Sulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticide Re

- evaluation Di vision

2 

### Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 3

II. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

................................ ................................ ........................ 6

III. SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENTS

................................ ................................ ..................... 10

IV. INTERIM REGISTRATION REVIEW DECISION

................................ .................. 10

Appendix A: Listed Non

- Target Species Subj ect to Section 7 Consultation with Fish and
Wildlife Service

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 16

Appendix B: Listed Non

- Target Species with Changes to EPA Effect Determinations from the June 28, 2013 Revised Gas Cartridge Ecol ogical Risk Assessment

................................ . 18

Appendix C: Gas Cartridge Label Table for All Gas Cartridge Products

........................... 20

Appendix D: Geographic Ranges Ma ps for Species with Planned Bulletins

........................ 21Sulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

3 I. INTRODUCTION

This document is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA or the Agency) Interim Registration Review Decision for Sulfur and is being issued pursuant to 40 CFR sections 155.56
and 155.58. A registration review decision is the Agency's determination whether a pesticide meets, or does not meet, the standard for registration in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

. The Agency may issue, when it determines it to be appropriate, an interim registration review decision before completing a registration review

. Among other things, the interim registration review decision may (1) require new risk mitigation measures ; (2) impose interim risk mi tigation measures ; (3) identify data or information required to complete the review ; and (4) include schedules for submitting the required data, conducting new
risk assessment s and completing the registration review.

FIFRA, as amended by the Food Qualit y Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, mandated the continuous review of existing pesticides

. All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States generally must be registered by the EPA based on scientific data showing that they will not cause
unreasonable r isks to human health or to the environment when used as directed on product labeling

. The registration review program is intended to make sure that, as the ability to assess and reduce risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesti cides continue to meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects

. Changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time

. Through the registration review program, the Agency periodically reevaluates pesticides t o make sure that as these change s occur, products in the marketplace can continue to be used safely

. Information on this program is provided a t www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review /.

In 2 006, the Agency implemented the r egistration r eview program pursuant to FIFRA section 3(g) and will review each registered pesticide every 15 years to determine whether it continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration.

Pursuant to 40 CFR §155.5 0, the Agency formally initiated registration review for sulfur (Case 0031 )

. The Agency’s registration review of sulfur (Case 0031) includes all pesticidal uses
of sulfur which include agricultural as well as gas cartridge uses . Gas cartridge products that contain sulfur may also contain carbon and sodium or potassium nitrate. Sodium and potassium
nitrate ( C ase 40 52 ) and carbon and carbon dioxide ( C ase 40 19 ) are also undergoing registration
review

. Consequently, there are several common support docu ments an d regulatory conclusions shared among these cases. Furthermore, the registration review interim decisions for all compounds with gas cartridge uses are being made available simultaneously.

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

. A Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) was signed in 1991. Sulfur is currently registered for use as an
insecticide , acaricide and fungicide on a wide range of field and greenhouse

- grown food and feed crops, livestock (and livestock quarters ; ex. horse, dairy cattle, goats, poultry, and sheep

spray ), and indoor and outdoor residential sites (ex. dog spray) . Use sites include tree fruit, nuts, berries, vegetables, root crops, field crops, pets (dogs), ornamentals, and turf (including
residential lawns and golf courses). Formulations include dust, water dispersible granules or dry flowable, emulsifiable concentrate, flowable concentrate, liquid, liquid ready

- to

- use, wettableSulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

4 powder, and wettable powder/dust and may be applied by chemigation, soil band treatment (ground sprayer, aircraft), soil treatment (soil incorporation treatment), low volume spray concentrate (low volume ground concentrate), high volume dilute spray (high volume ground sprayer), or dust (ground or aircraft). Products containin g elemental sulfur are registered for use on crops at relatively high rates up to 122.5 lb a.i./A per application, but can also be used as a soil amendment (non

- pesticidal use) to increase fertility and/or reduce the pH of highly alkaline soils at much hig her rates (up to approximately 3,300 lb a.i./A for highly alkaline clay soils that need extensive acidification, Mullen et al. 2007 1 ).

In addition to the uses listed above, sulfur is also registered for use in gas cartridge products. Gas cartridges are re gistered for outdoor use to control burrowing mammals (EPA Reg.
Nos. 4

- 463

, 73342

- 8

, 9086

- 4

, 10551

- 1 , and 56228

- 2 ) and relatively large mammals in dens (EPA Reg. No. 56228

- 21 )

. A list of existing gas cartridge products and their target pests is provided in
the table below. To use the products, the user lights the fuse, places the cartridge in the burrow or
den and seals all known exits/entrances . Animals within the burrow or den are asphyxiated by the release of carbon dioxide and other toxic gases.

EPA R egistration
Number Product Name Registrant Target Species

4

- 463 Smoke'em Bonide Products,
Inc Woodchucks, gophers

73342

- 8 Amdro Gopher Gasser Ambrands Gophers, ground squirrels

9086

- 4 Revenge Rodent Smoke
Bomb Roxide

International, Inc. Gophers, woodchu cks

10551

- 1 The Giant Destroyer Atlas Chemical Corporation Moles, gophers,

woodchucks, Norway rats, ground squirrels,
skunks
56228

- 2 Gas Cartridge U.S. Department of Agriculture Woodchucks, yellow

bellied marmots, ground squirrels, prairie dogs
56228

- 21 Large Gas Cartridge U.S. Department of Agriculture Coyotes, red foxes,

striped skunks

1 Mullen , R., Lentz, E. and M. Watson. 2007. The Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet (Soil Acidification: How to lower the soil pH, by R. Mullen, E. Lentz, and M. Watson, AGF

- 507

- 07, dated 2007)Sulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

5 The following timeline highlights significant events that have occurred during the registration review of sulfur and can be found in the public docket (EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176) :

 March 26, 2008

– The Agency published the Sulfur Registration Review Summary

Document , dated March 19, 2008 in docket number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 for a 9 0

- day public comment period

. The Summary Document included the Agency’s Preliminary
Work P lan for Sulfur , a Sulfur Fact Sheet, the Problem Formulation for Ecological Risk Assessment for Sulfur, dated February 7, 2008, the Problem Formulation for Ecological Risk Assessment, for Carbon Dioxide and Gas Fumigant Producing Cartridges: Carbon

, Sawdus t, Sodium Nitrate, Potassium Nitrate, and Sulfur

, dated March 17, 2008 and the Sulfur Human Health Risk Scoping Document in Support of Registration Review

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

Document

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

 September 4, 2008

– The Agency published the Sulfur Final Work Plan

, dated August 15, 2008 which stated that the Agency would conduct a comprehensive ecological risk
assessment th at included an endangered species risk assessment, and that EPA would
conduct new occupational and residential exposure risk assessment s for registration
review. The Sulfur Final Work Plan also stated that the Agency then anticipated requir ing
a subchronic inhalation study for use in quantitatively assess ing risk to handlers.

 February 18, 2009

– The Agency published Sulfur. Human Health Risk Scoping Document in Support of Registration Review

– Addendum , dated January 29, 2009. This addendum explained why the subchronic inhalation study for sulfur would no longer be required.

 April 8, 2010

– The Agency initiated informal consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7(a)(2) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the gas cartridge uses of sulfur, carbon and inorganic nitrate

.

 May 26, 2010

– The Agency published the draft Registration Review Ecological Risk Assessment and Effects Determinations

, Carbon, Carbon Dioxide, Sawdust, Sodium Nitrate, Potassium Nitrate and Sulfur Gas Cartri dges

, dated March 30, 2010 for a 60

- day public comment period. During that time, one comment was received from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 4. EPA made a “May Affect and Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA)” determination for federally listed te rrestrial mammals, terrestrial birds,
and terrestrial invertebrates and a likely to modify determination for designated critical
habitats

. EPA also concluded “No Effect” for aquatic species given the expected lack of
exposure to non

- target taxa ( EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 ; FRL

– 8 826

– 6 )

.

 December 17, 2010

– The Agency published the EFED Response to Comments for Registration Review for Carbon , Nitrates, and Sulfur Gas Cartridges , dated October 20,
2010 and Input for Mitigation Options for Endangered and Threatene d Species Identified
in EFED’s Carbon , Nitrates, and Sulfur Gas Cartridges Registration Review EcologicalSulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

6 Risk Assessment and Effects Determination , dated November 16, 2010 . This document responded to comments received concerning the draft ecological risk assessment.

 July 16, 2012

– The Agency provided an Addendum to The Environmental Fate And Ecological Risk Assessment For Carbon Dioxide And For Carbon , Sawdust, Sodium Nitrate, Potassium Nitrate And Sulfur Containing Cartridges . This document updated
EPA’ s list of threatened and endangered species with “ LAA ” determinations as a result of direct effects from gas cartridge use. The document also outlined potential mitigation
that , if adopted by the registrants, would result in changing the determination to “ No
Effect ” for certain species.

 June 26, 2013

– The Agency published draft human health and ecological risk assessments for uses of sulfur other than gas cartridges: Sulfur. Summary of Human
Health Risk Assessment s to Support Registration Review , dated Ma y 1, 2013, and Sulfur Environmental Fate and Ecological Preliminary Risk Assessment , dated May 29, 2013. During the 60 day comment period for these draft risk assessments, one comment was received. The comment did not challenge or impact the conclusions of the draft risk

assessments.

 June 28, 2013

– The Agency finalized the Revision to the environmental fate and ecological risk assessment for carbon dioxide and for carbon , sawdust, sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate and sulfur containing cartridges

. This do cument provides an updated list of potentially affected species and additional mitigation options.

 June 2014

– The Agency published the Sulfur Proposed Interim Registration Review

Decision , dated May 28 , 2014 in docket number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 for a 60

- day public comment period. Comments were received from the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, t he USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the Agricultural Commissioner of San Luis Obispo County, California.

 October 2015

– The Agency is publishing the Sulfur Interim Registration Review

Decision and the Response to Public Comment s on the Registration Review Proposed Interim Decisions for Gas Cartridge s

For further information on s ulfur , additional documents can be found in EPA’s public docket ( EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 ) at www.regulations.gov

.

II. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Below is a summary of the primary comments and Agency responses on the Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision for sulfur . A more detailed summary of comments on the Proposed Interim Registration Revi ew Decision for sulfur a nd the A gency ’ s response can be
found in the Response to Public Comments on the Registration Review Proposed Interim Decisions for Gas Cartridge in EPA’s public docket for sulfur (EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176) at www.regul ations.gov

.Sulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

7 I n the Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision for sulfur, the Agency proposed
the use of the Bulletins Live! 2 internet application for endangered species risk mitigation for gas cartridges, which would have resulted in the Agency makin g a “No Effect” determination on 11 listed species by prohibiting the use of all gas cartridges within the geographic range of the following species:

1. Carolina northern flying squirrel
2. Coachella Valley fringe

- toed lizard
3. Desert slender salamander
4. Gopher tor toise
5. Hualapai Mexican vole

6. Morro Bay kangaroo rat

7. Mount Graham red squirrel
8. San Miguel Island fox
9. Santa Cruz Island fox
10. Santa Rosa Island fox
11. Utah prairie dog

The Agency had also proposed to work with USDA/APHIS to split their gas cartridge registrations into separate sub

- labels. One sub

- label would be for USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services use only, and would not restrict use to target species only. The other sub

- label would be for consumer use and would restrict use to target species only.

T he comments recei ved by the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife did not result in any changes to the proposed mitigation. However, the comments received by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation ( CDPR )

, the Agricultural Commissioner of San Luis Obispo County, California

, and the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) did result in changes to the proposed mitigation. Based on the public comments which are described in further detail below, EPA has decided to issue Bu lletins on 4 of the 11 species that were proposed: the g opher tortoise, Hualapai Mexican vole, Mount. Graham red squirrel, and Utah prairie dog. With the exception of the Utah prairie dog, the Bulletins will prohibit use of all gas cartridge products within the ge ographic range of the species. For the Utah prairie dog,
the Bulletins will prohibit use of certain gas cartridge products within the geographic range of the species. There will not be a Bulletin prohibiting use of the USDA/APHIS Large Gas Cartridge produc t ( EPA Reg No. 56228

- 21 ) in the geographic range of the Utah prairie dog

. Additionally, the Agency will work with USDA/APHIS to pursue separate registrations for gas cartridge products that may be used in areas prohibited by Bulletins if certain conditions are met. Below is a summary and brief discussion of the primary comments and Agency response s

.

CDPR and the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner commented that for many of the listed species identified in the assessment to be at risk in Cal ifornia, protective measures are currently in place. Similar to Bulletins Live!, California noted that it has employ ed

2 When the Proposed Inter im Registration Review Decision for sulfur was issued, the first version of Bulletins Live! was available. However, an updated version, Bulletins Live! Two, is now available at http://www.epa.gov/espp/bulletins.htm

.Sulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

8 a publicly accessible web

- based tool (PRESCRIBE 3 ) to provide pesticide specific use limitations
intended to protect listed species. It is important to note, h owever, that in general, the pesticide use limitations provided in PRESCRIBE are voluntary measures . Also, the mitigation suggested in PRESCRIBE differs from what the Agency ha d proposed in that it recommends that “qualified
individuals” who have been trained to distinguish dens and burrows of target species from those of nontarget species make the cartridge applications in listed species’ range. The Agency, on the other hand, had proposed that cartridge use be prohibited within the geographic rang e of the six listed species provided below. By prohibitin g use in those ranges, the Agency would have been
able to make a No Effect determination for these six listed species

.

1. Morr o Bay kangaroo rat
2. Coachell a Valley fringe

- toed lizard
3. Desert slender salam ander
4. Santa Ros a Island fox
5. San Miguel Island fox

6. Santa Cruz Island fox

The Agency reviewed the existing protection measures in PRESCRIBE and considered incorporating these measures into the Agency’s Bulletins Live! approach. Based on discussions
with CDP R, the PRECRIBE measures for gas cartridges were based on an existing 1996
consultation where FWS concurred with CDPR’s “Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA)”
determination. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( FWS ) informed EPA and CDPR
that c onsultation would need to be re

- initiated to determine whether the existing PRESCRIBE

measures based on the 1996 concurrence are still protective of the listed species of concern. In addition, FWS indicated that a number of species have been listed since t he 1996 concurrence, and that these species would also need to be considered as part of the consultation re

- initiation. Therefore, EPA will not issue endangered species protection Bulletins for listed species in
California prior to formal Section 7 Endange red Species consultation with FWS

.

USDA/APHIS also submitted a number of substantive comments to the Agency

. Based upon several discussions with USDA/APHIS in August and September 2015, the Agency will work with USDA/APHIS to pursue separate registration s for gas cartridge products that may be used in areas prohibited by Bulletins if:

 The products are only used by USDA/APHIS personnel , and

 USDA/APHIS has completed Section 7 consult ations with the FWS on the use of these products within the specified area and follows all FWS specifications for use

.

On a September 1, 2015 conference call, USDA/APHIS indicated that they do not believe their large gas cartridge product (Reg No. 56228

- 21) poses a risk to the Utah prairie dog because
the dens or burrows of the ta rget pest s for t hat product would not likely provide habitat for the prairie dog. Therefore, they did not agree to a Bulletin prohibiting use of the large gas cartridge in the range of the Utah prairie dog. However, EPA concluded in its 2013 revised ris k

assessment that exposure to the small and large gas cartridges is likely to adversely affect (LAA)

3 http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/endspec/prescint.htmSulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

9 the Utah prairie dog. Therefore, the Agency has decided to issue Bulletins for the Utah prairie dog only for the small gas cartridge products (Reg. No. 908 6

- 4, 73342

- 8, 4

- 463, 10551

- 1, and
56228

- 2) and to formally consult with FWS on the risk of the large gas cartridge to the Utah prairie dog.

USDA/APHIS also commented on the use prohibitions in the geographic range of the Carolina northern flying squirrel and other species that the Agency had, at the time of the Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision for sulfur , determined to be entirely within the boundaries of federal lands. USDA/APHIS declined to agree to those use prohibitions because
the resolut ion of the geographic range maps provided by the Agency did not allow
USDA/APHIS to determine whether or not the habitat delineations were in agreement with
boundaries of Federal lands. Upon further Agency review of the range for the Carolina northern flyi ng squirrel, only 79 % of the species range occurs w ithin Federal land boundaries. As a result, the Agency is no longer proposing Bulletins for this species prior to formal consultation.

USDA/APHIS had also requested further detail on the sub

- labeling appr oach that was proposed for their gas cartridge registrations. However, a fter the Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision was published, the Agency discussed the feasibility of the sub

- label approach with State Lead Agencies that handle pesticide regi stration and enforcement, and it was
determined that the sub

- label approach would be difficult for the states to enforce. Instead, USDA has agreed to split the APHIS and consumer uses into their own separate registrations. Details on this approach are outl ined below in the Endangered Species Risk Mitigation

Measures

.

As a result of the comments from USDA/APHIS, the Agency will not issu e endange red species protection Bulletins for the following listed species prior to formal Section 7 Endangered Species cons ultation with the FWS :

1. Carolina northern flying squirrel
2. Utah prairie dog

, for USDA/APHIS large gas cartridge, EPA Reg. No. 56228

- 21

In summary, a s a result of public comments received on the Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision , the Agency can no longer make a “No E ffect” determination , for all gas cartridge sizes, on the 8 species listed above (6 species as a result of comments from California and 2 species as a result of comments from USDA/APHIS) and will proceed with formal Section 7 Endangered Species consultatio n with the FWS for these and all the other listed species determined to have a potential direct or indirect risk from gas cartridge use. See Appendix A for the full list of direct effect species that will require consultation.

The Agency is making a “No E ffect” determination, and will issue endangered species protection Bulletins for the: g opher tortois e, Hualapai Mexican vo le, Mount Graham red squirrel,
and the Utah prairie dog ( for all gas cartridge products except for USDA/APHIS large gas cartridge, EPA Reg. No. 5 6228

- 21 ). The Agency will proceed with formal Section 7 consultation with the FWS on the Utah prairie dog for the USDA/APHIS’ large gas cartridge, as described
above.Sulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

10 III. SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT S

For a full description of the Agency’s ecological and human heal th risk assessments, as well as a benefits assessment, please refer to the Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision for sulfur, which can be found in EPA’s public docket (EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176) at www.regulatio ns.gov

.

IV. INTERIM REGISTRATION REVIEW DECISION

In accordance with 40 CFR Sections 155.56 and 155.58, the Agency is issuing this Interim Registration Review Decision. Except for the EDSP and ESA components of this case, the Agency has made the following interim registration review decision : (1) no additional data are required at this time; and (2) changes to the affected registrations and their labeling are
needed at this time.

In this Interim Registration Review Decision , EPA is making no human health or environmental safety findings associated with the EDSP screening of sulfur , nor is it making a complete endangered species finding. The Agency’s final registration review decision for sulfur will depend upon both the result of the completion of an ESA Sec tion 7 consultation with FWS

, and an EDSP FFDCA section 408(p) determination.

A. Human Health Risk

Based on the human health risk assessment conducted in support of the Registration Review for sulfur, the Agency determined that there are no human health r isks of concern for the currently registered uses of sulfur.

B. Ecological Risk

Conventional uses

Based on low toxicity of sulfur to aquatic organisms and terrestrial vertebrates, the lack of ecological incidents for these taxa, and the rapid incorporatio n of elemental sulfur into the natural sulfur cycle once released, the Agency has determined that there are no potential risks to
listed and non

- listed aquatic organisms and terrestrial vertebrates, and has therefore made a No
Effect determination on liste d aquatic organisms and listed terrestrial vertebrates.

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

- target terrestrial invertebrate and terrestrial plant species. For example, the potential for terrestrial plant exposure exi sts from off

- site transport via the various application methods and high application
rates of sulfur. However, given the long use history, the lack of incidents since 2001 and that the
three of five incidents taken from 1999

- 2001 include other pesticides while the two remaining incidents are not associated with a high degree of certainty for sulfur

– as well as the fact that sulfur is quickly incorporated into the sulfur cycle upon contact with water or soil , t he Agency
considers these risks to non

- listed terrestrial invertebrates and plants to be low

. To evaluate the potential risk of sulfur to listed terrestrial invertebrates and terrestrial plants, the Agency willSulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

11 take the approach outline d below , which is different than the endangered species risk asses sment approach that was taken for the gas cartridge uses of sulfur. Because exposure to the gases released by cartridges are limited to organisms within burrows/dens , the Agency was able to
make clear effects determinations ; however, for the non

- gas cartri dge uses of sulfur , the Agency
used a method similar to what has been done for other Reg istration Review chemicals

, where a “No Effect” determination is made when possible

. F or species where the Agency cannot
conclude “ No E ffect

, ” the Agency is deferring a full endangered species determination until the new methods being developed based on the NAS report recommendat ions are vetted and implemented

.

Consistent with EPA’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Agency will evaluate risks t o federally listed threatened and endangered (listed) species from registered uses of pesticides in accordance with the Joint Interim Approaches developed to implement the recommendations of the April 2013 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report,
Assessi ng Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. The NAS report outlines recommendations on specific scientific and technical issues related to the development of pesticide risk assessments that EPA and the Services must conduct in connectio n with their obligations under the ESA and FIFRA.

In November 2013, EPA, FWS , National Marine Fisheries (the Services), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture released a white paper containing a summary of their joint Interim Approaches for assessing r isks to listed species from 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
diffe rences between the EPA and the Services. Details of the joint Interim Approaches are contained in the November 1, 2013 white paper, Interim Approaches for National

- Level Pesticide Endangered Species Act Assessments Based on the Recommendations of the Nati onal Academy of Sciences April 2013 Report. 4

Given that the agencies are continuing to develop and work toward implementation of the Interim Approaches to assess the potential risks of pesticides to listed species and their designated critical habita t, the ecological risk assessment supporting this Interim Registration
Review Decision for sulfur does not contain a complete ESA analysis, including effects determinations for specific listed terrestrial invertebrate or terrestrial plant species or design ated
critical habitat that may be exposed to non

- gas cartridge uses of sulfur . While the agencies continue to develop a common method for ESA analysis, the preliminary risk assessment for the registration review of sulfur describes the level of ESA analys is completed for this particular registration review case. This assessment will allow EPA to focus its future evaluations on the types of species where the potential for effects exists, once the scientific methods being developed by the agencies have been fully vetted. Once the agencies have fully developed and implemented the scientific methods necessary to complete risk assessments for listed species and their designated critical habitats, these methods will be applied to subsequent analyses of sulfur

as part of completing this registration review.

4 http://www.epa.gov/espp/2013/interagen cy.pdfSulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

12 Gas cartridge uses

EPA has determined that there is potential for adverse effects to non

- target, non

- listed
terrestrial animals that inhabit burrows or dens

. However, adverse effects to non

- listed terrestrial
animals from the application of the gas cartridges are localized to the application site . In addition, all gas cartridge product labels include the statement, “Check all burrows for signs of

non

- target species. If present, do not treat burrows .” This stat ement limit s the potential for exposure. The combination of the localization of adverse impacts

, as well as the protective label language for non

- target species leads EPA to conclude that exposure to non

- target, non

- listed terrestrial animals is expected to impact only a small number of non

- target organisms , if any

. For the ecological risk assessment, the Agency reviewed available ecological incident data and found that there were no reported ecological incidents attributed to gas cartridge use

.

In the P roposed Interim Registration Review Decision for sulfur , it was explained that EPA had determined that the use of gas cartridge products containing potassium and sodium
nitrate , carbon and carbon dioxide, and in some gas cartridge products, sulfur, is LAA 56 listed species. Under the ESA, an action is determined to be LAA if a single individual of a listed species is likely to be adversely affected.

Through the risk mitigation measures described below, the Agency will be able to change
the LAA determinati on to “No Effect” for a number of species.

Given the risks and benefit s of sulfur use

, which were summarized in the Proposed
Interim Decision for sulfur

, the Agency concludes that conventional and gas cartridge uses of sulfur will not pose unreasonable ri sk to non

- target terrestrial invertebrate and terrestrial plant species. No mitigation measures are required to address risk to non

- target non

- listed species. However, to address risk to threatened and endangered species, the gas cartridge registrants have agreed to the mitigation measures described below.

E ndangered Species Risk Mitigation Measures

In developing the Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision, t he Agency
considered a number of mitigation measures that would reduce risk to listed specie s from gas cartridge use

. For additional information on the proposed mitigation measure s, please refer to the June 28, 2013, Revision to the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Carbon Dioxide and for Carbon, Sawdust, Sodium Nitrate, Potas sium Nitrate and Sulfur Containing C artridges , available in the public docket ( EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 ) at www.regulations.gov

.

In this Interim Registration Review Decision, the Agency is outlining the approach it i s tak ing in regards to endangered species risk. This approach is a result of both the public comment period on the Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision as well as subsequent
discussions with CDPR , FWS, and USDA/APHIS personnel on the feasibility o f proposed mitigations measures.

Bulletins Live!Sulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

13 Most of the mitigation measures outlined in the Proposed Interim Registration Review
Decision relied on the use of the Bulletins Live! Two as a means to geographically represent certain areas where gas car tridge use would be prohibited. P rohibition of gas cartridge use in the

range of listed burrowing species for which an LAA determination was initially concluded
allow s EPA to change this determination to “ No Effect ” determination for th ose listed species. The registrants agreed to include language on their gas cartridge product labels that would require users to check the Bulletins Live! website before making an application. The Agency initially proposed to issue Bulletins in Bulletins Live! for the followi ng 11 listed species:

1. Carolina northern flying squirrel (NC, TN, VA)
2. Coachella Valley fringe

- toed lizard (CA)
3. Desert slender salamander (CA)
4. Gopher tortoise (AL, LA, MS)
5. Hualapai Mexican vole (AZ)

6. Morro Bay kangaroo rat (CA)

7. Mount Graham red squirrel (AZ)
8. San Miguel Island fox (CA)
9. Santa Cruz Island fox (CA)
10. Santa Rosa Island fox (CA)
11. Utah prairie dog (UT)

As described above in the Response to Comments section, several comments resulted in changes to the Agency’s proposed plan. The Agency will use Bull etins Live! Two to issue geographic restrictions for gas cartridge use via a requirement on the product label to check the website prior to application

. Based on the comments on the Proposed Interim Registration
Review Decision and subsequent dialogue with FWS and registrants including USDA/ APHIS,
EPA wil l issue final Bulletins for the following listed species:

1. Gopher tortoise (AL, LA, MS)
2. Hualapai Mexican vole (AZ)
3. Mount Graham red squirrel (AZ)
4. Utah prairie dog (UT) (Bulletins on EPA Reg. Nos. 9086

- 4

, 73342

- 8

, 4

- 463

, 10551

- 1 , and 56228

- 2 only )

At this time, t he Agency no longer plans to issue Bulletin s for the following species and
will instead consult with FWS :

 Coachella Valley fringe

- toed lizard, Desert slender salamander, Morro Bay kangaroo rat, San Miguel Island fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, and the Santa Rosa
Island fox , due to comments from CDPR and the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner

 Carolina northern flying squirrel , due to comments from USDA/APHIS

 Utah prairie dog Bulletins for USDA’s Large Gas Cartridge product (Reg. No.
56228

- 2 1) , due to comments from USDA/APHISSulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

14 The Bulletin for each gas cartridge product, except for the gas cartridge products registered by USDA for USDA/APHIS Wildlife Service use only , will contain the following language:

 “ Use of gas cartridges (containing some or all of the following active ingredients:

carbon dioxide, carbon, sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate, and sul fur) is prohibited
in this area. ”

For the USDA gas cartridge products registered by USDA for USDA/APHIS Wildlife Service use only, the Bulletin w ill contain the following language:

 “ Use of the gas cartridge products by USDA/APHIS personnel is prohibited in this area, unless USDA/APHIS has consulted with the U.S. FWS on the use
of these products within the specified area and follows all U.S. FWS

spec ifications for use. ”

Separation of Uses of the USDA/ APHIS Gas Cartridge Products

In the Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision , the Agency proposed the c reation
of sub

- labels for USDA’s gas cartridge registrations, EPA Reg. Nos. 56228

- 2 (“Gas Car tridge”)
and 56228

- 21 (“Large Gas Cartridge”) . One sub

- label would be intended for use only by USDA /
APHIS W ildlife S ervices ’ personnel and one sub

- label would be intended for broad consumer use, including homeowners. The USDA/ APHIS W ildlife S ervices ’ produ ct label would not be restricted to target species only. The consumer use sub

- label would restrict use of the product to only target species, which allows EPA to make a “no effect” determination on 7 listed species, but only for the consumer use products. The other gas cartridge product labels already include
this restriction. Since the W ildlife S ervices ’ use product will not have a target species only restriction, EPA will make an NLAA determination for those 7 species and seek concurrence on that finding from FWS. See Appendix B below for a list of species for which EPA found a
NLAA

.

After the Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision was published, the Agency discussed the feasibility of the sub

- label approach with State Lead Agencies that handle pe sticide registration and enforcement, and it was determined that the sub

- label approach would be difficult for the states to enforce. Instead, USDA has agreed to split the APHIS and consumer uses into their own separate registrations. This will result in a total of four APHIS gas cartridge registrations:

1) “ Large Gas C artridge ” for APHIS use 2) “ Large Gas Cartridge” for consumer use 3 ) “G as C artridge ” for APHIS use 4) “G as C artridge ” for consumer use

APHIS has agreed to amend their existing registrati ons, 56228

- 2 (“Gas Cartridge”) and
56228

- 21 (“Large Gas Cartridge”), to make them for APHIS use only. They will submit applications for new registration numbers for their consumer use products.

C. Final Registration Review DecisionSulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

15 The Agency expects to i ssue a final decision on the sulfur registration review case after both (1) conclusion of ESA Section 7 consultation with the FWS and (2) an EDSP FFDCA section 408(p) determination has been made.

D. Implementation of Mitigation Measures

Once this Interim Re gistration Review Decision is issued, USDA / APHIS has agreed to amend existing registrations for USDA/APHIS Wildlife Service use and submit new applications for consumer use. All of the registrants will add the link to Bulletins Live! Two and accompanying l abel language to their product labels. Additionally, registrants will amend their labels to require use on target sp ecies only (except for the USDA/ APHIS use only products). The registrants will submit proposed amendments to their existing product labels and appl ications for new products (USDA/ APHIS) to the Agency for approval within 60 days of issuance of the Interim Registration Review Decision.

E. ESA Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Under Section 7 of the ESA, EPA is req uired to consult with the relevant federal agency when it determines that the registered uses may affect listed species (or any designated critical habitat for those species).The latest revision to the gas cartridge risk assessment ( Revision to the

Environ mental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Carbon Dioxide and for Carbon, Sawdust, Sodium Nitrate, Potassium Nitrate and Sulfur Containing Cartridges

, dated June 28,
2013 ) provides a list of the threatened and endangered species that may be affected by the use of gas cartridges. Through the risk mitigation measures described above, the Agency was able to change the effects determination of a few species (see above, Section IV, Endangered Species Risk Mitigation Measures ). For those species specified in Section IV above where the effects determination was changed to No Effect , this will result in the Agency no longer having to seek formal Section 7 consultation with FWS. See Appendix B for a list of those species where an acceptable mitigation solution ha s been/will be implemented on the product labels that allows
EPA to make either a “no effect” or NLAA determination. The species with an NLA A determination, as well as the list of species in Appendix A, will require consultation with FWS. The Agency inten ds to initiate formal Section 7 Endangered Species consultation with the FWS following issuance of this Interim Registration Review Decision.Sulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

16 Appendix A : Listed Non

- Target Species Subject to Section 7 Consultation with Fish and
Wildlife Service

No. Spe cies Common Name Scientific Name

1 Alabama Beach Mouse Peromyscus polionotus ammobates

2 Alameda Whipsnake Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus

3 Amargosa Vole Microtus californicus scirpensis

4 Anastasia Island Beach Mouse Peromyscus polionotus phasma

5 Arro yo Southwestern Toad Bufo californicus (=microscaphus)

6 Black

- footed Ferret, Mustela nigripes

7 Blunt

- nosed Leopard Lizard Gambelia silus

8 Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii

9 Buena Vista Lake Ornate Shrew Sorex ornatus relictus

10 California Red

- legged Fro g Rana draytonii

11 California Tiger Salamander ( Central Valley DPS) Ambystoma californiense

12 California Tiger Salamander (Santa Barbara DPS) Ambystoma californiense

13 California Tiger Salamander (Sonoma DPS) Ambystoma californiense

14 Carolina Northern Fly ing Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus

15 Choctawhatchee Beach Mouse Peromyscus polionotus allophrys

16 Coachella Valley Fringe

- toed Lizard Uma inornata
17 Copperbelly Water Snake Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta

18 Desert Slender Salamander Batrachoseps arid us 19 Desert Tortoise Gopherus agassizii

20 Eastern Indigo Snake Drymarchon corais couperi

21 Florida Salt Marsh vole Microtus pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli

22 Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis

23 Giant Garter Snake Thamnophis gigas

24 Giant Kanga roo Rat Dipodomys ingens

25 Gray Wolf Canis lupus

26 Hawaiian dark

- rumped Petrel Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis

27 Houston Toad Bufo houstonensis

28 Key Largo Woodrat Neotoma floridana smalli

29 Mississippi Gopher Frog Rana capito sevosa
30 Morro Bay Kangar oo Rat Dipodomys heermanni morroensis

31 Newell's Townsend's Shearwater Puffinus auricularis newelli

32 Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel Spermophilus brunneus brunneus

33 Pacific Pocket Mouse Perognathus longimembris pacificus

34 Perdido Key Beach Mouse Peromys cus polionotus trissyllepsis

35 Point Arena Mountain Beaver Aplodontia rufa nigra

36 Pygmy Rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis

37 Red Wolf Canus rufus

38 San Bernardino Merriams Kangaroo

Rat Dipodomys merriami

39 San Francisco Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis tetrata enia
40 San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica

41 San Miguel Island Fox Urocyon littoralis littoralis

42 Santa Catalina Island Fox Urocyon littoralis catalinaeSulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

17 No. Spe cies Common Name Scientific Name

43 Santa Cruz Island Fox Urocyon littoralis santacruzae

44 Santa Cruz Long

- toed Salamander Ambyst oma macrodactylum croceum

45 Santa Rosa Island Fox Urocyon littoralis santarosae

46 Sonora Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi

47 Southeastern Beach Mouse Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris

48 St. Andrew Beach Mouse Microtus pennsylvanicus dukecampbe lli

49 Stephens Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys stephensi

50 Tipton Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides

51 Utah Prairie Dog 5 Cynomys parvidens

52 Wyoming Toad Bufo baxteri (=hemiophrys)

5 Only for USDA’s Large Gas Cartridge product (Reg. No. 56228

- 21)Sulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

18 Appendix B: Listed Non

- Target Species with Changes to EP A Effect Determination s from the June 28, 2013 Revised Gas Cartridge Ecological Risk Assessment

No. Species
Common Name Scientific Name Current EPA
Effects
Determination Reason for Change

1 Alabama Beach

Mouse Peromyscus

polionotus
ammobates No Effect

(c onsumer use products)

NLAA (APHIS use only products) See the “ Separation of Uses of the

USDA/APHIS Gas Cartridge Products ”
section above

.

2 Anastasia Island
Beach Mouse Peromyscus

polionotus phasma No Effect

(consumer use products)

NLAA (APHIS use only products) See the “ Separation of Uses of the

USDA/APHIS Gas Cartridge Products ”
section above

.

3 Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii No Effect

(consumer use products)

NLAA (APHIS use only products) See the “ Separation of Uses of the

USDA/APHIS Gas Cartridge Products ”
section above

.

4 Choctawhatchee
Beach Mouse Peromyscus

polionotus allophrys No Effect

(consumer use products)

NLAA (APHIS use only products) See the “ Separation of Uses of the

USDA/APHIS Gas Cartridge Products ”
section above

.

5 Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus No Effect Changed from LAA to No Effect due to risk mitigation measures.

6 Hualapai
Mexican Vole Microtus

mexicanus hualpaiensis No Effect Changed from LAA to No E ffect due to risk mitigation measures.

7 Island Night
Lizard Xantusia

riversiana N/A Effects determination no longer needed. Species was delisted from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatend Animals on April 1, 2014 due to recovery

. 8 Mount Graham
Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus

hudsonicus grahamensis No Effect Changed from LAA to No Effect due to risk mitigation measures.

9 Perdido Key
Beach Mouse Peromyscus

polionotus trissyllepsis No Effect

(consumer use products)

NLAA (APHIS use only products) See the “ Separation of Uses of the

USDA/APHIS Gas Cartridge Products ”
section above

.Sulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

19 10 Southeastern
Beach Mouse Peromyscus

polionotus

niveiventris No Effect

(consumer use products)

NLAA (APHIS use only products) See the “ Separation of Uses of the

USDA/APHIS Gas Cartridge Products ”
section above

.

11 St. Andrew
Beach Mouse Microtus

pennsylvanicus dukecamp belli No Effect

(consumer use products)

NLAA (APHIS use only products) See the “ Separation of Uses of the

USDA/APHIS Gas Cartridge Products ”
section above

.

12 Utah Prairie Dog Cynomys parvidens No Effect

(small gas cartridges) Changed from LAA to No Effect due to risk

mitigation measures on small gas cartridge products. USDA /APHIS ’s Large Gas Cartridge product remains LAA for the Utah

p rairie d og.Sulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

20 Appendix C : Gas Cartridge Label Table f or All Gas Cartridge Products

Description Amended Labeling Language for Gas Cartridge Use Products Placeme nt on Label

Language to restrict use to target species only “Only use for sites, pests, and application methods specified on this labeling.”

[ Exception: For the USDA /APHIS gas cartridge p roduct s for USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services use only, this language i s not required.] Directions for Use

After statement about reading entire labeling and insert.

Language to restrict use to target species only “This product may only be used to
control [insert pests and sites ]...”

[ Exception: For the USDA /APHIS gas

cartr idge p roduct s for USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services use only, this language is not required.] Directions for Use

Under “Use Restrictions”

Endangered Species
considerations “ Endangered Species: It is a Federal offense to use any pesticide in a
manner that res ults in the death of an endangered species. Use of this product may pose a hazard to endangered or threatened species. When using this product, you must
follow the measures contained in the Endangered Species Protection
Bulletin for the area in which you a re applying the product. To obtain Bulletins, no more than six months before using this product, consult http://www.epa.gov/espp/ or call 1

- 800

- 447

- 3813. You must use the
Bulletin valid for the month in which you will apply the product.” Directions for Use
Under “Use Restrictions”

Endangered species
considerations “It is a Federal offense to use any pesticide in a manner that results in the death of an endangered species. See
the Endangered Species section in the
Directions for Use section of this labeling .” Environmental Hazards section

Endangered species
considerations Remove references to the Gopher Tortoise, Hualapai Mexican Vole, and
the Utah Prarie Dog

.

[ Exception: For the USDA Large Gas Cartridge product (Reg No. 56228

- 21),
do not remove the ref

erence to the Utah Prarie Dog.] Endangered Species
Considerations SectionSulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

21 Appendix D: Geographic Ranges Maps for Species with Planned Bulletins

Figure 1 . Geographic Range of Bulletins for the Mt. Graham red squirrelSulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

22 F igure 2 . Geographic Range of the Bulletins for the Utah prairie dogSulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

23 Figure 3

. Geographic Range of Bulletins for the Hualapai Mexican voleSulfur Case 0031 Doc ket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176 Interim Registration Review Decision

www.regulations.gov Pesticid e Re

- evaluation Division

24 Figure 4

. Geographic Range of Bulle tins for the gopher tortoise