian reproduction, exceedances were obs erved at the lowest test concentration used 311 mg a.i./kg diet. Additional data is needed to characterize the lower bounds of chronic toxicity

to avian taxa.

Although data indicate propyzamide is practically non-toxic to young adult bees on an acute contact exposure basis, the toxi city endpoint is non-definitive, a nd there is uncerta inty regarding potential risk from acute oral exposure when cons idered in the context of estimated exposures ( i.e., EECs) from registered uses of propyzamide. There is also uncertainty rega rding the potential acute and chronic effects of the compound on honey bee larval development and survival as well as potential chronic effects in adult bees. Therefore, additional data on pollinators is needed to fully

characterize the risk asso ciated with propyzamide use to all developmental stages of honey bees, as sensitivity may vary according to life-stage a nd length of exposure (adult vs. larval and acute-Page 8 of 86- 

### vs. chronic, respectively). As described in the guidance for assessing risks to bees 1,2 

### , depending on the outcome of the screening-level risk assessm ent, additional studies of bees at the colony level under semi- and full-field conditions may also be recommended.

The Tier II vegetative vigor plant toxicity study showed IC 25 

### values that were less than the NOAEC values. Extrapolated IC 25 

### values fell outside the range of test concentrations resulting in uncertainty regarding the actual IC 25 

### value. As a result, IC 25 

### values have a non-definitive “less than” (<) value. The NOAEC value for the seedling emergency monocot study is also described

as a non-definitive “less than” value. Furthe rmore, both the seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies were conducted with TGAI as oppos ed to TEP. TEP formulations may enhance the toxicity and persistence of the chemical. Therefore, additi onal seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies are needed with TEP to characterize th e effects of propyzamide on terrestrial plants.



## 2. Problem Formulation

2.1. Nature of Chemical Stressor

Propyzamide is a systemic restricted–use, organochlo rine herbicide that is formulated as a wettable powder in water soluble pouches and can be applie d pre-plant, pre-emergence, or post-emergence by chemigation, ground or aerial spray equipment, depending on the use. Propyzamide is currently registered for use on a variety of outdoor crops, orchards, and other agricultural and nonagricultural areas. There are eight active registrations wh ich include: two techni cal grades (EPA Reg. Num./percent of active ingredient 62719- 394/94.6%; 87285-1/97.5%); two suspension concentrates (62719-578/35.6% SC and 87290-22/35.6% SC), three water so luble packets (87290- 3/50%; 87290-9/50% and 62719-397/50%) and manu facturing use product (62719-391/51%).

The chemical is used on alfalfa, apples, globe artichokes (CA), birdsfoot trefoil, blackberry/boysenberry/raspbe rries, blueberries, cherries, clov er, crown vetch, endive, escarole, grapes, fallow land, head lettuce, nectarines, p eaches, pears, plums, prune, radicchio greens, raspberries, rhubarb, sainfoin, wi nter peas, woody ornamentals, nurse ry stock of ornamentals, and

Christmas trees.

2.1. Stressor Source and Distribution

The compound is absorbed by plants via the root system and distri buted throughout the plant. The mode of action of propyzamide is unknown although it has been shown to i nhibit cell division by preventing the formation of spindle fibers during mitosis via binding to prot eins associated with microtubule assembly (Griffen 2003). The details regarding the active site of th e chemical are not

known.

1 USEPA. 2014. Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. O ffice of Pesticide Programs. United States Environmental Protec tion Agency.

Available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/sci ence/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors/terrest rial_biology_tech_team/GuidanceAssessingPesticid eRisk2Bees. pdf

2 http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/f iles/2014-06/documents/pollinator_r isk_assessment_guida nce_06_19_14.pdf-Page 9 of 86- 

### 2.2. Receptors

A receptor is a biological entity that is exposed to a stressor (USE PA 1998A). For this assessment, the receptors include terrestr ial and aquatic plants and an imals inhabiting fields where propyzamide is applied, and those inhabiting n on-target areas to which propyzamide may be transported ( e.g ., via spray drift and ru noff). Consistent with the pro cess described in the Overview Document (USEPA 2004), the risk assessment uses a surrogate species approach in its evaluation of propyzamide. Toxicological da ta generated from surrogate test species, which are intended to be representative of broad taxonomic groups, are used to extrapolate to potential effects on a variety of species (receptors) include d under these taxonomic groupings.

Acute and chronic toxicity data from studies submitted by pesticide registrants along with the available open literature are used to evaluate pot ential direct effects of propyzamide to aquatic and terrestrial receptors. The open literature studies are located through EPA’s database ECOTOX ( http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/ ), which provides a source for locati ng single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife.

2.3. Assessment Endpoints

Assessment endpoints represent the ac tual environmental value that is to be protected, defined by an ecological entity ( e.g ., species, community) and its attr ibutes (USEPA 1998A). For propyzamide, the ecological entities include birds, mammals, freshwater fi sh and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, terrestria l plants, insects, and aqua tic plants and algae.

The attributes evaluated for each of these entitie s may include growth, reproduction, and survival.

2.4. Conceptual Model

For a pesticide to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological r eceptors in biologically significant concentrations. An exposure pathway is the means by which a pesticide moves in the environment from a source to an ecological recepto r. For an ecological pathway to be complete, it must have a source, a release mechanism, an environmental transport medium, a point of exposure for ecological receptors, an d a feasible route of exposure.

A conceptual model provides a description of the predicted relationshi ps between propyzamide, the potential routes of exposur e, and the predicted effects for each assessment endpoint.

2.4.1. Risk Hypothesis

For propyzamide, the following ecological risk h ypothesis is employed for this risk assessment:

Propyzamide, when used in accordance with curr ent labels, can result in off-site movement of the compound via runoff, erosion of sedi ment-bound residues and spray drift leading to exposure of non-target terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals. Applications to foliar surfaces may serve as a major source of propy zamide exposure to wildlife. This potential exposure pathway may result in adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and-Page 10 of 86- 

### reproduction of non-target terrestrial and aqua tic organisms. These nontarget organisms include Federally-listed thre atened and endangered species.

2.4.2. Conceptual Model Pathways and Effects

The environmental fate properties of propyzamide indicate that for gro und spray applications, spray drift, and runoff are potenti al transport mechanisms to a quatic habitats where non-target organisms may be exposed. It is expected that non-target terrestrial organisms can be exposed to propyzamide following pre-emergent application, through consumption of exposed plants and

invertebrates on the treated field. The plant uptake of the chemical may be a pathway of exposure to non-target terrestrial organisms upon cons umption. Additionally, propyzamide may reach

terrestrial environments off treated fields via spray drift, and groundwater containing residues of propyzamide. A summary of the transport pathways and the models used to generate estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) for those pathways in the assessment is provided in Table

1

.

The transport pathways may result in exposure to various aquatic a nd terrestrial organisms. With exposure, the following attribute change s have the potential to occur:

 Effects to individual organisms,

 Effects to food webs (reducti on in prey and food,), and

 Effects to habitat integrity (reduction in primary productivi ty, reduced cover, community change, habitat modification).

Table 1. List of the various models and the related taxa for which the models will be used

to assess risk.

Environment Taxa of

Concern Exposure

Media Exposure Pathway Model(s) or Pathway

Aquatic Vertebrates/

Invertebrates
Surface water/

sediment Runoff and spray

drift to water and

sediment SWCC

Aquatic Plants (vascular and nonvascular)

Riparian plants See terrestrial exposure pathways

Terrestrial Vertebrate Dietary items Ingestion of

residues in/on dietary items, including treated

seeds as a result

of direct application T-REX

Consumption of aquatic organisms Residues taken up by aquatic

organisms Not a major

transport pathway

Plants Spray drift/runoff Runoff and spray drift to plants TERRPLANT AgDRIFT-Page 11 of 86- Environment Taxa of

Concern Exposure

Media Exposure Pathway Model(s) or Pathway

Surface water Residues in groundwater irrigation water SWCC

Groundwater PRZM-GW

Bees and other

terrestrial

invertebrates 1 Contact Spray contact and ingestion of

residues in/on dietary items as

a result of direct

application. Uptake of pollen/nectar from plants. T-REX (contact only)

All

Environments All Movement through air to aquatic and

terrestrial media Spray drift AgDRIFT (Spray drift)

Atmospheric

transport Not a major

transport pathway

Text in italics represent transport pathways that are not of concern.

1 See pollinator SAP white paper for full list of modeling approaches for evaluating exposure used in this assessment (USEPA 2012).



### 2.5. Analysis Plan

The analysis plan is the fina l step in the Problem Formul ation (Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OPP-2009- 0326). During this step, an assessment design is de veloped, the scope of the assessment is outlined, the methods for conducting the assessment are dete rmined, measurements of effects and exposure to evaluate the risk hypothesis are delineated, and initial data ga ps and assumptions required to

address them are identified.

2.5.1. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments

Propyzamide was first registered under the name pronamide in 1972 for use on broadleaf weeds and grasses. The Agency conducted multiple subsequent assessments through the preparation of the 1994 Re-registration Eligibi lity Decision (RED), includi ng an emergency exemption assessment in 1988 (DP barcode unspecified) for use on marigolds in California. That assessment concluded that impacts to non -target organisms were not e xpected, but that the compound’s potential for leaching could not be assessed due to the lack of data. Ecological drinking water exposure assessments and the problem formula tion on propyzamide conducted in support of the registration review and those in the interim are brie fly discussed below. The aforementioned documents serve as a basis for this preliminary risk assessment.

2.5.2. Propyzamide Ecological Risk Assessments

Ecological risk assessments completed for propyzamide include two emergency exemption (FIFRA Section 18) assessments conducted in 1 994 for use on grass grown for seed in Oregon-Page 12 of 86- 

### (DP Barcode unspecified) and in 1998 for use on cranberries in Massachusetts (DP Barcode 242640). The FIFRA Section 18 assessment for use on grass grown for seed identified potential

risk to terrestrial and wetl and plants, including the listed plant Bradshaw's Lomatium ( Lomatium

bradshawii ), and identified significant data gaps for aquatic plants and other taxa. The FIFRA

Section 18 assessment for use on cranberries in Massachus etts found no potential risk to listed or non-listed organisms.

A Re-registration Eligibility Decision (RED) document was prepared for propyzamide in 1994 (USEPA 1994). The RED assessed use on f ood crops (artichoke, blackberry, blueberry, boysenberry, cherry, endive, escarole, lettuce, nectarine, peach, pear, plum, prune, raspberry, rhubarb), food and feed crops (fallow land, apple, grapes, peas, sugar beet), feed crops (alfalfa clover, sainfoin, trefoil, vetch) and non-food crops (Christmas tree farms, golf courses and recreational turf, ornamentals), conc luding that all products were elig ible for re-registration, except for broadcast application on resi dential turf and late season us es on artichokes (USEPA 1994). The RED identified no risk to terrestrial animals, aquatic animals, or aquatic plants. Studies of toxicity to aquatic invertebrates (chronic), aquatic plants , and terrestrial dicots were requested to eliminate data gaps. Risk to terrestrial monoc ots was identified from all registered uses.

An ecological risk assessment of proposed uses on chicory, Belgian endi ve, dandelion, and berries was completed in 2007 (USEPA 2007a; DP Barcode 329358). This assessment identified potential chronic risk to mammals and potential risk to terr estrial and semi-aquatic plants. Potential risk of direct effects was identified to listed mammals, bi rds, estuarine invertebrates, and terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants. Potential risk of indirect effects was identifie d for most taxa due to potential risk to plants. An addendum to the ecological risk a ssessment (USEPA 2007b) indicated that risk

to listed estuarine invertebrates was below levels of concern.

An endangered species assessment was conducted, of risks from propyzamide use to the federally

threatened California re d-legged frog (CRLF; Rana aurora draytonii ) (USEPA 2008). The Agency made a Likely to Adversely Affect determination for the CRLF from the use of propyzamide and determined that there is poten tial for modification of CRLF designated critical habitat as well. The use of propyzamide was f ound likely to adversely a ffect terrestrial-phase CRLF through chronic effects. Additionally, pr opyzamide was found likely to adversely affect the terrestrial-phase CRLF through reduc tions in terrestrial plants that serve as cover. The decrease in terrestrial plants along riparian zones was also found likely to a dversely affect the aquatic-phase CRLF through indirect effects on water quality. The use of propyzamide was also found likely to modify the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of designated critical habitat for both aquatic- and terrestrial-phase CRLF.

A registration review problem formulation wa s conducted in 2009 (USEPA 2009; DP Barcode 363909). In this problem formulation multiple data gaps were identified. These deficiencies

included freshwater and saltwater fish acute t oxicity, saltwater invertebrate acute toxicity,

freshwater and saltwater fish ea rly life stage toxicity, estuarin e/marine invertebrate life cycle toxicity, avian oral toxicity (p asserine species), and avian re production. Since 2009, many of the studies have been submitted and reviewed by the Agency and are included in this assessment.

2.5.3. Drinking Water Assessment-Page 13 of 86- 

### A drinking water exposure assessm ent was conducted recently in support of human health risk assessment for leaf lettuce use (USEPA, 2015). The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for the Health Effect s Division’s (HED) dietary asse ssment was 102 ppb for the acute dietary assessment and 47.0 ppb fo r the chronic and cancer dietary assessments. For assessment purposes, EFED assumed two leaf lettuce growi ng seasons may occur per year, resulting in a

maximum annual rate of 4.0 lbs a.i./acre. In th is assessment however, leaf lettuce was modeled with only one appl ication a year.

2.5.4. Identification of Data Gaps and Uncertainties

In terms of environmental fate studies require d to support the registra tion of propyzamide, the environmental chemistry method and the independe nt laboratory validati on in soil studies are

needed.

With respect to data requirements to support the assessment of ecological effects, no data have

been submitted for chronic effects to estuarine/marine fish and invert ebrates. An estuarine/marine invertebrate life-cycle test (OCSPP 850.1350) and an estuarine/marine fish early-life stage test (OCSPP 850.1400) are listed as uncertainties due to an absence of data. An acute-to chronic ratio (ACR) based on freshwater inverteb rate toxicity value has been calculated to permit estimation of

estuarine/marine invertebrate to xicity values. An ACR cannot be calculated for estuarine/marine fish because different species of freshwater fish we re used in the acute and chronic freshwater fish toxicity tests. Minimal risks to estuarine/mari ne fish and invertebrates is expected from propyzamide use on a chronic exposure basis, therefore, no additional data is needed. In order for chronic exceedances to occur, the NOAEC woul d need to be 34.4 and 29.3 μg a.i./L for the estuarine/marine fish and invertebrate, respectively. Currently, the most sensitive acute

estuarine/marine fish and invertebrate LC 50 

### is >7,690 and 3,500 μg a.i. /L, respectively, for the Sheepshead minnow and Eastern oyster (MRI Ds 48599212 and 43608401). The most sensitive

chronic freshwater fish and i nvertebrate NOAEC is 224 and 600 μg a.i./L, respectively, for the Fathead minnow and Water flea (MRIDs 48931801 and 43673301).

The avian reproduction study (OCSPP 850.2300) with th e Mallard was classified as supplemental because the reported NOAEC was a non- definitive “less than” (<) the lo west concentration tested. Although the avian reproduction st udy did not establish a lowe r bound for effects on avian reproduction, exceedances were observed at 311 mg a.i./kg diet. Additional data is needed to

characterize the lower bounds of ch ronic toxicity to avian taxa.

Although data indicate propyzamide is practically non-toxic to young adult bees on an acute contact exposure basis, the toxi city endpoint is non-definitive, a nd there is uncerta inty regarding potential risk from acute oral exposure when cons idered in the context of estimated exposures ( i.e., EECs) from registered uses of propyzamide. There is also uncertainty rega rding the potential acute and chronic effects of the compound on honey bee larval development and survival as well as potential chronic effects in adult bees. Therefore, additional data on pollinators is needed to fully

characterize the risk asso ciated with propyzamide use to all developmental stages of honey bees, as sensitivity may vary according to life-stage a nd length of exposure (adult vs. larval and acute-Page 14 of 86- 

### vs. chronic, respectively). As described in the guidance for assessing risks to bees 3,4 

### , depending on the outcome of the screening-level risk assessm ent, additional studies of bees at the colony level under semi- and full-field conditions may also be recommended.

The Tier II vegetative vigor plant toxicity study showed IC 25 

### values that were less than the NOAEC values. Extrapolated IC 25 

### values fell outside the range of test concentrations resulting in uncertainty regarding the actual IC 25 

### value. As a result, IC 25 

### values have a non-definitive “less than” (<) value. The NOAEC value for the seedling emergency monocot study is also described

as a non-definitive “less than” value. Furthe rmore, both the seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies were conducted with TGAI as oppos ed to TEP. TEP formulations may enhance the toxicity and persistence of the chemical. Therefore, additi onal seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies are needed with TEP to characterize th e effects of propyzamide on terrestrial plants.

2.5.5. Measures of Exposure

Screening-level assessments are intended to be protective of wildlife on a national level, as opposed to being regionally or lo cally specific. Therefore, this assessment is not intended to represent a spatially- or temporally-specific anal ysis. Maximum application rates are used to model EECs. Measures of exposure are ba sed on aquatic and terrestrial models ( Table 1 ) that calculate EECs using maximum proposed applica tion rates and methods. Groundwater is also assessed due to the leaching potential of propy zamide and the potential to use groundwater as irrigation water on crops. Exposur e models are parameterized usi ng relevant use (proposed label rates) and environmental fate data according to current EFED model input parameter guidance. 5



### The Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC, v 1.106, May, 2014) is used to generate EECs representing concentrations that may occur in surface water. The SWCC simulates pesticide transformation on and runoff from an agricultural fi eld (in addition to loadings from spray drift), following applications to crops. The model then simulates resulting concentrations in an adjacent surface water body ( i.e ., the standard pond).

Groundwater concentrations are estimated usin g the PRZM-GW model (P esticide Root Zone Model for Groundwater, version 1.07), with the GW-GUI (Graphical User Interface, version 1.0, August 31, 2012). PRZM-GW is a one-dimensional leaching model that estimates potential concentrations of pesticides in vulnerable groundwater. It accounts for pesticide fate in the crop root zone by simulating pesticide transport and degradat ion through the soil profile after a pesticide is applied to an agricultural field. PRZM-GW permits the assessment of multiple years of sequential pesticide application (up to 100 years) on a single site. Six standard scenarios, each representing a different region known to be vulne rable to leaching and gr oundwater contamination, are currently available for use with PR ZM-GW for risk assessment purposes.

3 USEPA. 2014. Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. O ffice of Pesticide Programs. United States Environmental Protec tion Agency.

Available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/sci ence/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors/terrest rial_biology_tech_team/GuidanceAssessingPesticid eRisk2Bees. pdf

4 http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/f iles/2014-06/documents/pollinator_r isk_assessment_guida nce_06_19_14.pdf

5 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/w ater/input_parameter_guidance.htm-Page 15 of 86- 

### The Terrestrial Residue Exposure Model (T-REX , version 1.5.2, 6/20/2013) is used to derive

terrestrial EECs on food items for terrestrial ve rtebrates. Upper-bound Kenega nomogram values used in T-REX are based on Hoerger and Kenega (1972) as m odified by Fletcher et al . (1994), and

are used to derive EECs for terrestrial mammal s and birds based on di etary- and dose-based exposures from pre-emergent applications. A one-y ear time period is simula ted. Consideration is given to different types of f eeding strategies for mammals a nd birds, including herbivores, insectivores and granivores. For dose-based expo sures, three weight clas ses of mammals (15, 35, and 1000 g) and birds (20, 100, and 1000 g) are considered.

The TerrPlant model (v. 1.2.2, 12/26/2006) is used to derive runoff and spray drift EECs for estimating exposures to terrestrial plants in habiting dry and semi-aquatic areas. Exposure estimates using the Screening Tool for Inhalati on Risk (STIR, v. 1.0, 11/ 23/2010) indicated that inhalation was not expected to be a signi ficant route of ex posure for wildlife ( Appendix H ). Drinking water pathways were screened using th e SIP (Screening Imbibitio n Program, v. 1.0). SIP results showed that acute and chronic exposur e to propyzamide through drinking water does not represent a potential concern for mammals and birds (LOC exceedances not expected; Appendix

I ). SIP is described in detail at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/m odels/terrestrial/index.htm

.

To characterize potential non-targ et plant exposure from spray drift alone, Tier 1 modules in AgDRIFT (v. 2.1.1, December 2011) were used to es timate how far off-site spray drift exposure might occur at a level known to cause adverse eff ects in terrestrial plant toxicity studies. For ground applications, EFED used the American So ciety of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE, formerly ASAE) Coarse-to-Very Coarse dr oplet size category in its modeling. This size category is an assumption for herbicides that re quire root uptake. The volume median diameter (Dv 50 

### ) for the Coarse-to-Very Coarse dr oplet size distribut ion is 440 microns.

The K ow 

### -based A quatic B io A ccumulation M odel (KABAM) 6 

### v. 1.0 is used to estimate potential bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic pesticid es in freshwater aquatic food webs and subsequent risks to mammals and birds via consumption of contam inated aquatic prey. Due to low measured fish bioconcentration factors (ran ge of 21-77) and low/middle range octanol/water partition coefficient (log K ow 

### =3.0-3.3), propyzamide is not expected to bioconcentrate in aquatic environments (MRID 43196701). Therefore, KABAM modeling is not triggered by propyzamide’s physicochemical characteristics a nd was not used in this assessment.

2.5.6. Measures of Effect

Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of registrant-submitted guideline studies which are conducted with a limited number of surrogate speci es. The test specie s are not intended to necessarily be representative of the most sensitiv e species but rather are selected based on their ability to thrive under laboratory conditions. For ex ample, toxicity testing reported in this risk assessment utilizes surrogate spec ies to represent all freshwater fish (>2000 species) and birds (>680 species) identified in the U.S.

The acute measures of effect used in this scre ening-level assessment include the median lethal dose (LD 50 

### ), median lethal concentration (LC 50 

### ), and the median effect concentration (EC 50 

### ).

6 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/w ater/kabam/kabam_user_guide.html-Page 16 of 86- 

### These are measures of acute toxicity which resu lt in 50% of the respective effect in tested organisms. The endpoints for chronic measures of effect are the No Observed Adverse Effects Concentration (NOAEC) and the No Observed Adve rse Effects Level (NOAEL). Toxicity studies are submitted for freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, aquatic and terrestrial plants, birds, mammals and honey bees. The measurement endpoints used for risk

characterization are derived fr om studies which underwent revi ew and are classified as “acceptable” (conducted under guideline conditions and considered to be scientifically sound) or “supplemental” (conditions deviated from guidelines but the results are sc ientifically sound).

The ECOTOXicology database (E COTOX), was searched in August 2013 to identify whether additional, more sensitive ecological effects da ta were available for propyzamide; however, no additional useful data were identified ( Appendix J ).

2.5.7. Integration of Exposure and Effects

The exposure and effects data are integrated to evaluate the risk s of adverse ecological effects on non-target species. For the screening-level asse ssment of propyzamide, the deterministic, risk quotient (RQ) method is used to compare estimated exposure and m easured toxicity values. The RQ method involves dividi ng EECs by the most sensitive acute and chronic toxicity values for specific taxa. The resulting RQs are then compar ed to the Agency’s levels of concern (LOCs) (USEPA 2004) for acute and chronic risk. These cr iteria are used to indi cate whether applications of propyzamide, as directed on the proposed label, have the potential to cause adverse effects to non-target organisms.

Although risk is often described in terms of the likelihood and magn itude of adverse effects, the risk quotient-based approach does not provide a quantitative estimate of likelihood or magnitude of an adverse effect, but rather provides a “y es” or “no” answer depending upon whether or not

LOCs are exceeded.



## 3. Analysis

3.1. Use Characterization

Propyzamide is a systemic, organochlorine herbicide that can be used as pre-emergence and early post-emergence control of winter annual and pe rennial grasses and chickweed. The maximum annual application rate is 4.5 lbs a.i./A for the us e on turf with a single ap plication rate of 1.5 lbs a.i./A. The label failed to specify the number of applications as a result three applications were assumed in the spring, summer, and fall with a re-t reatment interval of 91 days. Propyzamide can be applied to turf by ground ( Table 2 ).

Table 2. Maximum Use Patterns for Propyzamide Uses.

Use

Pattern Max. Single App. Rate (lbs a.i./A) Number of Apps

per Year. Annual App. Rate (lbs a.i./A) Minimum

Retreatment Interval (days) Applic

ation

Metho

d Comments

Artichoke 4 1 4 Not applicable Aerial/ In CA only-Page 17 of 86- 

### ground Alfalfa 2 na 2 Not applicable Ground Apples 4 1 4 Not applicable Ground Blueberries 2 1 2 Not applicable Ground

Head/leaf

lettuce 1 

### 2 1 2 Not applicable Aerial/ ground 2 

### A split application can be

performed at a

max of 1.0 lbs a.i./A and 10 day

MRI

Turf 3 

### 1.5 3 4.5 91 Ground

1 

### Head lettuce was modeled but this is also representativ e of leaf lettuce. However, if more application are performed for these crops (more than one crop cycles), the EECs may not be conservative.

2 

### For Head lettuce only

3 

### Assumed 3 days interval and 3 applications/year na= not applicable



### 3.2. Exposure Characterization

3.2.1. Environmental Fate and Transport

Monitoring data on propyzamide have revealed concentrations in the environment (water) consistent with the peak (3.7-10.3 μg/L) and annual mean (0.53-4.45 μg/L, USEPA 2009). Monitoring data are not available on any degradates of propyzamide.

Propyzamide is an organochlorine herbicide (pre-e mergence and early postemergence control of winter annual and pe rennial grasses and chickweed) that is typically applied aerially or by ground equipment, and wetted in, during th e fall or winter months. The ma jor routes of degradation of parent appear to be aerobic mi crobial degradation in soil (44.6 d) and photolysis in water (217 d). Four major degradates of propyzamide ha ve been identified (RH-24644, RH-24655, RH-24580 and RH-26059, with maximum applied radioactiv ity of 31.9%, aerobic soil metabolism; 27.3%, aerobic aquatic metabolism; 32.2%, anaerobic soil metabolism and 15.0%, aqueous photolysis respectively). The Health Effects Division (HED) found all degradates of propyzamide that contain the 3,5-dichlorobenzoyl moiety to be of human risk concern, assuming that their toxicity is similar to that of propyzamide parent (USEPA, 2002; 2007) . A total residue (TR) approach was therefore used to generate EECs (environmental exposure con centrations) that reflec t residues, in the pond, of the parent compound plus all such degradates of concern.

Propyzamide has relatively lo w vapor pressure (8.5 x 10 -5 

### torr; 25°C) and is soluble in water up to 15 mg/L (25°C). The compound is stable to hydrol ysis, relatively resist ant to soil photolysis (t 1/2 

### = 249 d), and moderately susceptible to aquatic photolysis (t 1/2 

### = 42 d). Propyzamide degrades relatively readily in aerobic soil environments (t 1/2 

### = 20-44.6 d), but is more persistent in anaerobic environments (t 1/2 

### = 127-450 d) and aquatic environments (aerobic aquatic and anaerobic aquatic half-lives of 119 d and 450 d, respectively). Sorp tion to soils is a function of both organic carbon and cation exchange capacity. N onetheless the compound is classifi ed as moderate ly mobile to slightly mobile in soil (K FOC 

### range = 700 – 5383), and thus presents a poten tial groundwater concern in some areas, e.g ., those with sandy soils and high wate r tables. Propyzamide has indeed been detected in both surface water and groundwater.-Page 18 of 86- 

### Table 3 summarizes known physical/chemical properties of propyzamide based upon submitted environmental fate studies on the pesticide. A comp lete listing of environmental fate data can be

found in Appendix K

.

Table 3. General Chemical Properties a nd Environmental Fate Parameters of Propyzamide.

Chemical/Fate Value Source

Chemical name 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1- dimethylprop-2- ynyl)benzamide USEPA, 1994

Molecular mass 256.13 g/mol USEPA, 1994
Vapor pressure (25  C) 8.5 x 10 -5 

### torr USEPA, 1994
Solubility (25  C) 15 mg/L USEPA, 1994 Octanol-water partition coefficient (K O W 

### ) 1000-2000 MRID 46413408

Freundlich organic carbon partitioning coefficient (K FOC 

### ) in L/kg OC 

### 700

1026

1150

1317

1586

2283

2287

5383 MRID 49126805

Hydrolysis half-life at pH 4.7, 7.4 and 8.8 (20  C) No significant degradation MRID 00107980

Aqueous photolysis half-life for

parent;
Total residues method half-life 41.7 d; 217 d MRID 40420301, MRID

40320601

Soil photolysis half-life for

parent;
Total residues method half-life 249 d; No significant degradation MRID 41913504

Aerobic soil metabolism halflife for parent;

Total residues method half-life (soil texture) 20.1 d; 64.9 d (sandy loam) 21.5 d; 96.6 d (silty clay loam)

44.6 d; 166 d (loamy sand) MRID 46413407

Anaerobic soil metabolism halflife for parent;

Total residues method half-life (soil texture) 450 d; No significant degradation (sandy loam) MRID 41913505

Aerobic aquatic metabolism half-life for parent;

Total residues method half-life (sediment texture) 69.0 d; 899 d (silt loam) 119 d; 782 d (sand) MRID 46427901

Anaerobic aqueous metabolism half-life for parent;

Total residues method half-life (soil texture) 127 d; 402 d (loamy sand) MRID 46413408

Terrestrial field dissipation 18-24 d (sandy loam) MRID 44078601-Page 19 of 86- 

### Chemical/Fate Value Source

half-life (soil texture) 34-53 d (loam)



### Propyzamide is a soluble chemi cal (15 mg/L in water at 25  C; USEPA, 1994) that is not expected to volatilize significantly due to the compound’ s relatively low vapor pressure of 8.5 x 10 -5 

### torr (25  C; USEPA, 1994). Propyzamide is slightly to moderately mobile, with Freundlich soil-water partitioning coefficients (K F 

### ) that ranged (in 8 soils) from 1 8.3 (1/n=0.96) to 47.2 (1/n=0.96). Additionally, organic carbon pa rtitioning coefficients (K FOC 

### ) ranged from 700 to 5383 L/kg OC



### . These values range in classification from mode rately mobile to sli ghtly mobile (FAO 2000). Mobility is partially explained by affinity to or ganic carbon, as the coeffi cient of variation (CV)

across six soils for K FOC 

### (40%) is less than that for K F 

### (47%). The compound may also have greater mobility in sand y, clay-poor soils, as K F 

### values for propyzamide correlate with cation exchange capacity (R 2 

### = 0.9214).

Propyzamide is stable to hydrolysis at pH 5, 7, and 9, relatively persistent wi th respect to photolysis on soil (t 1⁄2 

### = 249 d), but moderately susceptible to degradation by aquatic photolysis (t 1⁄2 

### = 41.7 d). Two major photodegradates were identified: RH-26059 and RH-24580.

Parent propyzamide is slightly persistent (Goring scale, 1975) in aerobic soils (t 1⁄2 

### = 20.1-44.6 d) and moderately persistent in aerobic aquatic systems (t 1⁄2 

### = 69.0-119 d). Propyzamide is also moderately persistent in anaerobic aquatic systems (t 1⁄2 

### = 127 d), and persistent in anaerobic soils (t 1⁄2 

### = 450 d).

Major degradates of propyzamide (>10% of th e applied radioactivity) include RH-24644, RH24580, RH-26059, and carbon dioxide. Six minor degr adates have also been identified: RH24655, RH-20839, RH-26521, RH-25891, RH-26702, 3,5-dichlo robenzamide (See the structures of degradates in Appendix B ). A batch equilibrium study on RH-24644 and RH-24580 indicates that RH-24644 has similar to lower mobility compared to propyzamide (K F 

### range = 2.34 (1/n=0.98) to 55.1 (1/n=0.86); K FOC 

### range = 993-3910 L/kg OC 

### ), whereas RH-24580 is unambiguously more mobile than propyzamide (K F 

### range = 0.283 (1/n=0.83) to 2.36 (1/n=0.87);

K FOC 

### range = 96.3-210 L/kg OC



### .

The two major degradates observed in metabolis m studies were RH-24580 at up to 32.2% of the applied, and RH-24644 at up to 31.9% of the applie d. Carbon dioxide was also formed, at up to 50.4% of the applied. Both RH-24580 and RH-24644 a ppear to degrade no mo re quickly than the parent based on biotic studies.

3.2.2. Aquatic Exposure

3.2.2.1 Model Inputs

Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for surface water were generated using the

Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC v. 1.106). Table 4 list the input parameters used in aquatic exposure modeling for propyzamide.-Page 20 of 86- 

### Chemical property model input values were chos en in accordance with EFED’s current input parameter guidance 7 

### . Based on analysis of total toxic re sidues, the upper 90% confidence limit on

the mean half-life was selected as the model input value for aerobic soil and aerobic aquatic metabolism pathways (165 d and 1,020 d TR half-liv es respectively). For the anaerobic aquatic metabolism pathway (used to represent decay within the benthic zone of the receiving water body), the single available half-life was multiplied by 3 (producing a value of 1,210 d) to account for uncertainty associated with limited data.

Table 4. SWCC Input Parameters for Propyzamide (TR). Source Data are in Table 3.
Input Parameter Value Justification Source Molecular Mass (g/mol) 256.13 Pr oduct chemistry data USEPA, 1994 Vapor Pressure at 25°C (torr) 8.5 x 10 -5 

### Study value USEPA, 1994

Solubility in Water at

25 o 

### C (mg/L) 15.0 Product chemistry data USEPA, 1994

Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (K OC 

### ) (L/kg OC 

### ) 1966 Represents the mean K FOC 

### for propyzamide parent as an estimate of the partition

coefficient for the total

residues. MRID 40211103

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days) 165 Represents the 90 percent upper confidence limit on the mean (three soils) total residue

half-life. MRID 46413407

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism Half-life (days) 1020 Represents the 90 percent upper confidence limit on the

mean total residue half-life. MRID 46427901

Anaerobic Aquatic

Metabolism Half-life (days) 1210 Represents 3 times the single

available total residue half-life. MRID 46413408

Hydrolysis Half-lives at pH 5, 7 and 9 (days) Stable No measureable degradation in study. MRID 00107980

Aqueous Photolysis Half-life (days) 217 Represents the single

environmental phototransformation total

residue half-life. MRID 40420301

1 EFED input parameter gu idance is located at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/wat er/input_parameter_guidance.htm



### 3.2.2.2 Selection of Crops and Scenarios

Eleven standard scenarios were used in surface water modeling to represent the range of existing uses of propyzamide: TX alfalfa OP, NC alfalfa OP, CA alfalfa OP, CA row crop RLF, PA apples, CA lettuce, MS corn, NC apple, OR berries, FL turf, and PA turf ( Table 5 ). Aerial and ground application were both assumed for modeled scenarios as described on the labels as were maximum application rates and minimum retreatment interval s. The retreatment interval is the amount of time between sequential pesticide a pplications. For uses wherein th e retreatment interval is not specified (turf), a three day interval was assumed as its conservative. The application dates for the

7 US EPA, 2009.-Page 21 of 86- 

### scenarios were chosen according to their crop pr ofiles, crop lifecycle and/or time when heavy pest pressure is believed likely to occur 8



### .

The CA row crop RLF (Red Legged Frog) scenario was used as a proxy in modeling for the globe artichoke use, because globe artichokes are grown almost exclusively in California. There is no

standard scenario for use on arti chokes, berries or alfalfa; the CA row crop OP (organophosphate), the OR berries OP, and the alfalfa OP scenarios re spectively, were used because they provide the closest approximations to these crops from among th e available scenarios. The highest application rates for propyzamide were assessed for turf.

Table 5. SWCC Application-Specific Input Parameters for Propyzamide

Uses PRZM Scenario Max App rate in lbs a.i./A (kg a.i./ha) # Apps/year Retreatment

Interval

(days) % Drift/ Efficiency Date of 1 st of application



### Artichoke 1 

### CA row crop RLF 4 (4.48) 1 not applicable 0.125/0.95 

### Feb 1

Alfalfa 1 

### CA alfalfa OP 2 (2.24) 1 not applicable 0.062/0.99 

### Jan 7

MN alfalfa OP 2 (2.24) 1 not applicable 0.062/0.99 

### Jan 7

NC alfalfa

OP 2 (2.24) 1 not applicable 0.062/0.99 

### Jan 7

TX alfalfa OP 2 (2.24) 1 not applicable 0.062/0.99 

### Jan 7

Apples PA apples 4 (4.48) 1 not applicable 0.062/0.99 

### Sep 15

NC apples 4 (4.48) 1 not applicable 0.062/0.99 

### Sep 15

Blueberries OR berries 2 (2.24) 1 not applicable 0.062/0.99 

### May 15

Head/leaf

lettuce CA Lettuce 1 (2.24) 1 not applicable 0.125/0.95 

### Feb 1

Turf PA Turf 1.5 (1.68) 3 3 0.062/0.99 

### March 15

FL turf 1.5 (1.68) 3 91 0.062/0.99 

### March 15

1 There is not a standard scenario available for this crop and ther efore, a non-standard scenario (O Ps or RLFs) was used because it provided the closest representation of ag ricultural practices for the crop from among available EFED-approved scenarios.



### Table 6 (below) shows the input parameters used in modeling ground water. Hydrolysis was modeled as stable, the aerobic soil metabolis m half-live employed was 165 d, and the organic carbon-normalized soil partition coefficient (K oc 

### ) was the mean observed value: 1,966 mL/g

oc 

### . 

### The maximum application rate on turf was used as it is the maximum annual application rate of all the uses (4.5 lbs a.i./A per year).

Table 6. PRZM-GW Input Parameters Parameter (units) Input Value Data Source Application Rate (lbs a.i./A) 4.5 Labels (EPA #s: 62719-397; 62719-578; 87290-3; 87290-22) 

### Number of Applications/yr 3

8 USDA Crop Profiles. Available online at: http://www.ipmcenters.org/c ropprofiles/CP_form.cfm-Page 22 of 86- 

### Application Dates (month/day) March 15, 18 and 21 IPM center*



### Hydrolysis Half-life (days) Stable (0) MRID 00107980



### Soil Metabolism Half-life (days) 165 (upper 90 percent confidence limit on the mean) MRID 46413407



### K
oc 

### (mL/g

oc 

### ) 1,966 

### (average) MRID 40211103



### * http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/CP_form.cfm

3.2.2.3 Surface and Ground Water Modeling Results

The propyzamide surface water EECs for re presentative use sites are listed in Table 7. The highest EECs were generated by the NC apples scenario, with an acute value of 45.4 μg/L (parts per billion; ppb) and chronic values slightly lower than this.

Table 7. Tier II Total Residue of Concern Es timated Environmental Concentrations in Surface Water (Pond).

Drinking Water Source (Model, Use, Modeled rate) Scenario (application aerial,

A; or ground, G) EECs (ppb)

Peak 96-hour 21-day 60-day



### Pond (SWCC,

Artichokes, 4 lb a.i./A x 1 applic.;

total of 4 lb/A/yr) CA row crop RLF (A) 37.1 34.5 28.7 22.9



### Pond (SWCC, Alfalfa, 2 lb a.i./A x 1 applic.;

total of 2 lb/A/yr) CA alfalfa OP (G) 11.6 11.0 9.82 8.51 

### MN alfalfa OP(G) 10.8 10.2 8.52 7.03


### NC alfalfa OP (G) 20.5 19.3 16.5 14.0



### TX alfalfa OP (G) 21.3 20.4 17.6 14.3 

### Pond (SWCC, Apple, 4 lb a.i./A x 1 applic.;

total of 4 lb/A/yr) PA apples (G) 38.2 36.0 31.2 26.1



### NC apples (G) 45.4 42.3 34.4 29.3



### Pond (SWCC,

Blueberries, 2 lb a.i./A x 1 applic.;

total of 2 lb/A/yr) OR berries OP (G) 11.5 10.8 9.00 7.33



### Pond (SWCC, Head/leaf

lettuce 1 

### , 2 lb a.i./A x 1 applic.; total of 2 lb/A/yr) CA lettuce (A) 38.2 36.3 30.0 25.8



### Pond (SWCC, Turf, 1.5 lb a.i./A x 3 applic. (91 days); total of 4.5 lb/A/yr) PA turf (G) 22.4 20.7 17.8 14.7



### FL turf (G) 18.4 17.1 14.5 11.7

Bolded values represent the highest EECs from all the values.



### For ground water ( Table 8 ) the maximum concentrations, which were somewhat lower than those for surface water, were generated by the WI corn scenario, which produced a maximum singleday concentration of 23.9 μg/L . The ground water concentrati ons were modeled using the-Page 23 of 86- 

### maximum application rate of 4.5 lbs a.i./A year which represents the use on turf. However, the data indicate that ground water is not likely the route of concern when compared with surface

water.

Table 8. PRZM-GW (100 year simulation) in Groundwater Resulting from the Use of Propyzamide.

Crop/Scenario Highest Daily value (μg/L) Post Breakthrough Average (μg/L) Average Simulation Breakthrough Time (days) FL potato 3.42 x 10 -5 Incomplete Incomplete

FL citrus 22.7 22.2 2.04 x 10 4

Delmarva 3.19 2.81 2.47 x 10 4

NC cotton 0.953 0.897 2.05 x 10 4

GA coastal 0.504 0.475 3.37 x 10 4

WI corn 23.9 21.1 2.87 x 10 4
Bolded values represent the highest values from all the scenarios modeled.



### 3.2.2.4 Monitoring Data

A cursory review of both ground and surfac e water monitoring data on propyzamide was conducted as part of the 2002 Tolerance Reasse ssment Eligibility Decision (TRED; USEPA, 2002a). The current assessment contains additional re view of currently available monitoring data. The United States Geological Survey Nationa l Water Quality Assessment (USGS NAWQA) database contains environmental monitoring da ta on pesticides through 2005 (USGS, 2006). In surface water, propyzamide (parent only) was detected above the le vel of quantitation in 2.2% of samples (459 of 20,720 samples). The maximum m easured surface water concentration was 1.12 μg/L in Shelby County, Tennessee in January, 2 003. In groundwater, propyzamide was detected above the level of quantitatio n in 0.05% of samples (5 of 9624 samples). The maximum concentration measured in groundwater was 0.8 20 μg/L in Benton County, Arkansas, in April

1994.

The USGS National Stream Quality Accoun ting Network (NASQAN) database contains monitoring data of pesticides by regional ba sin from 1996 to 2000 (USGS, 2006a). The maximum concentration of propyzamide detected in this program was 0.125 μg/L in the Colorado Basin in June, 1997. Concentrations of propyzamide were al so detected above the reporting limit in the Columbia, Colorado, Rio Grande, and Mississippi River basins; however, detections of this chemical only occurred in the Northwest and Southwest.

The California Department of Pesticide Regu lation (DPR) Surface Water Database contains monitoring data on pesticides in California from 1990 to 2005 (CDPR, 2006). Propyzamide was detected in 8% of 1678 samples collected in the stat e, with the majority of detections occurring in water bodies within the Sacramento Valley. The maximum concentration of propyzamide reported in this database was 0.25 μg/L, detect ed in Yolo County in February, 1994.

Propyzamide was detected in one Oklahoma reservoi r out of twelve which were monitored in the Pilot Reservoir Monitoring Program due to their particular vulnerab ility to pesticide contamination (USEPA, 2002a). The compound was detected at up to 0.044 ppb in 83% of 41 raw water samples and up to 0.012 ppb in 42% of 19 finished drinking water samples.-Page 24 of 86- 

### Propyzamide was not detected in 432 ground wate r wells nationwide from 1984 to 1990, according

to the EPA Pesticides in Ground Water Database (USEPA, 1992). Propyzamide is not a regulated chemical under the Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA) or related statutes. Ther efore, it is not listed in the EPA Safe Drinking Water Information Sy stem database (SDWIS /FED; USEPA, 2007c) nor is it found in the EPA Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rules (UCMR) chemical monitoring database (USEPA, 2006b).

Recently, an article published by Smalling, K.L. et al. (2013) mentioned that propyzamide was detected 100% frequency throughout the year in water samples (N=19) collected from the upper and lower estuary site s and Orcutt Creek.

Monitoring data are not available on the degradates of propyzamide. Therefore, exposure estimates of total residues cannot be directly compared against monitoring data.

Recently, water and sediment (both bed and suspe nded) were collected from January 2008 through October 2009 from 12 sites in 3 of the largest wate rsheds along California’ s Central Coast (Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria Rivers) and analyzed fo r a suite of pesticides by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the California State Wa ter Resources Control Board. Propyzamide was detected in more than 50% of the water samples in the Salinas and Pajaro Rivers and greater than 95% of the samples in Santa Ma ria River. The maximum concen trations of propyzamide ranged from 30.4 to 14,000 ng/L (14 ppb) during summer dry season and 47.8 to 1,390 ng/L (1.3 ppb) in storm events in Pajaro and Santa Maria Estuar ies, respectively (USGS, 2011). Propyzamide was one of the pesticides detected most frequently and with the maximum concentrations in the samples obtained in the monitoring study.

3.2.3. Terrestrial Exposure

The application of propyzamide to crops and turf has the potential to cause propyzamide residues of concern to reach non-target terrestrial organi sms via spray drift and/or runoff (in the case of plants). Propyzamide may settle on plants and/or be taken up by plants as a result of systemic uptake and distribution. For terrestrial animals, T- REX (version 1.5.2) is used to calculate dietaryand dose-based EECs of propyzamide for mammals a nd birds feeding on the site of application. Input values for T-REX include the maximum single application ra tes, number of applications, and minimum retreatment interval for a given use and are located in Table 2 . In this assessment, EFED uses a default foliar dissip ation half-life of 35 days as an input for terrestrial exposure modeling in T-REX. Dietary- a nd dose-based exposure estimates from application of propyzamide are presented in Table 9 ; output from T-REX is presented in Appendix E

.-Page 25 of 86-Table 9. Terrestrial EECs as foodresidues for animals exposed to propyzamide asa result of the proposed pre-emergent use.Food TypeDietary Based(mg/kg diet)(mammals andbirds)Dose Based(mg/kg bw)(birds)Dose Based(mg/kg bw)(mammals)All Size ClassesSmall(20 g)Medium(100 g)Large(1000 g)Small(15 g)Medium(35 g)Large(1000 g)Artichoke and apples; 4.0 lbs a.i./A; 1 applicationShort grass 960.0 1093.3 623.5 279.1 915.3 632.6 146.7Tall grass 440.0 501.1 285.8 127.9 419.5 289.9 67.2Broadleaf plants/small insects 540.0 615.0 350.7 157.0 514.8 355.8 82.5Fruits/pods/large insects/seeds(dietary only) 60.0 68.3 39.0 17.4 57.2 39.5 9.2Arthropods 376.0 428.2 244.2 109.3 358.5 247.8 57.4Seeds (granivore) NA 1093.3 623.5 279.1 915.3 632.6 146.7Alfalfa, blueberries, and head/leaf lettuce; 2.0 lbs a.i./A; 1 applicationShort grass 480 546.7 311.7 139.6 457.6 316.3 73.3Tall grass 220 250.6 142.9 64.0 209.8 145.0 33.6Broadleaf plants/small insects 270 307.5 175.4 78.5 257.4 177.9 41.3Fruits/pods/large insects/seeds(dietary only) 30 34.2 19.5 8.7 28.6 19.8 4.6Arthropods 188 214.1 122.1 54.7 179.2 123.9 28.7Seeds (granivore) NA 546.7 311.7 139.6 457.6 316.3 73.3Turf; 1.5 lbs a.i./A; 3 applications; 91-d app intervalShort grass 429.2 488.8 278.7 124.8 409.2 282.8 65.6Tall grass 196.7 224.0 127.7 57.2 187.5 129.6 30.1Broadleaf plants/small insects 241.4 274.9 156.8 70.2 230.2 159.1 36.9Fruits/pods/large insects/seeds(dietary only) 26.8 30.5 17.4 7.8 25.6 17.7 4.1Arthropods 168.1 191.4 109.2 48.9 160.3 110.8 25.7Seeds (granivore) NA 6.8 3.9 1.7 5.7 3.9 0.9N/ANot applicable.-Page 26 of 86- 

### Honey bee EEC values were calculated based on the USEPA Guidance for Assessing Risks to Bees document (USEPA 2014). EEC’s are calculated for individual adult survival through contact exposure ( Table 10 ).

Table 10. Contact exposure estimates for honey bees exposed to propyzamide uses

Use (app. Rate) Measurement Endpoint Exposure

Route Equation 9 EEC

Artichoke and Apples

4.0 lbs a.i./A Individual Survival (Adults) Contact AR English *(2.7 μg a.i./bee) 10.8

Alfalfa, blueberries,

and head/leaf

lettuce

2.0 lbs a.i./A Individual Survival (Adults) Contact AR English *(2.7 μg a.i./bee) 5.4

Turf

1.5 lbs a.i./A Individual Survival (Adults) Contact AR English *(2.7 μg a.i./bee) 4.1

AR English = application rate in lbs a.i./A.



### TerrPlant is used to calculate EEC s for non-target plants that inha bit dry and semi-aquatic areas. In this assessment, EECs for non- target plants are calculated based on the potential runoff and spray drift of pre-emergent applications of propyzamide ( Table 11 ). TerrPlant does not account for particulate drift ( Appendix F ). AgDrift is discussed in more detail in Section 4.1.2

.

Table 11. EECs for non-target terrestr ial and semi-aquatic plants based on registered uses and proposed new leaf lettuce use of propyzamide (TerrPlant).

Use Application

rate (lbs a.i./A) Application

method Drift

Value

(%) Spray drift

EEC (lbs a.i./A) Dry area

EEC (lbs a.i./A) Semi-aquatic

area EEC (lbs a.i./A) 

### Artichoke, apples 4 Foliar - ground 1% 0.04 0.12 0.84



### Artichoke 4 Foliar - aerial 5% 0.08 0.28 1.0 

### Alfalfa, blueberries,

head/leaf lettuce 2 Foliar - ground 1% 0.02 0.06 0.42



### Head/leaf lettuce 2 Foliar - aerial 5% 0.1 0.14 0.5



### Turf 1.5 Foliar - ground 1% 0.015 0.045 0.315



### To estimate exposure to plants when groundwater contaminated by propyzamide is applied to crops, the following method was used. Assume a field is irrigated with one inch of water containing 23.9 μg propyzamide/L water. One acre has 6,272,640 cubic inch es of water on the

field. The one acre field with one inch of water has 3,630 cubic ft of water (6,272,640 x 0.00058 cubic ft/cubic inch). The field has 27,156 gallons of water (3,630 cubic ft x 7.481 gallons/cubic ft). Therefore, one inch of water on the one acre field weighs 226,625 lbs (27,156 gallons x 8.3453 lbs/gallon of water).

226,625 lb of water/acre x 23.9 μg/L = EEC = 0.005 lbs a.i./A 1,000,000,000

9 AR English is the application rate in pounds A.I./acre-Page 27 of 86- 

### Residues in groundwater-derived irrigation water range between 4-168 times lower than those EECs estimated using TerrPlant for spray drift, runoff, and semi-aquatic areas.

3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization

3.3.1. Ecotoxicity Data

Toxicity endpoints used in risk estima tion and characterization for propyzamide are shown in

Table 12 through Table 19 . In the current risk assessment, the most sensitive endpoints available from registrant-submitted toxicity studies clas sified as acceptable or supplemental are the endpoints selected for quantitative use in risk es timation. A complete listing of ecotoxicity data

can be found in Appendix K

.

A search of the ECOTOXicology database in August 2013, yielded no new data from suitable studies with more sensitive toxicity endpoints than the registrant-submitted guideline studies described below. The endpoints from the EC OTOX-catalogued open li terature studies are provided in Appendix J , for reference.

3.3.1.1. Aquatic Organisms

Acute toxicity data for fish and a quatic invertebrates are summarized in Table 12 and Table 13

. Based on the available data, propyzamide technical gr ade active ingredient (TGAI) is classified as slightly toxic to fres hwater rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) and bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis

macrochirus ). Reported sub-lethal effects reported in the bluegill study included fish lying on test chamber bottom, loss of equilibrium, and surf acing. A propyzamide formulation, Rh-315-75WP (containing 75% a.i. propyzamide) was also classified as slig htly toxic to rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ). Regarding estuarine/marine fish, propyzamide was classified as no more than moderately toxic to the sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) on an acute exposure

basis. Sub-lethal effects in th is study included fish lying on the bottom of the test chamber, loss of equilibrium, and surfacing. Excluding the ra inbow trout, for all of the freshwater and estuarine/marine fish tested (as well as aquati c-phase amphibians for which freshwater fish serve as surrogates), the acute 96-hr LC 50 

### value exceeded the highest concentration tested, i.e , the acute toxicity estimates were non-definitive values at or close to the aqueous solubility limit 15 mg a.i./L. The solubility limit of propyzamide (15 mg/L at 25 °C) may be an impor tant consideration in determining the toxicity classifications for non-definitive endpoints.

Propyzamide is no more than moderately toxic to the freshwater invertebrate water flea ( Daphnia

magna ) and yielded a non-de finitive endpoint (EC 50 

### >5.6 mg a.i./L). The compound is also moderately toxic to estuar ine/marine mysid shrimp ( Americamysis bahia ) and the Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) on an acute exposure basis.

An acute whole sediment toxicity test was carried out with propy zamide on midge larvae ( Chironomus dilutus ; 10-day test). Endpoints assessed in the study included midge survival and growth ( Table 14 ). In the study, the LC 50 

### was determined to be greater than the highest treatment

level i.e. , >97.5 mg total radioactive residues (TRR)/kg sediment . At the highest test concentration, growth (based on ash-free dry wei ght) was significantly different than controls-Page 28 of 86- 

### resulting in a NOAEC/LOAEC of 47.1/97.5 mg a.i./ kg dry sediment. In terms of sediment pore water, the NOAEC for survival and growth are 8.80 and 8.49 mg TRR/L, re spectively. Assuming

that all of the residues were in the form of the parent propyza mide, the NOAEC for this study is 8.49 mg a.i./L, based on pore water concentration a nd impaired growth. No abnormal behavioral or sub-lethal effects were reported for surviving midges in controls or tr eatment groups during the exposure period. No additional sediment toxicity studies have been submitted to the Agency.

Toxicity endpoints for aquatic plants and al gae exposed to TGAI propyzamide are shown in Table

15. The freshwater vascular plant duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) was exposed to propyzamide (MRID 43738301) over a 14-day period; the mean-measured IC 50 

### was determined to be 1.18 mg a.i./L based on inhibition of yield and frond density. The NOAEC in this study was statistically determined to be 0.56 mg a.i./L.

The effects of propyzamide on the growth of the freshwater gr een alga (nonvascular plant), Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata , were tested (MRID 42176802); the 5-day mean-measured IC 50 

### and NOAEC were determined to be 0.76 and 0.26 mg a.i./L, respectively, based on cell density. Exposure of blue-green alga ( Anabaena flos-aquae ; MRID 47842093) to propyzamide resulted in

a mean-measured IC 50 

### and NOAEC of >4.0 and 0.39 mg a.i./L , respectively, based on inhibition of growth (MRID 43738304; 5-day test).

The effects of propyzamide on the toxi city to the freshwater diatom ( Navicula pelliculosa ; MRID 43738302) were tested; the 5-day mean-measured IC 50 

### and empirical NOAEC were determined to be >4.0 and 4.0 mg a.i./L, respectively, based on a lack of effects. The effects of propyzamide on the toxicity to the marine diatom ( Skeletonema costatum ); MRID 43738303) were tested; similarly to the freshwater diatom, the 5-day mean-measured IC 50 

### and empirical NOAEC were determined to be >3.4 and 3.4 mg a.i./L, respec tively, based on a lack of effects.-Page 29 of 86-Table 12. Acute toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation andcharacterization for freshwater organisms exposed to propyzamide.Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpoints(mg a.i./L)(Study Duration)Toxicity Classification(MRID)(Study Classification)Acute toxicity tofreshwater vertebratesRainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss)TGAI (96.2% a.i.)LC50=10.6 mg a.i./L(96 hour test)Slightly toxic(48599211)(Acceptable)Rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss)RH-315-75WP (75% a.i.)LC50=72 mg a.i./L(96 hour test)Slightly toxic(00107996)(Supplemental)Bluegill sunfish(Lepomis macrochirus)TGAI (96.2% a.i.)LC50>14.0 mg a.i./LEC50=14.0 mg a.i./L (sub-lethaleffects)(96 hour test)No more than slightly toxic(48599210)(Acceptable)Endpoints affected: fish lyingon test chamber bottom, lossof equilibrium, surfacingAcute toxicity tofreshwater invertebratesWater flea(Daphnia magna)TGAI (93.8% a.i.)EC50>5.6 mg a.i./L(48-hour test)No more than moderately toxic(00098313)(Acceptable)Table 13. Acute toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for estuarine/marine organisms exposed to propyzamide.Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpoints1(mg a.i./L)(Study Duration)Toxicity Classification(MRID)(Study Classification)Acute toxicity toestuarine/marine fishSheepshead minnow(Cyprinodon variegatus)TGAI (96.2% a.i.)LC50> 7.69 mg a.i./L(96 hour test)No more than moderately toxic(48599212)(Acceptable)Acute toxicity toestuarine/marineinvertebratesMysid shrimp(Americamysis bahia)TGAI (96.2% a.i.)LC50=6.43 mg a.i./L(96-hour test)Moderately toxic(48599213)(Acceptable)Acute toxicity toestuarine/marineinvertebratesMysid shrimp(Americamysis bahia)TGAI (95.7% a.i.)LC50>3.9 mg/L(96-hour test)Moderately toxic(43608402)(Acceptable)Toxicity toestuarine/marine mollusks– shell depositionEastern oyster(Crassostrea virginica)TGAI (95.7% a.i.)IC50=3.5 mg a.i./L(96-hour test)No more than moderately toxic(43608401)(Acceptable)1Boldedvalues are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a given taxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation.-Page 30 of 86-Table 14. Sediment toxicity testing with freshwater organisms exposed to propyzamide.Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpoints1(mg a.i./L)(Study Duration)EffectsToxicity Classification(MRID)(Study Classification)Whole sediment acutetoxicity to freshwaterinvertebratesMidge larvae(Chironomus dilutus)TGAI (96.2% a.i.)LC50>97.5 mg a.i./kgNOAEC=47.1 mg a.i./kgLOAEC=97.5 mg a.i./kg(based on dry sediment)(10-day test)Growth (dry weight)(48599214)(Acceptable)1Boldedvalues are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a given taxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation.Table 15. Toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for aquatic plants and algae exposed to propyzamide.Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpoints1(mg a.i./L)Effects(MRID)(Study Classification)Toxicity to vascularaquatic plantsDuckweed(Lemna gibba)TGAI (95.7% a.i.)IC50= 1.18 mg a.i./LNOAEC = 0.56 mg a.i./LLOAEC = 1.10 mg a.i./L(14-day static test)Inhibition of yield, fronddensity(43738301)(Acceptable)Toxicity to nonvascularaquatic plantsGreen algae(Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata)TGAI (96.8% a.i.)IC50=0.76 mg a.i./LNOAEC=0.26 mg a.i./LLOAEC=0.49 mg a.i./L(5-day test)Most sensitive endpoint: celldensity(42176802)(Acceptable)Toxicity to blue-greenalgaBlue-green alga (Anabaenaflos-aquae)TGAI (95.7% a.i.)IC50>4.0 mg a.i./LNOAEC=0.39 mg a.i./LLOAEC=0.74 mg a.i./L(5-day test)Inhibition of growth(43738304)(Acceptable)Toxicity to the freshwaterdiatomFreshwater diatom (Naviculapelliculosa)TGAI (95.7% a.i.)IC50>4.0 mg a.i./LNOAEC=4.0 mg a.i./LLOAEC>4.0 mg a.i./L(5-day test)No effect(s)(43738302)(Acceptable)Toxicity to the marinediatomMarine diatom (Skeletonemacostatum)TGAI (95.7% a.i.)IC50>3.4 mg a.i./LNOAEC=3.4 mg a.i./LLOAEC>3.4 mg a.i./L(5-day test)No effect(s)(43738303)(Acceptable)1Boldedvalues are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a giventaxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation.-Page 31 of 86- 

### Freshwater Fish and In vertebrates: Chronic

Chronic toxicity data for freshwater fish and aquatic invertebrates e xposed to propyzamide are

summarized in Table 16 . In a 25-week freshwater fish full life-cycle toxicity test with fathead minnows exposed to TGAI propyzamide (MRI D 48931801), there was a significant reduction (p<0.05) in the mean number of spawns an d day 56 post-hatch survival resulting in a NOAEC/LOAEC of 0.224/0.441 mg a.i./L, respectively. In a 21-day chronic fr eshwater life-cycle study with D. magna (MRID 43673301), the NOAEC/LOAEC was 0.60/1.20 mg a.i./L, respectively. The affected endpoints were growth (length and weight) a nd larvae survival. It

should be noted that beca use there is no acute toxicity for th e fathead minnow, ther e is uncertainty regarding if this species is more/less sensitive compared to rainbow tr out or bluegill sunfish.

Estuarine/Marine Fish and Invertebrates: Chronic

No chronic data have been submitted to the Agen cy for estuarine/marine invertebrates. Using available information and assuming the non-de finitive endpoints in the acute freshwater invertebrate study is definitive, an acute-to-chronic (ACR) ratio was calculated. Although it is mollusk and not a crustacean, the best available estuarine/marine information comes from the Eastern oyster toxicity value. Based on the acu te value of 5.6 mg a.i./L and chronic NOAEC of 0.60 for the water flea ( D. magna ), the ACR is 9.3. Applying this ratio to the estuarine/marine invertebrate acute value of 3.5 mg a.i./L (using the Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica value of 3.5 mg a.i./L) results in an estimated estuarine/ marine invertebrate NOAEC of >0.38 mg a.i./L.

No chronic data have been submitted to the Agencyfor estuarine/marine fish. An ACR cannot be

calculated for estuarine/marine fish because different species of freshwater fish were used in the acute and chronic freshwater fish toxicity tests.-Page 32 of 86-Table 16. Chronic toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for fish and aquatic invertebrates exposed topropyzamide.Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpoints1(mg a.i./L)Effects(MRID)(Study Classification)Freshwater fish full lifecycle testFathead minnow(Pimephales promelas)TGAI (96.2% a.i.)NOAEC=0.224 mg a.i./LLOAEC=0.441mg a.i./L(25-week test)F0 day 56 post-hatch survival, meannumber of spawns(48931801)(Acceptable)Freshwater invertebratelife-cycle testWater flea(Daphnia magna)TGAI (95.7% a.i.)NOAEC=0.60 mg a.i./LLOAEC =1.20 mg a.i./L(21-day test)Growth (length and weight), larvaesurvival, egg production(43673301)(Acceptable)Estuarine/marine chronicinvertebrate toxicityEastern oyster(Crassostrea virginica)--NOAEC>0.38 mg a.i./L2LOAEC >0.75 mg a.i./LEstimated using ACR1Boldedvalues are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a giventaxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation2Estimated using an acute-to-chronic (ACR) ratio-Page 33 of 86- 

### 3.3.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms

Birds and Mammals: Acute and Dietary

Acute toxicity data for birds and mammals exposed to propyzamide are summarized in Table 17. Based on the available data, propyzamide is classified as practical ly non-toxic to the birds Japanese quail, Coturnex japonica; Mallard duck, Anas platyrhynchos ; and canary, Serinus canaria ; on an acute oral exposure basis, and practically non -toxic to bobwhite quail and mallard duck on a subacute dietary exposure basis. The acute study with Japanese quail was classified as supplemental because formulated product was used and less than ten birds per treatment level were used. In the Mallard study, birds were observe d regurgitating if given one large dose of the chemical. In the acute toxicity study with th e canary, sub-lethal effects included ruffled appearance, wing droop, and loss of coordination. In the dietary st udies, there was no reduction in weight gain or food consumption in treate d groups. Since birds serve as a surrogate for terrestrial-phase amphibians and re ptiles, propyzamide is classified as practically non-toxic on an acute oral and dietary exposure basis for these ta xa. Propyzamide is classified as practically nontoxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis (96-hr LD 50 

### >5000 mg/kg bw).

Terrestrial Invertebrates

Acute toxicity data for adult honey bees are summarized in Table 18. Propyzamide is practically

non-toxic on a contact basis to a dult honey bees (formulated produc t, % a.i. unknown). No data are available for evaluating the effects on adult bees from acute oral and chronic exposure, nor are

data available to evaluate acute or chronic effects on honey bee larvae.-Page 34 of 86-Table 17. Acute toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for birds and mammals exposed to propyzamide.Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpoints1Toxicity Classification(MRID)(Study Classification)Acute oral toxicity to birdsJapanese quail(Coturnex japonica)Mallard duck(Anas platyrhynchos)RH-315 (75% a.i.)LD50= 8870 mg a.i./kg bw24-hr testLD50= > 14,000 mg a.i./kg bw24-hr testPractically non-toxic(00107997)(Supplemental)Bobwhite quail(Colinus virginianus)TGAI (96.2% a.i.)LD50> 2165 mg a.i./kg bw14-day testPractically non-toxic(48599208)(Acceptable)Canary(Serinus canaria)TGAI (96.2% a.i.)LD50> 1924 mg a.i./kg bwNOAEL = 1154 mg a.i./kg bw14-day testPractically non-toxic(48599209)(Acceptable)Subacute dietary toxicity tobirdsBobwhite quail(Colinus virginianus)TGAI (94.9% a.i.)LC50> 10,000 mg a.i./kg die.t8-day testPractically non-toxic(00108003)(Acceptable)Mallard duck(Anas platyrhynchos)TGAI (94.9% a.i.)LC50> 10,000mg a.i./kg diet8-day testPractically non-toxic(00108002)(Acceptable)Acute oral toxicity to mammalsLaboratory rat (Rattusnorvegicus)RH-315(% a.i. unknown)8350 (males) mg/kg bw5620 (females) mg/kg bw96-hr LD50Practically nontoxic(00085505)(Acceptable)1Boldedvalues are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a given taxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation.Table 18. Acute toxicity endpoints used inrisk estimation and characterization for terrestrial invertebrates exposed to propyzamide.Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpointsToxicity Classification(MRID)(Study Classification)Acute contact toxicity to honeybeesHoney bee(Apis mellifera)Formulated product(% a.i. unknown)LD50>181 μg a.i./bee(48-hour test)Practically non-toxic(contact)(00028772)(Acceptable)-Page 35 of 86- 

### 3.3.1. Terrestrial Organism and Ma mmalian Chronic Endpoints

Birds and Mammals: Chronic

Chronic laboratory toxicity data for birds and mammals exposed to propyzamide are summarized

in Table 19. In a 20-week avian reproduction study w ith bobwhite quail exposed to propyzamide in the diet, no effects were reported ( NOAEC/LOAEC 615/>615 mg a,i./kg diet; MRID 48931802). The study was, however, classified as supplemental becaus e according to test guideline 850.2300, at least one test concentration should indicate a reproductive effect capturing the LOAEC or be greater than 5000 mg/kg diet. The highest dose used in the study was 615 mg a.i./kg diet.

In a 20-week avian reproduction stu dy with the mallard exposed to propyzamide in the diet (MRID 48931803), there were no treatment-related effects on adult male body weight or food consumption at any dietary level; female body weight gain wa s significantly reduced (5%) from control (p<0.05) at the 2454 mg a.i./kg diet level. At the 2454 mg a.i./kg diet le vel, there was also a significant (p<0.05) reduction (29%) in the number of eggs laid. There was a signi ficant (p<0.05) reduction in the number of viable embryos to eggs set and the number of live 3-week embryos to eggs set at the 624 and 2454 mg a.i./kg levels, respectively, relativ e to the control. The ratios of hatchlings to egg set, 14-day survivors to eggs set, and nu mber of hatchlings to live 3-week embryos were also significantly (p<0.0 5) reduced 15-28% from control at all treated levels. Based on these more sensitive effects, the reviewer concluded that a NOAEC could not be determined for this study ( i.e ., NOAEC<311 mg a.i./kg diet). Because th e study resulted in a non-definitive NOAEC less than the lowest concentration tested, it was classified as supplemental.

In a rat 2-generation study evaluated by the Health Effects Division (HED) (MRID 41540301) multiple effects were observed. These included decreases in body weight in females and feed consumption in both sexes, increased incidences of histopathology of the anterior pituitary gland (cellular hypertrophy) in males in both generations, increased incidences of uterine gross pathology (black foci/serosal surface) in P2 fema les, decreases in combined male/female pups weigh/litter, and increased incidences of hist opathology of the liver (centrilobular hepatocytes hypertrophy), adrenal gland (zona glomerulosa cellular hypertrophy), a nd thyroid gland (zona glomerulosa cellular hype rtrophy) in both sexes and generati ons. The parental systemic and offspring toxicity NOAEL/ LOAEL was 200/1500 ppm (15.4/114.0 mg/kg/day for males).-Page 36 of 86-Table 19. Chronic toxicityendpoints used in riskestimation andcharacterization for terrestrial animals exposed to propyzamide.Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpoints1Effects(MRID)(Study Classification)Avian reproductionBobwhite quail(Colinusvirginianus)TGAI (93.9 a.i.%)NOAEC = 615 mg a.i./kg dietLOAEL > 615 mg a.i./kg diet20-week testNo effects(48931802)(Supplemental)Mallard duck(Anasplatyrhynchos)TGAI (96.8 a.i.%)NOAEC < 311 mg a.i./kg dietLOAEL = 311 mg a.i./kg diet20-week testViable embryos to eggset, live 3-week embryosto egg set, hatchlings tolive 3-week embryos,hatchlings to egg set,and 14-day survivors toegg set(48931803)(Supplemental)Chronic toxicity tomammals – twogenerationreproductionCrl:CD BR Rats TGAI (93.1 a.i.%)NOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day(200 ppm)LOAEL = 114 mg/kg/day(1500 ppm)Decreases in bodyweight in females andfeed consumption inboth sexes, decreases incombined male/femalepups weigh/litter(41540301)(Acceptable)1Boldedvalues are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a giventaxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation.-Page 37 of 86- 

### 3.3.2. Terrestrial Plants

Terrestrial Plant Seedling Em ergence and Vegetative Vigour

Toxicity data, used to assess the effects on seed ling emergence and vegetative vigor in listed and non-listed terrestrial plants, fr om exposure to propyzamide (TGAI 96.8% a.i.) are shown in Table

20.

The effects of propyzamide on terrestrial monocotyl edonous and dicotyledonous plants were tested in Tier II seedling emergence and vegetati ve vigor tests (MRIDs 42176801and 44029001). Results of the Tier II seedling emergence study identify ryegrass as the most sensitive monocot tested,

with an IC 25 

### of 0.019 lb a.i./A and a NOAEC of <0.015 lb a.i./A, based on a decrease in percent emergence. The most sensitive dicot, based on a decrease in shoot length, is cucumber with an

IC 25 

### and IC 05 

### of 0.015 and 0.004 lb a.i./A, respectively (the IC 05 

### was used as a surrogate in this study because the NOAEC was roughly equal to the IC 25 

### ).

Results of the Tier II vegetative vigor studies identify oa t as the most sensitive monocot and tomato as the most sensitive dicot, with decreased shoot weight and root weight, re spectively, as the most sensitive endpoints (MRID 42176801). The IC 25 

### and NOAEC values were <0.2 and <0.2 lbs a.i./A, respectively, for oat, and the IC 25 

### and NOAEC values were <0.041 and <0.041 lbs a.i./A, respectively, for tomato. The Tier II vegetative vigor plant toxicity DER originally showed IC 25 

### values that were less than the NOAEC values base d on an extrapolation of test concentrations. The extrapolated IC 25 

### values fell outside the range of test c oncentrations used in the study resulting in an uncertainty regarding the actual IC 25 

### value. As a result, the IC 25 

### values have a non-definitive “less than” (<) value.

Table 20. Toxicity endpoint s used in risk estimation and characterization for terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants exposed to propyzamide.

Study Type Test Material Most Sensitive Species Endpoints (lbs ai/A) Effects (MRID) (Study Classification)

Terrestrial plant toxicity:

Tier II seedling

emergence TGAI (96.8 a.i.%) Monocot: ryegrass ( Lolium perenne ) IC 25 = 0.019 lbs a.i./A

NOAEC < 0.015 lbs a.i./A Percent emergence (42176801) (Supplemental)

Dicot: cucumber ( Cucumis sativa ) IC 25 = 0.015 lbs a.i./A

IC 05 = 0.004 lbs a.i./A Shoot length (42176801, 44029001) (Supplemental,

Acceptable)

Terrestrial plant toxicity:

Tier II vegetative

vigor TGAI (96.8 a.i.%) Monocot: oat ( Avena sativa ) IC 25 = < 0.2 lbs a.i./A

NOAEC < 0.2 lbs a.i./A Shoot weight (42176801) (Supplemental)

Dicot: tomato ( Lycopersicon

esculentum ) IC 25 < 0.041 lbs a.i./A

NOAEC < 0.041 lbs a.i./A Shoot weight (42176801) (Supplemental)-Page 38 of 86- 

### 3.3.3. Incident Reports

The ecological incident information system (EIIS ) is a database maintained by the Office of Pesticide Programs; the database contains ecological in cidents that have been reported to the Agency. When available, EIIS includes date an d location of an incident, type and magnitude of effects observed in various species, use(s) of pesticides known or suspected of cont ributing to the incident, and results of any chemical residue anal ysis or other analyses conducted during incident investigation. EIIS incidents are categorized according to the certainty that the incident resulted from pesticide exposure. The Avian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS) is a database administered by the American Bird Conservancy th at contains publicly av ailable data on reported avian incidents involving pesticides. Many of the in cidents listed in this database are also in the EIIS. Because of uncertainties regarding the extent to which incidents are reported to EPA, an absence of incident reports ca nnot be construed as proof of an absence of incidents.

Based on the 40 CFR §159.184, information on all known incidents must be submitted to the Agency by the registrant(s). EIIS contained th ree incidents for propyzamide causing plant damage.

The first incident occurred on 10/11/01 caused lettuce damage in Arizona on 23 acres using Kerb ®



### 50 W. The second incident occurre d on 9/30/03 also resulted in le ttuce damage in California on 22 acres via aerial broadcast application of Kerb ® 

### . The third incident occurred on 10/2/04 caused broccoli damage in Japan on about 1 acre from a wettable powder ground spray application of Agromax ® 

### WP.

Aggregate Incident Reports (AIR) are incidents reported as quarterly by the registrant(s). The incidents listed in this database may also appear in the EIIS. From the AIR, a total of six minor incidences were reported o ccurring from 1/1/97-6/7/13 ( Appendix G ). Four of these incidences involved human exposure, one of which also cause d minor property damage. One incident resulted in minor plant damage, and one incident result ed in moderate property damage. Because of uncertainties regarding the extent to which incident s are reported to EPA, the absence of incident reports cannot be construed as proof of the absence of incidents.



## 4. Risk Characterization

Toxicity data and exposure estimates for propyzamide are used to evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects on non-target species. This sc reening-level assessment employs a deterministic risk estimation method, based on RQ values, to provide a metric of potential risks ( Section 4.1 ). The potential for risk is further char acterized in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2 ) based on the

risk estimation results and other relevant informa tion about toxicity and ecosystems potentially at risk, and the environmental fate and tran sport characteristics of propyzamide.

4.1. Risk Estimation

Unitless RQ values are compared to the Agency ’s LOCs to identify taxonomic groups potentially

at risk of acute or chronic effects associated with propyzamide registered uses and proposed new

use on leaf lettuce.-Page 39 of 86- 

### 4.1.1. Aquatic Organisms

As shown in Table 21 and Table 22 , none of the propyzamide uses ex ceed risk to listed non-listed species of freshwater and estuar ine/marine fish and invertebra tes (LOC>0.05). No listed or nonlisted exceedances for estuarine/marine invertebra tes were observed (chronic data not available for estuarine/marine fish; chronic LOC ≥ 1).

Table 21. Acute and Chronic RQs for Freshwater Fi sh, Aquatic-Phase Amphibians, and Invertebrates Exposed to Propyzamide

Use Applica

tion

Rate

lbs

a.i./A Application

Method EECs (μg a.i./L) Freshwater Fish and Amphibian RQs 1

Acute 96h LC 50 = 10,600 μg

a.i./L Chronic NOAEC = 224 μg

a.i./L Freshwater Invertebrate RQs 1

Acute 48h LC 50 =

5,600 μg a.i./L

Chronic NOAEC = 600 μg a.i./L
Peak 21-day 60-day Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Artichokes 4.0 Aerial 37.1 28.7 22.9 <0.01 0.10 0.01 0.04

Alfalfa 2.0 Ground 21.3 17.6 14.3 <0.01 0.06 <0.01 0.02

Apple 4.0 Ground 45.4 34.4 29.3 <0.01 0.13 0.01 0.05

Blueberries 2.0 Ground 11.5 9.0 7.33 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.01

Head/leaf

Lettuce 2.0 Aerial 38.2 30.0 25.8 <0.01 0.12 0.01 0.04

Turf 1.5 2 Ground 14.9 11.8 10.1 <0.01 0.05 <0.01 0.02

1 RQ=peak EEC/LC 50 (acute) or 21-day (invert) or 60- day (fish) EEC/NOAEC (chronic)

2 Turf has 3 applications/91 day inte rval for a total of 4.5 lbs a.i./A

a Exceeds the acute risk to listed species LOC (RQ ≥ 0.05)

b Exceeds the acute risk to non-listed species LOC (RQ ≥ 0.5)

c Exceeds the chronic risk LOC (RQ ≥ 1)

Table 22. Acute and Chronic RQs for Estuarine/Marine Fish, Aquatic-Ph ase Amphibians, and Invertebrates Exposed to Propyzamide

Use Applica

tion

Rate

lbs

a.i./A Application

Method EECs (μg a.i./L) Estuarine/Marine Fish and Amphibian RQs 1

Acute 96h LC 50 > 7,690 μg

a.i./L

Chronic NOAEC = NA Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate RQs 1

Acute 48h LC 50 =

3,500 μg a.i./L

Chronic NOAEC 3 = 420 μg a.i./L

Peak 21-day 60-day Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Artichokes 4.0 Aerial 37.1 28.7 22.9 0.01 NA 0.01 0.05

Alfalfa 2.0 Ground 21.3 17.6 14.3 <0.01 NA 0.01 0.03

Apple 4.0 Ground 45.4 34.4 29.3 0.01 NA 0.01 0.07

Blueberries 2.0 Ground 11.5 9.0 7.33 <0.01 NA <0.01 0.02

Head/leaf

Lettuce 2.0 Aerial 38.2 30.0 25.8 0.01 NA 0.01 0.06

Turf 2 1.5 Ground 14.9 11.8 10.1 <0.01 NA <0.01 0.03

NA Not Applicable-Page 40 of 86- 1 RQ=peak EEC/LC 50 (acute) or 21-day (invert) or 60- day (fish) EEC/NOAEC (chronic)

2 Turf has 3 applications/91 day inte rval for a total of 4.5 lbs a.i./A

3 Estimated using an ACR

a Exceeds the acute risk to listed species LOC (RQ ≥ 0.05)

b Exceeds the acute risk to non-listed species LOC (RQ ≥ 0.5)

c Exceeds the chronic risk LOC (RQ ≥ 1)



### Table 23 summarizes RQ values for aquatic va scular and nonvascular plants. Further characterization of the potential for adverse eff ects to aquatic organisms, based on the available data, is provided as part of the Risk Description in Section 4.2.1 . No exceedances were observed to listed and non-listed aquatic plants for any propyzamide use.

Table 23. RQ values for listed and non-listed vascul ar and nonvascular aquatic plants exposed to propyzamide in surface water as a result of spray drift.

Use App

Rate

lbs

a.i./A App

Method EECs (μg/L) RQ Values

Vascular Plants

IC 50 =1,180 μg a.i./L NOAEC=560 μg a.i./L Nonvascular Plants

IC 50 = 760 μg a.i./L NOAEC= 260 μg a.i./L

Peak Listed Non-listed Listed Non-listed

Artichokes 4.0 Aerial 37.1 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.14

Alfalfa 2.0 Ground 21.3 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.08

Apple 4.0 Ground 45.4 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.17

Blueberries 2.0 Ground 11.5 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04

Head/leaf

Lettuce 2.0 Aerial 38.2 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.15

Turf 1.5 1 Ground 14.9 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.06

Bold values exceed the plant LOC 1.0 RQ = EEC/IC 50 for non-listed species; EEC/NOAEC for listed species

1 Turf has 3 applications/91 day interv al for a total of 4.5 lbs a.i./A



### 4.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms

In this assessment, acute oral and chroni c RQ values are calculated for mammals ( Table 24 and

Table 25 ). Acute honey bee RQ values are presented in Table 26 . Acute oral, dietary, and chronic RQ values for birds are presented in ( Table 27-Table 29 ) in the risk description section because of the uncertainty surrounding av ian taxa toxicity endpoints, wh ich are non-definitive values.

The acute dose-based RQ values for mammals are be low the Agency’s LOC for acute risk to listed (RQ ≥ 0.1) and non-listed (RQ ≥ 0.5) species ( Table 24 ). However, chronic dose-based RQ values exceed the chronic risk LOC (RQ >1; Table 25 ) for small (15 g), medium (35 g), and large (1000 g) sized mammals that consume all food sources . No chronic risk LOCs are triggered by consumption of fruits/pods/seeds by any sized mamma ls for alfalfa, blueberries, head/leaf lettuce,

and turf. Chronic risk LOC values are also not exceeded for large mammals (1000 g) for artichoke and apples.-Page 41 of 86- Table 24. Acute Mammalian Dose-Based RQ Values for Proposed Uses of Propyzamide 1,2

Application

Rate lbs a.i./A

#app/interval (d) Body Weight

(g) RQs for Specified Food Items

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plan ts Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

Artichoke and apples

4.0

1 15 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.03

35 0.06 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.02

1000 0.03 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.01

Alfalfa, blueberries, and head/leaf lettuce

2.0

1 15 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.01

35 0.03 0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.01

1000 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01

Turf

1.5

3/91 15 0.03 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.01

35 0.03 0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.01

1000 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01

1 Bolded values exceed the acute risk to listed species LOC for mammals (0.1)

2 Bolded values exceed the acute risk to non-listed species LOC for mammals (0.5)

Table 25. Chronic Mammalian Dose-Based RQ Values for Uses of Propyzamide 1

Application

Rate lbs a.i./A

#app/interval (d) Body Weight

(g) RQs for Specified Food Items

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plan ts Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

Artichoke and apples

4.0

1 15 27.8 12.7 15.6 1.7 10.9

35 23.7 10.9 13.3 1.5 9.3

1000 12.7 5.8 7.2 0.8 5.0

Alfalfa, blueberries, and head/leaf lettuce

2.0

1 15 13.9 6.4 7.8 0.9 5.4

35 11.9 5.4 6.7 0.7 4.6

1000 6.4 2.9 3.6 0.4 2.5

Turf

1.5

3/91 15 12.41 5.69 6.98 0.78 4.86

35 10.60 4.86 5.96 0.66 4.15

1000 5.68 2.60 3.20 0.36 2.23

1 Bolded values exceed the chronic LOC for listed and non-listed mammals (1)-Page 42 of 86- 

### The RQ values for risk to honey bees ( Table 26 ) are compared to an ac ute risk LOC of 0.4 and a chronic risk LOC of 1.0 (USEPA 2014). Propyzamide is practica lly non-toxic to honey bees on an acute contact exposure (LD 50 

### >181 μg a.i./bee). No use showed exceedances.

Table 26. Contact RQ values for hone y bees exposed to propyzamide uses

Use (app. Rate) Measurement Endpoint Exposure

Route EEC Acute Chronic

Artichoke and Apples

4.0 lbs a.i./A Individual Survival (Adults) Contact 10.8 0.06 Not

calculated

Alfalfa, blueberries,

and head/leaf

lettuce

2.0 lbs a.i./A Individual Survival (Adults) Contact 5.4 0.03 Not

calculated

Turf

1.5 lbs a.i./A Individual Survival (Adults) Contact 4.1 0.02 Not

calculated

AR English = application rate in lbs a.i./A. Bold values exceed the LOC for risk to bees (acute LOC=0.4, chronic LOC=1)



### Acute toxicity studies with the young adult honey b ee demonstrate that propyzamide is practically non-toxic to young adult honey bees on an acute contact exposure basis (LD 50 

### >11 μg a.i./bee). The potential for risk to non-target terrestrial organisms exposed to propyzamide is discussed further in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2.2 ). There is uncertainty regarding the potential acute

and chronic effects of the com pound on honey bee larvae as well as potential for chronic effects

on adult bees.

Due to reported non-definitive endpoint uncertaintie s, terrestrial plants will be assessed in Section

4.2.2

.

4.2. Risk Description and Conclusions

This assessment evaluates the potential for ecologi cal risks associated wi th the proposed use of propyzamide as an organochlorine herbicide. Pr opyzamide is formulated as a wettable powder in water soluble pouches that can be applied pr e-plant, pre-emergence, or post-emergence by ground or aerial spray equipmen t, depending on the use.

4.2.1. Aquatic Organisms

RQ values are calculated for acute and chronic risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates, when submitted ecotoxicity and fate data are sufficient to use in risk estimati on. Aquatic animal and plant toxicity data reported in Section 3.3.1.1 and EECs are both reported in similar units, i.e., mg/L. For the uses of propyzamide, no RQ values exceed the LOC for freshwater and

estuarine/marine fish and inverteb rates for listed and non-listed spec ies (acute and chronic). Based

on available data for the acute freshwater Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) and chronic freshwater Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) along with the acute estuarine/marine-Page 43 of 86- 

### Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ), the chronic estuarine/marine NOAEC/LOAEC

values would be 0.163/0.320 mg a.i./L based on an ACR.

Sediment toxicity te sting with the midge, Chironomus dilutus , resulted in an LC 50 

### >97.5 mg a.i./L and a NOAEC of 47.1 mg a.i./L. Propyzamide was cla ssified as slight-to-moderately toxic to all aquatic organisms tested on an acute exposure basi s. Due to low measured fish bioconcentration factors (range of 21-77) and low/middle range octanol/water partition coefficient (log K ow 

### =3.0- 3.3), propyzamide is not expected to bioconcen trate in aquatic environments (MRID 43196701). According to the benthic pore water peak derive d from the SWCC, the EEC is 25.0 ppb. Therefore, the benthic RQ is <0.01 and does not exceed the LOC.

Propyzamide has no LOC exceedances (RQ ≥ 1) for aquatic nonvascular pl ants or aquatic vascular plants for any uses. Based on submitted data, green algae are more sensitive to propyzamide than duckweed. Among nonvascular species (green algae, blue-green algae, fr eshwater diatom, and marine diatom), only green algae reported a definitive IC 50 

### value, while the other nonvascular plants reported non-definitive “g reater than” (>) values.

4.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms

The RQ values in Section 4.1 demonstrate use of propyzamide may result in chronic risk to listed and non-listed mammals (RQ>1.0). Although propyzam ide is classified as practically non-toxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis, chr onic RQ values indicate potential for adverse effects. The submitted two-generation reproduction study in rats indicated toxicity at 15 mg/kg bw/day resulting in multiple treatment-related effects ( i.e. , decreases in body weight in females and feed consumption in both sexes; increased in cidences of histopathol ogy of the liver, adrenal gland, and thyroid gland in both se xes and decreases in combined male/female pups weigh/litter). Chronic dose-based RQ values exceed the LOC fo r small, medium, and large-sized mammals that consume all dietary categories mode led (artichoke and apples, alfa lfa, blueberries and head/leaf lettuce, and turf). No chronic risk LOCs are triggered by consumption of fruits/pods/seeds by any sized mammals for alfalfa, blueberries, and head /leaf lettuce. Chronic risk LOCs were not exceeded for large mammals (1000 g) for artichoke and apples.

RQ values for listed and non-listed species of m onocot and dicot plants exceed the LOC for dry and semi-aquatic areas exposed through runoff as we ll as those exposed from spray drift. Only

the use on turf did not result in exceedances to listed monocots’ LOCs from spray drift. LOCs were not exceeded to listed dicots for propyzamide use on alfalfa, blueberr ies, head/leaf lettuce (ground application only), or turf. Semi-aquatic risks showed the highest RQ values, followed by dry area plants, and plants exposed via spray drift. Listed terrestrial plants exposed to residues of propyzamide in irrigation water exceed the LOC as well.

Acute laboratory tests with terrestrial insects ( i.e. , honey bees) have demonstrated that propyzamide is practically non-toxic to adult h oney bees on a contact exposure basis, although there is uncertainty regarding pot ential chronic effects on adult b ees and acute and chronic effects on larvae. The artichoke/apple uses of propyz amide indicate a non-definitive RQ that does not

exceed the LOC for acute contact risk to adult bees.-Page 44 of 86- 

### Acute, dietary, and chronic RQ values were not calculated in the risk estimation section ( Section

4.1 ) for dose-based risk to birds (a nd reptiles and terrestrial phase amphibians for which birds serve as surrogates) because of uncertainties surround ing non-definitive study endpoints. The acute oral toxicity study on the Japanese quail (MRID 00107997) was found to have an LD 50 

### = 8870 mg a.i./kg bw. The acute oral toxicity study conduc ted on the canary and was found to have an LC 50 

### >1924 mg a.i./kg bw. While both DER’s were cla ssified as practically non-toxic on an acute exposure basis, differences exist when determin ing RQ exceedances upon consumption of various food categories (the Agency’s acute risk LOC is ≥ 0.1 and ≥ 0.5 to listed and non-listed species, respectively). The canary shows more acute do se-based RQ exceedances and higher RQ values for propyzamide compared to the Japanese quail 10 

### for every food category as seen in Table 27 and

Table 28 , respectively. A passerine species such as the canary may be more sensitive upon exposure compared to a game bird like the Japanese quail. A we ight of 26.2 g was used as the input parameter in T-REX for the canary (based on the average weight of the canary in MRID 48599209).

The avian reproduction study with the Mallard (MRID 48931803) was cla ssified as supplemental. The reported NOAEC was a non-definitive “less than” (<) the lowest concentration tested, which indicates all reported RQ values w ill be “greater than” (>) values. In this study, th e most sensitive reported endpoints included egg pr oduction, female body weight gai n, viable embryo’s to egg set, live 3-week embryos to egg set, hatchlings to li ve 3-week embryos, hatchling to egg set, and 14- day survivors to egg set resulting in a NOAEC/ LOAEC of <311/311 mg a.i./kg diet. The number of hatchlings to egg set, 14-day survivors to eggs set, and number of hatchlings to live 3-week embryos were reduced 15-28% compared to contro l. If the reported non-definitive value were instead definitive, exceedances would exist for all propyzamide uses ( Table 29 ). Another reproduction study is needed to better charac terize the lower bounds of chronic propyzamide toxicity to avian taxa.

Table 27. Acute a,b Dose-based Avian (20 g) and Dietary-based RQ Values for Propyzamide Based on the Canary Artichoke and apples; 4.0 lbs a.i./A; 1 application Dietary Category Acute RQs Dietary RQs

Short Grass <0.59 a,b <0.10 b

Tall Grass <0.27 b <0.04 Broadleaf plants/sm insects <0.33 b <0.05 Fruits/pods/seeds <0.04 <0.01 Arthropods <0.23 b <0.04 Alfalfa, blueberries, and head/leaf le ttuce; 2.0 lbs a.i./A; 1 application Dietary Category Acute RQs Dietary RQs

Short Grass <0.30 b <0.05

Tall Grass <0.14 b <0.02 Broadleaf plants/sm insects <0.17 b <0.03 Fruits/pods/seeds <0.02 <0.00 Arthropods <0.12 b <0.02 Turf; 1.5 lbs a.i./A; 3 applications; 91-d app interval Dietary Category Acute RQs Dietary RQs

Short Grass <0.26 b <0.04

Tall Grass <0.12 b <0.02

10 The Bobwhite quail was used as a surrogate for the Japanese quail for parameter input in T-REX-Page 45 of 86- Broadleaf plants/sm insects <0.15 b <0.02 Fruits/pods/seeds <0.02 <0.01 Arthropods <0.10 b <0.02

a Acute and dietary risk LOC exceeded for non-listed species is 0.5

b Acute and dietary risk LOC exceeded for listed species is 0.1

Table 28. Acute a,b Dose-based Avian (20 g) and Dietary-based RQ Values for Propyzamide Based on Japanese quail Artichoke and apples; 4.0 lbs a.i./A; 1 application Dietary Category Acute RQs Dietary RQs

Short Grass 0.17 b 0.10 b

Tall Grass 0.08 0.04 Broadleaf plants/sm insects 0.10 b 0.05 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 0.01 Arthropods 0.07 0.04 Alfalfa, blueberries, and head/leaf le ttuce; 2.0 lbs a.i./A; 1 application Dietary Category Acute RQs Dietary RQs

Short Grass 0.09 0.05

Tall Grass 0.04 0.02 Broadleaf plants/sm insects 0.05 0.03 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 0.00 Arthropods 0.03 0.02 Turf; 1.5 lbs a.i./A; 3 applications; 91-d app interval Dietary Category Acute RQs Dietary RQs

Short Grass 0.08 0.04

Tall Grass 0.04 0.02 Broadleaf plants/sm insects 0.04 0.02 Fruits/pods/seeds <0.01 <0.01 Arthropods 0.03 0.02

a Acute and dietary risk LOC exceeded for non-listed species is 0.5

b Acute and dietary risk LOC exceeded for listed species is 0.1



### Table 29. Chronic a 

### Avian Dietary-based RQ Values for Propyzamide

Artichoke and apples; 4.0 lbs a.i./A; 1 application Dietary Category Chronic RQs

Short Grass >3.1 a

Tall Grass >1.4 a Broadleaf plants/sm insects >1.7 a Fruits/pods/seeds >0.2 Arthropods >1.2 a Alfalfa, blueberries, and head/leaf le ttuce; 2.0 lbs a.i./A; 1 application Dietary Category Chronic RQs

Short Grass >1.5 a

Tall Grass >0.7 Broadleaf plants/sm insects >0.9 Fruits/pods/seeds >0.1 Arthropods >0.6 Turf; 1.5 lbs a.i./A; 3 applications; 91-d app interval Dietary Category Chronic RQs

Short Grass >1.4 a

Tall Grass >0.6 Broadleaf plants/sm insects >0.8 Fruits/pods/seeds >0.1 Arthropods >0.5-Page 46 of 86- a Chronic risk LOC (1.0 ) exceeded for listed and non-listed species



### For terrestrial plants, RQ values ( Table 30 and Table 31 ) for propyzamide uses are calculated

based on the most sensitive toxi city endpoints from the submitted seedling emergence/vegetative vigor studies ( Table 20 ) 11 

### . The monocot NOAEC for the seedling emergence test and

IC 25 

### /NOAEC for the vegetative vigor test were a ll non-definitive “l ess than” (<) values which introduces uncertainty regarding the actual RQ value. Because of th is uncertainty, RQ values were not reported in the risk estimation section ( Section 4.1 ). Although many of the endpoints were non-definitive, RQ values for non-listed species appear definitive ( Table 30 ). These values represent an uncertainty, however, since TerrPlant selects the most sensitive IC 25/ 

### NOAEC value when calculating RQ values. The non-definitive “less than” (<) values could be less than the definitive endpoint selected by TerrPlant.

RQ values for listed and non-listed monocot and dicot plants all exceed the Agency’s LOC risk to dry and semi-aquatic plants from runoff as well as those exposed via spray drift. Exceedances did not occur for non-listed monocot plants exposed to spray drift for use on turf, and listed dicot plants exposed to spray drive for uses on alfalf a, blueberries, lettuce (ground application only),

and turf.

Table 30. Propyzamide RQ values for non-listed species 1 of non-target terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants (TerrPlant).

Use Dry Area RQs Semi-Aquatic Area RQs Spray Drift Only RQs

Monocot Dicot Monocot Dicot Monocot Dicot

Artichoke, Apples (ground) 6.3 8.0 44.2 56.0 2.1 3.9

Artichoke (aerial) 14.7 18.7 52.6 66.7 10.5 19.2

Alfalfa, blueberries, head/leaf lettuce (ground) 3.2 4.0 22.1 28.0 1.1 1.9

Head/leaf lettuce (aerial) 7.4 9.3 26.3 33.3 5.3 9.6

Turf (ground) 2.4 3.0 16.6 21.0 0.8 1.4

Bolded values exceed the Agency’s level of concern (LOC) for risk to listed and non-listed species of terrestrial plants (RQ > 1).

1 Seedling emergence IC 25 and NOAEC monocot values are 0.019 and <0.015, and IC 25 and NOAEC dicot values are 0.015 and 0.004 (units are lbs a.i./A). Vegetative vigor IC 25 and NOAEC monocot values are <0.2 and <0.2, and IC 25 and NOAEC dicot values are <0.041 and <0.041 (units are lbs a.i./A).

Table 31. Propyzamide RQ values for listed species 1 of non-target terrestria l and semi-aquatic plants (TerrPlant).

Use Dry Area RQs Semi-Aquatic Area RQs Spray Drift Only RQs

Monocot Dicot Monocot Dicot Monocot Dicot

11 TerrPlant v. 1.2.2 User Guide (December 26, 2006). http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestri al/terrplant/terrplant_user_guide.html-Page 47 of 86- Artichoke, Apples (ground) >8.0 30.0 >56.0 210.0 >2.7 1.0

Artichoke (aerial) >18.7 70.0 >66.7 250.0 >13.3 4.9

Alfalfa, blueberries, head/leaf lettuce (ground) >4.0 15.0 >28.0 105.0 >1.3 0.5

Head/leaf lettuce (aerial) >9.3 35.0 >33.3 125.0 >6.7 2.4

Turf (ground) >3.0 11.3 >21.0 78.8 >1.0 0.4

Bolded values exceed the Agency’s level of concern (LOC) for risk to listed and non-listed species of terrestrial plants (RQ > 1).

1 Seedling emergence IC 25 and NOAEC monocot values are 0.019 and <0.015, and IC 25 and NOAEC dicot values are 0.015 and 0.004 (units are lbs a.i./A). Vegetative vigor IC 25 and NOAEC monocot values are <0.2 and <0.2, and IC 25 and NOAEC dicot values are <0.041 and <0.041 (units are lbs a.i./A).



### Residues of propyzamide in surface or groundwater that is used for ir rigation of plants may result in potential injury to terrestrial plants ( Table 32 and Table 33 ). Assuming an acre of land is irrigated with one inch of contaminated water, the 23.9 μ g ai/L peak groundwater EEC is equivalent to an application ra te of 0.005 lbs ai/A. The most sensitive of the available endpoints,

the IC 05 

### and IC 25 

### for cucumber from the seedling emergence study is 0.004 and 0.015 lbs ai/A, respectively. The resulting IC 05 

### /IC 25 

### RQs are 1.25/0.33. The IC 05 

### RQ exceeds the Agency’s LOC of 1.0 for terrestrial plants.

Table 32. Seedling Emergence RQ values for listed and non-listed species 1 of non-target plants based on propyzamide using groundwater-derived irrigation water.

Monocot: ryegrass ( Lolium perenne ) Dicot: cucumber ( Cucumis sativa )

IC 25 = 0.019 lbs a.i./A NOAEC = <0.015 lbs a.i./A IC 25 = 0.015 lbs a.i./A IC 05 = 0.004 lbs a.i./A

0.79 >0.33 0.33 1.25

Bolded values exceed the Agency’s level of concern (LOC) for risk to listed and non-listed species of terrestrial plants (RQ > 1).

1 RQ values are based on the irrigation water EEC of 0.0102 lbs a.i./A / the seedling emergence IC 25 (non-listed) or NOAEL (listed) value.

Table 33. Vegetative vigor RQ values for listed and non-listed species 1 of non-target plants based on propyzamide using groundwater-derived irrigation water.

Monocot: oat ( Avena sativa ) Dicot: tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum )

IC 25 = <0.2 lbs a.i./A NOAEC = <0.2 lbs a.i./A IC 25 = <0.041 lbs a.i./A NOAEC = <0.041 lbs a.i./A

>0.025 >0.025 >0.122 >0.122

Bolded values exceed the Agency’s level of concern (LOC) for risk to listed and non-listed species of terrestrial plants (RQ > 1).

1 RQ values are based on the irrigation water EEC of 0.0102 lbs a.i./A / the vegetative vigor IC 25 (non-listed) or NOAEL (listed)

value.



### 4.2.3. Conclusions

Based on this screening-level assessment, the phys icochemical properties of propyzamide indicate that the herbicide has the potential to reach aquatic environments, including surface and ground-Page 48 of 86- 

### water following application. Th e available ecotoxicity data de monstrate that propyzamide is slightly-to-moderately toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates and LOCs were not exceeded. Therefore, the likelihood of adverse effects to fish, aquatic invertebra tes, and aquatic-phase amphibians, from exposure to propyzamide use is considered low. Fr eshwater invertebrates exhibit similar sensitivity to estu arine/marine invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. Based on chronic toxicity values, RQ values are belo w the chronic risk LOC for estuarine/marine

invertebrates.

Submitted propyzamide data used to determine risk to avian taxa (and terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles) indicate acute and dietary LOC’s are exceeded regardless of whether the Japanese quail or canary are used. There is uncertainty, however, because the canary endpoint was nondefinitive, and the Japanese quail study used a formulation study as opposed to TGAI. Additionally the formulation used in the Japanese quail study is not a currently registered formulation. Although the avian reproduction study did not establish a lower bound for effects on avian reproduction, exceedances were observed at 311 mg a.i./kg diet. At 311 mg a.i./kg diet, the number of hatchlings to egg set, 14-day survivors to eggs set, and nu mber of hatchlings to live 3-week embryos were also significantly (p<0.05) reduced 15-28% from control at all trea ted levels. Additional data is

needed to characterize the lower bounds of chronic toxicity to avian taxa.

The risk hypothesis and conceptual diagrams articulat ed in this assessment identified concerns that the use of propyzamide may result in chronic risk to small (15 g), medium (35 g), and large (1000 g) size classes of mammals.

The artichoke/apple uses of propyzamide indicat e a non-definitive RQ that does not exceed the

LOC for acute contact risk to adult bees. The LD 50 

### for acute toxicity to honey bees is > 181 ug

a.i./bee.

Data indicate that monocots are dicots are both su sceptible to the toxic e ffects of propyzamide. RQ values for listed and non-liste d monocots and dicots in dry and semi-aquatic areas exceed the Agency’s LOC for risk to plants from runoff, as well as monocots and dicots exposed via spray drift. Listed terrestrial plants exposed to residu es of propyzamide in irriga tion water are at risk as

well.

To characterize potential non-targ et plant exposure from spray drift alone, Tier 1 modules in AgDrift (v. 2.1.1, December 2011) were used to es timate how far off-site spray drift exposure might occur at a level known to cause adverse eff ects in terrestrial plant toxicity studies. For ground applications, EFED used the American So ciety of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE, formerly ASAE) Coarse-to-Very Coarse dr oplet size category in its modeling. This size category is an assumption for herbicides that require root uptake. Due to the non-definitive values from the vegetative vigor study, ar ea of adverse effect distances could not be calculated for listed

and non-listed monocots and dicots.

4.2.4. Endangered Species Act

Consistent with EPA’s responsib ility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Agency will evaluate risks to federally listed threatened and en dangered (listed) species fr om registered uses of-Page 49 of 86- 

### pesticides in accordance with the Joint Inte rim Approaches developed to implement the recommendations of the April 2013 Nationa l Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides . The NAS report 12 

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

risk assessments that EPA and the Services mu st conduct in connection with their obligations

under the ESA and FIFRA. EPA will address c oncerns specific to propyzamide in connection with the development of its final regi stration review decision for propyzamide

.

In November 2013, EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service, National Ma rine Fisheries (the Services), and USDA released a white paper 13 

### containing a summary of their joint Interim Approaches for assessing risks to listed species fr om pesticides. These Interim Approaches were developed jointly by the agencies in response to the NAS recommendations, and reflect a common approach to risk assessment shared by the agencies as a way of addressing scientific differences

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

, Interim Approaches for Nati onal-Level Pestic ide Endangered Species Act Assessments Based on the Recommenda tions of the National Academy of Sciences April 2013 Report.

Given that the agencies are continuing to develo p and work toward implementation of the Interim Approaches to assess the potential risks of pesticid es to listed species and their designated critical habitat, this ecologica l risk assessment supporting the Prel iminary Work Plan for propyzamide does not describe the specific ESA analysis, incl uding effects determinations for specific listed species or designated critical ha bitat, to be conduc ted during registration review. While the agencies continue to develop a common method for ESA analysis, the planned risk assessment for the registration review of propyzam ide will describe the level of ESA analysis completed for this particular registration review case. This assessmen t will allow EPA to focus its future evaluations on the types of species where the potential for e ffects exists, once the sc ientific methods being developed by the agencies have been fully vetted. Once the agencies have fully developed and implemented the scientific methods necessary to co mplete risk assessments for listed species and their designated critical habitats, these methods will be applied to subsequent analyses of propyzamide as part of completing this registration review.

4.2.5. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

Propyzamide was included in the first group of 67 chemical s issued an order to conduct Tier 1 Endocrine Disrupting Screen Prog ram (EDSP) testing. Tier 1 screening results for List 1

chemicals are available at http://www2.epa.gov/ingredients-us ed-pesticide-products/endocrinedisruptor-screening-pr ogram-tier-1-assessments

. For additional information on the EDSP, visit http://www.epa.gov/endo/

.

5. Uncertainties

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

13 http://www.epa.gov/espp/2013/nas.html-Page 50 of 86- 

### Aquatic Exposure

This assessment is based upon available environmen tal fate data. There are no significant data gaps in the environmental fate database. Only the Environmental Chemical Methods in soil is necessary to fulfill all fate data requirements.

For ecological effects, no data have been submitted for chronic effects to estuarine/marine fish and

invertebrates. ACRs were used to estimate chronic toxicity values for estuarine/marine invertebrates. However, the endpoint for the ac ute toxicity to estuarine/marine fish was a nondefinitive “greater than” (>) value, therefore intr oducing uncertainty upon calculation of the ACR. Risks to aquatic organisms is expected to be minimal from propyzamide use, therefore, no

additional data is needed.

Terrestrial Exposure

With regard to the acute avian toxicity study with the canary (MRID 48599209), there is uncertainty due to the non-definiti ve “greater than” (>) endpoint.

The two avian reproduction st udies (OCSPP 850.2300) with the Bobwhite quail (MRID 48931802) and Mallard (MRID 48931803) were cl assified as supplemental. The Bobwhite quail study did not test up to a concentration to elicit an adve rse effect or test up to 5,000 mg/kg diet, and the Mallard study reported a non-defi nitive “less than” (<) NOAEC. Although the Mallard study did not establish a lower bound for effects on avian reproduction, exceedances were observed at 311 mg a.i./kg diet (the lowest test concentration us ed in the study). Additi onal data is needed to

characterize the lower bounds of chroni c toxicity to avian taxa.

The Tier II vegetative vigor plant to xicity study origin ally showed IC 25 

### values that were less than

the NOAEC values based on an ex trapolation of test concentr ations. The extrapolated IC 25 

### values fell outside the range of test concentrations resulting in unc ertainty regarding the actual IC 25 

### value. As a result, the IC 25 

### values have a non-definitive “less than” (<) value. Additionally, a nondefinitive “less than” (<) NOAEC from the seedli ng emergence study was used for monocots. Although these values were still used for risk estimation, the reported RQ values likely

underestimate the risk to listed and non-listed dicots. Exceedances did not occur for non-listed monocot plants exposed to spray drift for use on turf, and listed dicot plants exposed to spray drift for uses on alfalfa, blueberries , lettuce (ground applica tion only), or turf. Dry and semi-aquatic areas all showed exceedances to propyzamide for ev ery crop use (including turf). An additional uncertainty associated with the s ubmitted terrestrial plant studies is that they were conducted with TGAI as opposed to TEP. TEP formulations ma y enhance the toxicity and persistence of the

chemical.-Page 51 of 86- 

### Data Gaps

The environmental chemistry method and its inde pendent laboratory validation in soil (MRIDs 48599206 and 48599205) were insufficient to satisfy th e data requirements for these studies. Therefore, this data is still recommended.

Appendix D lists whether data gaps for ecological effects have been identified.

No data have been submitted for chronic toxicity to estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates. Therefore, estuarine/marine i nvertebrate life-cycl e (OCSPP 850.1350) and estuarine/marine fish early-life stage (OCSPP 850.1400) are needed. However, in the ab sence of these data, an ACR

has been used to estimate chronic toxicity endpoints for estuarine/ marine invertebrates. An ACR

cannot be calculated for estuarine/ marine fish because a different species of freshwater fish was

used in the acute and chronic fr eshwater fish toxicity tests.

The avian reproduction study (OCSPP 850.2300) with the Mallard (MRID 48931803) was classified as supplemental. The reported NOAEC was a non-definitive “less than” (<) the lowest concentration tested. Although the avian reprod uction study did not establish a lower bound for effects on avian reproduction, exceedances were obs erved at 311 mg a.i./kg diet. Additional data

is needed to characterize the lower bounds of chronic toxicity to avian taxa.

Although data indicate propyzamide is practically non-toxic to young adult bees on an acute contact exposure basis, the toxi city endpoint is non-definitive, a nd there is uncerta inty regarding potential risk from acute oral exposure when cons idered in the context of estimated exposures ( i.e., EECs) from registered uses of propyzamide. There is also uncertainty rega rding the potential acute and chronic effects of the compound on honey bee larval development and survival as well as potential chronic effects in adult bees. Therefore, additional data on pollinators is needed to fully

characterize the risk asso ciated with propyzamide use to all developmental stages of honey bees, as sensitivity may vary according to life-stage a nd length of exposure (adult vs. larval and acute vs. chronic, respectively). As described in the guidance for assessing risks to bees 14,15 

### depending on the outcome of the screening-level risk assessm ent, additional studies of bees at the colony level under semi- and full-field conditions may also be recommended.

The Tier II vegetative vigor plant toxicity study showed IC 25 

### values that were less than the NOAEC values. Extrapolated IC 25 

### values fell outside the range of test concentrations resulting in uncertainty regarding the actual IC 25 

### value. As a result, IC 25 

### values have a non-definitive “less than” (<) value. The NOAEC value for the seedling emergency monocot study is also described

as a non-definitive “less than” value. Furthe rmore, both the seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies were conducted with TGAI as oppos ed to TEP. TEP formulations may enhance the toxicity and persistence of the chemical. Therefore, additi onal seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies are needed with TEP to characterize th e effects of propyzamide on terrestrial plants.

14 USEPA. 2014. Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. O ffice of Pesticide Programs. United States Environmental Protec tion Agency.

Available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/sci ence/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors/terrest rial_biology_tech_team/GuidanceAssessingPesticid eRisk2Bees. pdf

15 http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/f iles/2014-06/documents/pollinator_r isk_assessment_guida nce_06_19_14.pdf-Page 52 of 86- 

## 6. References

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13 (9):1383-1391. Smalling, K.L.; Kuivila, K. M.; Orlando, J.L.; Phillips, B. M.; Anderson, B.M.; Siegler, K.; Hunt, J.W.; Hamilton,

M. Environmental fate of fungicides and other current-use pesticides in a central California. Marine

Pollution Bulletin 73 (2013) 144–153. FAO, 2000. Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unite d Nations. Pesticide Disposal Series 8. Assessing Soil Contamination: A Reference Manual. Appendix 2. Parameters of pesticides that influence processes in the soil. Editorial Group, FAO Information Division: Rome, 2000. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X2570E/X2570E00.htm

. CDPR. 2006. Surface Water Database. California Depa rtment of Pesticide Regulation, Surface Water Protection Program. Online at: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/sw/surfdata.htm USEPA. 1998A. Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-95/002F, April

1998. USEPA. 1994. Reregistration Eligibility Deci sion (RED) Pronamide. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. EPA-738-F-94-007. May, 1994. USFWS/NMFS. 1998B. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Sp ecies Act. Final Draft. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Available at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/pdf/Sec%207%20Handbook.pdf (Accessed November 7, 2012). USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessmen t Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Endangered and Threat ened Species Effects Dete rminations. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. Available

online at http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/ consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf USEPA 2007a. Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Uses of Propyzamide on Chicory, Belgian Endive, Dandelion Leaves, and Be rries in Berry Group 13. DP Barcode 329358. Jun. 14, 2007.

USEPA 2007b. Addendum to the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Uses of Propyzamide on Chicory, Belgian Endive, Dand elion Leaves, and Berries (Berry Group 13). DP Barcode 329358. Oct. 22, 2007. USEPA. (2007) Ecotoxicology (ECOTOX) database. Version 4. Office of Research and Development (ORD'), and the National Health and Envi ronmental effects Research Laboratory's MEERL's) Mid-Continent Ecology Division (MED). USEPA. 2007c. Safe Drinking Water Information System/F ederal Version (SDWIS/FED ). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Last updated: September 19, 2013. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/safewa ter/data/getdata.html USEPA 2008. Risks of Propyzamide Use to Fede rally Threatened California Red-legged Frog ( Rana aurora draytonii ). February 7, 2008. USEPA. 2009 Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Us es on Pronamide. Biologi cal and Economic Assessment Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Dated January 6, 2009. USEPA 2014. Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. Washington, DC: US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs) Griffen, J. 2003. Disruption of Mitosis. AGRO 4070 - Lecture: Weed Science and the Environment, Chapter 15. Louisiana State University AgCenter. 2002-2004. USEPA. (2002a) Tier I1 Drinking Water Assessment to Support TRED for Pron amide (Propyzamide). U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency, Office of pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Memorandum, Jun. 5, 2002. USEPA. 2002a. Tier II Drinking Water Assessment to Support TRED for Pronamide (Propyzamide). U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Envi ronmental Fate and Effects Division, Memorandum, Jun. 5, 2002. USEPA. 1992. Pesticides in Ground Water Database: A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971-1991: National-Page 53 of 86- Summary. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. USGS. 2006. National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. U.S. Geological Service. Last updated: Oct. 19, 2006. Online at: http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/traver se/f?p=136:1:1779537078393353::NO ::: USGS. 2006a. Kelly, V., R. Hooper, B. Aulenbach, and M. Janet. Concentrations and Annual Fluxes for Selected Water-Quality Constituents from the USGS Nationa l Stream Quality Accoun ting Network (NASQAN), 1996-2000. U.S. Geological Survey. Last updated: Nov. 20, 2006. Online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri014255/results/detect.htm USGS. 2011. Smalling, K.L. and Orlando, J.L.; Ocurrence of Pesticides in Surface Water and Sediment from Three Central California Coastal Watersheds, 2008-2009.

USEPA. 2013. Guidance for Modeling Offsite Deposition of Pestic ides via Spray Drift for Ecological and Drinking

Water Assessments. Office of chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Dec. 20, 2013.

Environmental Fate MRIDs

161-1 Hydrolysis

MRID Citation Reference

107980 Rohm and Haas Co. (1973) A Study of the Hydrolysis of the Herbicide Kerb in Water: Laboratory 23 Technical Report No. 23-73- 8. (Un- published study received Apr 27, 1973 under 707-113; CDL: 120314-A)

107989 Rohm and Haas Co. (1971) Degradation of C14 Kerb ?3,5-dichloro-N- (1,1-dimethyl-2- propynyl)-benzamide| in Water: Laboratory 23 Technical Report No. 23-71-24. (Unpublished study received May 16, 1 972 under 707-98; CDL:120402-I)

107990 Satterthwaite, S.; Fisher, J. (1972) Photodecomposition Study of Kerb (3,5-dichloro-N- (1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)-benzamide) in Water: Laboratory 11 Metabolism Group Memorandum Report No. 7. (Unpublished study received May 16, 1972 under 707-98; submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, PA; CDL:120402-J)

161-2 Photodegradation-water

40320601 Nelson, S. (1987) Characterization of Degradates from the Photoly- sis of Pronamide: Rept. No. 31C-87-27. Unpublished supplemental report prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. 58 p.

40420301 Carpenter, M.; Fennessey, M. (1987) Determin ation of the Photolysis Rate of ?Carbon 14|- phenyl Pronamide in pH-7 Aqueous Solution: ABC Final Report No. 35172. Unpublishedstudy prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. in cooperation with Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 1028 p.

161-3 Photodegradation-soil

143746 Burgess, D. (1985) Photolys is of [Carbon-14] Pronomide (Kerb) on Soil Surface Exposed to Artificial Sun Light: Revised Draft Report : Project No. 84-E-216SP. Unpublished study prepared by Biospherics Incorporated. 27 p.

41913504 Carpenter, M. (1987) Soil Photolysis of 14-C-Phenyl Pronamide: Lab Project Number: 35238. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Company. 683 p.-Page 54 of 86- 162-1 Aerobic soil metabolism

41568901 Olson, G.; Lawrence, L. (1990) Aerobic Metabolism of (Carbon 14) Pronamide in Sandy Loam Soil: Lab Project Number: 1250: 309. Unpublished study prepared by Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Laboratory. 67 p.

41913502 Nelson, S. (1991) Aerobic Soil Metabolis m of 14C-Pronamide in Sandy Loam Soil: Response to EPA Review (Shaughnessy No. 101701): Lab Project Number: 34-91-39. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Company. 7 p.

46413407 Volkl, S. (2001) Degradation Rate of (Carbon 14)-Propyzamide (Kerb) in Three Soils Incubated Under Aerobic Conditions. Project Number: 773897, 34/00/108. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 134 p.

162-2 Anaerobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

161097 Stahovec, W. (1986) Pronamide (Kerb) Anaerobic Soil Metabolism: Revised Final Report: Biospherics Project No. 85E-105ANA. Un- published study prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. 178 p.

162749 Yih, R.; Swithenbank, C.; McRae, D. (1970) Transformations of the herbicide N-(1,1- dimethylpropynyl)-3,5-dichlorobenzamide in Soil. Weed Science 18(5):604-607.

40244401 Nelson, S. (1987) Response to EPA Review of K erb Herbicide Anaero- bic Soil Metabolism: Supplement to W. L. Stahovec--Pronamid (Kerb) Anaerobic Soil

Metabolism ...: Lab. Memorandum No. 31C-87- 142. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. 5 p.

41913505 Olson, G.; Lawrence, L. (1989) Anaerobic Metabolism of (Carbon 14) Propamide in Sandy Loam Soil: Lab Project Number: 1175: 271. Unpublished study prepared by Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Laboratory. 54 p.

162-3 Anaerobic aquatic metab.

107989 Rohm and Haas Co. (1971) Degradation of C14 Kerb ?3,5-dichloro-N- (1,1-dimethyl-2- propynyl)-benzamide| in Water: Laboratory 23 Technical Report No. 23-71-24. (Unpublished study received May 16, 1 972 under 707-98; CDL:120402-I)

163-1 Leach/adsorp/desorption

107970 Fisher, J. (1973) Soil Leaching Study with Kerb Degradation Prod- ucts RH-24,580 and RH-24,644: Technical Report 3923-73-4. (Un- published study received Aug 20, 1973 under 3F1317; submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, PA; CDL:094306-A)

107971 Rohm & Haas Co. (1971) Soil Adsorption Studies with C14 Kerb: Technical Report 23- 71-12. (Unpublished study received Aug 20, 1973 under 3F1317; CDL:094306-B)

107982 Rohm & Haas Co. (1971) Soil Absorption Studies with Kerb ?3,5-di- chloro-N-(1,1- dimethyl-2-propynyl)-benzamide|: Laboratory 23 Technical Report No. 23-71-12. (Unpublished study received May 16, 1 972 under 707-98; CDL:120402-B)-Page 55 of 86- 107983 Fisher, J.; Satterthwaite, S. (1971) Leaching and Metabolism Studies of C14 Kerb ?3,5- dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)- benzamide| in Soils: Laboratory 11 Research Report No. 11-228. (Unpublis hed study received May 16, 19 72 under 707-98; submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, PA; CDL:120402-C)

40211103 Vincent, P. (1987) Soil Adsorption/Desorption of [Carbon 14]-Prona- mide: ADC Project #1002. Unpublished study prepared by Analy- tical Development Corp. 230 p.

40211104 Nelson, S. (1987) Adsorption/Desorption of [Carbon 14] RH-24,580 and [Carbon 14] RH-24,644: Rohm and Haas Technical Report No. 31C-87-15. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. 350 p.

41913501 Nelson, S. (1987) Mobility Studies Related to Pronamide: Response to EPA review (Shaughnessy No. 101701): Lab Project Number: 34- 91-40. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm amd Haas Company. 8 p.

164-1 Terrestrial field dissipation

107957 Rohm & Haas Co. (1971) Results of Tests on the Amount of Residue Remaining in or on Lettuce and Related Crops and Soil Including a Description of the Analytical Method: (Kerb). (Compilation; unpublished study received Mar 11, 1971 under 1F1139; CDL: 090917-A; 090916)

107986 Rohm & Haas Co. (1972) Leaching, Runoff and Persistence of Kerb ?3,5-dichloro-N- (1,1-dimethyl-2-Propynyl)-benzamide| in Soil under Field Trial Conditions during 1970- 1971: AFTG Research Report No. XXXXVI. (Unpublished study received May 16, 1972 under 707-98; CDL:120402-F)

138403 Rohm & Haas Co. (1974) Kerb--Long Term Soil Residues (A Part of the fate in Environment Studies on Kerb Herbicide). ( Compilation ; unpublished study received May 8, 1974 under 707-98; CDL: 120407-A)

40925401 Nelson, S.; Zogorski, W. (1988) Kerb Herbic ide Terrestrial Field Dissipation: Two Sites: Project ID. 34C-88-54. Unpublished stu- dy prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. in cooperation wtih Craven Laboratories an d Pan-Agricultural Associates. 1609 p.

41913503 Nelson, S. (1991) Kerb Herbicid e Terrestrial Field Dissipation: Response to EPA

Review (Shaughnessy No. 101701): Lab Project Number: 34-91-41. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Company. 5 p.

44078601 Choo, D. (1996) Terrestrial Field Dissipa tion of Kerb Herbicide at California and Wisconsin: Lab Project Number: 34-96-100: TR-34-96-100: TR 34-95-34. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., California; Centre Analytical Labs., Inc.; and QC, Inc. 753 p.

165-1 Confined rotational crop

41913506 Nelson, S. (1991) Pronamide Confined Rotational Crop Study: Respon- se to EPA

Review (Shaughnessy No. 101701): Lab Project Number: 34-91-42. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Company. 9 p.

165-2 Field rotational crop-Page 56 of 86- 44661501 Smith, S. (1998) Field Rotation Crop Study of Kerb Herbicide in California-Bare Ground, Rotated with Small Grains, Root Crops, and Leafy Vegetables: Lab Project Number: 34P-95-13: 34P-95-14: 34P-95-13A. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Company, and ABC Labora tories California. 944 p.

165-4 Bioaccumulation in fish

43196701 Liu, P. (1994) (Carbon 14)-Pronamide: Flow-Through Bluegill Bioconcentration Study: Lab Project Number: XBL 93105: RPT00162: 34-94-27. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. and XenoBiotic Labs., Inc. 144 p.

Ecological Effects MRIDs

101701 Pronamide Eco Effects Bibliography Revised 05/23/12

71-1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

107997 Robinson, D.; Shillam, K. (1969) Toxicity of RH-315 to the Japanese Quail and theMallard Duck: 2839/69/265. (Unpublished study re- ceived Jun 22, 1970 under 707-EX63; prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre, Eng., submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Phila- delphia, PA; CDL:123888-B)

48471001 Hubbard, P. (2011) Propyzamide: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Zebra Finch (Poephila guttata). Project Number: 379/256, 379/022311A/ZF/LD/SUB379. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 15 p

48599208 Hubbard, P.M., and Beavers, J.B. 20 l l.Propyz amide: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Northern Bobwhite. Unpublished study performed by Wildlife International, LTD. Project Number: 379-254. Study sponsored by Dow AgroSciences, LLC, Midland, Ml. Study initiated 30 March 2011 and submitted 12May 2011.

48599209 Hubbard, P.M., and Beavers, J.B. 2011. Propyz amide: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Canary (Serinus canaria). Unpublished study performed by Wildlife lntemational, LTD. Project Number: 379-256. Study sponsored by Dow AgroSciences, LLC, Midland, MI. Study initiated 25 July 20 II and submitted 2 September 2011.

71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

107993 Shellenberger, T. (1971) Subacute Toxicity Evaluation of Kerb ?3,5- dichloro-N-(1,1- dimethyl-2-propynyl)-benzamide| with Y oung Adult Bobwhite Quail (A Seven Day Range Finding Study): GSRI Project No. NC-501. (Unpublished study received May 16, 1972 under 707- 98; prepared by Gulf Sout h Research Institute, submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, PA; CDL:120402-N)-Page 57 of 86- 107994 Shellenberger, T. (1971) A Subacute Toxicity and Tissue Residue Study of Kerb ?3,5- dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)-ben- zamide| Herbicide in Young Adult Bobwhite Quail: GSRI Project No. NC-501. Final rept . (Unpublished study received May 16, 1972 under 707-98; prepared by Gulf South Rese arch Institute, submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, PA; CDL:120402-O)

108002 Fink, R. (1975) Eight-day Dietary LC50--Mallard Duck: Technical Kerb: Project No. 129- 107. Final rept. (Unpublished study re- ceived Feb 25, 1977 under 707-98; prepared by Truslow Farms Inc., submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, PA; CDL: 233723-A)

108003 Fink, R. (1975) Eight-day Dietary LC50--Bobwhite Quail: Technical Kerb: Project No. 129-106. Final rept. (Unpublishe d study received Feb 25, 1977 under 707-98; prepared by Truslow Farms Inc., submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, PA; CDL: 233723-B)

71-4 Avian Reproduction

MRID Citation Reference

48931802 Frey, L.; Martin, K.; Beav ers, J. et al. (2000) Kerb T echnical Herbicide: A Reproduction Study with the Northern Bobwhite Quail. Project Number: 99RC/0235, 129/175. Unpublished study prepared by Wild life International, Ltd. 168p.

48931803 Frey, L.; Martin, K.; Beavers, J. et al. (2012) Propyzamide: A Reproduction Study with the Mallard: Final Report. Project Number: 379/257, 110231. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 240p.

72-1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

MRID Citation Reference

107196 McCann, J. (1971) ?Kerb 50-W: Bluegill| : Test No. 325. (U.S. Agricultural Research Service, Pesticides Regulation Div., Animal Biology Laboratory; unpublished study; CDL:130346-A)

107996 Binns, R.; Clark, G. (1969) The Acute Toxi city to Fish of An Exper- imental Herbicide

RH-315-75WP: 2932/69/358. (Unpublished study received Jun 22, 1970 under 707-EX63; prepared by Huntingdon Research Cent re, Eng., submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Phila- delphia, PA; CDL:123888-A)

48599210 Gerke, Amanda. 2011. Pronamide Techni cal: Acute Toxicity to the Bluegill Sunfish, Lepomismacrochirus, Determined Under Static-Renewal Conditions. Unpublished study performed by ABC Laboratories,Inc. Project Number 66996. Study sponsored by the Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI. Study completed 31 August 2011.

48599211 Dinehart, Simon. 2011. Pronamide Technical: Acute Toxicity to the Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchusmykiss, Determined Under Static-Renewal Conditions. Unpublished study performed by ABC Laboratories, Inc.Project Number 66993. Study sponsored by the Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Ml. Study completed 31 August 2011.

72-2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates-Page 58 of 86- MRID Citation Reference

98313 Vilkas, A.G.; Browne, A.M. (1980) The Acute Toxicity of Kerb Tech- nical (No Clay) to the Water Flea~Daphnia magna~Straus: UCCES Project No. 11506-33-43. (Unpublished study received Apr 1, 1982 under 707-159; prepared by Union Carbide Corp., submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:247155-A)

72-3 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms

MRID Citation Reference

43608401 Drottar, K.; Swigert, J. (1995) Kerb Technical: A 96-Hour Shell Deposition Test With the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virgini ca): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 129A/123: 94RC-0192. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 104

p.

43608402 Drottar, K.; Swigert, J. (1995) Kerb Technical: A 96-Hour Flow-Through Acute Toxicity Test With the Saltwater Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 129A-122C: 94RC-0193. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 93 p.

48599212 Dinehart, Simon. 2011. Pronamide Technical: Acute Toxicity to the Sheepshead Minnow, Cyprinodonvariegates, Determined Under Static-Renewal Conditions. Unpublished study performed by ABC Laboratories, Inc. Project Number 67070. Study sponsored by the Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI. Study completed 31 August 2011.

123-1 Seed germination/seedling emergence and vegetative vigor

MRID Citation Reference

42176801 Hoberg, J. (1992) Kerb Technical--Determination of Effects on Seed Germination, Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor of Ten Plant Species: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 91-10-3974: 86.0591.6138.610: RH 91RC-0069. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 218 p.

43448101 Hoberg, J. (1994) KERB Technical--Determination of the Effects on Seed Germination, Seedling Emergence and Vegetativ e Vigor of Ten Plant Species : Supplement : Lab Project Numbers: 91-10-3974: 91RC-0069A. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 160 p.

44029001 Teixeira, D. (1996) Kerb Technical--Determination of Effects on Seedling Emergence of Two Plant Species: Supplement to: "Ker b Technical--Determination of Effects on Seed Germination, Seedling Emergence an d Vegetative Vigor of Ten Plant Species: MRID 43448101:" Final Report: Lab Project Number: 96-2-6389: 86.0995.6193.610: 95RC-0190. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 89 p.

123-2 Aquatic plant growth-Page 59 of 86- MRID Citation Reference

42176802 Hoberg, J. (1991) Kerb Technical--Toxicity to the Freshwater Green Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum: Lab Project Number: 91-11-4005: 91RC-0070: 86. 0591. 6137. 430. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 65 p.

43738301 Thompson, S.; Swigert, J. (1995) Kerb Technical: A 14-Day Toxicity Test with Duckweed (Lemna gibba G3): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 129A-119: 94RC-0191. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 98 p.

43738302 Thompson, S.; Swigert, J. (1995) Kerb Technical: A 5-Day Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Diatom (Navicula pelliculosa): Fi nal Report: Lab Project Number: 129A-117: 94RC-0196. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 104 p.

43738303 Thompson, S.; Swigert, J. (1995) Kerb Technical: A 5-Day Toxicity Test with the MarineDiatom (Skeletonema costatum): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 129A-118: 94RC0195. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 103 p.

43738304 Thompson, S.; Swigert, J. (1995) Kerb Technical: A 5-Day Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Alga (Anabaena flos-aquae): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 129A-120: 94RC-0190. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 106 p.

142-3 Simulated or Actual Field Testing

MRID Citation Reference

107951 Rohm & Haas Co. (1970) Effect of He rbicide and Insecticide Treat- ments on China Lettuce to Honey Bees and Leafcutter Be es. (Un- published study received

43176701 Kuhner, C. (1993) Assessment of Side Effects of Kerb 50 W on the Predatory Mite, Typhlodromus pyri SCHEUTEN (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in the Laboratory: Lab Project Number: 93009/01/ TP: 93RC/1078. Unpublished study prepared by Arbeitsgemeinschaft, GAB Biotechnologie GmbH und IFU Umweltanalytik GmbH. 24

p.

43177001 Kuhner, C. (1993) Assessment of Side Effects of Kerb 50 W on the Lady Bird Beetle, Coccinella septempunctata L. (Coleoptera, Co ccinellidae) in the Laboratory: Pronamide: Lab Project Number: 93009/01-Cs: 93RC-1079. Unpublished study prepared by Arbeitsgemeinschaft, GAB Biotechnologie GmbH und IFU Umweltanalytik GmbH. 20

p.

850.1075 Fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine

MRID Citation Reference

48599210 Gerke, A. (2011) Pronamide Technical: Acute Toxicity to the Bluegill Sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus, Determined Under Static-Renewal Test Conditions. Project Number: 66996, 110036. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 59p.-Page 60 of 86- 48599211 Dinehart, S. (2011) Pronamide Techni cal: Acute Toxicity to the Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, Determined Under Static-Renewal Test Conditions. Project Number: 66993, 110033. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 54p.

48599212 Dinehart, S. (2011) Pronamide Techni cal: Acute Toxicity to the Sheepshead Minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus, Determined Under Static-Renewal Conditi ons. Project Number: 67070, 110363. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 54p.

850.1500 Fish life cycle toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

48931801 Dinehart, S. (2012) Pronamide Technical: Life-Cycle Toxicity Test with the Fathead Minnow, Pimephales promelas, Under Flow-Through Conditions. Project Number: 67560, 110364. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 150p.

850.2100 Avian acute oral toxicity test

MRID Citation Reference

48471001 Hubbard, P. (2011) Propyzamide: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Zebra Finch (Poephila guttata). Project Number: 379/256, 379/022311A/ZF/LD/SUB379. Unpublished study prepared by Wild life International, Ltd. 15 p.

48599208 Hubbard, P.; Beavers, J. (2011) Propy zamide: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Northern Bobwhite. Project Number: 379/254, 110228. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 35p.

48599209 Hubbard, P.; Beavers, J. (2011) Propy zamide: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Canary (Serinus canaria). Project Number: 379/256, 110230. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 60p.

850.2300 Plant

MRID Citation Reference

49300801 Gemrot, F. (2013) Propyzamide - Independent Laboratory Validation of an Analytical Method for the Determination of Residues of Propyzamide and its Relevant Metabolites in Soil by Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Project Number: 130751, S13/03290. Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins Agroscience Services Chem. 96p.

48931803 : Frey, L.T., et al. 2012. Propyzamide: A Reproduction Study with the Mallard. Unpublished study performed by Wildlife International Ltd., Easton, MD. Laboratory Project No. 379-257. Study sponsored by The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI for Dow AgroSciences, LLC, Indianapolis, IN. Study initiated December 13, 2011 and co mpleted August 7, 2012-Page 61 of 86- 850.6100 Environmental Chemistry Methods and Associated Independent Laboratory Validation

MRID Citation Reference

49300801 Gemrot, F. (2013) Propyzamide - Independent Laboratory Validation of an Analytical Method for the Determination of Residues of Propyzamide and its Relevant Metabolites in Soil by Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Project Number: 130751, S13/03290. Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins Agroscience Services Chem. 96p.

FRESHWATER SEDIMENT Chironomus dilutus EMERGENCE TEST

MRID Citation Reference

48599214 Pronamide Technical: Whole Sediment 10 Day Acute Toxicity Test with Midge Larvae (Chironomus dilutus)-Page 62 of 86-Appendix A. Propyzamide UsesProducts for registrationcontaining propyzamide.UseFormulationApplicationTypeMaxSingleAppRate(lba.i./A)Max#Apps/CC1Max apprate/CC(lb a.i. /A/CC)Max #CC perYearMax#Apps/YearMax Apprate/Year(lb a.i. /A/Yr)MRI(days)RegNumbersArtichoke(globe)WSP, SC Ground,broadcast;Ground,banded;Aerial4 1 4 (establishedplants);2 (newlyplanted)1 1 4(establishedplants);2 (newlyplanted)na 62719-397;62719-578;87290-3;87290-22blackberry/boysenberry /raspberryWSP, SC ground,broadcast;Ground,banded3 1 3 1 na 3 na 62719-397;62719-578;87290-3;87290-22Blueberry WSP, SC ground,broadcast;Ground,banded2 1 2 1 1 2 na 62719-397;62719-578;87290-3;87290-22alfalfa,WSP, SCground,broadcast2 na na na na 2 na62719-397;62719-578clover,birdsfoottrefoil,crownvetch,sainfoinalfalfa(doddercontrol)WSP, SC ground,broadcast2 na na na na 2 na 62719-397;62719-578;-Page 63 of 86-87290-3;87290-22alfalfa(cheatgrasscontrol)WSP, SC ground,broadcast1 na na na na na Shouldbe 2na 62719-397;62719-578;87290-3;87290-22headlettuce,endive,escarole,radicchiogreens, leaflettuce(proposed)WSP, SC ground:banded, bedtopped, orbroadcast;22 atrate of1 lba.i. forsplitapps2 na na 2 1062719-397;62719-578;87290-3;87290-22;headlettuce,WSP, SC aerialleaf lettuce(proposed)WSP, SC ground:banded, bedtopped, orbroadcast;2 1 2na na na na62719-397;62719-578aerialna na na na62719-397;62719-578headlettuceWSP, SC chemigation 1 1 1 na na na na62719-397;62719-578;87290-3;87290-22endive,escarole,radicchiogreens,leaf lettuce(proposed)WSP, SC chemigation 1 1 1 na na na na62719-397;62719-578-Page 64 of 86-Rhubarb WSP, SC ground,broadcast2 1 2 na 1 2 na 62719-397;62719-578;87290-3;87290-22Apple,apricot,cherry,nectarine,peach,pear, plum,prune andgrapeplantingsWSP, SC ground,broadcast4 1 4 na 1 4 na 62719-397;62719-578;87290-3;87290-22WinterpeasWSP, SC ground,broadcast1.5 1 1.5 na 1 1.5 na 62719-397;62719-578;87290-3;87290-22Woodyornamentals, nurserystock ofornamentals,ChristmastreesWSP, SC ground,broadcast2 1 2 1 1 2 na 62719-397;62719-578;87290-3;87290-22-Page 65 of 86-Turf grownfor sod,nonresidentialincl. golfcourse,industrialand officebuildingsites,stadiumfields orprofessional athleticfields.WSP, SC ground,broadcast1.5 1 1.5 3 3 4.5 na 62719-397;62719-578;87290-3;87290-22nonresidentialwoodyornamentals, nurserystock ofornamentals, andChristmastreesWSP, SC ground,broadcast2 1 2 3 1 2 na 62719-397;62719-578;SLNsFall,CarbonSeededGrassesGrown forSeed(Oregon)SC ground,banded0.25 na na na na na 62719-578 and87290-3EstablishedOrchardgrass Grownfor Seed(Oregon)SC ground 0.375 1 0.375 1 1 0.375 62719-578 and87290-3-Page 66 of 86-ChristmasTreePlantations(Oregon)SC aerial 2 na na na na na 62719-578SugarbeetsGrown forSeed(Oregon)SC ground 1 na na na na na 62719-578Rhubarb(Michigan)SC groundbroadcast2 1 2 1 1 2 62719-578DirectSeededHeadLettuceSC ground 6 1 6 1 1 6 62719-5781CC=crop cycle-Page 67 of 86-Appendix B. Propyzamide and its Environmental Transformation ProductsChemical NameStructurePropyzamide (Pronamide,RH-23315)IUPAC name: 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethylprop-2-ynyl)benzamideCAS name: 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)benzamideRH-24644 (M1)2-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-4,4-dimethyl-5-methylene-2-oxazolineRH-24655 (M2)3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propenyl)benzamideRH-20839 (M3)3,5-dichlorobenzoic acidClClNHOClClNOClClNHOClClOHO-Page 68 of 86-Chemical NameStructureRH-24580 (M4)N-(1,1-dimethylacetonyl)-3,5-dichlorobenzamideRH-26521 (M9)N-(1,1-dimethyl-2,3-dihydroxypropyl)-3,5-dichlorobenzamideRH-26059β-(3,5-dichlorobenzamino-β-methyl-butyricacidRH-258912-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-4,4-dimethyl-ShydroxymethyloxazolineClClNHOOClClNHOOHOHClClNHOHOOClClNOOH-Page 69 of 86-Chemical NameStructureRH-26702N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-hydroxacetonyl)-3,5-dichlorobenzamide3,5-DichlorobenzamideMDCBmethyl 3,5-dichlorobenzoateCarbon dioxideClClNHOOOHClClNH2OClClOOOO-Page 70 of 86-Appendix C. SWCC ResultsVariable Volume Water Model, SWCC Compatible Version*******************************************Performed on: 5/29/2015 at 14:22Peak 1-in-10 = 45.4 ppbChronic 1-in-10 = 19.6 ppbSimulation Avg = 13.6 ppb4-day avg 1-in-10 = 42.3 ppb21-day avg 1-in-10 = 34.4 ppb60-day avg 1-in-10 = 29.3 ppb90-day avg 1-in-10 = 28.2 ppbBenthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 25.0 ppbBenthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 25.1 ppbBenthic Conversion Factor = 79.0-Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg)Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.469E-02YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day1 2.35E+01 2.15E+01 1.80E+01 1.32E+01 1.14E+01 3.17E+00 8.04E+00 8.02E+002 2.12E+01 1.98E+01 1.75E+01 1.61E+01 1.52E+01 9.01E+00 1.28E+01 1.27E+013 2.15E+01 2.02E+01 1.65E+01 1.46E+01 1.40E+01 1.05E+01 1.24E+01 1.25E+014 2.57E+01 2.41E+01 2.03E+01 1.72E+01 1.62E+01 1.14E+01 1.42E+01 1.41E+015 2.39E+01 2.26E+01 1.91E+01 1.71E+01 1.58E+01 1.15E+01 1.36E+01 1.38E+016 2.55E+01 2.45E+01 2.07E+01 1.75E+01 1.69E+01 1.26E+01 1.51E+01 1.51E+017 2.54E+01 2.42E+01 2.21E+01 2.03E+01 1.90E+01 1.34E+01 1.64E+01 1.63E+018 3.34E+01 3.14E+01 2.84E+01 2.31E+01 2.13E+01 1.43E+01 1.81E+01 1.81E+019 2.39E+01 2.25E+01 1.92E+01 1.75E+01 1.96E+01 1.34E+01 1.74E+01 1.76E+0110 2.27E+01 2.14E+01 1.89E+01 1.60E+01 1.53E+01 1.22E+01 1.46E+01 1.45E+0111 5.13E+01 4.72E+01 3.71E+01 2.95E+01 2.69E+01 1.48E+01 2.16E+01 2.16E+0112 2.81E+01 2.74E+01 2.39E+01 2.15E+01 2.38E+01 1.67E+01 2.08E+01 2.11E+0113 5.65E+01 5.25E+01 4.31E+01 3.49E+01 3.26E+01 1.93E+01 2.67E+01 2.67E+0114 3.08E+01 2.95E+01 2.58E+01 2.78E+01 2.84E+01 2.11E+01 2.59E+01 2.63E+0115 4.29E+01 4.01E+01 3.32E+01 2.91E+01 2.81E+01 2.01E+01 2.46E+01 2.46E+0116 3.16E+01 3.03E+01 2.66E+01 2.64E+01 2.61E+01 1.88E+01 2.42E+01 2.44E+0117 2.63E+01 2.48E+01 2.09E+01 1.85E+01 2.00E+01 1.53E+01 1.88E+01 1.91E+0118 2.44E+01 2.31E+01 1.96E+01 1.80E+01 1.74E+01 1.42E+01 1.56E+01 1.56E+0119 2.33E+01 2.21E+01 1.97E+01 1.79E+01 1.73E+01 1.32E+01 1.55E+01 1.55E+0120 2.37E+01 2.23E+01 1.86E+01 1.64E+01 1.65E+01 1.31E+01 1.55E+01 1.55E+0121 2.30E+01 2.18E+01 1.81E+01 1.50E+01 1.47E+01 1.21E+01 1.40E+01 1.41E+0122 2.19E+01 2.08E+01 1.78E+01 1.69E+01 1.63E+01 1.16E+01 1.48E+01 1.47E+0123 2.30E+01 2.17E+01 1.79E+01 1.62E+01 1.61E+01 1.22E+01 1.48E+01 1.48E+0124 2.48E+01 2.36E+01 1.96E+01 1.74E+01 1.61E+01 1.17E+01 1.38E+01 1.38E+01-Page 71 of 86-25 3.59E+01 3.44E+01 2.99E+01 2.38E+01 2.18E+01 1.32E+01 1.78E+01 1.78E+0126 3.70E+01 3.47E+01 3.25E+01 2.60E+01 2.36E+01 1.59E+01 2.08E+01 2.07E+01****************************************************************************************************Effective compartment halflives averaged over simulation duration:zero washout 0water col metab halflife (days) = 2137.70354017518zero hydrolysis 0photolysis halflife (days) = 21157.0863297993volatile halflife (days) = 129.466394372249total water col halflife (days) = 121.372931876219zero burial 0benthic metab halflife (days) = 2535.90321922743zero benthic hydrolysis 0total benthic halflife (days) = 2535.90321922743***********************************************************************Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg):Due to Runoff = 0.5890 10.68Due to Erosion = 0.0126 0.2293Due to Drift = 0.3983 7.222***********************************************************************Flow in/out Characteristics of Waterbody:Average Daily Runoff Into Waterbody (m3/s) = 5.401811262854584E-004Baseflow Into Waterbody (m3/s) = 0.000000000000000E+000Average Daily Flow Out of Waterbody (m3/s) = 5.401811262854674E-004***********************************************************************Inputs:1966. = oc partitioning coefficient1020. = water column half Life25.00 = reference temp for water column degradation1210. = benthic Half Life25.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation2.000 = Q ten value217.0 = photolysis half life40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study0.000 = hydrolysis half life256.1 = molecular wt0.8500E-04 = vapor pressure15.00 = solubility0.1000E+06 = field area0.1000E+05 = water body area2.000 = initial depth2.000 = maximum depth2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3= usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 =const vol w/flowF T = burial, else no burial0.1000E-07 = mass transfer coefficient0.5000 = PRBEN0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth0.5000 = benthic porosity1.350 = benthic bulk density0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass1.190 = DFAC30.00 = SS0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS5.000 = DOC in water column0.4000 = biomass in water columnFRACTION AREA CROPPED = 1.00000000000000-Page 72 of 86-Appendix D. Ecotoxicity data gaps and uncertaintiesTable D1. Aquatic ecotoxicity data gaps and uncertainties.GuidelineDataRequirementTestSubstanceMRIDEPA StudyClassificationAreAdditionalDataNeeded?Endpoints850.1350Estuarine/marineinvertebrate lifecyclePropyzamide(TGAI)NA NANo1N/A850.1400Estuarine/marinefish early-lifestagePropyzamide(TGAI)-- --No2N/AN/A = Data are not available1ACR values have been calculated in absence of data2Minimal risks to estuarine/marine invertebrates are expected from propyzamideuse on a chronic exposure basis, therefore, no additional data is needed. In orderfor chronic exceedances to occur toestuarine/marine invertebrates,the NOAEC would need to be less than 29.3 μg a.i./L. There is no data to suggest propyzamide is highly or very highly toxic toaquatic fish and invertebrates.-Page 73 of 86-Table D2. Terrestrial ecotoxicitydata gaps and uncertainties.GuidelineDataRequirementTestSubstanceMRIDEPA StudyClassificationAre AdditionalData Needed?Endpoints850.2300AvianreproductiontestMallard duck(Anasplatyrhynchos)Propyzamide(TGAI)48931803 SupplementalYes;The reportedNOAEC was a nondefinitive “less than”(<) the lowestconcentration tested.Exceedances wouldhave occurred at thelowest testconcentration used311 mg a.i./kg diet.Therefore, additionaldata is needed tocharacterize the lowerbounds of chronictoxicity to avian taxa.NOAEC < 311mg a.i./kg diet(20-week test)Non-guidelineAdult honeybee acute oraltoxicityPropyzamide(TGAI)1-- --YesThis test is needed toevaluate the acute oraltoxicity ofpropyzamide to adulthoney bees as outlinedin 40 CFR 158Subpart G16--16CFR. 2013. Title 40 (Protectionof the Environment), Chapter 1 (Environmental Protection Agency), Subchapter E (Pesticide Programs), Part 158 (Data Requirements forPesticides), Subpart G (Ecological Effects)http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?c=ecfr&SID=ff5c7fef3645e7cd5abceca0b597bccb&rgn=div6&view=text&node=40:25.0.1.1.9.7&idno=40-Page 74 of 86-GuidelineDataRequirementTestSubstanceMRIDEPA StudyClassificationAre AdditionalData Needed?EndpointsNonGuidelineAcute larvaltoxicityPropyzamide(TGAI)-- --Yes;Although dataindicate propyzamideis practically non-toxicto young adult honeybees on an acutecontact exposure basis,no data are availableon the acute andchronic toxicity forhoney bee larvae.Therefore, data areneeded on acute andchronic toxicity ofTGAI to honey beelarvae1. In the absenceof data, EFED will beunable to complete arisk assessment forterrestrial invertebrates(specifically, insectpollinators).--NonGuidelineChronic larvaltoxicityPropyzamide(TGAI)Non-guidelineAdult chronicoral (10-day)toxicityPropyzamide(TGAI)-- --Yes;This test isneeded to evaluate thechronic toxicity ofpropyzamide to adulthoney bees1. In theabsence of data, EFEDwill be unable tocomplete a riskassessment forterrestrial invertebrates(specifically, insectpollinators).---Page 75 of 86-GuidelineDataRequirementTestSubstanceMRIDEPA StudyClassificationAre AdditionalData Needed?EndpointsSpecial studySemi-fieldTestingTunnel orColonyfeeding Test(Tier II)17Propyzamide(TEP)-- --YesMay be triggeredbased on results oflower tier honey beetoxicity studies.--.Special studyField trial ofresidues inpollen andnectar withTEP(Tier II)1817Semi-field testing for pollinators with TEP may be needed based on the evaluation of the lower tier studies and the submittedfield testing for pollinatorsstudies.18Field trial of residues of residues in pollen and nectar withTEP would be needed based on the evaluation of the lower tier studies and the submitted fieldtesting for pollinators studies.-Page 76 of 86-GuidelineDataRequirementTestSubstanceMRIDEPA StudyClassificationAre AdditionalData Needed?Endpoints850.3040Field testingfor pollinatorsPropyzamide -- --Yes2May be triggeredbased on results oflower tier honey beetoxicity studies.--850.4225Terrestrialplant toxicity:Tier II seedlingemergencePropyzamide(96.8 a.i.%)42176801,44029001Supplemental,AcceptableYes3Percent emergenceMonocot: ryegrass(Lolium perenne)Shoot lengthDicot: cucumber(Cucumis sativa850.4150Terrestrialplant toxicity:Tier IIvegetativevigorPropyzamide(96.8 a.i.%)42176801SupplementalYes3Shoot weightMonocot: oat (Avenasativa)Shoot weightDicot: tomato(Lycopersiconesculentum)1Data on TEP is required if the formulationmay enhance the toxicity of the chemical.2Data requirement is dependent on a re-review ofthe submitted field studies with propyzamide.3Studies should be conducted with TEP.TGAI=Technical Grade Active Ingredient; TEP=typical End-Use Product-Page 77 of 86- 

### Appendix E. Example T-REX ( v. 1.5.2) input and output data-Page 78 of 86- 

### Appendix F. Example TerrPlant (v. 1.2.2) input and output data

TerrPlant v. 1.2.2 Green values signify user inputs (Tables 1, 2 and 4). Input and output guidance is in popups indicated by red arrows.

Parameter

Chemical Name

PC code

Use Application Method

Application Form S o l u bilit y i n W a t er ( ppm )

Input Parameter Symbol Value (user inputs) Units

Application Rate A 4 lbs ai/A

Incorporation I 1 none
Runoff Fraction R 0.02 none

Drift Fraction D 0.05 none

Equation EEC

(A/I)*R 0.08 (A/I)*R*10 0.8

A *D 0.2 ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.28 ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 1

Plant type EC 25 NOAEC EC 25 NOAEC

Monocot 0.019 0.015 0.2 0.2

Dicot 0.015 0.004 0.041 0.041

Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi-Aquatic Spray Drift

Monocot non-listed 14.74 52.63 10.53

Monocot listed 18.67 66.67 13.33

Dicot non-listed 18.67 66.67 13.33

Dicot listed 70.00 250.00 50.00 Total for semi-aquatic areas liquid

15 101701 User Inputs

*If RQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulting in potential for risk to that plant group. Vegetative Vigor Seedling Emergence

Table 5. RQ values for plants in dry and semi-aquatic areas exposed to Propyzamide through runoff and/or spray drift.* Table 4. Plant survival and growth data used for RQ derivation. Units are in lbs ai/A. All values are user inputs Description Table 3. EECs for Propyzamid e. Units in lbs ai/A.

Runoff to dry areas Runoff to semi-aquatic areas Spray drift Total for dry areas Table 1. Chemical Identity.

Propyzamide

Artichoke

Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs. Foliar - aerial-Page 79 of 86- 

### Appendix G. Output from OPP Aggregat e Incident Database for Propyzamide-Page 80 of 86- 

### Appendix H. Example STIR ( v. 1.0) input and output data



## Welcome to the EFED Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk

This tool is designed to provide the risk assess or with a rapid method for determining the potential significance of the inhalation exposure rout e to birds and mammals in a risk assessment.



## Input

Application and Chemical Information

Enter Chemical Name Propyzamide Enter Chemical Use Multiple Food Uses Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) ground Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole) 256.13 Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 8.50E-05 Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 4

Toxicity Properties

Bird

Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD 50 (mg/kg bw) 2165
Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15 Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 0.178

Mamma l
Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD 50 (mg/kg bw) 5620

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC 50 (mg/L) 2.1

Duration of Rat Inha lation Study (hrs) 96 Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.35



## Output

Results Avian (0.020 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m 3 ) 1.17E+00 Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.47E-01
Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 1.08E+02

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 1.36E-03 Exposure not Likely Significant
Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 4.23E-01
Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 3.90E-03 Exposure not Likely Significant

Results Mammalian (0.015 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m 3 ) 1.17E+00 Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.85E-01
Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 3.00E+03

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 6.17E-05 Exposure not Likely Significant
Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 5.31E-01
Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 1.77E-04 Exposure not Likely Significant **NOTE**: When entering values, pres s order to update linked cells.-Page 81 of 86- 

### Appendix I. SIP Results

Table 1. Inputs

Parameter V alue Chemical name Propyzamide
Solubility (in water at 25 o C; mg/L) 15

Mammalian LD 50 (mg/kg-bw) 5620
Mammalian test species laboratory rat Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 15 Mammalian test species laboratory rat Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Avian LD 50 (mg/kg-bw) 2165
Avian test species northern bobwhite quail Body weight (g) of "other" avian species Mineau scaling factor 1.15

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 311 Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 615 NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for other bird species Body weight (g) of other avian species NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for 2nd other bird species Body weight (g) of 2nd other avian species

Table 2. Mammalian Results

Parameter A cute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 2.5800 2.5800 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 4322.6824 11.5374 Ratio of exposure to toxicity 0.0006 0.2236

Conclusion* Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential

concern for mammals Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential

concern for mammals

Table 3. Avian Results

Parameter A cute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 12.1500 12.1500 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 1559.7299 15.4295 Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 0.0078 0.7875

Conclusion* Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential

concern for birds Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential

concern for birds

*Conclusion is for drinking water exposure alone. This does not combine all routes of exposure. Therefore, when aggregated with other routes ( i.e ., diet, inhalation, dermal), pestici de exposure through drinking water may contribute to a total exposure that has pot ential for effects to non-target animals.-Page 82 of 86- 

### Appendix J. Accepted ECOTOX Data Ta ble (sorted by effect; double click)

Propyzamide

ECOTOX biblio g raphy

Propyzamide Refresh Aug. 2013-Page 83 of 86- 

### Appendix K. Complete List of Propyzamide Studies

Table 1. Available environ mental fate data for propyzam ide and remaining data gaps.

158

Guideline (OPPTS) Description Reference (MRID) Classification

835.2120 Hydrolysis 107980 Acceptable

835.2240 Photodegradation in water 107956

107990 40320601, 40420301 Unacceptable Unacceptable

Acceptable

835.2410 Photodegradation on soil 107990

143746

41913504 Unacceptable Unacceptable Supplemental

835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism Hance, 1979

Walker and Thompson, 1977

Walker, 1976 Walker, 1978

Yih, 19??

107968

107984

107953

41568901

41913502

46413407 Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Upgradeable Acceptable (in review)

835.4200 Anaerobic soil metabolism Acc No. 263649

161097

40244401

41913505 Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

Acceptable

835.4300 Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism 107989

46427901 Unacceptable (in review)

835.4400 Anaerobic Aquatic

Metabolism 46413408 (in review)

835.1230

835.1240 Leaching and adsorption/ desorption Walker and Thompson, 1978

107983 107971, 107982

107970

40211103

40211104

41913501 Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable-Page 84 of 86- 158

Guideline (OPPTS) Description Reference (MRID) Classification

835.6100 Terrestrial Field Dissipation Walker, 1976 Walker, 1978

Yih, 19??

Zandvoort et al. , 1979 Rohm and Hass Co.,

19??

Hance et al. , 1978

Hance et al. , 1978 (2)

40925401

107953

44078601 Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Upgradeable

850.1730 Bioaccumulation in Fish 43196701 Acceptable

835.6100 Environmental Chemistry

Method in Soil 48599205 Invalid

835.6100 Independent Laboratory

Validation in Soil 48599206 Invalid

835.6100 Environmental Chemistry

Method in Water 48599207 Supplemental

835.6100 Independent Laboratory

Validation in Water 48690302 Supplemental

835.6100 Environmental Chemistry

Method in Soil 49800801 Supplemental

835.6100 Independent Laboratory

Validation in Soil 49800802 Supplemental

Table 2. Available ecological eff ects data for terrestrial animals expo sed to technical propyzamide and remaining data gaps

158

Guideline (OPPTS) Description MRID/

Accession Classification

71-1 (850.2100) Avian oral toxicity 001079-97

485992-08

485992-09 Supplemental Acceptable Acceptable

71-2 (850.2200) Avian dietary toxicity 001079-93

001079-94

001080-03

001080-02 Supplemental

Acceptable

71-4 (850.2300) Avian reproduction 489318-02

489318-03 Supplemental

141-1 (850.3020) Honeybee acute contact toxicity 00028772 Acceptable

NA=Not Available

Table 3. Available ecological eff ects data for aquatic animals expo sed to technical propyzamide and remaining data gaps-Page 85 of 86- Guideline Description MRID/

Accession Classification

72-1 (850.1075) Freshwater fish – Acute toxicity 001071-96

485992-11

485992-10 Supplemental Acceptable Acceptable

72-3 (850.1075) Saltwater fish – Acute toxicity 485992-12 Acceptable

72-2 (850.1010) Freshwater

invertebrates – Acute toxicity 00098313 Acceptable

72-3

(850.1025) (850.1035) Saltwater

invertebrates – Acute toxicity Mysid shrimp Eastern yster 485992-13

436084-02

436084-01 Acceptable Supplemental

Acceptable

(850.1735) Whole sediment acute toxicity to

freshwater

invertebrates 485992-14 Acceptable

72-4 (850.1300) Freshwater

invertebrate – life cycle test 436733-01 Acceptable

72-4 (850.1350) Saltwater

invertebrates – life cycle test NA NA

72-4 (850.1400) Freshwater fish – early life stage test NA NA

72-4 (850.1400) Saltwater fish – early life stage test NA NA

72-5 (850.1500) Fish – life cycle test 489318-01 Acceptable

NA=Not Available-Page 86 of 86- Table 4. Available ecological eff ects data for plants exposed to pr opyzamide and remaining data gaps

Guideline Description MRID Classificati

on

122-1 (850.4100) Terrestrial Plant toxicity: Tier I seedling

emergence NA NA

123-1 (850.4225) Terrestrial Plant toxicity: Tier 2 seedling emergence 421768-01

440290-01 Supplement

al Acceptable

122-1 (850.4150) Terrestrial Plant toxicity: Tier I vegetative vigor NA NA

123-1 (850.4150) Terrestrial Plant toxicity: Tier 2 vegetative vigor 421768-01 Supplement

al

123-2 (850.4400) Aquatic Plant Growth: algae 437383-04

437383-02

437383-03 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

123-2 (850.4400) Aquatic Plant Growth: vascular plants 437383-01 Acceptable

NA=Not Available