Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0009-0004
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-12-28T05:00Z

1
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
December
15,
2005
Dear
Reader:

The
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(
RED)
document
for
was
signed
on
September
28,
2001.
A
post­
signature
comment
period
opened
April
18,
2002
and
closed
June
17,
2002.
The
risk
assessments,
benefit
assessments,
and
public
comments
can
be
found
on
the
FDMS
docket
system,
available
at
http://
www.
regulations.
gov
(
docket
#
OPP­
2002­
0009).
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
has
reviewed
and
responded
to
the
public
comments.
These
responses
are
also
available
for
viewing
in
the
FDMS
docket.
As
a
result
of
its
review
of
the
public
comments,
the
Agency
revised
the
Propargite
RED,
where
appropriate.
The
following
changes
were
made
to
the
September
28,
2001
version
of
the
RED;
these
changes
are
incorporated
in
this
December
15,
2005
version.

(
1)
Walnut:
21­
day
restricted­
entry
interval
(
REI)
exemption
granted
for
tree
shaking;
(
2)
Citrus
(
bearing):
REI
for
all
activities
changed
to
20
days;

(
3)
Mint:
REIs
for
all
activities
reduced
to
7
days;

(
4)
Potato:
maximum
per
season
use
rate
increased
from
3.7
to
4.1
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre
("
lbs.
a.
i./
A")
acre
per
season;

(
5)
Potato:
spray
interval
reduced
from
21
days
to
14
days
for
Washington
State;

(
6)
Mint:
spray
interval
reduced
from
21
days
to
14
days.

In
addition
to
the
substantive
changes
listed
above,
the
Agency
has
also
reformatted
Appendix
B,
Appendix
D
and
Appendix
I
for
clarity,
and
has
made
technical
changes
to
Table
15
to
conform
to
current
labeling
language.
2
The
revised
document
attached
to
this
letter
represents
the
EPA's
reregistration
decision
for
propargite.
If
you
have
questions
on
this
RED
or
any
of
the
revisions
listed
above,
please
contact
the
Chemical
Review
Manager,
Dayton
Eckerson,
at
(
703)
308­
8038.
For
questions
about
product
reregistration,
please
contact
Bonnie
Adler
(
703)
308­
8523.

Sincerely,

Debra
Edwards,
Ph.
D.
Director,
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
Attachment
3
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
CERTIFIED
MAIL
September
28,
2001
Dear
Registrant:

This
is
to
inform
you
that
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
hereafter
referred
to
as
EPA
or
the
Agency)
has
completed
its
review
of
the
available
data
and
public
comments
received
related
to
the
preliminary
risk
assessment
for
the
miticide
propargite.
The
Agency
has
revised
the
human
health
and
environmental
effects
risk
assessments
based
on
the
comments
received
during
the
public
comment
period
and
additional
data
received
from
the
registrant.
Based
on
the
EPA's
revised
risk
assessments
for
propargite,
EPA
has
identified
risk
mitigation
measures
that
the
Agency
believes
are
necessary
to
address
the
human
health
and
environmental
risks
associated
with
the
current
use
of
propargite.
EPA
is
now
publishing
its
reregistration
eligibility,
risk
management,
and
tolerance
reassessment
decisions
for
the
current
uses
of
propargite,
and
its
associated
human
health
and
environmental
risks.
The
Agency's
decision
on
the
individual
chemical
propargite
can
be
found
in
the
attached
document
entitled,
"
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
for
Propargite"
which
was
approved
on
September
28,
2001.

A
Notice
of
Availability
for
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
for
Propargite
is
being
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
To
obtain
copies
of
the
RED
document,
please
contact
the
Pesticide
Docket,
Public
Response
and
Program
Resources
Branch,
Field
Operations
Division
(
7506C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP),
USEPA,
Washington,
DC
20460,
telephone
(
703)
305­
5805.
Electronic
copies
of
the
RED
and
all
supporting
documents
are
available
on
the
Internet.
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/
reregistration/
status.
htm
As
part
of
the
Agency's
effort
to
involve
the
public
in
the
implementation
of
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
of
1996
(
FQPA),
the
Agency
is
undertaking
a
special
effort
to
maintain
open
public
dockets
and
to
engage
the
public
in
the
reregistration
and
tolerance
reassessment
processes.
In
cooperation
with
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
the
Agency
held
a
teleconference
on
July
19,
2000,
during
which
the
results
of
the
human
health
and
environmental
effects
risk
assessments
were
presented
to
interested
stakeholders.
Information
discussed
during
the
call,
such
as
propargite
usage
and
occupational
practices,
are
reflected
in
this
RED.
Also,
a
close­
out
conference
call
was
conducted
on
September
25,
2001
with
many
of
the
same
participants
from
the
July
19
conference
call,
to
discuss
the
risk
management
decisions
and
resultant
changes
to
the
propargite
labels.
4
A
risk
mitigation
proposal
for
propargite
was
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
the
technical
registrant.
During
the
public
comment
period
provided
for
the
preliminary
risk
assessment,
EPA
also
received
comments
from
the
Almond
Hullers
and
Processors
Association
and
the
National
Agricultural
Aviation
Association
(
NAAA).
Subsequent
to
the
comment
period
for
the
propargite
preliminary
risk
assessment,
EPA
also
received
a
series
of
letters
and
e­
mails
from
several
growers
groups
and
extension
services
attesting
to
the
benefits
of
propargite.
These
comments
can
also
be
found
in
the
public
docket
for
propargite.

Please
note
that
the
propargite
risk
assessment
and
the
attached
RED
concern
only
this
particular
pesticide.
The
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA)
requires
that,
when
considering
whether
to
establish,
modify,
or
revoke
a
tolerance,
the
Agency
consider
"
available
information"
concerning
the
cumulative
effects
of
a
particular
pesticide's
residues
and
"
other
substances
that
have
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity."
At
this
time,
the
Agency
does
not
believe
that
propargite
shares
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
other
pesticides.
Therefore,
propargite
is
not
subject
to
any
cumulative
risk
assessment
as
required
by
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA).

This
document
contains
a
generic
and/
or
a
product­
specific
Data
Call­
In(
s)
(
DCI)
that
outline(
s)
further
data
requirements
for
this
chemical.
Note
that
registrants
of
propargite
must
respond
to
DCIs
issued
by
the
Agency
within
90
days
of
receipt
of
this
letter.
This
RED
also
contains
labeling
requirements
for
propargite
products.
End­
use
product
labels
must
be
revised
by
the
manufacturer
to
adopt
the
changes
set
forth
in
Section
IV
of
this
document.
Instructions
for
registrants
on
submitting
revised
labeling
and
the
time
frame
established
to
do
so
can
be
found
in
Section
V
of
this
document.

Should
a
registrant
fail
to
implement
any
of
the
risk
mitigation
measures
outlined
in
this
document,
the
Agency
will
continue
to
have
concerns
about
the
risks
posed
by
propargite.
Where
the
Agency
has
identified
any
unreasonable
adverse
effect
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
the
Agency
may
at
any
time
initiate
appropriate
regulatory
action
to
address
this
concern.
At
that
time,
any
affected
person(
s)
may
challenge
the
Agency's
action.

There
will
be
a
60­
day
public
comment
period
for
this
document,
commencing
on
the
day
the
Notice
of
Availability
publishes
in
the
Federal
Register.

If
you
have
questions
on
this
document
or
the
proposed
label
changes,
please
contact
the
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
representative,
Dayton
Eckerson
at
(
703)
308­
8038.
For
questions
about
product
reregistration
and/
or
the
Product
DCI
that
accompanies
this
document,
please
contact
Bonnie
Adler
at
(
703)
308­
8523.

Lois
A.
Rossi,
Director
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
Attachment
5
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(
RED)
for
Propargite
Case
No.
0243
Effective:
September
28,
2001
Amended:
December
15,
2005____
6
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Executive
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
I.
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
II.
Chemical
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
A.
Regulatory
History
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
B.
Chemical
Identification
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
C.
Use
Profile
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
D.
Estimated
Usage
of
Pesticide
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
III.
Summary
of
Propargite
Risk
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
A.
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
1.
Dietary
Risk
from
Food
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
a.
Toxicity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
b.
FQPA
Safety
Factor
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
c.
Population
Adjusted
Dose
(
PAD)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
d.
Exposure
Assumptions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
e.
Food
Risk
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
2.
Dietary
Risk
from
Drinking
Water
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
a.
Surface
Water
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
b.
Ground
Water
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
c.
Drinking
Water
Levels
of
Comparison
(
DWLOCs)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
i.
DWLOCs
for
Acute
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
ii.
DWLOCs
for
Chronic
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
iii.
DWLOCs
for
Cancer
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
3.
Aggregate
Risks
(
Food
and
Water)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
a.
Acute
Aggregate
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
b.
Chronic
(
Non­
Cancer)
Aggregate
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
c.
Aggregate
Risk
for
Cancer
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
4.
Occupational
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
a.
Toxicity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
b.
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
c.
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
i.
Agricultural
Handler
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
ii.
Post­
Application
Occupational
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
5.
Human
Incident
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
7
B.
Environmental
Risk
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
2.
Ecological
Toxicity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
a.
Risk
to
Birds
and
Mammals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
b.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
c.
Endangered
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
37
3.
Ecological
Incidents
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
IV.
Risk
Management
and
Reregistration
Decision
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
A.
Determination
of
Reregistration
Eligibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
B.
Summary
of
Public
Comments
and
Responses
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
C.
Regulatory
Position
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
1.
FQPA
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
a.
"
Risk
Cup"
Determination
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
b.
Determination
of
Safety
for
U.
S.
Population
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
c.
Determination
of
Safety
for
Infants
and
Children
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
d.
Endocrine
Disruptor
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
e.
Cumulative
Risks
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
f.
Tolerances
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
i.
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.259(
a)
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
ii.
Tolerances
to
be
Proposed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.259(
a)
45
iii.
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.259(
b)
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
iv.
Codex
Harmonization
.
.
48
D.
Regulatory
Rationale
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
1.
Human
Health
Risk
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
a.
Dietary
(
Food)
Risk
Mitigation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
i.
Acute
Dietary
(
Food)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
ii.
Chronic
Dietary
(
Food)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
iii.
Chronic
Cancer
Dietary
(
Food)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
iv.
Drinking
Water
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
v.
Aggregate
Risk
Mitigation
(
acute
and
chronic)
.
.
.
.
52
b.
Occupational
Risk
Mitigation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
i.
Handler
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
ii.
Post­
application
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
2.
Environmental
Risk
Mitigation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
a.
Avian
and
Mammalian
Risk
Mitigation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
b.
Aquatic
Risk
Mitigation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
59
c.
Benefits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
3.
Other
Label
Statements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
62
a.
Endangered
Species
Statement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
62
b.
Spray
Drift
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
62
V.
What
Registrants
Need
To
Do
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
8
A.
Manufacturing
Use
Products
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
1.
Additional
Generic
Data
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
2.
Labeling
for
Manufacturing
Use
Products
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
B.
End­
Use
Products
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
1.
Additional
Generic
Data
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
2.
Labeling
for
End­
Use
Products
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
C.
Existing
Stocks
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
D.
Labeling
Changes
Summary
Table
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
VI.
Related
Documents
and
How
To
Access
Them
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
78
Appendix
A:
Propargite
Use
Patterns
Eligible
for
Reregistration
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
79
Appendix
B:
Table
of
Generic
Data
Requirements
and
Studies
Used
To
Make
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
95
Appendix
C:
Technical
Support
Documents
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
105
Appendix
D:
Citations
Considered
To
Be
Part
Of
The
Database
Supporting
the
Interim
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(
Bibliography)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
106
Appendix
E:
Generic
Data
Call­
In
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
108
Appendix
F:
Product­
Specific
Data
Call­
In
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
110
Appendix
G:
EPA
Batching
of
End
Use
Products
for
Meeting
Data
Requirements
for
Reregistration
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
111
Appendix
H:
List
of
Registrants
Sent
this
Data
Call­
In
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
113
Appendix
I:
List
of
Available
Documents
and
Electronically
Available
Forms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
115
9
PROPARGITE
TEAM
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs:

Health
Effects
Risk
Assessment
Thurston
G.
Morton
Lori
Brunsman
Suhair
Shallal
Jerry
Stokes
Seyed
Tadayon
Environmental
Fate
Risk
Assessment
Richard
Mahler
James
Hetrick
Edward
Odenkirchen
Sid
Abel
Dana
Spatz
Kevin
Costello
Use
and
Usage
Analysis
Jihad
Alsadek
David
Brassard
Registration
Support
Kevin
Sweeney
Risk
Management
Dayton
Eckerson
Daniel
Helfgott
Diane
Sherman
10
GLOSSARY
OF
TERMS
AND
ABBREVIATIONS
AE
Acid
Equivalent
a.
i.
Active
Ingredient
AGDCI
Agricultural
Data
Call­
In
ai
Active
Ingredient
aPAD
Acute
Population
Adjusted
Dose
AR
Anticipated
Residue
ARC
Anticipated
Residue
Contribution
BCF
Bioconcentration
Factor
CAS
Chemical
Abstracts
Service
CI
Cation
CNS
Central
Nervous
System
cPAD
Chronic
Population
Adjusted
Dose
CSF
Confidential
Statement
of
Formula
CFR
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
CSFII
USDA
Continuing
Surveys
for
Food
Intake
by
Individuals
DCI
Data
Call­
In
DEEM
Dietary
Exposure
Evaluation
Model
DFR
Dislodgeable
Foliar
Residue
DRES
Dietary
Risk
Evaluation
System
DWEL
Drinking
Water
Equivalent
Level
(
DWEL)
The
DWEL
represents
a
medium
specific
(
i.
e.,
drinking
water)
lifetime
exposure
at
which
adverse,
noncarcinogenic
health
effects
are
not
anticipated
to
occur.
DWLOC
Drinking
Water
Level
of
Comparison.
EC
Emulsifiable
Concentrate
Formulation
EEC
Estimated
Environmental
Concentration.
The
estimated
pesticide
concentration
in
an
environment,
such
as
a
terrestrial
ecosystem.
EP
End­
Use
Product
EPA
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
FAO
Food
and
Agriculture
Organization
FDA
Food
and
Drug
Administration
FIFRA
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
FFDCA
Federal
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
FQPA
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
FOB
Functional
Observation
Battery
G
Granular
Formulation
GENEEC
Tier
I
Surface
Water
Computer
Model
GLC
Gas
Liquid
Chromatography
GLN
Guideline
Number
GM
Geometric
Mean
GRAS
Generally
Recognized
as
Safe
as
Designated
by
FDA
HA
Health
Advisory
(
HA).
The
HA
values
are
used
as
informal
guidance
to
municipalities
and
other
organizations
when
emergency
spills
or
contamination
11
situations
occur.
HAFT
Highest
Average
Field
Trial
HDT
Highest
Dose
Tested
IR
Index
Reservoir
LC
50
Median
Lethal
Concentration.
A
statistically
derived
concentration
of
a
substance
that
can
be
expected
to
cause
death
in
50%
of
test
animals.
It
is
usually
expressed
as
the
weight
of
substance
per
weight
or
volume
of
water,
air
or
feed,
e.
g.,
mg/
l,
mg/
kg
or
ppm.
LD
50
Median
Lethal
Dose.
A
statistically
derived
single
dose
that
can
be
expected
to
cause
death
in
50%
of
the
test
animals
when
administered
by
the
route
indicated
(
oral,
dermal,
inhalation).
It
is
expressed
as
a
weight
of
substance
per
unit
weight
of
animal,
e.
g.,
mg/
kg.
LEL
Lowest
Effect
Level
LOC
Level
of
Concern
LOD
Limit
of
Detection
LOAEL
Lowest
Observed
Adverse
Effect
Level
MATC
Maximum
Acceptable
Toxicant
Concentration
MCLG
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Goal
(
MCLG)
The
MCLG
is
used
by
the
Agency
to
regulate
contaminants
in
drinking
water
under
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act.
mg/
kg/
day
Milligram
Per
Kilogram
Per
Day
mg/
L
Milligrams
Per
Liter
MOE
Margin
of
Exposure
MP
Manufacturing­
Use
Product
MPI
Maximum
Permissible
Intake
MRID
Master
Record
Identification
(
number).
EPA's
system
of
recording
and
tracking
studies
submitted.
NA
Not
Applicable
N/
A
Not
Applicable
NAWQA
USGS
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
NOEC
No
Observable
Effect
Concentration
NOEL
No
Observed
Effect
Level
NOAEL
No
Observed
Adverse
Effect
Level
NPDES
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
NR
Not
Required
OP
Organophosphate
OPP
EPA
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
OPPTS
EPA
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticides
and
Toxic
Substances
Pa
pascal,
the
pressure
exerted
by
a
force
of
one
newton
acting
on
an
area
of
one
square
meter.
PAD
Population
Adjusted
Dose
PADI
Provisional
Acceptable
Daily
Intake
PAG
Pesticide
Assessment
Guideline
PAM
Pesticide
Analytical
Method
PCA
Percent
Crop
Area
12
PDP
USDA
Pesticide
Data
Program
PHED
Pesticide
Handler's
Exposure
Data
PHI
Preharvest
Interval
ppb
Parts
Per
Billion
PPE
Personal
Protective
Equipment
ppm
Parts
Per
Million
PRN
Pesticide
Registration
Notice
PRZM/
EXAMS
Tier
II
Surface
Water
Computer
Model
Q
1
*
The
Carcinogenic
Potential
of
a
Compound,
Quantified
by
the
EPA's
Cancer
Risk
Model
RAC
Raw
Agriculture
Commodity
RBC
Red
Blood
Cell
RED
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
REI
Restricted
Entry
Interval
RfD
Reference
Dose
RQ
Risk
Quotient
RS
Registration
Standard
RUP
Restricted
Use
Pesticide
SAP
Science
Advisory
Panel
SCI­
GROW
Tier
I
Ground
Water
Computer
Model
SF
Safety
Factor
SLC
Single
Layer
Clothing
SLN
Special
Local
Need
(
Registrations
Under
Section
24(
c)
of
FIFRA)
TC
Toxic
Concentration.
The
concentration
at
which
a
substance
produces
a
toxic
effect.
TD
Toxic
Dose.
The
dose
at
which
a
substance
produces
a
toxic
effect.
TEP
Typical
End­
Use
Product
TGAI
Technical
Grade
Active
Ingredient
TLC
Thin
Layer
Chromatography
TMRC
Theoretical
Maximum
Residue
Contribution
torr
A
unit
of
pressure
needed
to
support
a
column
of
mercury
1
mm
high
under
standard
conditions.
TRR
Total
Radioactive
Residue
UF
Uncertainty
Factor
µ
g/
g
Micrograms
Per
Gram
µ
g/
L
Micrograms
Per
Liter
USDA
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
USGS
United
States
Geological
Survey
UV
Ultraviolet
WHO
World
Health
Organization
WP
Wettable
Powder
WPS
Worker
Protection
Standard
13
14
Executive
Summary
EPA
has
completed
its
review
of
public
comments
on
the
preliminary
risk
assessments
and
is
issuing
its
risk
management
decision
for
propargite.
The
revised
risk
assessments
are
based
on
review
of
the
required
target
data
base
supporting
the
use
patterns
of
currently
registered
products
and
additional
information
received.
The
Agency
invited
stakeholders
to
provide
proposals,
ideas
or
suggestions
on
appropriate
mitigation
measures
before
the
Agency
issued
its
risk
mitigation
decision
on
propargite.
After
considering
the
risks
identified
in
the
revised
risk
assessment,
mitigation
measures
proposed
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
the
technical
registrant
of
propargite,
and
comments
and
mitigation
suggestions
from
other
interested
parties,
EPA
developed
its
risk
management
decision
for
uses
of
propargite
that
pose
risks
of
concern.
This
decision
is
discussed
fully
in
this
document.

Propargite
is
an
organosulfur
miticide/
acaricide
used
on
a
variety
of
bearing
and
non­
bearing
agricultural
food
crops,
as
well
as
non­
food
agricultural
sites.
It
was
first
registered
in
1969.
Approximately
2
million
pounds
of
propargite
active
ingredient
are
applied
annually.
Sites
on
which
propargite
has
the
highest
percent
of
crop
treated
include
grapes,
walnuts,
almonds,
nectarines,
and
mint.

The
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA)
requires
that,
when
considering
whether
to
establish,
modify,
or
revoke
a
tolerance,
the
Agency
consider
"
available
information"
concerning
the
cumulative
effects
of
a
particular
pesticide's
residues
and
"
other
substances
that
have
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity."
The
Agency
does
not
believe
that
propargite
shares
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
other
chemicals.
Although
chemical
class
is
not
necessarily
synonymous
with
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity,
structurally
similar
chemical
substances
do
frequently
exhibit
common
modes
of
toxicity
and
may
be
considered
together
by
EPA
for
purposes
of
cumulative
risk
assessment.
Propargite
is
the
only
organosulfur
chemical
that
is
subject
to
reregistration
under
FIFRA
and
tolerance
reassessment
under
the
FQPA.
Therefore,
propargite
is
not
subject
to
any
cumulative
risk
assessment
as
required
by
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA).

Overall
Risk
Summary
EPA's
human
health
risk
assessment
for
propargite
indicates
that
food
risk,
both
acute
and
chronic,
are
not
a
concern
(
2%
of
aPAD
and
<
1%
of
cPAD).
The
drinking
water
risk
estimates
for
acute
and
chronic
exposures,
based
on
screening
models
and
USGS
monitoring
data,
are
also
not
of
concern
for
either
ground
or
surface
waters.
Propargite
is
classified
as
a
B2
chemical
carcinogen
based
on
the
appearance
of
intestinal
tumors
in
test
animals.
The
cancer
dietary
risk
from
food
alone
is
1.8
x
10
­
7
for
the
general
U.
S.
population,
and
is
not
a
concern
for
the
Agency.
However,
the
cancer
drinking
water
risk
from
surface
water
alone
may
be
of
concern,
based
on
the
screening
models
and
USGS/
NAWQA
monitoring
data.
There
are
also
concerns
for
workers
who
mix,
load,
and
apply
propargite
to
agricultural
sites.
Finally,
EPA
has
identified
a
chronic
reproductive
risk
of
concern
to
birds
and
mammals,
and
some
risk
to
aquatic
species.

To
mitigate
risks
of
concern
posed
by
the
uses
of
propargite,
EPA
considered
the
mitigation
15
proposal
submitted
by
the
technical
registrant,
as
well
as
comments
and
mitigation
ideas
from
other
interested
parties,
and
has
decided
on
a
number
of
label
amendments
to
address
the
worker,
and
ecological
concerns.
Results
of
the
risk
assessments,
and
required
label
amendments
to
mitigate
those
risks,
are
presented
in
this
RED.

Dietary
Risk
 
Food
EPA's
dietary
risk
analysis
consists
of
three
parts:
acute
dietary
risk,
chronic
(
non­
cancer)
dietary
risk,
and
chronic
cancer
risk.
The
acute
dietary
exposure
analysis
was
performed
using
a
refined
Tier
3
approach
based
on
the
Dietary
Exposure
Evaluation
Model
(
DEEM
 
)
.
The
DEEM
 
analysis
evaluated
the
individual
food
consumption
as
reported
by
respondents
in
the
USDA
1989­
91
Continuing
Surveys
for
Food
Intake
by
Individuals
(
CSFII)
and
accumulated
exposure
to
the
chemical
for
each
commodity.
Under
this
analysis,
a
risk
estimate
that
is
less
than
100%
of
the
acute
Population
Adjusted
Dose
("
aPAD")
(
the
dose
at
which
an
individual
could
be
exposed
on
any
given
day
and
no
adverse
health
effects
would
be
expected)
does
not
exceed
the
Agency's
level
of
concern.
Based
on
the
estimates
for
acute
exposure
to
propargite,
the
percentage
of
aPAD
utilized
is
2
percent;
therefore
the
acute
dietary
(
food)
risk
estimate
for
propargite
is
not
of
concern.

For
the
chronic
(
non­
cancer)
dietary
risk
assessment,
an
average
of
consumption
values
for
each
sub­
population
is
combined
with
average
residue
values
in/
on
commodities
over
a
70­
year
lifetime
to
determine
average
exposure.
A
risk
estimate
that
is
less
than
100%
of
the
chronic
PAD
(
the
dose
at
which
an
individual
could
be
exposed
over
the
course
of
a
lifetime
and
no
adverse
health
effects
would
be
expected)
does
not
exceed
the
Agency's
level
of
concern.

The
chronic
dietary
analysis
utilized
USDA
Pesticide
Data
Program
(
PDP)
monitoring
data,
field
trial
data,
calculated
livestock
anticipated
residues,
and
percent
crop
treated
information.
Based
on
that
analysis,
the
percentage
of
cPAD
utilized
is
expected
to
be
less
than
1
percent
for
the
U.
S.
population
and
all
subpopulations.
Therefore,
the
chronic
dietary
(
food)
risk
estimate
is
also
not
of
concern.

Chronic
(
cancer)
dietary
risk
is
also
calculated
by
using
the
average
consumption
values
for
food
and
average
residue
values
for
those
foods
over
a
70­
year
lifetime.
The
chronic
exposure
value
is
combined
with
a
linear
low­
dose
risk
model
("
Q
1
*")
to
determine
the
lifetime
(
cancer)
risk
estimate.
The
Agency
generally
considers
risks
greater
than
1
x
10­
6
(
1
in
1
million)
to
exceed
its
level
of
concern
for
cancer
dietary
exposure.
Propargite
is
classified
as
a
B2
chemical
carcinogen
(
likely
human
carcinogen),
based
on
the
appearance
of
intestinal
tumors
in
rats.
The
results
of
the
Q
1
*
model
indicate
that
the
cancer
dietary
risk
from
food
alone
is
1.8
x
10­
7
for
the
general
U.
S.
population.
Therefore,
the
cancer
dietary
risk
from
food
alone
is
not
a
concern.

Dietary
Risk
 
Drinking
Water
Drinking
water
exposure
to
pesticides
can
occur
through
groundwater
and
surface
water
contamination.
EPA
considers
acute
(
one
day)
and
chronic
(
lifetime)
drinking
water
risks
and
uses
either
modeling
or
actual
monitoring
data,
if
available,
to
estimate
those
risks.
To
determine
the
16
maximum
allowable
contribution
from
water
allowed
in
the
diet,
EPA
first
looks
at
how
much
of
the
overall
allowable
risk
is
contributed
by
food
and
then
determines
a
"
drinking
water
level
of
comparison"
(
DWLOC)
to
determine
whether
modeled
or
monitoring
estimated
environmental
concentration
(
EEC)
levels
exceed
this
level.
EECs
that
are
above
the
corresponding
DWLOC
exceed
the
Agency's
level
of
concern.
Modeling
is
generally
considered
to
be
an
unrefined
assessment
and
provides
high­
end
estimates.

Based
on
modeling
data,
the
acute
drinking
water
exposures
for
females
13­
50
years
old
for
surface
water
and
groundwater
were
less
than
the
acute
DWLOC
of
2400
ppb.
Since
the
EEC
of
34
ppb
for
surface
water
and
0.006
for
groundwater
is
less
than
the
DWLOC,
the
acute
dietary
risk
from
food
and
drinking
water
are
not
a
concern.
Similarly,
modeling
data
for
chronic
drinking
water
concentrations
for
surface
water
and
groundwater
exposures
also
indicated
that
chronic
dietary
risk
from
food
and
drinking
water
are
not
of
concern.
The
DWLOCs
were
1400
ppb
for
the
U.
S.
population
and
400
ppb
for
infants
and
children
compared
to
a
chronic
EEC
of
8.7
for
surface
water
and
0.006
for
groundwater.
However,
modeling
data
does
indicate
a
concern
for
cancer.
The
EECs
for
surface
water
of
4.8
ppb
exceed
the
cancer
DWLOC
of
0.71
ppb.

Although
the
cancer
drinking
water
risk
estimates
from
surface
water
is
above
the
Agency's
level
of
concern,
the
Agency
believes
the
modeling
estimates
and
monitoring
data
upon
which
the
assessment
is
based
are
conservative.
Actual
drinking
water
exposure
to
propargite
from
surface
water
sources
is
expected
to
be
less.
Moreover,
the
registrant
has
agreed
to
add
label
statements
prohibiting
application
of
propargite
by
ground
within
50
feet
or
by
air
within
75
feet
of
aquatic
areas
to
mitigate
the
drinking
water
(
and
ecological)
risk
concerns.
The
registrant
has
also
agreed
to
conduct
a
drinking
water
monitoring
study
to
confirm
the
Agency's
belief
that
drinking
water
exposures
will
not
exceed
the
level
of
concern.

Residential
Risk
Use
of
propargite
in
residential
settings
is
not
permitted.
Therefore,
the
Agency
does
not
expect
residential
exposures
to
propargite.

Aggregate
Risk
An
aggregate
risk
assessment
looks
at
the
combined
risk
from
dietary
exposure
(
food
and
drinking
water
routes)
as
well
as
exposures
from
non­
occupational
sources
(
e.
g.,
residential
uses).
Generally,
all
risks
from
these
exposures
must
have
MOEs
of
greater
than
100
to
be
not
of
concern
to
the
Agency.
Because
there
are
no
residential
uses
of
propargite,
the
aggregate
risks
are
limited
to
dietary
(
food
and
water)
exposure.
The
risks
from
those
combined
exposures
are
discussed
above
in
the
preceding
"
Dietary
Risk
­
Drinking
Water"
section.

Occupational
Risk
Occupational
exposure
to
propargite
is
of
concern
to
the
Agency,
and
it
has
been
determined
17
that
a
number
of
mitigation
measures
are
required.
For
the
agricultural
uses
of
propargite,
several
mixer/
loader/
applicator
risk
scenarios
currently
exceed
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
(
i.
e.,
dermal
MOEs
are
less
than
100)
at
baseline
level
of
protection
(
shoes,
socks,
long­
sleeved
shirts
and
long
pants,
and
no
gloves)
for
acute
and
chronic
health
effects.
Also,
mixer
and
loader
cancer
risks,
when
calculated
without
personal
protective
equipment
or
engineering
controls,
can
range
up
to
1
x
10­
3.
That
estimate
also
exceeds
the
Agency's
level
of
concern.
EPA
believes
these
risks
can
be
mitigated
to
an
acceptable
level
with
the
following
label
restrictions:
(
1)
requiring
use
of
personal
protective
equipment
for
certain
scenarios;
(
2)
requiring
engineering
controls
for
certain
scenarios;
(
3)
increasing
restricted
entry
intervals
for
certain
uses,
and
(
4)
reclassifying
propargite
as
a
restricted
use
pesticide.

Ecological
Risk
Ecological
risks
are
of
concern
to
the
Agency.
Based
on
toxicity
studies
submitted
by
the
Registrant,
propargite
poses
a
potential
for
adverse
effects
on
reproduction
in
birds
and
mammals.
Risk
to
aquatic
organisms
and
plants
is
generally
lower
than
the
risk
for
birds
and
mammals;
however,
the
chronic
risk
concern
levels
for
freshwater
invertebrates
and
freshwater
fish
are
either
approached
or
exceeded
for
over
60
days
from
multiple
propargite
applications.
Propargite
is
also
expected
to
be
highly
toxic
to
amphibians.
To
address
these
ecological
risks,
the
registrant
has
agreed
to:

°
Decrease
seasonal
maximum
rates
for
several
high
use
crops.
See
Table
11.
°
Add
spray
intervals
of
21
days
for
most
food
crops
(
28
days
for
citrus).
See
Table
12.
°
Decrease
the
number
of
annual
applications
for
cotton.
°
Add
label
statements
prohibiting
application
of
propargite
by
ground
within
50
feet
or
by
air
within
75
feet
of
aquatic
areas.
°
Add
label
requirements
to
minimize
spray
drift
exposures.
°
Conduct
testing
to
better
characterize
exposure
and
risk
to
birds.

The
reclassification
of
propargite
to
restricted
use
may
also
help
address
the
concerns
related
to
runoff
to
aquatic
areas.
Additionally,
as
noted
in
the
drinking
water
description
above,
the
registrant
will
be
conducting
a
surface
water
monitoring
study
to
address
drinking
water
concerns.
Although
that
study
will
not
be
directed
specifically
at
ecological
risk,
it
is
expected
to
produce
data
useful
to
assessing
ecological
risks
as
well.

Conclusions
The
Agency
is
issuing
this
Reregistration
Eligibility
Document
(
RED)
for
Propargite,
as
announced
in
a
Notice
of
Availability
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
RED
document
includes
guidance
and
time
frames
for
complying
with
any
required
label
changes
for
products
containing
propargite.
With
the
addition
of
the
label
restrictions
and
amendments
detailed
in
this
document,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
all
currently
registered
uses
of
propargite
are
eligible
for
reregistration.

There
is
a
60­
day
public
comment
period
for
this
document.
18
19
I.
Introduction
The
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
FIFRA)
was
amended
in
1988
to
accelerate
the
reregistration
of
products
with
active
ingredients
registered
prior
to
November
1,
1984.
The
amended
Act
calls
for
the
development
and
submission
of
data
to
support
the
reregistration
of
an
active
ingredient,
as
well
as
a
review
of
all
submitted
data
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
referred
to
as
EPA
or
"
the
Agency").
Reregistration
involves
a
thorough
review
of
the
scientific
database
underlying
a
pesticide's
registration.
The
purpose
of
the
Agency's
review
is
to
reassess
the
potential
hazards
arising
from
the
currently
registered
uses
of
the
pesticide;
to
determine
the
need
for
additional
data
on
health
and
environmental
effects;
and
to
determine
whether
the
pesticide
meets
the
"
no
unreasonable
adverse
effects"
criteria
of
FIFRA.

On
August
3,
1996,
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
of
1996
(
FQPA)
was
signed
into
law.
This
Act
amends
FIFRA
to
require
tolerance
reassessment
during
reregistration.
It
also
requires
that
by
2006,
EPA
must
review
all
tolerances
in
effect
on
the
day
before
the
date
of
the
enactment
of
the
FQPA,
which
was
August
3,
1996.
FQPA
also
amends
the
FFDCA
to
require
a
safety
finding
in
tolerance
reassessment
based
on
factors
including
an
assessment
of
cumulative
effects
of
chemicals
with
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity.
Propargite
is
an
organosulfur
chemical,
and
is
the
only
chemical
in
this
class
that
is
subject
to
tolerance
assessment
under
FQPA.
Although
chemical
class
is
not
necessarily
equivalent
to
a
common
mechanism
of
action,
in
some
cases,
chemicals
within
the
same
class
have
been
shown
to
share
a
common
mechanism
of
action
and
are
being
considered
together
for
purposes
of
a
cumulative
assessment
(
e.
g.,
the
organophosphates).
For
propargite,
there
are
no
other
organosulfur
chemicals
being
reviewed
under
FQPA,
and
the
Agency
does
not
believe
that
propargite
shares
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
other
chemicals.
Therefore,
propargite
is
not
subject
to
any
cumulative
risk
assessment
as
required
by
the
FQPA.

This
document
presents
the
Agency's
revised
human
health
and
ecological
risk
assessments;
the
tolerance
reassessment;
and
the
reregistration
eligibility
decision
for
propargite.

The
implementation
of
FQPA
has
required
the
Agency
to
revisit
some
of
its
existing
policies
relating
to
the
determination
and
regulation
of
dietary
risk,
and
has
also
raised
a
number
of
new
issues
for
which
policies
need
to
be
created.
These
issues
were
refined
and
developed
through
collaboration
between
the
Agency
and
the
Tolerance
Reassessment
Advisory
Committee
(
TRAC),
which
was
composed
of
representatives
from
industry,
environmental
groups,
and
other
interested
parties.
The
TRAC
identified
the
following
science
policy
issues
it
believed
were
key
to
the
implementation
of
FQPA
and
tolerance
reassessment:

C
Applying
the
FQPA
10­
fold
safety
factor
C
Whether
and
how
to
use
probabilistic
analyses
in
dietary
exposure
assessments
C
How
to
interpret
"
no
detectable
residues"
in
dietary
exposure
assessments
C
Refining
dietary
(
food)
exposure
estimates
C
Refining
dietary
(
drinking
water)
exposure
estimates
C
Assessing
residential
exposure
C
Aggregating
exposure
from
all
non­
occupational
sources
20
C
How
to
conduct
a
cumulative
risk
assessment
for
organophosphate
or
other
pesticides
with
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
C
Selection
of
appropriate
toxicity
endpoints
for
risk
assessments
of
organophosphates
C
Whether
and
how
to
use
data
derived
from
human
studies
The
process
developed
by
the
TRAC
calls
for
EPA
to
provide
one
or
more
documents
for
public
comment
on
each
of
the
policy
issues
described
above.
Each
of
these
issues
is
evolving
and
in
a
different
stage
of
refinement.
Some
issue
papers
have
already
been
published
for
comment
in
the
Federal
Register
and
others
will
be
published
shortly.

This
document
consists
of
six
sections.
Section
I
contains
the
regulatory
framework
for
reregistration/
tolerance
reassessment
.
Section
II
provides
a
profile
of
the
use
and
usage
of
the
chemical.
Section
III
gives
an
overview
of
the
revised
human
health
and
environmental
effects
risk
assessments
resulting
from
public
comments
and
other
information.
Section
IV
presents
the
Agency's
reregistration
eligibility
and
risk
management
decisions.
Section
V
summarizes
required
label
changes
based
on
the
risk
mitigation
measures
outlined
in
Section
IV.
Section
VI
provides
information
on
how
to
access
related
documents.
Finally,
the
Appendices
lists
Data
Call­
In
(
DCI)
information.
The
revised
risk
assessments
and
related
addenda
are
not
included
in
this
document,
but
are
available
on
the
Agency's
web
page
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides,
and
in
the
Public
Docket.

II.
Chemical
Overview
A.
Regulatory
History
Propargite
was
first
registered
in
the
United
States
in
1969
for
control
of
mites
on
a
variety
of
field,
fruit,
and
vegetable
crops,
as
well
as
ornamentals.
It
is
manufactured
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
the
sole
propargite
registrant,
under
the
trade
names
Omite
and
Comite.
EPA
issued
a
Registration
Standard
for
Propargite
on
September
30,
1986
(
PB
87­
139358).
A
data
call­
in
was
issued
on
October
13,
1995.
In
April
5,
1996,
the
Agency
and
the
registrant
signed
an
agreement
under
which
the
registrant
voluntarily
canceled
certain
uses
of
the
pesticide.
The
uses
canceled
under
the
agreement
included
those
for
apricots,
apples,
peaches,
pears,
plums,
figs,
cranberries,
strawberries,
green
beans,
and
lima
beans.
Based
on
Agency
analysis
of
submitted
residue
monitoring
data,
those
uses
were
believed
to
pose
an
unacceptable
carcinogenicity
dietary
risk.
Tolerances
for
these
10
uses
were
subsequently
revoked
(
64
FR
39068;
July
21,
1999).

In
an
effort
to
promote
transparency
of
the
reregistration
process
and
public
understanding
of
regulatory
decisions,
the
Agency,
in
cooperation
with
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA)
modified
the
reregistration
and
tolerance
reassessment
process
in
1998.
This
modified
process
provides
opportunities
for
stakeholders
to
ask
questions
about
and
provide
input
to
the
risk
assessment
and
risk
mitigation
strategies,
via
conference
calls
and
other
formats.
Consistent
with
this
process,
a
conference
call
was
conducted
on
July
19,
2000
with
EPA,
USDA,
the
registrant,
and
other
stakeholders
(
i.
e.,
growers,
commodity
groups,
and
others)
to
discuss
the
basis
of
the
calculated
risks
of
propargite,
and
the
Agency's
resultant
risk
concerns.
Information
discussed
during
the
call,
such
as
propargite
usage
and
occupational
practices,
are
reflected
in
this
RED.
The
August
2,
2000
21
CH
3
C
H
3
CH
3
O
O
S
O
O
CH
risk
assessments
were
made
publically
available.
Also,
a
close­
out
conference
call
was
conducted
on
September
25,
2001
with
many
of
the
same
participants
from
the
July
19,
2000
conference
call,
to
discuss
the
risk
management
decisions
and
resultant
changes
to
the
propargite
labels.

This
RED
was
signed
on
September
28,
2001.
A
post­
signature
comment
period
opened
April
18,
2002
and
closed
June
17,
2002.
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
has
reviewed
and
responded
to
the
public
comments.
As
a
result
of
its
review
of
the
public
comments,
the
Agency
revised
this
Propargite
RED,
where
appropriate.
The
comments
and
the
Agency's
responses
are
available
for
viewing
on
the
FDMS
docket
system,
available
at
http://
www.
regulations.
gov
(
docket
#
OPP­
2002­
0009).
The
following
changes
were
made
to
the
September
28,
2001
version
of
the
RED;
these
changes
are
incorporated
in
this
December
15,
2005
version.

(
1)
Walnut:
21­
day
restricted­
entry
interval
(
REI)
exemption
granted
for
tree
shaking;

(
2)
Citrus:
REI
for
all
activities
changed
to
20
days;

(
3)
Mint:
REIs
for
all
activities
reduced
to
7
days;

(
4)
Potato:
maximum
per
season
use
rate
increased
from
3.7
to
4.1
pounds
of
active
ingredient
per
acre
("
lbs.
a.
i./
A")
per
season;

(
5)
Potato:
spray
interval
reduced
from
21
days
to
14
days
for
Washington
State;

(
6)
Mint:
spray
interval
reduced
from
21
days
to
14
days.

In
addition
to
the
substantive
changes
listed
above,
the
Agency
has
also
reformatted
Appendix
B,
Appendix
D
and
Appendix
I
for
clarity.

B.
Chemical
Identification
!
Common
Name:
Propargite
!
Chemical
Name:
2­(
p­
tert­
butylphenoxy)
cyclohexyl­
2­
propynyl
sulfite
!
Chemical
family:
Organosulphite
22
!
Case
number:
0243
!
CAS
registry
number:
2312­
35­
8
!
OPP
chemical
code:
097601
!
Empirical
formula:
C
19
H
26
O
4
S
!
Molecular
weight:
350.5
g/
mole
!
Trade
and
other
names:
Omite,
Comite
!
Basic
manufacturer:
Uniroyal
Chemical
Propargite
technical
is
a
light
to
dark
brown
viscous
liquid
which
decomposes
(­
200
B
C)
before
boiling,
has
a
specific
gravity
of
1.10
at
20
B
C,
octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
(
log
K
ow
)
of
5.8
at
25
B
C,
and
vapor
pressure
of
4.49
x
10­
9
mm
Hg
at
25
B
C.
Propargite
is
only
slightly
soluble
in
water
(
1.9
ppm
at
25
B
C),
but
is
soluble
in
most
organic
solvents
(>
200
g/
L
in
acetone,
dichloromethane,
hexane,
methanol,
and
toluene).

C.
Use
Profile
The
following
information
is
based
on
the
currently
registered
uses
of
propargite:

Type
of
Pesticide:
Miticide/
Acaricide
Summary
of
Use
Sites:

Food:
The
use
sites
for
propargite
include
alfalfa,
almond,
avocado,
beans
(
dry,
including
dry
lima
beans),
boysenberry,
carrot,
cherry,
corn
(
field,
pop,
sweet),
currant,
date,
filbert,
grapefruit,
jojoba,
grapes,
hazel
nut,
hops,
lemon,
lime,
macadamia
nut,
mint,
nectarine,
orange,
peanuts,
pecan,
persimmon,
pistachio,
potato
(
white,
Irish),
quince,
raspberry,
sorghum,
sugar
beets,
tangerines,
and
walnut.

Other
agricultural
sites
:
Christmas
tree
plantations,
clover,
conifers,
cotton,
and
ornamental
(
shade
trees,
herbaceous
plants,
woody
shrubs
and
vines).

Residential:
None.

Public
Health:
None.

Target
Pests:
The
common
mites
controlled
by
propargite
include
among
others
panonychus,
tetranychus,
eotetranychus,
bryobia,
oligonychus,
and
typhlodromus.
23
Formulation
Types
Registered:
Propargite
is
formulated
as
an
emulsifiable
concentrate
liquid
and
as
a
wettable
powder.

Application
Methods
and
Equipment
Aerial
(
spray)
Equipment:
Foliar
applications
to
fruit/
nut
trees,
field
crops
(
e.
g.,
alfalfa,
sorghum,
corn),
cotton,
vegetable
crops,
specialty
crops
(
e.
g.,
Christmas
trees,
mint,
peanuts),
roots
and
tuber
vegetable
(
e.
g.,
carrot,
sugar
beet).
Chemigation
Equipment:
Roots
and
vegetable
(
e.
g.,
potatoes)
and
field
crops.
Groundboom
Equipment:
Fruit/
nut
orchard
floors,
field
crops,
cotton,
and
vegetable
crops.
Airblast
Equipment:
Fruit/
nut/
ornamental
tree
foliage.
High
Pressure
Handwand
Equipment:
Non­
bearing
nursery
stock.

Application
Rates
and
Frequency:
0.5
to
4.8
lbs
active
ingredient/
acre
;
2
to
3
times
per
year
Use
Classification:
Not
classified.

D.
Estimated
Usage
of
Pesticide
This
section
summarizes
the
best
estimates
available
for
many
of
the
pesticide
uses
of
propargite,
based
on
available
pesticide
usage
information
for
a
10
year
period.
A
full
listing
of
all
uses
of
propargite,
with
the
corresponding
use
and
usage
data
for
each
site,
has
been
completed
and
is
in
the
"
Quantitative
Use
Analysis"
document,
which
is
available
in
the
public
docket.
The
data,
reported
on
an
aggregate
and
site
(
crop)
basis,
reflect
annual
fluctuations
in
use
patterns
as
well
as
the
variability
in
using
data
from
various
information
sources.
Approximately
2
million
lbs.
a.
i.
of
propargite
are
used
annually,
according
to
Agency
and
registrant
estimates.

Table
1.
Propargite
Estimated
Usage
for
Representative
Sites1
Crop
Lbs.
Active
Ingredient
Applied
(
Wt.
Avg.)
2
Percent
Crop
Treated
(
Likely
Maximum)
Percent
Crop
Treated
(
Wt.
Avg.)

Alfalfa
54,900
0.3
%
0.1
%

Almonds
320,000
58.9%
34.5%

Beans,
Dry
50,400
4.0
%
2.0
%

Corn
460,000
0.7
%
0.4
%

Cotton
360,000
2.9
%
1.6
%

Grapes
350,000
30.1%
21.7%

Mint
Not
Available
34.0%
22.0%

Nectarines
20,000
44.4%
22.2%

Oranges
43,400
1.4
%
0.7
%
24
Peanuts
22,500
2.9
%
0.78
%

Potatoes
43,000
5.9
%
2.1
%

Sorghum
2,800
0.4
%
0.2
%

Sugar
Beets
5,000
0.2
%
0.1
%

Walnuts
120,000
46.3%
25.3%

1
Uses
with
more
than
1,000,000
acres
grown
or
over
20%
crop
treated
were
selected
as
representative
sites.
2
Weighted
Average
is
based
on
data
for
1988
through
1998;
the
most
recent
years
and
more
reliable
data
are
weighted
more
heavily.
25
III.
Summary
of
Propargite
Risk
Assessment
Following
is
a
summary
of
EPA's
revised
human
health
and
ecological
risk
findings
and
conclusions
for
the
organosulfite
pesticide
propargite,
as
fully
presented
in
the
documents,
"
Propargite;
Chemical
No.
097601.
Revised
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
for
Propargite,"
dated
June
6,
2000,
as
amended
by
the
"
Revised
Human
Health
Risk
Assesment
for
Propargite",
dated
September
13,
2001,
and
"
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
Science
Chapter
for
Reregistration
Eligibility
Document
for
Propargite,"
dated
June
7,
2000.
The
purpose
of
this
summary
is
to
assist
the
reader
by
identifying
the
key
features
and
findings
of
these
risk
assessments,
and
to
better
understand
the
conclusions
reached
in
the
assessments.

The
original
risk
assessments
for
propargite
were
made
available
in
the
public
docket
and
on
the
internet
on
August
2,
2000.
The
Agency
reviewed
and
addressed
all
comments
on
the
risk
assessment
documents.
There
is
a
discussion
of
these
comments
in
Section
IV,
later
in
this
document.

A.
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
In
response
to
comments
and
studies
submitted,
the
risk
assessments
were
updated
and
refined.
The
conclusions
of
the
risk
assessment
are
summarized
below.

1.
Dietary
Risk
from
Food
a.
Toxicity
The
Agency
has
reviewed
all
toxicity
studies
submitted
and
has
determined
that
the
toxicity
database
is
sufficiently
complete,
and
that
it
supports
a
reregistration
eligibility
determination
for
all
currently
registered
uses.

Propargite
is
classified
as
a
B2
chemical
carcinogen
based
on
the
appearance
of
intestinal
tumors
in
test
animals.
The
cancer
concern
was
based
on
a
2­
year
cancer
bioassay
conducted
on
Sprague
Dawley
("
SD")
rats.
In
that
study,
propargite
caused
fatal
tumors
of
the
intestine
in
both
male
and
female
rats.
In
other
studies
on
mice
and
Wistar
rats,
propargite
did
not
exhibit
carcinogenicity
or
mutagenicity.
In
the
SD
rat
study,
there
was
a
greater
response
in
males
and
therefore,
intestinal
tumors
in
male
rats
were
selected
for
dose­
response
modeling.
Statistical
analysis
conducted
on
the
survival
data
indicated
that
there
was
a
dose­
related
increase
in
mortality.
The
usual
Agency
practice
in
such
instances
is
to
use
the
Weibull
time­
to­
tumor
model
which
takes
into
account
both
time
and
dose
in
estimating
probability
of
tumor
occurrence
to
calculate
the
cancer
risk
in
humans.
After
discussions
with
the
Registrant
and
Agency
experts
on
alternative
approaches
to
statistical
cancer
modeling,
the
Agency
concluded
that
it's
initial
analysis,
based
on
the
time­
to­
tumor
model,
had
not
correctly
accounted
for
the
survival
data
and
that
the
simpler
Quantal
model,
which
estimates
tumor
incidence
only
as
a
function
of
dose,
should
be
used
instead.

A
time­
to­
tumor
model
is
appropriate
when
there
is
dose­
related
mortality
in
test
animals
from
26
non­
cancer
toxicity.
When
such
dose­
related
responses
occur,
animals
dying
early
from
non­
cancer
causes
would
presumably
not
be
at
risk
for
developing
a
tumor.
In
the
present
case,
however,
the
Agency
realized
that
the
early
deaths
occurring
in
the
study
were
explained
by
animals
dying
from
the
intestinal
tumors
before
the
end
of
the
study,
and
therefore,
those
animals
were
clearly
at
risk
for
developing
tumors.
Thus,
the
more
complex
time­
to­
tumor
model
was
not
appropriate.
Additionally,
further
statistical
analysis
performed
by
the
registrant
clearly
demonstrated
that
the
Quantal
model
fit
the
data
from
the
study
very
well,
while
the
fit
of
the
time­
to­
tumor
was
poor.
The
net
effect
of
the
use
of
the
Quantal
Model
for
propargite
is
that
the
estimated
cancer
potency
of
propargite
is
approximately
6
times
lower
than
that
presented
in
the
preliminary
risk
assessment
of
June
6,
2000.

Further
details
on
the
toxicity
of
propargite
can
be
found
in
the
September
13,
2001
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment,
and
the
August
14,
2001
Memorandum
"
Recommendation
for
Selection
of
Cancer
Dose­
Response
Model
and
Q
1
*
for
Propargite".
A
brief
overview
of
the
studies
used
for
the
dietary
risk
assessment
and
other
relevant
information
is
outlined
in
Table
2
.

b.
FQPA
Safety
Factor
The
FQPA
Safety
Factor
was
reduced
to
1X
based
on
the
following
factors:
first,
the
toxicity
database
includes
an
acceptable
two­
generation
reproduction
study
in
rats
and
acceptable
prenatal
developmental
toxicity
studies
in
rats
and
rabbits.
These
studies
show
no
increased
sensitivity
to
fetuses
as
compared
to
maternal
animals
following
acute
in
utero
exposure
in
the
developmental
rat
and
rabbit
studies
and
no
increased
sensitivity
to
pups
as
compared
to
adults
in
a
multi­
generation
reproduction
study
in
rats.
Although
propargite
produced
developmental
effects
in
the
rabbit,
these
effects
were
observed
at
the
maternally
toxic
dose.
Second,
the
Agency
believes
that
its
exposure
assessments
will
not
underestimate
the
potential
dietary
exposures
for
infants
and
children
from
the
use
of
propargite.
Third,
there
are
currently
no
approved
residential
uses
of
propargite.
Based
on
these
factors,
the
additional
10X
factor
as
required
by
FQPA
was
reduced
to
1X.

c.
Population
Adjusted
Dose
(
PAD)

The
PAD
is
a
risk
expression
describing
the
dietary
risk
of
a
chemical,
and
reflects
the
Reference
Dose,
either
acute
or
chronic,
that
has
been
adjusted
to
account
for
the
FQPA
safety
factor
(
i.
e.,
RfD/
FQPA
safety
factor).
In
the
case
of
propargite,
the
FQPA
safety
factor
is
1;
therefore,
the
acute
RfD
equals
the
acute
PAD
and
the
chronic
RfD
equals
the
chronic
PAD.
A
risk
estimate
that
is
less
than
100%
of
the
acute
or
chronic
PAD
does
not
exceed
the
Agency's
risk
concern.
The
Agency's
acute
assessment
concerns
women
of
child­
bearing
age
only,
since
the
toxicological
endpoint
relates
to
developmental
toxicity.
No
suitable
acute
toxicological
endpoint
was
identified
for
the
general
population.
27
Table
2.
Summary
of
Toxicological
Endpoints
and
Other
Factors
Used
in
the
Human
Dietary
Risk
Assessment
of
Propargite
Assessment
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Endpoint
Study/
MRID
Uncertainty
Factor
FQPA
Safety
Factor
PAD
(
mg/
kg/
day)

Acute
Dietaryfemales
13­
50
NOAEL=
8
Increased
incidence
of
fused
sternebrae
in
fetuses
at
10
mg/
kg/
day
(
LOAEL).
Developmental
Toxicity
in
Rabbits
41336301
100
1
aPAD
=
0.08
Acute
Dietarygeneral
population
NOAEL=
N/
A
No
relevant
single
exposure
endpoint
was
identified.
N/
A
N/
A
1
N/
A
Chronic
Dietary
NOAEL
=
4
Decreased
body
weight/
body
weight
gain
and
increased
mortality
at
19
mg/
kg/
day(
LOAEL)
for
males.
Chronic
Feeding
and
Carcinogenicity
in
Rats
41750901
&
42837201
100
1
cPAD
=
0.04
Cancer
Risk
Jejunal
Tumors
in
Sprague­
Dawley
rat
[
Same
as
above]
Q1*
=
0.033
X
10
­
1
(
mg/
kg/
day)­
1
d.
Exposure
Assumptions
Revised
acute
and
chronic
dietary
risk
analyses
for
propargite
were
conducted
with
the
Dietary
Exposure
Evaluation
Model
(
DEEM
 
)
.
DEEM
incorporates
consumption
data
generated
in
USDA's
Continuing
Surveys
of
Food
Intakes
by
Individuals
(
CSFII),
1989­
91.
For
the
acute
dietary
risk
assessment,
the
entire
distribution
of
single
day
food
consumption
events
was
combined
with
a
distribution
of
residues.
This
is
known
as
a
probabilistic
analysis.
Risk
is
reported
at
the
99.9
th
percentile
of
exposure
to
obtain
a
distribution
of
exposure
in
mg/
kg/
day.
For
the
chronic
dietary
risk
assessment,
the
three­
day
average
of
consumption
for
each
sub­
population
is
combined
with
residues
in
commodities
to
determine
average
exposure
in
mg/
kg/
day.

In
the
case
of
propargite,
a
probabilistic
acute
dietary
analysis
was
conducted
utilizing
USDA
Pesticide
Data
Program
(
PDP)
monitoring
data,
field
trial
data,
calculated
livestock
anticipated
residues,
and
percent
crop
treated
information.

e.
Food
Risk
Characterization
Because
no
relevant
effects
following
a
single
dose
of
propargite
were
identified
for
the
U.
S.
general
population,
an
acute
dietary
risk
assessment
for
the
entire
U.
S.
population
was
not
conducted.
However,
an
assessment
was
conducted
for
the
subpopulation
of
women
of
childbearing
age
("
females
13­
50
years
old")
because
developmental
effects
(
birth
defects)
in
rats
were
noted
in
one
developmental
rat
toxicity
study.
The
effects,
skeletal
malformations,
are
presumed
to
occur
after
a
single
exposure
(
dose),
and
thus,
are
appropriate
for
the
acute
risk
assessment.
There
was
no
increased
susceptibility
to
infants
or
children.
Estimated
acute
dietary
exposure
is
below
EPA's
level
of
concern
at
the
99.9th
percentile
(
the
maximum
dietary
risk
estimate
of
2
percent
of
the
aPAD).
28
Estimated
chronic
dietary
risk
estimate
is
also
below
EPA's
level
of
concern.
Less
than
1
percent
of
the
chronic
PAD
for
the
U.
S.
general
population
and
all
population
subgroups
is
estimated.

The
maximum
lifetime
cancer
dietary
risk
is
estimated
to
be
1.8
x
10­
7
for
the
general
U.
S.
population.
Therefore,
the
cancer
risk
from
food
is
also
not
a
concern
since
the
risk
is
less
than
1
x
10­
6.

2.
Dietary
Risk
from
Drinking
Water
Drinking
water
exposure
to
pesticides
can
occur
through
ground
water
and
surface
water
contamination.
EPA
considers
both
acute
(
one
day)
and
chronic
(
lifetime)
drinking
water
risks
and
uses
either
modeling
or,
if
available,
actual
monitoring
data
to
estimate
those
risks.
Modeling
is
generally
considered
to
be
an
unrefined
assessment
and
provides
a
high­
end
estimate
of
risk.

The
GENEEC
and
PRZM­
EXAMS
models
were
used
to
estimate
surface
water
concentrations,
and
SCI­
GROW
was
used
to
estimate
groundwater
concentrations.
Both
of
these
models
are
considered
to
be
screening
tools,
with
the
PRZM­
EXAMS
model
being
somewhat
more
refined
than
the
other
two.
In
addition,
the
Agency
used
time­
weighted
annual
mean
for
propargite
concentrations
in
surface
water
samples
from
the
United
States
Geologic
Survey
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
("
USGS
/
NAWQA")
(
Oristimba
Creek
Watershed)
for
the
years
1992
and
1993.

Propargite
is
moderately
persistent
(
metabolism
half­
lives
=
38­
168
days)
and
immobile
(
K
d
s
ranged
from
60
to
218
mL/
g,
while
K
oc
s
ranged
from
2963
to
57966
mL/
g)
.
It
degrades
rapidly
under
alkaline
hydrolytic
conditions
(
half­
life
=
2.2
days)
and
is
moderately
persistent
to
persistent
under
neutral
(
half­
lives
=
75
days)
and
acid
(
pH
5;
half­
life
=
120
days)
hydrolytic
conditions.
Soil
and
aquatic
photolysis
and
aerobic
and
anaerobic
metabolism
occur
at
moderate
rates
(
half­
lives
=
39­
168
days).
Because
of
its
high
affinity
for
soil
and
sediment,
propargite
has
the
potential
to
move
off
the
site
of
application
during
rainfall,
irrigation,
erosion,
runoff
on
soil
particles
and
by
drift.
Given
the
moderate
to
slow
degradation
rates
for
metabolism
and
photolysis,
and
the
high
K
oc
values,
propargite
will
probably
be
adsorbed
to
sediments
and
organic
material
if
transported
to
surface
waters.
The
Agency
Metabolism
Assessment
Review
Committee
has
concluded
that
the
residue
of
concern
in
plants
and
animals
is
propargite
per
se
and
not
its
metabolites
or
degradate
products.
29
a.
Surface
Water
PRZM­
EXAMS
("
Tier
II")
modeling
was
conducted
as
a
refinement
to
the
drinking
water
exposure
assessment
because
the
GENEEC
("
Tier
I")
surface
water
modeling
predicted
that
the
56­
day
average
propargite
concentrations
in
surface
water
were
likely
to
exceed
the
cancer
drinking
water
level
of
comparison
(
DWLOC).

The
Tier
II
modeling
simulated
average
propargite
a
peak
residue
of
34
ppb
for
the
acute
value,
and
average
residues
of
8.7
ppb
for
the
chronic
value,
and
4.8
for
the
cancer
value.
Since
the
cancer
value
exceeded
the
cancer
DWLOC
of
0.71,
EPA
investigated
the
United
States
Geologic
Survey
("
USGS")
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
("
NAWQA")
monitoring
data
further
to
evaluate
how
it
compared
to
the
modeling
results.
In
that
monitoring
program,
propargite
was
detected
in
175
of
5196
samples
for
the
period
1991
to
1995,
with
a
maximum
concentration
of
20.0
ppb.
The
next
highest
concentration
was
3.7
ppb.
Out
of
the
total
5196
samples,
propargite
was
detected
in
53
of
1000
samples
taken
from
agricultural
streams.
Propargite
was
detected
in
1
of
327
samples
taken
from
urban
streams,
at
a
concentration
of
0.015
ppb.
Propargite
was
detected
in
8
of
245
samples
taken
from
14
integrator
sites
on
large
streams
and
rivers,
with
a
maximum
concentration
of
2.0
ppb.

Propargite
detections
in
the
NAWQA
study
were
predominantly
associated
with
the
San
Joaquin­
Tulare
study
unit
at
intensive­
fixed
monitoring
sites.
This
region
corresponds
with
high
propargite
use
(>
1.526
lb
propargite/
mile2/
year)
in
the
San
Joaquin
region
and
is
associated
primarily
with
beans,
cotton,
and
almond
production.

Although
the
cancer
drinking
water
risk
estimates
from
surface
water
is
above
the
Agency's
level
of
concern,
the
Agency
believes,
in
the
case
of
propargite,
the
modeling
and
monitoring
data
upon
which
the
estimates
are
based
are
conservative
and
overestimates
of
actual
exposure
to
propargite
in
drinking
water
from
surface
water
sources.
The
reasons
for
this
are
described
in
the
next
section
under
"
DWLOCs
for
Cancer."

b.
Ground
Water
A
Tier
I
screening
model,
SCI­
GROW,
was
used
to
provide
an
upper­
end
estimate
of
drinking
water
concentrations
derived
from
ground
water.
The
Agency's
default
body
weights
and
water
consumption
values
used
to
calculate
drinking
water
exposures
are
as
follows:
70
kg/
2L
(
adult
male),
60
kg/
2L
(
adult
female),
and
10
kg/
1L
(
child).
The
predicted
groundwater
concentration
is
0.006
ppb.
Fate
studies
also
suggest
that
propargite
has
a
low
potential
to
reach
groundwater.
Therefore,
the
Agency
does
not
have
a
concern
for
human
exposure
to
propargite
for
drinking
water
from
ground
water
sources.
30
c.
Drinking
Water
Levels
of
Comparison
(
DWLOCs)

To
determine
the
maximum
allowable
contribution
of
water­
containing
pesticide
residues
permitted
in
the
diet,
EPA
first
looks
at
how
much
of
the
overall
allowable
risk
is
contributed
by
food
(
and
if
appropriate,
residential
uses)
then
determines
a
"
drinking
water
level
of
comparison"(
DWLOC)
to
determine
whether
modeled
or
monitoring
levels
exceed
this
level.
The
Agency
uses
the
DWLOC
as
a
surrogate
to
capture
risk
associated
with
exposure
from
pesticides
in
drinking
water.
The
DWLOC
is
the
maximum
concentration
in
drinking
water
which,
when
considered
together
with
dietary
exposure,
does
not
exceed
a
level
of
concern.
In
the
case
of
propargite,
there
are
no
residential
uses,
therefore,
only
food
and
drinking
water
contributions
were
considered.

The
results
of
the
Agency's
drinking
water
analysis
are
summarized
here.
Details
of
this
analysis,
which
used
screening
models
and
actual
monitoring
data,
are
found
in
the
Revised
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
for
Propargite,
dated
September
13,
2001.

i.
DWLOCs
for
Acute
Exposure
The
DWLOC
for
acute
exposure
is
2400
ppb.
Table
3
below
presents
the
calculations
for
the
acute
drinking
water
assessment.

Table
3.
Drinking
Water
Levels
of
Comparison
for
Acute
Dietary
Exposure.

Population
Subgroup
Acute
PAD
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Food
Exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Max.
Water
Exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
DWLOCacute
(
ppb)
Surface
Water
EEC
(
ppb)
(
PRZMEXAMS
Groundwater
EEC
(
ppb)
(
SCI­
GROW)

Females
13­
50
yrs.
0.08
0.001
0.08
2400
34
0.006
ii.
DWLOCs
for
Chronic
Exposure
The
DWLOC
for
chronic
exposures
are
400
ppb
for
infants
and
children
and
1400
ppb
for
the
general
U.
S.
population.
Table
4
below
presents
the
calculations
for
the
chronic
drinking
water
assessment.
31
Table
4.
Drinking
Water
Levels
of
Comparison
for
Chronic
(
Non­
Cancer)
Dietary
Exposure.

Population
Subgroup
Chronic
PAD
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Food
Exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Max.
Water
Exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
DWLOCchronic
(
ppb)
Surface
Water
EEC
(
ppb)
(
PRZMEXAMS
Groundwater
EEC
(
ppb)
(
SCI­
GROW)

US
Population
0.04
0.00001
0.04
1400
8.7
0.006
All
Infants
0.04
0.00001
0.04
400
8.7
0.006
Children
1­
6
0.04
0.00001
0.04
400
8.7
0.006
Children
7­
12
0.04
0.00001
0.04
400
8.7
0.006
Females
13­
50
yrs.
0.04
0.00001
0.04
1200
8.7
0.006
Males
20+
yrs
0.04
0.00001
0.04
1400
8.7
0.006
iii.
DWLOCs
for
Cancer
The
cancer
DWLOC
is
the
concentration
of
a
pesticide
in
drinking
water
as
a
part
of
the
aggregate
chronic
exposure
that
results
in
a
negligible
cancer
risk
(
1
x
10
­
6
or
less).
The
surface
water
EECs
are
4.8
ppb
based
on
PRZM­
EXAMS
modeling
and
the
groundwater
EECs
are
0.006
ppb
based
on
SCI­
GROW.
The
Cancer
DWLOC
is
0.71.

Table
5.
Propargite
Cancer
Dietary
Exposure/
Risk.
Population
Subgroup
Lifetime
Risk
(
Q
1
*
=
.033)
Target
Max
Exposure2
mg.
kg.
day
Chronic
Food
Exposure
mg/
kg/
day
Max
Water
Exposure3
mg/
kg/
day
Exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Groundwater
EEC
(
ppb)
(
SCI­
GROW)
Surface
Water
EEC
(
ppb)
(
PRZMEXAMS
DWLOC
cancer
(
ppb)

U.
S.
Population
1.8
X
10­
7
0.0000303
0.00001
0.0000203
0.000006
0.006
4.8
0.71
1DWLOCcancerwas
calculated
for
US
population
only.
Default
body
weight
and
consumption
value
for
calculation
of
the
DWLOC
were:
2L/
70
kg.
2Target
Maximum
Exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[
neglible
risk/
Q*]
3Maximum
Water
Exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[
Target
Maximum
Exposure
­
(
Chronic
Food
Exposure
+
Residential
Exposure
(
Lifetime
Average
Daily
Dose))]
4Cancer
DWLOC
9ppb)
=
[
maximum
water
exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
x
body
weight
(
kg)]
[
water
consumption
(
L)
x
10­
3mg/
µ
g]
2
32
3.
Aggregate
Risks
(
Food
and
Water)

An
aggregate
risk
assessment
considers
the
combined
risk
from
dietary
exposure
(
food
and
drinking
water)
and
residential
risk
or
other
non­
occupational
exposures,
when
appropriate.
The
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
amendments
to
the
Federal
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA,
Section
408(
b)(
2)(
A)(
ii))
require
that
for
establishing
a
pesticide
tolerance
"
that
there
is
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
result
from
aggregate
exposure
to
pesticide
chemical
residue,
including
all
anticipated
dietary
exposures
and
other
exposures
for
which
there
are
reliable
information."
Aggregate
exposure
will
typically
include
exposures
from
food,
drinking
water,
and
residential
uses
of
a
pesticide,
and
other
non­
occupational
sources
of
exposure.
When
appropriate,
aggregate
risk
assessments
are
conducted
for
acute
(
one
day),
short­
term
(
one
to
seven
days),
intermediate­
term
(
seven
days
to
several
months),
and
chronic
(
lifetime)
exposure.
Occupational
exposure
is
not
considered
in
any
aggregate
exposure
assessment.

a.
Acute
Aggregate
Risk
The
acute
aggregate
risk
estimates
for
propargite
address
exposure
from
food
and
drinking
water.
There
are
no
residential
uses
of
propargite.
Acute
exposure
is
considered
to
occur
in
a
oneday
time
frame
via
the
oral
route
of
exposure.
Acute
dietary
risks
are
below
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
if
less
than
100
%
of
the
aPAD.
The
estimated
concentrations
of
propargite
in
drinking
water,
which
are
34
ppb
for
surface
water
and
0.006
ppb
for
groundwater,
are
below
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
for
all
subpopulations
including
children
1­
6
years
(
DWLOC
=
2400
ppb).
The
Agency
is,
therefore,
not
concerned
with
aggregate
risks
associated
with
propargite
use.

b.
Chronic
(
Non­
Cancer)
Aggregate
Risk
A
chronic
aggregate
assessment
estimates
risk
from
long
term
exposure
to
food
and
water.
There
are
no
residential
uses
of
propargite.
The
chronic
DWLOC
for
infants
and
Children
is
400
ppb
and
1400
ppb
for
the
general
population,
while
the
EEC
in
surface
water
is
8.7
ppb
and
ground
water
is
0.006
ppb.
The
chronic
EEC
s
are
less
than
than
the
chronic
DWLOCs.
The
Agency
is,
therefore,
not
concerned
with
aggregate
risks
associated
with
propargite
use.

c.
Aggregate
Risk
for
Cancer
The
EECs
for
surface
water
(
4.8
ppb)
were
greater
than
the
cancer
DWLOC
(
0.71
ppb),
indicating
that
the
chronic
exposure
to
propargite
in
food
and
water
is
greater
than
the
Agency's
level
of
concern.
Surface
water
concentrations
below
1.0
ppb
would
result
in
cancer
risks
below
1
x
10­
6
for
drinking
water
alone
when
back
calculated.
Based
on
monitoring
data,
the
time
weighted
average
propargite
concentration
in
ambient
surface
water
samples
from
the
USGS/
NAWQA
(
Oristimba
Creek
Watershed)
for
the
years
1992
and1993
were
0.30
and
1.24
ppb,
respectively.
Therefore,
there
is
a
potential
cancer
risk
of
concern
when
ambient
monitoring
data
are
used
to
estimate
drinking
water
exposure
to
propargite
from
surface
water
sources.

The
EECs
for
groundwater
were
less
than
the
cancer
DWLOC,
and
therefore
not
a
concern.
4.
Occupational
Risk
33
Occupational
workers
can
be
exposed
to
a
pesticide
through
mixing,
loading,
and/
or
applying
a
pesticide,
or
re­
entering
treated
sites.
Occupational
handlers
of
propargite
include:
individual
farmers
or
growers
who
mix,
load,
and/
or
apply
pesticides,
and
professional
or
custom
agricultural
applicators.
Risk
for
all
of
these
potentially
exposed
populations
is
measured
by
a
Margin
of
Exposure
(
MOE)
which
determines
how
close
the
occupational
exposure
comes
to
a
No
Observed
Adverse
Effect
Level
(
NOAEL).
In
the
case
of
propargite,
MOEs
greater
than
100
for
dermal
and
1000
for
inhalation
do
not
exceed
the
Agency's
risk
concern.

a.
Toxicity
The
toxicity
of
propargite
is
integral
to
assessing
the
occupational
risk.
All
risk
calculations
are
based
on
the
most
current
toxicity
information
available
for
propargite.
The
toxicological
endpoints,
and
other
factors
used
in
the
occupational
and
residential
risk
assessments
for
propargite
are
listed
below
in
table
6.

Table
6.
Summary
of
Toxicological
Endpoints
and
Other
Factors
Used
in
the
Human
Occupational
Assessments
for
Propargite
Assessment
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Endpoint
Study/
MRID
Short­
Term
1
(
Dermal)
NOAEL=
6
MOE
=
100
Decreased
maternal
body
weight
gain
at
8
mg/
kg/
day
(
LOAEL).
Developmental
Toxicity
in
Rabbits
41336301
Intermediate­
Term
1
(
Dermal)
NOAEL=
4
MOE
=
100
Reduction
in
body
weight
gain
and
food
consumption
at
20
mg/
kg/
day
(
parental
LOAEL).
Reproductive
Toxicity
in
Rats
41352401
Short
Term
2
(
Inhalation)
LOAEL=
0.31mg/
L
or
50
mg/
kg
MOE
=
1000
Increased
mortality
at
0.31
mg/
L
(
LOAEL)
in
males.
Acute
Inhalation
in
Rats
42857003
Intermediate
Term
2
(
Inhalation)

Cancer
Q1
*
1
0.033x10­
1
(
mg/
kg/
day
Jejunal
(
intestinal)
tumors
at
400
and
800
ppm
dose
levels.
Mouse
­
18
month
Rat
­
24
month
42837201
1
A
14%
dermal
absorption
factor
was
used
for
risk
assessment
based
on
highest
absorption/
elimination
noted
in
submitted
studies.
Dermal
MOE
used
for
risk
assessment
of
100
based
on
use
of
animal
toxicity
studies.
2
Separate
MOEs
for
dermal
and
inhalation
were
used
because
of
different
endpoints.
An
MOE
of
1000
was
selected
for
inhalation,
including
a
10X
factor
due
to
lack
of
a
NOAEL,
severity
of
effects
at
the
lowest
dose
tested,
and
4
hour
duration.
A
100%
inhalation
absorption
factor
was
used.

Propargite
is
considered
corrosive
and
has
been
placed
in
Category
I
for
both
eye
and
dermal
irritation
in
rabbits.
There
have
also
been
documented
reports
of
dermal
and
eye
irritation
developing
in
workers
exposed
to
propargite
in
the
field.
Evidence
for
its
dermal
sensitization
potential
have
been
noted;
a
study
that
provides
conclusive
results
of
this
effect
has
not
been
possible
due
to
the
irritating
properties
of
this
chemical.
34
Table
7:
Acute
Toxicity
of
Propargite.

Guideline
No.
Study
Type
MRID
#(
S).
Results
Toxicity
Category
870.1100
Acute
Oral­
Rat
42857001
LD50
=
2639
mg/
kg
for
males
2947
mg/
kg
for
females
2800
mg/
kg
combined
III
870.1200
Acute
Dermal­
Rabbit
42857002
LD50
>
2000
mg/
kg
III
870.1300
Acute
Inhalation­
Rat
42857003
LC50
=
0.95
mg/
L
for
males
0.95
mg/
L
for
females
0.89
mg/
L
combined
III
870.1400
Primary
Eye
Irritation­
Rabbit
42857004
Corrosive
I
870.1500
Primary
Skin
Irritation­
Rabbit
42857005
Corrosive
I
870.1600
Dermal
Sensitization­
Guinea
Pig
42857006
Sensitizer
N/
A
b.
Exposure
Uniroyal
submitted
applicator
exposure
studies
in
support
of
the
reregistration
process
for
propargite.
These
studies
include:

°
Airblast
applicator
exposure
studies
(
MRID
Nos.
418486­
05
and
420997­
02)
°
Groundboom
applicator
exposure
study
(
MRID
No.
418486­
05
)

It
is
EPA's
policy
to
combine
chemical
specific
studies
with
similar
surrogate
data
from
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(
PHED)
to
assess
handler
exposures
for
regulatory
actions.
This
policy
is
in
effect
because
individual
chemical­
specific
studies
do
not
necessarily
encompass
the
variety
of
equipment
in
use
throughout
the
country
and
the
large
variability
of
exposures
among
handlers.
While
data
from
PHED
provides
the
best
available
information
on
handler
exposures,
it
should
be
noted
that
some
aspects
of
the
included
studies
(
e.
g.,
duration,
acres
treated,
pounds
of
active
ingredient
handled)
may
not
accurately
represent
labeled
uses
in
all
cases.
PHED
was
designed
by
a
Task
Force
of
representatives
from
the
U.
S.
EPA,
Health
Canada,
the
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation,
and
member
companies
of
the
American
Crop
Protection
Association.
The
quality
of
the
data
and
exposure
factors
represents
the
best
sources
of
data
currently
available
to
the
Agency
for
completing
these
kinds
of
assessments;
the
application
rates
are
derived
directly
from
propargite
labels.
The
exposure
factors
(
e.
g.,
body
weight,
amount
treated
per
day,
protection
factors,
etc.)
are
all
standard
values
that
have
been
used
by
the
Agency
over
several
years,
and
the
PHED
unit
exposure
values
are
the
best
available
estimates
of
exposure.
Some
PHED
unit
exposure
values
are
high
quality
while
others
represent
low
quality,
but
are
the
best
available
data.
The
quality
of
the
data
used
for
each
scenario
assessed
is
discussed
in
the
September
13,
2001,
Revised
Human
Health
Assessment
document
for
Propargite,
which
is
available
in
the
public
docket.
35
Anticipated
use
patterns
and
application
methods,
range
of
application
rates,
and
daily
amount
of
acres
treated
were
derived
from
current
product
labeling.
Application
rates
specified
on
propargite
labels
range
from
0.5
to
4.5
pounds
of
active
ingredient
per
acre
in
agricultural
settings.
The
Agency
typically
uses
acres
treated
per
day
values
that
are
thought
to
represent
8
hours
of
application
work
for
specific
types
of
application
equipment.

EPA
calculated
the
baseline
MOE
(
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term)
and
cancer
risk
for
each
of
the
exposure
scenarios
using
the
following
baseline
PPE
assumptions:
Long­
sleeved
shirt,
long
pants,
shoes
(
or
boots)
and
socks
(
no
gloves).

If
the
short­
term
or
intermediate­
term
MOE
calculated
using
this
baseline
PPE
was
100
or
greater
for
an
exposure
scenario,
then
no
further
calculations
were
made.
If
the
baseline
short­
term
or
intermediate­
term
MOE
was
less
than
100
for
any
exposure
scenario,
an
additional
short­
term
or
intermediate­
term
MOE
was
calculated
based
on
increasing
the
levels
of
protection
(
additional
PPE).
EPA
calculated
a
short­
term
and/
or
intermediate­
term
MOE
using
additional
PPE
for
each
occupational
exposure
scenario
that
had
baseline
total
MOE
of
less
than
100,
using
the
following
additional
PPE
assumptions:

°
Baseline
PPE
+
chemical
resistant
gloves.

°
Coveralls
over
long
sleeved
shirt
and
long
pants,
chemical
resistant
gloves,
chemical
resistant
footwear
plus
socks,
and
chemical
resistant
headgear
for
over
head
exposures
(
such
as
airblast
applications).

If
the
short­
term
or
intermediate­
term
MOE
calculated
using
this
additional­
PPE
was
100
or
greater
for
an
exposure
scenario,
then
no
further
calculations
were
made.
If
MOE
remained
less
than
100
for
any
occupational
exposure
scenario,
a
short­
term
or
intermediate­
term
MOE
was
calculated
based
on
the
mandatory
use
of
engineering
controls,
where
feasible.
Engineering
controls
needed
to
address
identified
risks
are
noted
in
the
final
column
of
Table
8.
EPA
calculated
the
engineeringcontrol
short­
term
or
intermediate­
term
MOE
for
each
occupational
exposure
scenario
with
an
additional­
PPE
short­
term
or
intermediate­
term
MOE
of
less
than
100,
using
the
following
engineering
control
assumptions:

°
Occupational
mixers
and
loaders
handling
liquid
formulations
using
a
closed
system
are
wearing
baseline
PPE,
chemical
resistant
gloves
and
chemical
resistant
apron.
36
°
Occupational
mixers
and
loaders
handling
wettable
powders
using
a
closed
system
(
water­
soluble
packages)
are
wearing
baseline
PPE,
chemical
resistant
gloves
and
chemical
resistant
apron.

°
Occupational
applicators
who
use
aerial,
airblast,
or
tractor­
driven
application
equipment
and
handlers
flagging
for
aerial
applications
are
located
in
enclosed
cabs
or
cockpits
and
wearing
baseline
PPE.

Finally,
exposure
to
workers
through
post­
application
entry
into
agricultural
fields
treated
with
propargite,
were
also
assessed.
The
assumptions
used
in
that
analysis
are
described
under
section
3.
c.
ii.
below.

c.
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Summary
EPA
has
determined
that
there
are
potential
exposures
to
mixers,
loaders,
applicators,
or
other
handlers
during
usual
use­
patterns
associated
with
propargite.
Based
on
the
use
patterns
and
potential
exposures
described
above,
14
major
agricultural
exposure
scenarios
are
identified
in
this
document
to
represent
the
extent
of
propargite
uses.

Agricultural
exposure
scenarios
include:
(
1a)
mixing/
loading
liquids
for
aerial
application,
(
1b)
mixing/
loading
liquids
for
chemigation,
(
1c)
mixing/
loading
liquids
for
groundboom
application,
(
1d)
mixing/
loading
liquids
for
orchard
airblast
sprayer
application,
(
1e)
mixing/
loading
liquids
for
application
of
high
pressure
handwand,
(
2a)
mixing/
loading
wettable
powder
for
aerial
application,
(
2b)
mixing/
loading
wettable
powder
for
groundboom
application,
(
2c)
mixing/
loading
wettable
powder
for
orchard
airblast
sprayer
application,
(
2d)
mixing/
loading
wettable
powder
for
application
of
high
pressure
handwand,
(
3)
applying
sprays
with
fixed­
wing
aircraft,
(
4)
applying
sprays
using
a
groundboom
sprayer,
(
5)
applying
sprays
with
an
airblast
sprayer,
(
6)
applying
liquids
with
a
high
pressure
handwand
and
(
7)
flagging
during
aerial
spray
application.

In
most
cases,
EPA
assesses
the
exposure
and
risk
to
mixer/
loaders
and
applicators
separately
for
tractor
drawn
applications
(
i.
e.,
airblast,
groundboom,
and
granular
spreaders).
This
practice
has
evolved,
not
because
it
is
believed
that
there
are
always
separate
job
functions,
but
rather
because
of
the
limited
amount
of
information
regarding
these
practices
along
with
limited
exposure
data.

EPA
has
adopted
a
methodology
to
present
the
risks
separately
for
some
scenarios
and
combine
others.
Most
of
the
hand­
held
equipment
such
as
backpack
sprayers,
and
push
type
granular
spreaders
are
assessed
as
a
combined
function.
With
these
types
of
small
operations
the
mixing,
loading,
and
applying
are
almost
always
carried
out
by
the
same
individual
and
there
are
data
available
to
estimate
exposure
from
these
activities.
For
equipment
such
as
fixed­
wing­
aircraft,
groundboom
tractors,
and
airblast
sprayers
the
applications
are
assessed
separately
from
the
individual
who
mixes
and
loads
the
formulated
product.
EPA
assumes
that
the
pilots
are
rarely
involved
in
the
mixing/
loading.
By
separating
the
two
job
functions,
EPA
can
determine
the
most
appropriate
PPE
37
or
engineering
control
without
requiring
the
handler
to
wear
PPE
throughout
the
entire
workday
or
engineering
controls
that
are
not
needed.

The
potential
handler
exposures
are
assessed
using
the
toxicological
endpoints
and
uncertainty
factors
associated
with
the
active
ingredient.
Therefore,
the
PPE
and
engineering
controls
are
determined
by
the
assessment
of
the
active
ingredient
and
not
the
currently
required
risk
mitigation
measures
on
propargite
labels.
This
distinction
of
determining
risk
mitigation
measures
based
on
the
active
ingredient
instead
of
the
label
required
PPE
is
also
important
because
of
the
nature
of
the
enduse
products.
For
example,
some
end­
use
products
require
additional
PPE
that
are
not
necessary
for
the
active
ingredient
but
rather
because
of
the
end­
use
product's
potential
for
eye
and/
or
skin
irritation
based
on
other
ingredients
of
the
formulation.
Conversely,
the
Agency
does
not
want
to
mandate
additional
PPE
(
e.
g.,
heat
stress
issues)
if
the
PPE
ensemble
is
not
required
based
on
the
endpoint
and
uncertainty
factors.

i.
Agricultural
Handler
Risk
Table
8
below
summarizes
the
numeric
MOE
values
for
both
the
short
and
intermediate­
term
exposure
durations
as
well
as
cancer
risk
estimates.
In
the
majority
of
cases,
dermal
exposure
rather
than
inhalation
exposure
contributes
relatively
more
exposure
(
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
were
not
combined
in
this
assessment
for
the
short
and
intermediate­
term
MOEs.
However,
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
were
added
for
the
cancer
risk
estimates).
The
MOEs
are
presented
for
baseline,
PPE
and
engineering
controls.
Cancer
risk
estimates
are
also
summarized
at
different
levels
of
mitigation.
MOEs
100
or
above
are
not
a
concern
for
dermal
exposure,
while
MOEs
1000
or
above
are
required
to
be
above
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
for
inhalation
exposure
(
and
extra10X
factor
is
included
due
to
lack
of
a
NOAEL,
severity
of
effects
at
the
lowest
dose
tested,
and
4
hour
duration).
The
target
for
cancer
risk
is
1
x
10­
6,
however,
the
Agency
will
not
accept
risks
above
1
x
10­
4.
For
risks
between
1
x
10­
6
and
1
x
10­
4,
the
Agency
will
pursue
risk
mitigation
where
feasible.
38
Table
8:
Exposure
Variables,
MOEs
and
Cancer
for
Agricultural
uses
of
Propargite
Exposure
Scenario
(
Scenario
#)
Crop
Group
Crop
Application
Rates
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Daily
Acres
Treated
Short­
Term
Dermal
MOEsb
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
MOEsc
Inhalation
MOEse
Cancerf
Base
linea
PPE
Eng
Control
Base
linea
PPE
Eng.
Control
Base
lined
PPE
Eng.
Control
Base
line
PPE
Eng.
control
Mixer/
Loader
Exposure
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
for
Aerial
Application
(
1a)
Roots
and
Tuber
Vegetable
carrot,
sugar
beet,

potatoes,
dry
beans,

mint
Min
2.0
350
1
160
NA
<
1
125
NA
4135
NA
NA
1.3E­
3/

2.7E­
3
1.4E­
5/

2.8E­
5
4.0E­
6/

8.0E­
6
Legume
Vegetable
Max
2.5
1
130
NA
<
1
100
NA
3305
NA
NA
1.6E­
3/

3.2E­
3
1.7E­
5/

3.5E­
5
5.0E­
6/

9.9E­
6
Herbs
&
Spices
hops
Max
2.5
80
4
560
NA
3
435
NA
14465
NA
NA
3.6E­
4/

7.3E­
4
4.0E­
6/

7.9E­
5
1.2E­
6/

2.3E­
6
Citrus
Fruits
grapefruit,
orange
Max
2.5
125
3
360
NA
2
280
NA
9260
NA
NA
5.6E­
4/

1.1E­
3
6.3E­
6/

1.3E­
5
1.8E­
6/

3.6E­
6
Tree
Nuts
almond,
walnut
Min
2.5
125
3
360
NA
2
280
NA
9260
NA
NA
5.6E­
4/

1.1E­
3
6.3E­
6/

1.3E­
5
1.8E­
6/

3.6E­
6
Max
4.5
2
200
NA
1
155
NA
5145
NA
NA
1.0E­
3/

2.0E­
3
1.1E­
5/

2.2E­
5
3.3E­
6/

6.5E­
6
Cereal
Grains
corn
(
field,
pop,

sweet),
sorghum
grain,
alfalfa,
clover
Min
1.5
350
2
215
NA
1
165
NA
5510
NA
NA
9.6E­
4/

1.9E­
3
1.1E­
5/

2.1E­
5
3.1E­
6/

6.1E­
6
1200
<
1
60
170
<
1
50
130
1600
NA
NA
3.3E­
3/

6.6E­
3
3.8E­
5/

7.5E­
5
1.1E­
5/

2.2E­
5
Non­
grass
Animal
Feed
Max
2.5
350
1
130
NA
<
1
100
NA
3305
NA
NA
1.6E­
3/

3.2E­
3
1.7E­
5/

3.5E­
5
5.0E­
6/

9.9E­
6
1200
<
1
35
100
<
1
30
80
960
1400
NA
5.5E­
3/

1.1E­
2
5.8E­
5/

1.2E­
4
1.7E­
5/

3.4E­
5
Oil
Seed
cotton
Max
1.6
350
2
200
NA
1
155
NA
5165
NA
NA
1.0E­
3/

2.0E­
3
1.1E­
5/

2.2E­
5
3.3E­
6/

6.5E­
6
1200
<
1
60
155
<
1
45
120
1505
NA
NA
3.6E­
4/

7.3E­
4
4.0E­
5/

7.9E­
5
1.1E­
5/

2.2E­
5
peanut,
jojoba
Min
1.5
350
2
215
NA
1
165
NA
5510
NA
NA
9.6E­
4/

1.9E­
3
1.1E­
5/

2.1E­
5
3.1E­
6/

6.1E­
6
Max
2.5
1
130
NA
<
1
100
NA
3305
NA
NA
1.6E­
3/

3.2E­
3
1.7E­
5/

3.5E­
5
5.0E­
6/

9.9E­
5
Ornamental
plants
Christmas
Tree
conifer
seed
Max
2.5
125
3
360
NA
2
280
NA
9260
NA
NA
5.6E­
4/

1.1E­
3
6.3E­
6/

1..
3E­
5
1.8E­
6/

3.6E­
6
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
for
Chemigation
(
1b)
Roots
and
vegetable
potatoes,
corn
(
sweet)
Min
2.0
350
1
160
NA
1
125
NA
4135
NA
NA
1.3E­
3/

2.6E­
3
1.4E­
5/

2.8E­
5
4.0E­
6/

7.9.
E­
6
Cereal
Grains
Max
2.5
1
130
NA
<
1
100
NA
3305
NA
NA
1.6E­
3/

3.2E­
3
1.7E­
5/

3.5E­
5
5.0E­
6/

9.9E­
6
Table
8:
Exposure
Variables,
MOEs
and
Cancer
for
Agricultural
uses
of
Propargite
Exposure
Scenario
(
Scenario
#)
Crop
Group
Crop
Application
Rates
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Daily
Acres
Treated
Short­
Term
Dermal
MOEsb
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
MOEsc
Inhalation
MOEse
Cancerf
Base
linea
PPE
Eng
Control
Base
linea
PPE
Eng.
Control
Base
lined
PPE
Eng.
Control
Base
line
PPE
Eng.
control
39
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
for
Groundboom
Application
(
1c)
Roots
and
Vegetable
potatoes,
corn
(
field,

pop,
sweet)

sorghum
grain,

alfalfa,
clover,

cotton,
peanut,

jojoba
and
mint
Min
1.5
80
7
930
NA
6
725
NA
24110
NA
NA
2.2E­
4/

4.4E­
4
2.4E­
6/

4.8E­
6
6.9E­
7/

1.4E­
6
Cereal
Grains
Non­
grass
Animal
Feed
Oil
Seed
Max
2.5
4
560
NA
3
435
NA
14465
NA
NA
3.6E­
4/

7.3E­
4
4.0E­
6/

7.9E­
6
1.2E­
6/

2.3E­
6
Herbs
and
Spices
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
for
Airblast
Sprayer
Application
(
1d)
Pome
Fruits
quince,
cherry,

prunes,
orange,

grapefruit
lemon,

lime,
tangerine,

boysenberry,

current,
date
raspberry,
hops,

persimmons,
1.5
40
15
1865
NA
10
1450
NA
48220
NA
NA
1.1E­
4/

2.2E­
4
1.2E­
6/

2.4E­
6
3.6E­
7/

7.3E­
7
Stone
fruits
Citrus
Fruits
Berries
Herbs
and
Spices
Tropical
and
Subtropical
Fruits
Tree
Nuts
almond,
filbert,

macadamia
nut,

pecan,
pistachio
Min
1.5
15
1865
NA
10
1450
NA
48220
NA
NA
1.1E­
4/

2.2E­
4
1.2E­
6/

2.4E­
6
3.6E­
7/

7.3E­
7
Max
3.0
7
930
NA
6
725
NA
24110
NA
NA
2.2E­
4/

4.4E­
4
2.4E­
6/

4.8E­
6
6.9E­
7/

1.4E­
6
walnut
Max
4.5
5
620
NA
4
485
NA
16075
NA
NA
3.3E­
4/

6.6E­
4
3.6E­
6/

7.3E­
6
1.1E­
6/

2.1E­
6
Ornamental
plants
Christmas
Tree
plantation,
conifers,

shade
trees
Max
2.5
9
1120
NA
7
870
NA
28935
NA
NA
1.9E­
4/

3.7E­
4
2.0E­
6/

4.0E­
6
5.9E­
7/

1.2E­
6
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
for
Application
of
High
Pressure
Handwand
(
1e)
Non­
bearing
nursery
stock
all
crops
Max
1.5
5
120
NA
NA
90
11595
NA
385780
NA
NA
1.4E­
5/

2.8E­
5
5.0E­
6/

9.9E­
6
6.9E­
8/

1.4E­
7
Mixing/
Loading
Wettable
Powder
for
Aerial
Application
(
2a)
Stone
fruits
nectarine
Max
3.0
125
2
40
325
1
30
255
215
2155
NA
9.6E­
4/

1.9E­
3
1.0E­
4/

2.0E­
4
5.3E­
6/

1.1E­
5
Tree
Nuts
walnut
Max
4.0
1
30
245
1
25
190
160
1615
NA
1.3E­
3/

2.6E­
3
1.4E­
4/

2.8E­
4
7.9E­
6/

1.6E­
5
Ornamental
plants
Christmas
Tree
Max
2.5
125
2
50
390
2
40
305
255
2585
NA
7.9E­
4/

1.6E­
3
8.6E­
5/

1.7E­
4
4.6E­
6/

9.2E­
6
Table
8:
Exposure
Variables,
MOEs
and
Cancer
for
Agricultural
uses
of
Propargite
Exposure
Scenario
(
Scenario
#)
Crop
Group
Crop
Application
Rates
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Daily
Acres
Treated
Short­
Term
Dermal
MOEsb
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
MOEsc
Inhalation
MOEse
Cancerf
Base
linea
PPE
Eng
Control
Base
linea
PPE
Eng.
Control
Base
lined
PPE
Eng.
Control
Base
line
PPE
Eng.
control
40
Mixing/
Loading
Wettable
Powder
for
Groundboom
Application
(
2b)
Oil
Seed
peanut
Max
1.6
80
5
120
NA
4
90
745
625
6310
NA
3.2E­
6/

6.5E­
4
4.0E­
5/

7.9E­
5
1.8E­
6/

3.6E­
6
Mixing/
Loading
Wettable
Powder
for
Airblast
Sprayer
Application
(
2c)
Citrus
fruits
grapefruit,
orange,

lemon,
avocado
Min
3.0
40
6
125
NA
5
100
NA
665
6730
NA
3.0E­
4/

6.0E­
4
3.6E­
5/

7.3E­
5
1.7E­
6/

3.4E­
6
Tropical
and
subtropical
fruits
Max
4.5
4
85
680
3
65
530
445
4485
NA
4.6E­
4/

9.2E­
4
5.3E­
5/

1.1E­
4
2.6E­
6/

5.1E­
6
Herbs
&
spices
hops
Min
2.0
9
190
NA
7
145
NA
1000
NA
NA
2.0E­
4/

4.0E­
4
2.4E­
5/

4.8E­
5
1.2E­
6/

2.3E­
6
Max
2.5
7
150
NA
5
120
NA
800
8075
NA
2.5E­
4/

5.0E­
4
3.0E­
5/

5.9E­
5
1.5E­
6/

2.9E­
6
Small
Fruits
grapes
Max
3.0
6
125
NA
5
100
NA
665
6730
NA
3.0E­
4/

6.0E­
4
3.6E­
5/

7.3E­
5
1.7E­
6/

3.4E­
6
Mixing/
Loading
Wettable
Powder
for
Application
of
High
Pressure
Handwand
(
2d)
Non­
bearing
Nursery
Stock
all
crops
Min
0.5
5
280
NA
NA
215
NA
NA
32000
NA
NA
6.6E­
6/

1.3E­
5
2.7E­
7/

5.3E­
7
NA
Max
2.5
55
1210
NA
45
940
NA
6400
NA
NA
3.2E­
5/

6.3E­
5
1.4E­
6/

2.7E­
6
NA
Applicator
Exposure
Applying
Sprays
with
Fixed­
Wing
Aircraft 
Enclosed
Cockpit
(
3)
Roots
and
Tuber
Vegetable
carrot,
sugar
beet,

potatoes,
dry
beans,

mint
Min
2.0
350
NA
NA
735
NA
NA
570
NA
NA
72940
NA
NA
2.4E­
6/

4.9E­
6
Max
2.5
NA
NA
585
NA
NA
455
NA
NA
58355
NA
NA
3.0E­
5/

6.1E­
5
Legume
Vegetable
Herbs
and
Spices
hops
Max
2.5
80
NA
NA
2570
NA
NA
2000
NA
NA
255295
NA
NA
6.9E­
7/

1.4E­
6
Citrus
fruits
grapefruit,
orange
Max
2.5
125
NA
NA
1645
NA
NA
1280
NA
NA
163390
NA
NA
1.1E­
6/

2.2E­
6
Tree
Nuts
almond,
walnut
Min
2.5
NA
NA
1645
NA
NA
1280
NA
NA
163390
NA
NA
1.1E­
6/

2.2E­
6
Max
4.5
NA
NA
915
NA
NA
710
NA
NA
90770
NA
NA
1.9E­
6/

3.9E­
6
Cereal
Grains
corn
(
field,
pop,

sweet),
sorghum
grain,
alfalfa,
clover
Min
1.5
350
NA
NA
980
NA
NA
760
NA
NA
97255
NA
NA
1.8E­
6/

3.6E­
6
Table
8:
Exposure
Variables,
MOEs
and
Cancer
for
Agricultural
uses
of
Propargite
Exposure
Scenario
(
Scenario
#)
Crop
Group
Crop
Application
Rates
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Daily
Acres
Treated
Short­
Term
Dermal
MOEsb
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
MOEsc
Inhalation
MOEse
Cancerf
Base
linea
PPE
Eng
Control
Base
linea
PPE
Eng.
Control
Base
lined
PPE
Eng.
Control
Base
line
PPE
Eng.
control
41
1200
NA
NA
290
NA
NA
220
NA
NA
28000
NA
NA
6.2E­
6/

1.3E­
5
Non­
Grass
animal
Feed
Max
2.5
350
NA
NA
590
NA
NA
455
NA
NA
58355
NA
NA
3.0E­
6/

6.1E­
6
1200
NA
NA
170
NA
NA
130
NA
NA
17000
NA
NA
1.1E­
5/

2.2E­
5
Oil
Seed
peanut,
jojoba
Min
1.5
350
NA
NA
980
NA
NA
760
NA
NA
97255
NA
NA
1.9E­
6/

3.9E­
6
Max
2.5
NA
NA
590
NA
NA
455
NA
NA
583550
NA
NA
6.6E­
6/

1.3E­
5
cotton
Max
1.6
350
NA
NA
920
NA
NA
715
NA
NA
91175
NA
NA
1.8E­
6/

3.6E­
6
1200
NA
NA
270
NA
NA
210
NA
NA
26595
NA
NA
3.0E­
6/

6.1E­
6
Stone
fruit
nectarine
Max
3.0
125
NA
NA
1370
NA
NA
1065
NA
NA
136155
NA
NA
1.3E­
6/

2.6E­
6
Ornamental
plants
Christmas
tree,

conifer
seed
Max
2.5
125
NA
NA
1645
NA
NA
1280
NA
NA
163390
NA
NA
1.1E­
6/

2.2E­
6
Applying
Sprays
with
a
Groundboom
Sprayer
(
4)
Roots
and
Vegetable
potatoes,
corn
(
field,

pop,
sweet)

sorghum
grain,

alfalfa,
clover,

cotton,
peanut,

jojoba
and
mint
Min
1.5
80
1530
NA
NA
1190
NA
NA
39100
NA
NA
1.4E­
6/

2.7E­
6
1.2E­
6/

2.4E­
6
4.0E­
7/

7.9E­
7
Cereal
Grain
Non­
grass
animal
feed
Max
2.5
920
NA
NA
715
NA
NA
23460
NA
NA
2.4E­
6/

4.9E­
6
2.0E­
6/

4.1E­
6
6.9E­
7/

1.4E­
6
oil
seed
herbs
and
spices
Table
8:
Exposure
Variables,
MOEs
and
Cancer
for
Agricultural
uses
of
Propargite
Exposure
Scenario
(
Scenario
#)
Crop
Group
Crop
Application
Rates
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Daily
Acres
Treated
Short­
Term
Dermal
MOEsb
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
MOEsc
Inhalation
MOEse
Cancerf
Base
linea
PPE
Eng
Control
Base
linea
PPE
Eng.
Control
Base
lined
PPE
Eng.
Control
Base
line
PPE
Eng.
control
42
Applying
Sprays
with
an
Airblast
Sprayer
(
5)
pome
fruits
quince,
cherry,

prunes,
orange,

grapefruit,
lemon,

lime,
tangerine,

boysenberry,

current,
hops,

raspberry,
date,

persimmons,

almond,
filbert,

macadamia
nut,

pecan,
pistachio,

walnut,
Christmas
Tree
plantation,

conifers,
shade
trees
Min
1.5
40
120
NA
NA
95
140
NA
12860
NA
NA
1.5E­
5/

3.0E­
5
1.1E­
5/

2.1E­
5
2.0E­
6/

4.0E­
6
stone
fruits
citrus
fruits
berries
tropical
&
subtropical
fruits
Max
4.5
40
120
750
30
90
570
4285
NA
NA
4.6E­
5/

9.2E­
5
3.1E­
5/

6.2E­
5
6.9E­
6/

1.4E­
5
small
fruits
tree
nuts
ornamental
plants
Applying
Liquids
with
a
High
Pressure
Handwand
(
6)
non­
bearing
nursery
stock
all
crops
Min
0.5
5
570
NA
NA
445
NA
NA
17580
NA
NA
3.6E­
6/

7.3E­
6
1.9E­
6/

3.8E­
6
NA
Max
2.5
115
NA
NA
90
250
NA
3515
NA
NA
1.9E­
5/

3.8E­
5
9.6E­
6/

1.9E­
5
NA
Table
8:
Exposure
Variables,
MOEs
and
Cancer
for
Agricultural
uses
of
Propargite
Exposure
Scenario
(
Scenario
#)
Crop
Group
Crop
Application
Rates
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Daily
Acres
Treated
Short­
Term
Dermal
MOEsb
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
MOEsc
Inhalation
MOEse
Cancerf
Base
linea
PPE
Eng
Control
Base
linea
PPE
Eng.
Control
Base
lined
PPE
Eng.
Control
Base
line
PPE
Eng.
control
43
Flagger
Exposure
Flagging
During
Aerial
Spray
Application
(
7)
Roots
&
tuber
Vegetable
carrot,
sugar
beet,

potatoes,
dry
beans,

mint
Min
2.0
350
335
NA
NA
260
NA
NA
14170
NA
NA
5.9E­
6/

1.2E­
5
4.6E­
6/

9.1E­
6
1.2E­
7/

2.4E­
7
legume
vegetable
Max
2.5
265
NA
NA
210
NA
NA
11335
NA
NA
7.6E­
6/

1.5E­
5
5.7E­
6/

1.1E­
5
1.5E­
7/

3.0E­
7
herbs
and
spices
hops
Ma
2.5
80
1170
NA
NA
910
NA
NA
49600
NA
NA
1.7E­
6/

3.4E­
6
1.3E­
6/

2.6E­
6
3.4E­
8/

6.9E­
8
Citrus
fruits
grapefruit,
orange
Max
2.5
125
750
NA
NA
580
NA
NA
31745
NA
NA
2.7E­
6/

5.4E­
6
2.0E­
6/

4.1E­
6
5.3E­
8/

1.1E­
7
Tree
Nut
almond,
walnut
Min
2.5
125
750
NA
NA
580
NA
NA
31745
NA
NA
2.7E­
6/

5.4E­
6
2.0E­
6/

4.1E­
6
5.3E­
8/

1.1E­
7
Max
4.5
415
NA
NA
325
NA
NA
17635
NA
NA
5.0E­
6/

9.9E­
6
3.7E­
6/

7.3E­
6
9.6E­
8/

1.9E­
7
cereal
grain
(
field,
pop,
sweet),

sorghum
grain,

alfalfa,
clover
Min
1.5
350
445
NA
NA
345
NA
NA
18895
NA
NA
4.6E­
6/

9.2E­
6
3.4E­
6/

6.8E­
6
9.0E­
8/

1.8E­
7
non­
grass
animal
feed
Max
2.5
265
NA
NA
210
NA
NA
11335
NA
NA
7.6E­
6/

1.5E­
5
5.7E­
6/

1.1E­
5
1.5E­
7/

3.0E­
7
oil
seed
cotton
Max
1.6
350
415
NA
NA
325
NA
NA
17715
NA
NA
5.0E­
6/

9.9E­
6
3.6E­
6/

7.3E­
6
9.6E­
8/

1.9E­
7
1200
120
NA
NA
100
NF
NA
5165
NA
NA
1.7E­
5/

3.3E­
5
1.2E­
5/

2.5E­
5
3.3E­
7/

6.6E­
7
Peanut,
jojoba
Min
1.5
350
445
NA
NA
345
NA
NA
18895
NA
NA
4.6E­
6/

9.2E­
6
3.4E­
6/

6.8E­
6
9.0E­
8/

1.8E­
7
Max
2.5
265
NA
NA
210
NA
NA
11335
NA
NA
7.6E­
6/

1.5E­
5
5.7E­
6/

1.1E­
5
1.5E­
7/

3.0E­
7
Stone
fruits
nectarine
Max
3.0
125
625
NA
NA
485
NA
NA
26455
NA
NA
3.2E­
6/

6.4E­
6
1.1E­
6/

2.2E­
6
6.4E­
8/

1.3E­
7
Ornamental
plants
Christmas
tree
conifer
seed
Max
2.5
125
750
NA
NA
580
NA
NA
31745
NA
NA
2.7E­
5/

5.4E­
5
2.0E­
6/

4.1E­
6
5.3E­
8/

1.1E­
7
a
Baseline
dermal
unit
exposure
represents
long
pants,
long
sleeved
shirt,
no
gloves,
open
mixing/
loading,
open
cab
tractor.

b
Short­
term
Dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
6
mg/
kg/
day)/
Short­
term
Daily
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day).

c
Intermediate­
term
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
4
mg/
kg/
day)/
Intermediate­
term
Daily
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)

d
Baseline
inhalation
unit
exposure
represents
no
respirator
e
Inhalation
MOE
=
LOAEL
(
49.6
mg/
kg/
day)/
Daily
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day).

f
the
lower
end
of
the
range
represents
7
days
of
exposure
for
a
private
applicator.
The
higher
end
of
the
range
represents
14
days
of
exposure
for
a
commercial
applicator.
44
ii.
Post­
Application
Occupational
Risk
The
post­
application
occupational
risk
assessment
considered
exposures
to
workers
entering
treated
sites.
EPA
has
determined
that
there
are
potentially
significant
short
and
intermediate­
term
post­
application
exposures
to
workers
entering
treated
fields
for
post­
treatment
activities,
e.
g.,
weeding,
pruning,
irrigating,
harvesting.

Table
9
below
summarizes
the
Agency's
risk
assessment
for
workers,
based
on
various
activities
and
application
rates
for
each
crop.
This
table
shows
the
number
of
days
that
must
pass
after
propargite
is
applied
before
the
risk
is
above
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
(
MOE
$
100
for
intermediate­
term
dermal
exposure).
The
table
also
shows
the
life­
time
cancer
risk
that
would
result
if
workers
were
to
re­
enter
a
propargite
treated
field
on
the
first
day
the
MOE
$
100
for
35
years.

The
re­
entry
interval
(
REI)
is
the
period
of
time
after
propargite
application
(
expressed
in
days)
that
must
elapse
before
an
unprotected
worker
may
re­
enter
the
field
to
perform
a
given
operation.
The
REI
is
established
for
a
crop
by
considering
the
worker
activities
associated
with
the
crop
and
determining
the
number
of
days
after
treatment
must
elapse
before
a
the
risk
is
no
longer
a
concern.
Typically,
the
activity
with
the
highest
risk
will
drive
the
selection
of
the
appropriate
REI
for
the
crop.
All
of
the
post­
application
risk
calculations
for
handlers
completed
in
this
assessment
are
included
in
the
July
31,
2001
document
entitled,
"
Revised
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
and
Recommendations
for
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Document
for
Propargite."

Table
9.
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
from
Propargite;
Days
After
Treatment
at
Which
the
MOE
is
$
100
Crop
grouping
Crop
Activity
Intermediate
­
Term
(
days)
Cancer
Risk
at
First
Day
MOE
$
100
Roots
and
Tuber
Vegetable
Crop
1.5
lb
ai/
A
2.5
lb
ai/
A
1.5
lb
ai/
A
2.5
lb
ai/
A
Potato
Hand
Harvesting
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Carrot,
Sugar
beet
Hand
Harvesting
9
13
5.28E­
5
5.51E­
5
Potato,
Carrot,
Sugar
beet
all
other
activities
0
0
1.81E­
5
3.01E­
5
Legume
Vegetables
Dry
beans
Weeding
and
Hoeing
0
0
3.60E­
5
5.91E­
6
Irrigation,
Scouting
5
9
5.05E­
5
5.18E­
5
Hand
Harvesting
9
13
5.28E­
5
5.41E­
5
Non­
grass
Animal
Feed
Alfalfa,
Clover
Hand
Harvesting,
Mechanized
harvesting
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Irrigation,
Scouting
5
9
5.05E­
5
5.28E­
5
Crop
grouping
Crop
Activity
Intermediate
­
Term
(
days)
Cancer
Risk
at
First
Day
MOE
$
100
45
Citrus
Fruits
Crop
2.5
lb
ai/
A
3.15
lb
ai/
A
4.5
lb
ai/
A
2.5
lb
ai/
A
3.15
lb
ai/
A
4.5
lb
ai/
A
Orange,
Lemon,
Lime,
Tangerine,
Grapefruit
Irrigation,
Scouting,
Hand
weeding
0
2
8
4.82E­
5
5.35E­
5
5.28E­
5
Pruning
16
20
26
5.35E­
5
5.28E­
5
5.18E­
5
Harvesting
32
36
42
5.31E­
5
5.21E­
5
5.15E­
5
Pome
Fruits
Crop
0.5
lb
ai/
A
1.5lb
ai/
A
2.5
lb
ai/
A
4.5
lb
ai/
A
0.5
lb
ai/
A
1.5
lb
ai/
A
2.5
lb
ai/
A
4.5
lb
ai/
A
Quince,
Cherry,
Nectarine,
Prune,
Avocado,
Date,
Persimmons,
X
mas
Tree,
Ornamental
and/
or
shade
trees
Ornamental,
Herbaceous
Plants
Irrigation,
Scouting,
Hand
weeding
0
0
0
0
5.97
E­
6
1.97
E­
5
2.98
E­
5
5.38
E­
5
Stone
Fruits
Pruning
0
0
5
11
1.97
E­
5
5.38
E­
5
5.28
E­
5
5.05
E­
5
Tropical
and
Subtropical
Fruits
Harvesting
0
9
14
20
4.75
E­
5
5.54
E­
5
5.45
E­
5
5.21
E­
5
Ornamental
Plants
Berries
Crop
2.0
lb
ai/
A
2.0
lb
ai/
A
Boysenberry,
Currant,
Raspberry
Irrigation,
Hand
weeding
0
9.74E­
6
Scouting
0
1.95E­
5
Harvesting,
Pruning,
tying
10
5.25E­
5
Small
fruits
Crop
3.0
lb
ai/
acre
3.0
ai/
A
Grape
Irrigation,
Hand
weeding
0
1.46E­
5
Scouting
0
2.92E­
5
Harvesting,
Pruning
,
tying
16
5.41E­
5
Cane
turning
27
5.48E­
5
Tree
Nuts
Crop
3.0
lb
ai/
A
4.5
lb
ai/
A
3.0
lb
ai/
A
4.5
ai/
A
Almond,
Filbert,
Macadamia
,
Pecan
Pistachio,
Walnut
Sweeping
and
blowing
the
nuts
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Tree
shakers
0
0
3.12E­
6
4.69E­
6
Scouting,
Weeding,
Irrigation
0
0
3.33E­
5
4.98E­
5
Pruning,
Hand
harvesting
22
30
5.38E­
5
5.35E­
5
Cereal
grains
Crop
2.5
lb
ai/
A
2.5
lb
ai/
A
Corn
(
unspecified),
Corn,
field,
Corn,
Pop
Corn,
Sweet,
Sorghum,
grain
Irrigation,
Scouting
0
3.83E­
5
Crop
grouping
Crop
Activity
Intermediate
­
Term
(
days)
Cancer
Risk
at
First
Day
MOE
$
100
46
Corn
(
unspecified),
Corn,
field,
Corn,
Pop
Corn,
Sweet
Hand
harvesting,
Detasseling
13
4.95E­
5
Herbs
and
Spices
Crop
2.5
lb
ai/
A
2.5
lb
ai/
A
Mint
Irrigation,
Scouting,
Hand
weeding
9
5.28E­
5
Hops
Irrigation,
Hand
weeding,
Scouting
0
1.06E­
5
Harvesting,
Training
33
5.51E­
5
Oil
seed
Crop
1.5
lb
ai/
A
Cotton
Weeding
and
hoeing
0
2.53E­
6
Harvesting
6
4.98E­
5
Cotton
Peanut,
Jojoba
Irrigation,
Scouting
1
5.35E­
5
5.
Human
Incident
Data
The
Agency
consulted
and
reviewed
several
sources
of
information
on
health
incidents
involving
human
exposure,
finding
a
history
of
propargite
cases
mostly
related
to
handler
and
worker
exposure.
The
general
incident
trend,
however,
appears
to
be
downward.
The
four
sources
of
information
are
OPP's
Incident
Data
System
(
IDS),
American
Association
of
Poison
Control
Centers
(
PCC),
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation
(
CDPR),
and
the
National
Pesticides
Telecommunication
Network.
CDPR
and
OPP
data
tend
to
provide
the
most
insight
into
propargite's
association
with
human
health
incidents.
Detailed
descriptions
of
the
above
sources
and
the
cases
involving
propargite
are
provided
in
the
human
health
risk
assessment.

The
incident
data
contain
cases
showing
propargite
poses
skin
illness
and
eye
irritation
concerns
for
handlers
and
post­
application
workers.
From
CDPR
data,
field
residue
exposure
was
associated
with
the
majority
(
66%)
of
the
exposures
cases
in
California.
A
large
proportion
of
cases
resulted
from
field
reentry
and
worker
activities
involving
extensive
contact
with
treated
foliage
such
as
turning
cane
for
grapes
and
harvesting
citrus.
Applicators
and
other
handlers
accounted
for
the
bulk
of
the
balance
(
28%).
These
data
illustrate
that
human
incidents
have
historically
occurred
mostly
among
workers
and
handlers.

Propargite
usually
effects
the
skin
in
human
exposure
cases.
Of
the
confirmed
propargite
cases
reported
to
the
CDPR
between
1982
and
1996,
79%
of
the
individuals
developed
skin
illnesses
as
a
result
of
exposure
(
528
of
671
persons).
Data
covering
the
years
1982­
1989
found
that
propargite
was
the
leading
cause
of
skin­
related
injuries
among
all
pesticides
in
California.
For
the
years
1990­
1994,
propargite
dropped
to
seventh
place
among
pesticides.
The
drop
in
the
frequency
47
of
illnesses
in
the
early
1990'
s
is
apparently
attributable
to
increasing
restricted
entry
intervals
(
REI),
which
were
put
into
place
in
1989.
Depending
on
the
crop,
REIs
were
extended
from
2­
7
days
to
14­
42
days.
Promulgation
of
the
final
Worker
Protection
Standard
regulations
in
the
1990'
s
may
have
also
contributed
to
the
reduction
of
incidents.
In
addition,
the
registrant
fielded
a
voluntary
product
stewardship
program
during
this
same
time
frame,
presumably
facilitating
greater
compliance
with
labels
by
educating
handlers
and
workers.

Notwithstanding
the
number
and
types
of
exposure
cases,
both
PCC
and
CDPR
data
indicate
that
incidents
rarely
result
in
hospitalization
or
long,
prolonged
absences
from
work.
In
some
cases,
the
skin
effects
may
be
severe
and
absences
from
work
are
significant.
Nonetheless,
compared
to
all
other
pesticides,
propargite
has
a
favorable
profile
suggesting
low
risk
of
moderate
or
serious
effects.
Despite
the
downward
trend
in
exposure
cases,
incidents
still
occur
on
a
regular
basis
involving
field
workers,
suggesting
additional
mitigation
may
be
warranted
on
certain
crops.

B.
Environmental
Risk
Assessment
A
summary
of
the
Agency's
environmental
risk
assessment
is
presented
below.
For
detailed
discussions
of
all
aspects
of
the
environmental
risk
assessment,
see
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
Science
Chapter
for
Reregistration
Eligibility
Document
for
Propargite,
dated
June
7,
2000,
available
in
the
public
docket.

1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Propargite
is
moderately
persistent
(
metabolism
half­
lives
=
38­
168
days)
and
immobile
(
K
d
s
ranged
from
60
to
218
mL/
g,
while
K
oc
s
ranged
from
2963
to
57966
mL/
g)
.
It
degrades
rapidly
under
alkaline
hydrolytic
conditions
(
half­
life
=
2.2
days)
and
is
moderately
persistent
to
persistent
under
neutral
(
half­
lives
=
75
days)
and
acid
(
pH
5
half­
life
=
120
days)
hydrolytic
conditions.
Soil
and
aquatic
photolysis
and
aerobic
and
anaerobic
metabolism
occur
at
moderate
rates
(
half­
lives
=
39­
168
days).
Degradates
are
carbon
dioxide,
propargite
glycol
ether
(
TBPC,
2­[
4­(
1,1­
dimethylethyl)
phenoxy]
cyclohexane­
1­
ol,
also
identified
as
2­(
p­
tertiarybutyl
phenoxycyclohexanol
and
PTBP
(
p­
tertiary
butylphenoxy
cyclohexanol.
However,
the
Agency
Metabolism
Assessment
Review
Committee
has
concluded
that
the
residue
of
concern
in
plants
and
animals
is
propargite
per
se
and
not
its
metabolites
or
degradate
products.
Because
of
its
high
affinity
for
soil
and
sediment,
propargite
has
the
potential
to
move
off
the
site
of
application
during
rainfall/
irrigation
by
erosion/
runoff
on
soil
particles
and
by
drift.
Given
the
moderate
to
slow
degradation
rates
for
metabolism
and
photolysis,
and
the
high
K
oc
values,
propargite
will
probably
be
adsorbed
to
sediments
and
organic
material
if
transported
to
surface
waters.
48
2.
Ecological
Toxicity
The
Agency's
ecological
risk
assessment
compares
toxicity
endpoints
from
ecological
toxicity
studies
to
estimated
environmental
concentrations
based
on
environmental
fate
characteristics,
pesticide
use,
and/
or
monitoring
data.
To
evaluate
the
potential
risk
to
nontarget
organisms
from
the
use
of
propargite
products,
EPA
calculates
a
Risk
Quotient
(
RQ),
which
is
the
ratio
of
the
estimated
exposure
concentration
to
the
toxicity
endpoint
values,
such
as
the
LC
50
(
the
median
concentration
of
a
substance
which
causes
death
to
50%
of
the
test
animals).
The
RQ
is
simply
a
means
of
integrating
the
results
of
ecological
exposure
and
ecological
toxicity.
These
RQ
values
are
compared
to
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs),
which
provide
an
indication
of
the
relative
risk
the
particular
pesticide
and/
or
use
may
pose
for
nontarget
organisms.
If
the
RQ
does
not
exceed
the
LOC,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
pesticide
will
pose
a
significant
risk.
Similarly,
when
RQs
are
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
LOC,
additional
refinements
or
mitigation
may
be
necessary.
Use,
toxicity,
fate,
and
exposure
are
considered
to
characterize
the
risk
as
well
as
the
level
of
certainty
and
uncertainty
in
the
assessment.
EPA
further
characterizes
ecological
risk
based
on
any
reported
aquatic
or
terrestrial
incidents
to
nontarget
organisms
in
the
field
(
e.
g.,
fish
or
bird
kills).

Based
on
toxicity
studies
submitted
by
the
Registrant,
propargite
poses
a
potential
for
adverse
effects
on
reproduction
in
birds
and
mammals.
Risk
to
aquatic
organisms
and
plants
is
generally
lower
than
the
risk
for
birds
and
mammals;
however,
the
chronic
risk
concern
levels
for
freshwater
invertebrates
and
freshwater
fish
are
either
approached
or
exceeded
for
over
60
days
from
multiple
propargite
applications.

a.
Risk
to
Birds
and
Mammals
EPA's
assessment
suggests
that
the
most
significant
ecological
risk
posed
by
the
use
of
propargite
is
the
potential
for
adverse
effects
on
reproduction
in
birds
and
mammals.
The
assessment
indicates
that
reproduction
risk
to
birds
may
occur
where
propargite
is
applied
a
single
time
at
0.5
lb
active
ingredient
per
acre
or
greater.
Concerns
for
reproduction
risk
to
mammals
are
triggered
at
application
rates
of
1.6
lb
ai/
A
or
greater.
These
concerns
are
heightened
when
multiple
applications
of
propargite
are
factored
into
the
assessment.
Multiple
applications
of
a
pesticide
may
raise
the
risk
to
an
organism
by
increasing
the
concentration
of
residues
on
food
items
and
by
extending
the
period
during
which
these
residues
may
be
present.
EPA's
conclusions
for
propargite's
potential
effects
to
birds
and
mammals
are
based
on
the
following
labeled
use
rates
and
numbers
of
applications:
2
applications
at
4.5
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications
at
3
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications
at
2
lb
ai/
A;
and
2
or
3
applications
at
1.6
lb
ai/
A.

The
timing
of
propargite
applications
to
control
target
pests
coincides
with
breeding
seasons
of
some
birds
common
to
the
labeled
crop
areas.
This
could
expose
nesting
birds
and
their
developing
young
to
residues
which
could
negatively
impact
their
reproductive
success.
The
chronic
effects
to
birds
reported
in
registrant­
submitted
studies
included
reductions
in
mean
numbers
of
eggs
laid/
female(
mallard
and
bobwhite),
viable
embryos
(
mallard),
live
3­
week
embryos
(
mallard),
hatch
success
(
mallard),
hatchling
survival
and
weight
(
mallard
and
bobwhite),
and
adult
body
weight
49
change
(
mallard)
at
dietary
concentration
of
288
ppm.
At
a
dietary
concentration
of
84.7
ppm,
slight
reductions
were
also
observed
in
adult
body
weight
change
(
bobwhite
and
mallard),
eggs
laid/
female,
live
embryos,
and
hatchling
survival.

With
the
exception
of
multiple
applications
at
4.5
lb
ai/
A
(
RQ
=
0.59
for
species
expected
to
ingest
high
amounts
of
short
grass
or
foliage),
avian
acute
risk
assessment
scenarios
for
propargite
did
not
exceed
acute
risk
level
of
concern
(
LOC
=
3401
ppm)
for
birds.
LOCs
for
acute
risk
are
approached,
but
not
exceeded
for
multiple
applications
at
3
lb
ai/
A.
Shorter
application
intervals
could
increase
exposure
and
risk
for
these
scenarios.
A
number
of
application
scenarios
triggered
the
restricted
use
criteria
at
rates
of
1.6
lb
ai/
A
and
above
(
RQ>
0.2).
For
acute
toxicity
to
endangered
avian
species,
all
multiple
application
scenarios
assessed
exceeded
the
LOC
(
RQ>
0.1)
for
short
and
tall
grass
and
broadleaf
plants.
RQs
for
acute
effects
to
birds
ingesting
primarily
fruits
and
seeds
were
below
levels
of
concern
for
acute
risk,
restricted
use,
and
endangered
species.

The
assessment
suggests
the
potential
for
acute
effects
to
mammals
for
multiple
applications
at
the
highest
labeled
rate
of
~
4.5
lb
ai/
A
(
walnut,
and
avocado).
Levels
of
concern
for
acute
risk
are
approached
but
not
exceeded
for
multiple
applications
at
3
lb
ai/
A.
Mammalian
chronic
levels
of
concern
(
400
ppm
exposure
levels)
may
be
exceeded
at
single
application
rates
over
1.6
lb
ai/
A
(
which
is
allowed
for
many
crop
uses
of
propargite)
and
at
multiple
application
rates
above
0.75
lb
ai/
A
which
are
allowed
for
all
crop
uses.
However,
there
were
a
number
of
LOCs
for
the
acute
restricted
use
that
were
exceeded
for
herbivorous
or
herbivorous/
insectivorous
mammals
(
RQs
>
0.2)
based
on
terrestrial
exposure
scenarios.
There
are
acute
endangered
species
risk
concerns
for
herbivorous
or
herbivorous/
insectivorous
mammals
(
RQs>
0.1)
for
many
uses.
Granivorous
mammals
are
not
predicted
to
be
exposed
to
residues
that
could
result
in
acute
effects.

The
lack
of
data
on
propargite
persistence
on
foliage
and
other
avian
and
mammalian
food
items
is
a
source
of
uncertainty
in
the
terrestrial
risk
assessment.
Because
no
data
were
available,
a
default
foliar
half­
life
of
30
days
was
assumed.
Foliar
dissipation
is
not
expected
to
be
rapid,
however,
because
of
propargite's
photolytic
stability,
slow
hydrolysis
at
neutral
pH
values,
and
low
vapor
pressure.
Rainfall
could
result
in
residue
washoff
thereby
reducing
terrestrial
exposure.
Reapplication
could
result
in
repeated
exposure
of
terrestrial
organisms
to
propargite
residues.

b.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Species
The
standard
method
for
assessing
aquatic
risk
results
in
concern
for
potential
chronic
effects
to
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates.
Although
EPA's
criteria
for
acute
risk
to
freshwater
invertebrates
and
estuarine
fish
were
not
exceeded,
the
assessment
suggests
that
adverse
effects
could
occur
in
shallow
bodies
of
water
that
are
not
represented
by
standard
scenarios.
No
data
are
available
to
assess
risk
to
estuarine
and
marine
organisms.
Also,
as
noted
for
the
terrestrial
risk
assessment,
an
element
of
uncertainty
is
added
to
the
aquatic
risk
assessment
by
the
lack
of
established
application
intervals
on
propargite
labels.
The
time
between
applications
could
have
an
impact
on
exposure
levels
used
to
assess
aquatic
risk.
50
Chronic
toxicity
effect
levels
were
low
for
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrates
and
fish.
Given
the
persistence
characteristics
of
propargite,
the
potential
for
chronic
effects
is
most
likely
if
residues
reach
aquatic
habitats
in
concentrations
exceeding
9­
16
ug/
L
(
the
Daphnia
magna
No
Observable
Effect
Concentration
[
NOEC]
=
9
ug/
L;
fathead
minnow
NOEC
=
16
ug/
L).
Chronic
LOCs
for
invertebrates
were
exceeded
in
three
of
the
five
scenarios
in
Tier
II
modeling
simulations.
There
were
no
data
available
to
assess
potential
chronic
effects
to
estuarine
and
marine
organisms.
In
aerobic
and
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
studies,
propargite
half­
lives
were
38
and
46
days,
respectively.
These
data,
along
with
hydrolysis
half­
lives
of
75
and
120
days
at
pH
7
and
5,
respectively,
suggest
that
propargite
will
be
relatively
persistent
in
aquatic
environments.
Any
impact
on
aquatic
life,
then,
is
likely
to
be
greatest
where
neutral
to
acidic
conditions
predominate
(
pH
5.0
to
7.0).
This
could
include
tributaries
fed
by
acid
drainage
or
that
receive
runoff
from
watersheds
where
highly
organic
soils
predominate.
Because
aqueous
photolysis
of
residues
is
not
an
important
process,
water
clarity
is
not
likely
to
play
an
important
role
in
degradation.
Because
of
its
high
affinity
for
soil,
propargite
has
the
potential
to
move
into
aquatic
habitats
through
runoff
or
wind
erosion
of
soil
particles.
Other
offsite
transport
is
possible
by
spray
drift
from
aerial,
airblast,
or
ground
boom
applications.
Given
the
moderate
to
slow
degradation
rates
for
metabolism
and
photolysis,
and
the
high
K
oc
values,
propargite
is
likely
to
partition
to
sediment
and
organic
material
found
in
surface
waters.
Thus,
impacts
to
benthic­
dwelling
organisms
from
prolonged
exposure
to
contaminated
sediments
must
be
a
consideration
when
characterizing
long­
term
risk
potential
for
exposed
aquatic
areas.
Toxicity
to
these
organisms
from
residues
on
sediment
is
uncertain
because
relevant
data
are
not
available.

Though
propargite
is
highly
toxic
to
all
fish
and
invertebrate
species
tested
(
96
hour
LC
50
values
for
7
aquatic
species
were
below
168
ug/
L),
the
RQs
calculated
from
EECs
derived
from
Tier
II
simulations
suggest
little
potential
for
acute
risk
to
fish
or
invertebrates.
However,
several
RQs
ranged
between
0.2
and
0.5
suggesting
that
exposure
in
small,
shallow
water
bodies
(
i.
e.,
those
not
represented
by
EPA's
standard
aquatic
risk
scenario)
could
result
in
adverse
effects
to
organisms
present.
Acute
restricted
use
exceedences
(
RQ=
0.2)
for
fish
and
invertebrates
are
noted
for
a
number
of
application
scenarios.
For
endangered
aquatic
species,
all
modeled
scenarios
exceeded
Agency
acute
levels
of
concern
(
RQ>
0.05).

c.
Endangered
Species
At
currently
proposed
rates,
endangered
species
risk
presumption
levels
are
exceeded
for
both
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
at
the
label
permitted
application
scenarios
for
propargite.
Although
concern
levels
for
estuarine
invertebrates
are
exceeded,
there
are
no
federally
listed
estuarine
invertebrates.
Mammalian
and
avian
acute
risk
for
endangered
species
is
exceeded
for
certain
species
which
may
feed
heavily
on
vegetation
or
insects.
Chronic
risk
concern
levels
for
listed
birds
and
mammals
are
indicated
for
many
uses.

The
Agency
consulted
with
the
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
FWS
or
the
Service)
on
the
corn
use
of
propargite
as
part
of
the
corn
cluster
analysis
in
1983
and
on
several
agricultural
uses
of
propargite
in
the
"
reinitiation"
of
the
cluster
assessments
in
1988.
The
resulting
Opinions
found
51
jeopardy
to
one
amphibian
species,
eight
fish
species
and
one
invertebrate
species.
The
Service
proposed
Reasonable
and
Prudent
Alternatives
(
RPAs)
to
avoid
the
likelihood
of
jeopardizing
the
continued
existence
of
these
species.
In
addition,
the
Service
had
Reasonable
and
Prudent
Measures
(
RPMs)
to
reduce
incidental
take
of
22
fish
and
one
aquatic
invertebrate
species.
These
consultations
and
the
findings
expressed
in
the
Opinions,
however,
are
based
on
old
labels
and
application
methods,
less
refined
risk
assessment
procedures,
and
an
older
approach
to
consultation
which
is
currently
being
revised
through
interagency
collaboration.

EPA's
current
assessment
of
ecological
risks
uses
both
more
refined
methods
to
define
ecological
risks
of
pesticides
and
new
data,
such
as
that
for
spray
drift.
Therefore,
the
Reasonable
and
Prudent
Measures
(
RPMs)
in
the
Biological
Opinion(
s)
may
need
to
be
reassessed
and
modified
based
on
these
new
approaches.

The
Agency
is
currently
engaged
in
a
Proactive
Conservation
Review
with
FWS
and
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
under
section
7(
a)(
1)
of
the
Endangered
Species
Act.
The
objective
of
this
review
is
to
clarify
and
develop
consistent
processes
for
endangered
species
risk
assessments
and
consultations.
Subsequent
to
the
completion
of
this
process,
the
Agency
will
reassess
the
potential
effects
of
propargite
use
to
federally
listed
threatened
and
endangered
species.
At
that
time,
the
Agency
will
also
consider
any
regulatory
changes
recommended
in
the
RED
that
are
being
implemented.
Until
such
time
as
this
analysis
is
completed,
the
overall
environmental
effects
mitigation
strategy
articulated
in
this
document
and
any
County
Specific
Pamphlets
described
below
which
address
propargite,
will
serve
as
interim
protection
measures
to
reduce
the
likelihood
that
endangered
and
threatened
species
may
be
exposed
to
propargite
at
levels
of
concern.

3.
Ecological
Incidents
The
Agency
incident
database
contains
a
single
incident
with
propargite.
The
incident
involved
crop
injury
to
82
acres
of
newly
planted
cotton
crops
in
Arvin,
CA.
Propargite,
chlorpyrifos,
and
amitraz
were
all
applied.
Propargite
(
Comite)
labels
warn
against
possible
phytotoxicity
to
young
cotton
plants.

No
mortality
incidents
with
wildlife,
non­
target
insects,
or
aquatic
organisms
have
been
reported
for
propargite.
However,
the
types
of
chronic
concerns
for
birds
and
mammals
expressed
for
propargite
are
unlikely
to
be
observed
in
normal
usage.
Also,
acute
mortality
to
non
target
invertebrates
(
terrestrial
or
aquatic)
is
generally
not
observed
or
reported
in
incident
reports,
even
when
high
mortality
is
reported
for
birds,
mammals,
amphibians
or
fish.
52
IV.
Risk
Management
and
Reregistration
Decision
A.
Determination
of
Reregistration
Eligibility
Section
4(
g)(
2)(
A)
of
FIFRA
calls
for
the
Agency
to
determine,
after
submissions
of
relevant
data
concerning
an
active
ingredient,
whether
products
containing
the
active
ingredient
are
eligible
for
reregistration.
The
Agency
has
previously
identified
and
required
the
submission
of
the
generic
(
i.
e.,
an
active
ingredient
specific)
data
required
to
support
reregistration
of
products
containing
the
active
ingredient
propargite.

The
Agency
has
completed
its
assessment
of
the
occupational,
non­
occupational,
and
ecological
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
pesticides
containing
the
active
ingredient
propargite,
as
well
as
a
propargite­
specific
dietary
risk
assessment.
Based
on
a
review
of
these
data
and
on
public
comments
on
the
Agency's
assessments
for
the
active
ingredient
propargite,
EPA
has
sufficient
information
on
the
human
health
and
ecological
effects
of
propargite
to
make
decisions
as
part
of
the
tolerance
reassessment
process
under
FFDCA
and
reregistration
process
under
FIFRA,
as
amended
by
FQPA.
The
Agency
has
determined
that
propargite
products
are
eligible
for
reregistration
provided
that:
(
i)
current
data
gaps
and
additional
confirmatory
data
needs
are
addressed;
(
ii)
the
risk
mitigation
measures
outlined
in
this
document
are
adopted,
and
(
iii)
label
amendments
are
made
to
reflect
these
measures.
Label
changes
are
described
in
Section
V.
Appendix
A
summarizes
the
uses
of
propargite
that
are
eligible
for
reregistration.
Appendix
B
identifies
the
generic
data
requirements
that
the
Agency
reviewed
as
part
of
its
determination
of
reregistration
eligibility
of
propargite,
and
lists
the
submitted
studies
that
the
Agency
found
acceptable.
Data
gaps
are
identified
as
generic
data
requirements
that
have
not
been
satisfied
with
acceptable
data.

Based
on
its
evaluation
of
propargite,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
propargite
products,
unless
labeled
and
used
as
specified
in
this
document,
would
present
risks
inconsistent
with
FIFRA.
Accordingly,
should
a
registrant
fail
to
implement
any
of
the
risk
mitigation
measures
identified
in
this
document,
the
Agency
may
take
regulatory
action
to
address
the
risk
concerns
from
use
of
propargite.
If
all
changes
outlined
in
this
document
are
incorporated
into
the
product
labels,
then
all
current
risks
for
propargite
will
be
adequately
mitigated
for
the
purposes
of
this
determination.

B.
Summary
of
Public
Comments
and
Responses
When
making
its
initial
reregistration
decision
in
2001,
the
Agency
took
into
account
all
comments
received
after
opening
of
the
public
docket.
These
comments
in
their
entirety
are
available
in
the
docket.
A
summary
of
the
comments
and
the
Agency
response
is
noted
below.

Comment:
During
the
public
comment
period
provided
for
the
preliminary
risk
assessment,
EPA
received
comments
from
the
Almond
Hullers
and
Processors
Association
and
the
National
Agricultural
Aviation
Association
(
NAAA).
The
Almond
Hullers
and
Processors
Association
questioned
the
appropriateness
of
the
transfer
coefficients
that
EPA
used
to
determine
postapplication
risks.
The
Almond
Hullers
also
expressed
concern
that
the
31­
day
REI
that
was
proposed
53
in
the
preliminary
risk
assessment
was
too
long.
The
Almond
Hullers
also
asked
for
guidance
on
what
activities
would
be
restricted
by
the
REI.

Response:
EPA
has
revised
the
post­
application
risk
assessment
using
new
transfer
coefficients
derived
from
the
Agricultural
Reentry
Task
Force
(
ARTF).
These
new
transfer
coefficients
can
be
found
in
the
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure,
Policy
number
3.1
dated
August
7,
2000.
The
propargite
RED
uses
the
standard
values
found
in
this
new
policy
unless
a
chemical/
crop
specific
study
is
available,
as
was
the
case
for
tree
shakers
for
nut
crops
(
MRID
418486­
04).
As
a
result
of
using
the
new
transfer
coefficients,
the
REI
for
almonds
(
at
maximum
use
rate
of
3lbs
ai/
A)
is
now
22
days.
Many
of
the
other
activities
of
concern
to
almond
growers
can
be
accommodated
with
existing
exemptions
under
the
Worker
Protection
Standard.
Scouting
is
a
handler
activity
under
the
WPS,
so
anyone
performing
this
activity
may
legally
enter
the
treated
field
during
the
REI
provided
they
use
the
handler
personal
protective
equipment
(
PPE)
specified
on
the
label.
In
addition,
if
the
scout
is
a
certified
crop
advisor
as
defined
in
the
WPS
(
40CFR170.112(
e)),
the
individual
can
determine
the
appropriate
PPE
to
be
used.
For
many
of
these
crops,
irrigation
equipment
is
not
routinely
moved
by
hand.
For
these
methods,
the
primary
activity
involves
entering
the
field
to
turn
the
watering
equipment
on
and
off.
This
activity
is
allowed
during
the
REI
under
the
no
contact
exception
to
WPS
(
40CFR170.112(
b)).
Should
irrigation
equipment
need
unexpected
repairs
during
the
REI,
WPS
allows
workers
to
enter
a
treated
field
provided
early
entry
PPE
is
used
(
40CFR170.112(
c)).
This
exception
also
applies
to
mechanical
harvesting,
tree
shaking
or
winrowing
for
nut
crops
in
enclosed
cabs,
and
often
applies
to
mowing.

Comment:
The
NAAA
was
concerned
that
EPA's
occupational
risk
assessment
for
propargite
is
based
on
out­
of­
date
data
that
are
not
reflective
of
current
practices.
Their
comments
specifically
mentioned
that
technological
advances
such
as
use
of
Global
Positioning
Satellite
(
GPS)
and
automatic
flagging
systems
have
replaced
human
flagging;
and
mixers/
loaders
for
aerial
applicators
routinely
use
personal
protective
equipment
and
engineering
controls,
such
as
closed
mixing
loading
systems,
body
suits,
respirators
and
other
equipment.

Response:
The
risk
mitigation
measures
outlined
in
this
RED
are
consistent
with
the
standard
practices
that
are
currently
followed
in
the
industry,
as
described
by
the
NAAA
comments
on
propargite.
Based
on
the
risk
assessment,
there
will
be
no
new
requirements
for
human
flaggers;
closed
mixing/
loading
systems
will
be
required
for
aerial
applications
of
propargite
for
corn
and
cotton;
and
enclosed
cockpits
will
be
required.
With
these
risk
mitigation
measures
in
place,
EPA
believes
that
risks
will
not
be
unreasonable.

Other
Comments:
Subsequent
to
the
comment
period
for
the
propargite
preliminary
risk
assessment,
EPA
also
received
a
series
of
letters
and
e­
mails
attesting
to
the
benefits
of
propargite.
Comments
were
received
from:
the
Allied
Grape
Growers;
California
Association
of
Wine
Grape
Growers;
California
Grape
and
Tree
Fruit
League;
Allied
Grape
Growers;
Washington
Association
of
Wine
Grape
Growers;
Sun­
Maid
Growers
of
California
on
the
benefits
of
propargite
use
for
raisin
production;
University
of
California
Cooperative
Extension
regarding
alfalfa
seed
production;
the
Northwest
Alfalfa
Seed
Growers
Association;
the
Oregon
Alfalfa
Seed
Commission;
University
of
54
California,
Davis
in
support
of
propargite
use
on
almonds,
cotton,
corn
and
dry
beans;
Washington
Mint
Commission;
the
California
Cotton
Growers
Association;
the
Texas
Corn
Producers
Board
and
the
Texas
Agricultural
Extension
Service
on
the
benefits
of
propargite
on
corn
grown
in
Texas;
U.
S.
Hop
Industry
Plant
Protection
Committee;
Oregon
Hop
Commission;
Western
Growers
Association
regarding
the
benefits
of
the
use
of
propargite
on
fresh
fruits,
nuts
and
vegetables;
Washington
State
Potato
Commission
regarding
the
benefits
of
propargite
for
use
on
potatoes
and
the
need
to
lower
the
PHI
from
the
current
7­
days
to
5­
days.

C.
Regulatory
Position
1.
FQPA
Assessment
a.
"
Risk
Cup"
Determination
As
part
of
the
FQPA
tolerance
reassessment
process,
EPA
assessed
the
risks
associated
with
this
pesticide.
EPA
has
determined
that
risk
from
dietary
(
food
sources
only)
exposure
to
propargite
is
within
its
own
"
risk
cup."
In
other
words,
EPA
has
concluded
that
the
tolerances
for
propargite
meet
the
FQPA
safety
standards.
In
reaching
this
determination
EPA
has
considered
the
available
information
on
the
special
sensitivity
of
infants
and
children,
as
well
as
the
acute
and
chronic
food
exposure.
An
aggregate
assessment
was
conducted
for
exposures
through
food
and
drinking
water
exposure
only
since
there
are
no
residential
uses
of
propargite.
Results
of
this
aggregate
assessment
indicate
that
the
human
health
risks
from
these
combined
exposures
are
within
acceptable
levels;
that
is,
that
is,
when
aggregated,
propargite
exposures
fit
within
the
risk
cup.

Therefore,
there
are
no
changes
in
propargite
tolerances
due
to
risk
concerns
and
most
tolerances
will
remain
in
effect
(
except
the
dried
citrus
pulp,
poultry
meat
and
meat
by­
products
tolerances
are
no
longer
needed
for
other
reasons
discussed
below).
The
Agency
will
establish
tolerances
for
aspirated
grain
fractions;
cotton
gin
byproducrts,
and
citrus
oil.

b.
Determination
of
Safety
for
U.
S.
Population
EPA
has
determined
that
the
established
tolerances
for
propargite,
with
amendments
and
changes
as
specified
in
this
document,
meet
the
safety
standards
under
the
FQPA
amendments
to
section
408(
b)(
2)(
D)
of
the
FFDCA,
that
there
is
a
reasonable
certainty
of
no
harm
for
the
general
population.
In
reaching
this
determination,
EPA
has
considered
all
available
information
on
the
toxicity,
use
practices,
and
scenarios,
and
the
environmental
behavior
of
propargite.
As
discussed
in
chapter
3,
the
acute
and
chronic
dietary
(
food
alone)
risk
is
below
the
level
of
concern,
as
is
the
cancer
dietary
risk
from
food
alone.
Regarding
risks
from
drinking
water
exposures,
acute
and
chronic
risks
from
drinking
water
are
not
of
concern
for
surface
or
groundwater
supplies,
and
although
the
projected
surface
water
concentrations
exceed
the
Agency's
cancer
concern
level,
the
Agency
believes
that
those
projections
are
conservative
and
over­
estimate
the
human
exposure
to
propargite
that
will
result
from
drinking
water
sources
from
surface
water
(
See
Regulatory
Rationale
55
under
Drinking
Water
in
section
IV.
D.
1.
a.
iv.).

c.
Determination
of
Safety
for
Infants
and
Children
EPA
has
determined
that
the
established
tolerances
for
propargite,
with
amendments
and
changes
as
specified
in
this
document,
meet
the
safety
standards
under
the
FQPA
amendments
to
section
408(
b)(
2)(
C)
of
the
FFDCA,
that
there
is
a
reasonable
certainty
of
no
harm
for
infants
and
children.
The
safety
determination
for
infants
and
children
considers
the
factors
noted
above
for
the
general
population,
but
also
takes
into
account
the
possibility
of
increased
dietary
exposure
due
to
the
specific
consumption
patterns
of
infants
and
children,
as
well
as
the
possibility
of
increased
susceptibility
to
the
toxic
effects
of
propargite
residues
in
this
population
subgroup.

In
determining
whether
or
not
infants
and
children
are
particularly
susceptible
to
toxic
effects
from
propargite
residues,
EPA
considered
the
completeness
of
the
database
for
developmental
and
reproductive
effects,
the
nature
of
the
effects
observed,
and
other
information.
An
FQPA
safety
factor
is
not
required
for
propargite
because
(
1)
the
toxicology
database
is
complete
for
the
FQPA
assessment,
and
provides
no
indication
of
increases
susceptibility
of
young
rats
or
rabbits
to
propargite;
(
2)
the
Agency
determined
that
a
developmental
neurotoxicity
study
is
not
required;
(
3)
the
exposure
estimates
do
not
underestimate
the
potential
dietary
(
food
and
drinking
water)
exposures
for
infants
and
children
from
the
use
of
propargite;
and
(
4)
there
are
no
residential
uses
of
propargite.

d.
Endocrine
Disruptor
Effects
EPA
is
required
under
the
FFDCA,
as
amended
by
FQPA,
to
develop
a
screening
program
to
determine
whether
certain
substances
(
including
all
pesticide
active
and
other
ingredients)
"
may
have
an
effect
in
humans
that
is
similar
to
an
effect
produced
by
a
naturally
occurring
estrogen,
or
other
endocrine
effects
as
the
Administrator
may
designate."
Following
recommendations
of
its
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
and
Testing
Advisory
Committee
(
EDSTAC),
EPA
determined
that
there
was
scientific
basis
for
including,
as
part
of
the
program,
the
androgen
and
thyroid
hormone
systems,
in
addition
to
the
estrogen
hormone
system.
EPA
also
adopted
EDSTAC's
recommendation
that
EPA
include
evaluations
of
potential
effects
in
wildlife.
For
pesticides,
EPA
will
use
FIFRA
and,
to
the
extent
that
effects
in
wildlife
may
help
determine
whether
a
substance
may
have
an
effects
in
humans,
FFDCA
authority
to
require
the
wildlife
evaluations.
As
the
science
develops
and
resources
allows,
screening
of
additional
hormone
systems
may
be
added
to
the
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
Program
(
EDSP).

When
the
appropriate
screening
and/
or
testing
protocols
being
considered
under
the
EDSP
have
been
developed,
propargite
may
be
subject
to
additional
screening
and/
or
testing
to
better
characterize
effects
related
to
endocrine
disruption.

e.
Cumulative
Risks
56
The
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA)
requires
that,
when
considering
whether
to
establish,
modify,
or
revoke
a
tolerance,
the
Agency
consider
"
available
information"
concerning
the
cumulative
effects
of
a
particular
pesticide's
residues
and
"
other
substances
that
have
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity."
Propargite
is
the
only
organosulfur
pesticide
with
registered
food
uses
and
therefore
the
only
organosulfur
chemical
that
is
subject
to
tolerance
assessment
under
the
FQPA.
Although
chemical
class
is
not
necessarily
synonymous
with
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity,
structurally
similar
chemical
substances
do
frequently
exhibit
common
modes
of
toxicity
and
are
being
considered
together
by
EPA
for
purposes
of
cumulative
risk
assessment.
The
Agency
does
not
believe
that
propargite
shares
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
other
chemicals,
however.
Therefore,
propargite
is
not
subject
to
any
cumulative
risk
assessment
as
required
by
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA).

f.
Tolerances
Summary
A
summary
of
the
propargite
tolerance
reassessments
is
presented
in
Table
10.
In
the
assessment,
tolerances
for
residues
of
propargite
in/
on
plant
commodities
[
40
CFR
§
180.259]
are
presently
expressed
in
terms
of
the
parent
only.
Adequate
field
trials
are
available
pending
submission
of
required
storage
stability
data,
sample
storage
information,
or
required
label
amendments.

i.
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.259(
a)

°
Citrus
pulp,
dried:
The
citrus
processing
study
did
not
detect
residue
concentration
in
dried
pulp,
indicating
that
the
current
40
ppm
tolerance
is
not
necessary
and
should
be
revoked.
°
Cottonseed:
Although
one
sample
of
cottonseed
showed
a
residue
of
0.11
ppm,
based
on
the
residue
data
for
other
samples
after
treatment
at
higher
rates,
the
Agency
considers
the
existing
0.1
ppm
tolerance
adequate
to
cover
the
current
label
use.
This
0.1
ppm
tolerance
is
also
in
harmony
with
the
Codex
level.
°
Oranges:
Data
on
oranges
indicate
that
residues
up
to
8.3
ppm
may
occur
from
registered
use
and
that
the
5
ppm
tolerance
is
inadequate.
This
tolerance
should
be
increased
to
10
ppm.
°
Poultry
meat
and
meat
byproducts:
These
tolerances
are
not
necessary
and
can
be
revoked;
propargite
was
absent
from
muscle
and
liver
in
the
metabolism
study
and
<
LOQ
in
a
10x
feeding
study.
°
Sorghum
grain:
The
residue
data
show
maximum
propargite
residues
were
as
high
as
3.8
ppm,
supporting
a
reduction
in
the
current
10
ppm
tolerance
to
a
new
tolerance
of
5
ppm.
°
All
other
tolerances
for
propargite
in
40
CFR
§
180.259(
a):
For
all
other
crops
the
residue
data
support
the
established
tolerances.

Previous
rulemaking
revoked
the
following
tolerances
effective
October
19,
1999;
propargite
residues
in/
on
apples,
apricots,
succulent
beans,
cranberries,
figs,
peaches,
pears,
plums,
and
strawberries
[
established
under
§
180.259(
a)]
and
dried
figs
(
§
186.5000)
[
64
FR
39068;
July
21,
57
1999].
Uses
of
propargite
on
these
crops
have
been
canceled
for
over
3
years.
Previous
rulemaking
also
revoked
the
tolerances
for
dried
apple
pomace,
dried
grape
pomace,
and
peanut
hulls
because
these
are
no
longer
considered
significant
feed
items
[
62
FR
66020;
November
14,
1997].

Adequate
processing
studies
have
been
submitted
for
potatoes,
citrus,
field
corn,
grapes
and
peanuts.
Storage
stability
data
are
required
to
support
the
corn
and
peanut
processing
studies.

ii.
Tolerances
to
be
Proposed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.259(
a)

°
Aspirated
Grain
Fractions
of
Field
Corn:
The
available
data
indicate
that
residues
of
propargite
concentrated
in
the
aspirated
grain
fractions
of
field
corn
but
do
not
concentrate
in
the
aspirated
grain
fractions
of
sorghum.
A
tolerance
for
aspirated
grain
fractions
must
be
proposed
at
0.4
ppm.
°
Cotton
Gin
Byproducts:
A
tolerance
for
residues
in/
on
cotton
gin
byproducts
is
required.
Additional
field
trials
are
needed
on
cotton
to
determine
a
tolerance
for
propargite
residues
in/
on
cotton
gin
byproducts.
°
Orange
oil:
Propargite
residues
concentrated
7x
in
orange
oil.
Based
upon
this
observed
concentration
and
Highest
Average
Field
Trial
(
HAFT)
residues
of
4
ppm
in
oranges,
a
tolerance
of
30
ppm
would
be
appropriate
for
residues
in
citrus
oil.

Although
residues
concentrated
in
raisins
by
1.7x,
this
factor
applied
to
the
HAFT
of
4.7
ppm
yields
a
concentration
in
raisins
of
8
ppm,
which
is
lower
than
the
10
ppm
tolerance
for
residues
in/
on
grapes.
Therefore,
a
tolerance
for
raisins
is
not
required.

iii.
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.259(
b)

The
established
tolerance,
with
regional
registration,
for
propargite
residues
in/
on
corn,
fresh
(
including
sweet
K+
CWHR)
is
adequate.

Table
10.
Tolerance
Reassessment
Summary
for
Propargite.

Commodity
Established
Tolerance,
ppm
Reassessed
Tolerance,
ppm
Comments
[
Correct
Commodity
Definition]

Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.259(
a)

Almond
0.1
0.10
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Almond,
hulls
55
55
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Apple
3
Already
Revoked
revoked
64
FR
39068;
July
21,
1999.
No
longer
registered.

Apricot
7
Already
Revoked
revoked
64
FR
39068;
July
21,
1999.
No
longer
registered.

Bean,
dry
0.2
0.20
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Bean,
succulent
20
Already
Revoked
revoked
64
FR
39068;
July
21,
1999.
No
longer
registered.
Commodity
Established
Tolerance,
ppm
Reassessed
Tolerance,
ppm
Comments
[
Correct
Commodity
Definition]

58
Cattle,
fat
0.1
0.10
Supported
by
data.

Cattle,
meat
0.1
0.10
Supported
by
data.

Citrus
pulp,
dried
40
Revoke
Residues
do
not
concentrate.
Will
be
covered
by
RAC.

Corn,
fodder
10
10
corn,
field,
stover.
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Corn,
forage
10
10
corn,
field,
forage.
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Corn,
grain
0.1
0.10
corn,
field,
grain.
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Cottonseed
0.1
0.10
[
cotton
seed,
undelinted].
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Cranberry
10
Already
Revoked
revoked
64
FR
39068;
July
21,
1999.
No
longer
registered.

Eggs
0.1
0.10
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Figs
3
Already
Revoked
revoked
64
FR
39068;
July
21,
1999.
No
longer
registered.

Figs,
dried
9
Already
Revoked
revoked
64
FR
39068;
July
21,
1999.
No
longer
registered.

Goats,
fat
0.1
0.10
Supported
by
data.

Goat,
meat
0.1
0.10
Supported
by
data.

Grapefruit
5
5.0
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Grape
10
10
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Hog,
fat
0.1
0.10
Supported
by
data.

Hog,
meat
0.1
0.10
Supported
by
data.

Hops
15
Revoke
The
RAC
for
hops
is
dried
hops.

Hops,
dried
30
30
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Horse,
fat
0.1
0.10
Supported
by
data.

Horse,
meat
0.1
0.10
Supported
by
data.

Lemon
5
5.0
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Milk,
fat
2
2.0
Supported
by
data.

Milk
0.08
0.08
Supported
by
data.

Mint
50
50
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Nectarine
4
4.0
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Orange
5
10
The
available
data
indicate
that
a
tolerance
increase
is
required,
given
the
current
use
pattern.

Peach
7
Already
Revoked
revoked
64
FR
39068;
July
21,
1999.
No
longer
registered.

Peanut
0.1
0.10
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.
Commodity
Established
Tolerance,
ppm
Reassessed
Tolerance,
ppm
Comments
[
Correct
Commodity
Definition]

59
Peanut,
forage
10
Revoke
Peanut
forage
is
not
recognized
as
a
significant
livestock
feed
item.

Peanut,
hay
10
Revoke
Labels
prohibit
the
feeding
of
hay.

Peanuts,
hulls
10
Already
Revoked
revoked
62
FR
66020;
November
14,
1997.
No
longer
considered
a
significant
feed
item.
NOTE:
This
tolerance
still
appears
in
CFR
even
though
it
was
revoked.

Pear
3
Already
Revoked
revoked
64
FR
39068;
July
21,
1999.
No
longer
registered.

Plum
(
fresh
prune)
7
Already
Revoked
revoked
64
FR
39068;
July
21,
1999.
No
longer
registered.

Poultry,
fat
0.1
0.10
Supported
by
data.

Poultry,
meat
0.1
Revoke
propargite
was
absent
from
muscle
and
liver
in
the
metabolism
study
and
<
LOQ
in
a
10x
feeding
study.
Therefore,
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
and
tolerance
is
not
needed.

Potato
0.1
0.10
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Sheep,
fat
0.1
0.10
Supported
by
data.

Sheep,
meat
0.1
0.10
Supported
by
data.

Sorghum,
fodder
10
10
sorghum,
grain,
stover.
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Sorghum,
forage
10
10
sorghum,
grain,
forage.
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Sorghum,
grain
10
5.0
The
available
data
support
lowering
the
tolerance.
Sorghum,
grain.

Strawberry
7
Already
Revoked
revoked
64
FR
39068;
July
21,
1999.
No
longer
registered.

Tea,
dried
10
10
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Walnut
0.1
0.10
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.259(
b)

Corn,
fresh
(
including
sweet
K+
CWHR)
0.1
0.10
Field
trial
data
support
current
tolerance.

Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
186.5000
Apple
pomace,
dried
80
Already
Revoked
revoked
62
FR
66020;
November
14,
1997.
No
longer
considered
a
significant
feed
item.

Grape
pomace,
dried
40
Already
Revoked
revoked
62
FR
66020;
November
14,
1997.
No
longer
considered
a
significant
feed
item.
Commodity
Established
Tolerance,
ppm
Reassessed
Tolerance,
ppm
Comments
[
Correct
Commodity
Definition]

60
Tolerances
Needed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.259(
a)

Citrus
oil
­­
30
Cotton
gin
byproducts
­­
TBD
*

Aspirated
grain
fractions
­­
0.4
*
TBD
=
To
be
determined.
This
term
means
the
tolerance
to
be
set
will
be
safe.
However,
additional
confirmatory
data
are
needed
to
be
able
to
set
the
tolerance
level.

iv.
Codex
Harmonization
The
U.
S.
tolerances
for
propargite
residues
and
Codex
MRLs
are
identical
with
respect
to
the
residue
regulated;
both
are
defined
as
the
parent
compound.
Codex
MRLs
and
U.
S.
Tolerances
are
inharmony
for
the
following
commodities:
almonds,
bean
(
dry),
cotton
seed,
eggs,
grape,
hops
(
dry),
corn,
corn
fodder,
corn
forage,
meat,
peanut
forage
(
green),
potato,
poultry
meat,
sorghum,
sorghum
forage
(
green),
sorghum
straw
and
fodder
(
dry),
tea
green
and
black,
and
walnut.
Harmonization
with
the
Codex
tolerance
limit
in/
on
citrus
fruits,
nectarines,
and
milk
is
not
possible
at
this
time
because
data
indicate
the
need
for
different
tolerances.
The
U.
S.
tolerance
for
citrus
fruits
is
being
proposed
as
10
ppm
(
raise
from
5
ppm),
while
the
Codex
MRL
is
5
ppm.
The
U.
S.
tolerance
for
nectarines
is
4
ppm,
while
the
Codex
MRL
is
7
ppm.
And
finally,
the
U.
S.
tolerance
for
milk
is
0.08
ppm,
while
the
Codex
MRL
is
0.1
ppm..

Residue
Analytical
Methods
Analytical
methods
available
for
enforcing
propargite
tolerances
include
Methods
II,
V,
and
VI
for
plant
commodities
and
Methods
III
and
IV
for
animal
commodities
in
PAM,
Volume
II
(
Sec.
180.259).
The
preferred
enforcement
analytical
method
for
plant
commodities
is
Method
V.
All
are
gas
liquid
chromatography
(
GLC)
methods
with
either
sulfur­
specific
microcoulometric
detection
(
Method
II),
microcoulometric
detection
(
Method
III),
or
flame
photometric
detection
(
Methods
IV,
V,
and
VI).
Limits
of
quantitation
are
0.08
(
milk)
and
0.1
ppm
(
plant
and
animal
commodities).

GC/
FPD
methods
used
for
collecting
data
on
propargite
per
se
in
plant
and
animal
matrices
are
adequate
and
have
been
successfully
radiovalidated
using
samples
from
metabolism
studies.
However,
the
extraction
solvents
used
in
these
methods
are
not
the
same
as
those
employed
in
the
PAM
II
methods.
Radiovalidations
should
be
conducted
using
the
extraction
solvents
in
the
preferred
PAM
II
plant
and
animal
enforcement
methods,
or
other
methods
should
be
proposed
as
enforcement
methods.
For
other
methods
to
be
enforcement
methods,
independent
laboratory
method
validations
and
EPA
method
validations
would
be
needed.

The
GC/
FPD
data
collection
methods
that
are
based
on
the
PAM
II
methods
are
sensitive
to
0.05
ppm.
If
these
methods
were
tested
and
approved
for
enforcement
purposes,
numerous
tolerances
currently
set
at
the
0.1
ppm
LOQ
for
the
PAM
methods
could
be
lowered
to
0.05
ppm.
61
This
should
be
considered
only
after
detailed
scientific
review
by
the
Agency
of
the
residue
data..

Methods
have
been
submitted
for
enforcement
of
tolerances
for
residues
in
dried
tea
leaves.
The
Agency
has
determined
that
the
method
must
be
modified
to
include
Soxhlet
extraction.

D.
Regulatory
Rationale
The
following
is
a
summary
of
the
rationale
for
managing
risks
associated
with
the
current
use
of
propargite.
Where
labeling
revisions
are
warranted,
specific
language
is
set
forth
in
the
summary
tables
of
Section
V
of
this
document.

1.
Human
Health
Risk
Management
a.
Dietary
(
Food)
Risk
Mitigation
A
refined
Tier
3
dietary
risk
assessment
using
the
Dietary
Exposure
Evaluation
Model
(
DEEMTM)
was
completed
for
acute,
chronic
(
non­
cancer),
and
chronic
(
cancer)
food
exposure.
The
DEEMTM
analysis
evaluated
the
individual
food
consumption
as
reported
by
respondents
in
the
USDA
1989­
91
Continuing
Surveys
for
Food
Intake
by
Individuals
(
CSFII)
and
accumulated
exposure
to
the
chemical
for
each
commodity.
For
all
analyses,
anticipated
residues
and
percent
of
crop
treated
data
were
used.

i.
Acute
Dietary
(
Food)

Based
on
estimates
for
acute
exposure
to
propargite,
the
percentage
of
the
acute
Population
Adjusted
Doses
utilized
is
2
percent
for
females
13
­
50,
the
only
sub­
population
for
which
an
acute
endpoint
was
identified.
Therefore,
the
acute
dietary
(
food)
risk
estimate
for
propargite
is
not
of
concern,
and
no
mitigation
measures
are
needed.
62
ii.
Chronic
Dietary
(
Food)

The
chronic
dietary
analysis
utilized
USDA
Pesticide
Data
Program
(
PDP)
monitoring
data,
field
trial
data,
calculated
livestock
anticipated
residues,
and
percent
crop
treated
information.
Based
on
that
analysis,
the
percentage
of
cPAD
utilized
is
expected
to
be
less
than
1
percent
for
the
U.
S.
population
and
all
subpopulations.
Therefore,
the
chronic
dietary
(
food)
risk
estimate
is
also
not
of
concern,
and
no
mitigation
measures
are
needed.

iii.
Chronic
Cancer
Dietary
(
Food)

A
cancer
dietary
exposure
and
risk
analysis
was
performed
based
upon
revised
cancer
Q
1
*
of
0.033
(
mg/
kg/
day)
­
1
derived
from
a
2­
year
cancer
bioassay
on
rats
and
upon
Agency
analyses
anticipated
residues
of
propargite
in
food.
Based
on
that
analysis,
which
yielded
a
cancer
risk
of
1.8
x
10­
7,
the
Agency
has
concluded
that
the
cancer
dietary
risk
from
food
alone
is
not
of
concern,
and
that
no
mitigation
measures
are
needed
to
address
the
cancer
food
risk.

iv.
Drinking
Water
The
Agency
has
determined
that
there
are
no
acute
or
chronic
(
non­
cancer)
drinking
water
concerns
(
see
Section
III.
A.
3).
However,
the
Agency
risk
assessment
shows
potential
dietary
cancer
risks
of
concern
for
drinking
water
derived
from
surface
waters.
This
assessment
was
based
on
modeling
simulations
and
United
States
Geological
Survey
("
USGS")
monitoring
data.
The
modeling
simulations
predict
that
propargite
residues
in
surface
waters
have
a
20­
year
mean
concentration
of
4.8
ppb,
and
can
be
as
high
as
34
ppb.
The
annual
mean
concentrations
detected
at
the
USGS
monitoring
sites
ranged
from
0.3ppb
to
1.24
ppb.
The
cancer
DWLOC
is
0.71.

As
described
previously,
EPA
believes
that,
in
the
case
of
propargite,
the
modeling
simulations
and
monitoring
data
over­
estimate
the
actual
exposures
through
drinking
water.
In
the
modeling
simulations,
for
example,
the
model
input
variables
assumed
maximum
use
rates
and
frequencies
for
the
highest
use
crop.
Data
obtained
from
the
State
of
California,
where
about
75
percent
of
all
domestic
propargite
is
used,
indicate,
however,
that
typical
use
rates
are
significantly
below
maximum
use
rates.
In
fact,
the
California
data
indicate
that
the
maximum
use
rate
is
utilized
in
fewer
than
5
percent
of
all
applications.
This
figure
is
consistent
with
information
provided
to
EPA
from
several
grower
groups
indicating
that
propargite,
because
of
its
efficacy
against
adult
mites,
is
frequently
used
as
a
spot­
treatment
on
an
as­
needed
basis.
Similarly,
in
the
case
of
propargite,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
model
simulations
are
conservative
because
they
do
not
account
for
the
effect
of
water
treatment
processes.
Conventional
water
treatment
(
coagulation­
flocculationsedimentation
will
be
effective
in
removing
propargite
because
test
data
verifies
that
propargite
has
a
high
affinity
to
bind
with
soil
particles.

Regarding
the
USGS
monitoring
data,
which
measured
annual
mean
concentrations
of
propargite
in
the
San
Joaquin,
California
watershed
at
0.3
ppb
and
1.24
ppb
in
1992
and
1993,
respectively,
it
is
critical
to
note
that
these
data
were
developed
to
assess
ambient
surface
water
levels
of
pesticides
rather
than
drinking
water
exposures.
As
such,
the
data
does
not
account
for
such
factors
as
distance
between
sampling
locations
and
public
drinking
water
uptakes,
or
pesticide
63
removal
by
water
treatment
processes.
In
the
case
of
Oristimba
Creek,
the
propargite
concentrations
in
that
location
measured
20
ppb
on
one
occasion
during
the
2­
year
study.
However,
the
monitoring
station
on
that
creek
is
located
23
to
30
miles
upstream
of
the
two
nearest
drinking
water
intakes,
and
the
water
from
that
creek
empties
into
the
much
larger
San
Joaquin
river
shortly
after
the
monitoring
site.
If
the
values
from
that
one
creek
are
omitted
from
the
data
set,
the
time
weighted
average
would
be
.02
ppb,
a
value
below
the
cancer
DWLOC.

Because
propargite
has
a
strong
affinity
to
bind
to
soil,
it
is
likely
that
a
significant
portion
of
the
residues
in
surface
water
are
the
result
of
direct
spray
drift
rather
than
run­
off
from
soil.
Therefore,
reducing
spray
drift
is
likely
to
produce
a
significant
risk
reduction
in
propargite
resides
in
surface
water.
The
registrant
has
agreed
to
add
buffer
zones
(
no
application
of
propargite
by
ground
within
50
feet
or
by
air
within
75
feet
of
aquatic
areas)
and
spray
drift
requirements
to
the
label
to
minimize
propargite
runoff
into
surface
waters.

The
registrant
has
also
agreed
to
decrease
the
maximum
seasonal
application
and
frequencies
for
several
crops
(
beans
(
dry),
citrus,
corn,
cotton,
mint,
walnuts),
and
increase
spray
intervals
for
several
crops
from
7
to
21
days
(
28
days
for
citrus).
See
Table
11
for
new
seasonal
maximum
rates,
and
see
Table
12
for
new
spray
intervals.
These
measures
will
reduce
environmental
loading
of
propargite.
The
registrant
has
further
agreed
to
conduct
a
confirmatory
monitoring
study
to
ensure
that
actual
drinking
water
exposures
are
below
the
Agency's
level
of
concern.
That
study
will
institute
a
3­
year
sampling
regimen
designed
to
measure
concentrations
of
propargite
residues
in
surface
drinking
water
supplies
under
highly
vulnerable
conditions.

Table
11.
Reductions
in
Annual
Application
Rates
Crop
Existing
annual
maximum
application
rate
(
lbs.
a.
i./
Acre)
Proposed
annual
maximum
application
rate
(
lbs.
a.
i./
Acre)

Beans
(
6
lbs/
gal
EC)
5.1
4.5
Beans
(
6.55
lb/
gal
EC)
4.9
3.7
Citrus
4.9
4.1
Cotton
4.9
3.3
Field
Corn/
Popcorn
30
15
Jojoba
3.3
1.6
Mint
5.0
4.5
Oranges/
Grapefruit/
Lemons
6.7
5.8
Walnuts
(
6
lb/
ga
EC)
9
6.8
Walnuts
(
32%
WP
(
WSP))
8
6.4
64
Table
12.
New
Spray
Intervals
Required
for
Propargite
Crop
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
Days)
Total
#
of
Applications
per
year
almonds;
beans
(
dry);
cherries;
cotton;
grapes;
hops;
nectarines;
potatoes1;
walnuts;
non­
bearing
crops
21
2
jojoba
21
1
citrus
(
orange,
grapefruit,
lemons)
28
2
mint
14
2
Ornamentals,
Christmas
Trees
and
Conifers
28
(
west
of
Rocky
Mts)
7
(
east
of
Rocky
Mts).
3
Roses,
other
onamentals
14
3
peanuts
14
2
1­
New
spray
interval
for
potatoes
in
Washington
state
is
14
days
v.
Aggregate
Risk
Mitigation
(
acute
and
chronic)

Because
there
are
no
residential
uses
of
propargite,
the
aggregate
risks
are
limited
to
dietary
(
food
and
water)
exposure.
The
risks
from
those
combined
exposures
are
discussed
above
in
the
preceding
section.
65
b.
Occupational
Risk
Mitigation
As
discussed
in
Chapter
III,
EPA
combines
chemical­
specific
studies
with
similar
surrogate
data
from
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
("
PHED")
to
assess
handler
exposures
for
regulatory
actions.
In
addition,
the
exposure
estimates
from
PHED
are
used
to
assess
exposure
where
no
chemical
specific
data
are
available.
The
handler
exposure
assessments
encompass
all
of
the
major
uses
of
propargite
throughout
the
country.
Because
it
is
difficult
to
assess
"
typical"
agricultural
uses,
an
assessment
has
been
developed
that
is
believed
to
be
realistic
and
yet
provides
a
reasonable
certainty
that
the
exposures
are
not
underestimated.
For
example,
for
handlers,
the
assessment
assumes
that
handlers
are
exposed
to
the
maximum
concentrations
of
propargite,
for
the
highest
estimated
acreage,
for
8
hours
per
day
for
14
days
per
year.
Similarly,
for
post­
application
workers,
exposure
values
are
calculated
assuming
that
fields
are
100%
treated
at
maximum
allowable
rates,
and
that
workers
work
exclusively
in
those
treated
field
for
8
hours/
day,
for
30
days/
year.
The
cancer
post­
application
assessment
assumes
that
same
exposure
over
a
35­
year
period.
Also,
no
allowance
is
made
for
environmental
degradation
of
propargite,
further
ensuring
that
risks
are
not
likely
to
be
under­
estimated.

i.
Handler
Exposure
Handler
exposure
assessments
are
completed
by
EPA
using
a
baseline
exposure
scenario
and,
if
required,
increasing
levels
of
mitigation
(
PPE
and
engineering
controls)
to
achieve
a
margin
of
exposure
(
MOE)
of
100
or
greater
for
dermal
exposure
and
1,000
or
greater
for
inhalation
exposure.
For
non­
dietary
cancer
risks,
the
Agency
seeks
to
reduce
individual
risks
to
the
greatest
extent
feasible;
risks
greater
than
1
x
10­
6
are
of
concern.
The
Agency
typically
will
not
accept
risks
greater
than
1
x
10­
4.
For
risks
between
10­
6
and
10­
4,
EPA
carefully
evaluates
exposure
scenarios
to
seek
ways
to
reduce
the
cancer
risks
to
the
greatest
extent
feasible,
preferably
a
risk
less
than
1
x
10­
6.

To
mitigate
risks
to
mixers,
loaders,
and
applicators
from
propargite,
the
following
measures
have
been
agreed
to
by
the
Registrant:

°
To
address
the
risk
from
mixing
and
loading
liquids
for
aerial
application
of
propargite
to
corn
and
cotton
(
scenario
1a
in
table
8),
a
closed
mixing
loading
system
will
be
necessary.
°
To
protect
applicators
in
fixed­
wing
aircraft
(
scenario
3),
enclosed
cockpits
will
be
required.
°
To
address
the
risk
from
mixing
and
loading
wettable
powders
(
scenario
2)
water
soluble
packaging
is
necessary.
°
To
address
the
risk
from
airblast
spray
applications
(
scenario
5)
enclosed
cabs
(
that
provide
dermal
protection)
will
be
required.
66
°
To
protect
against
risks
for
all
other
scenarios,
personal
protective
equipment
(
socks,
shoes,
long­
sleeved
shirts,
long
pants,
and
gloves
are
necessary
for
all
scenarios
[
except
gloves
are
not
necessary
for
flagging
during
aerial
application
(
scenario
7).

In
addition,
as
a
Toxicity
Category
1
pesticide
that
is
corrosive
to
both
the
eye
and
skin
(
MRID
##
42857004
and
42857005),
propargite
end­
use
products
meet
the
restricted
use
criteria
under
40
CFR
152.170(
2)(
v)
and
(
vi).
As
such,
EPA
will
reclassify
propargite
as
a
restricted
use
pesticide
(
RUP).

For
most
worker
exposure
scenarios,
these
protections
provide
estimated
dermal/
inhalation
MOEs
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
100/
1000
MOE
target
values
described
above.
The
exception
is
mixing
and
loading
at
the
maximum
application
rate
for
aerial
application
on
corn.
While
the
registrant
has
agreed
to
the
maximum
protection
feasible
for
this
scenario,
which
is
requiring
closed
mixing
and
loading
systems,
the
MOE
achieved
is
only
80.
However,
because
the
MOE
is
based
on
the
conservative
assumptions
that
workers
would
be
mixing
and
loading
for
the
maximum
rate
for
the
maximum
acres
treated,
the
Agency
believes
workers
are
adequately
protected
for
this
scenario.
Although
the
estimated
cancer
risks
for
some
of
the
scenarios
are
slightly
above
the
1
x
10­
6
target
value,
the
Agency
is
confident
that,
with
the
above­
described
conservative
assumptions
built
into
its
exposure
models,
the
identified
mitigation
measures
provide
an
acceptable
level
of
protection.

ii.
Post­
application
Exposure
EPA
completes
exposure
assessments
on
post­
application
workers
for
various
crops
and
activities
at
intervals
following
the
application
until
risk
falls
below
a
target
level.
For
propargite,
the
target
level
for
dermal
risk
concerns
is
an
MOE
of
100;
for
inhalation
risk
concerns,
it
is
an
MOE
of
1000;
and
for
cancer,
the
target
risk
is
1
x
10­
6.
For
cancer
risks
between
1
x10
­
4
and
1
x
10­
6,
the
Agency
strives
for
risk
reduction
with
mitigation
measures
where
feasible.

In
order
to
determine
the
REI
for
a
crop,
EPA
calculates
the
number
of
days
that
must
elapse
after
pesticide
application
until
residues
dissipate
and
risk
to
a
worker
falls
below
the
target
risk
estimate
(
usually
expressed
as
an
MOE).
The
Agency
also
estimates
cancer
risk
at
that
target
interval.
In
addition,
occupational
risks
are
regulated
under
the
FIFRA
section
3(
c)(
5)
standard
­
"
without
unreasonable
adverse
effects
on
the
environment"
­
which
means
that
both
risks
and
benefits
must
be
considered
in
making
a
risk
management
decision.
This
standard
may
be
met
at
a
level
below
the
target
MOE
when
there
are
significant
benefits
associated
with
a
specific
activity.
As
the
worker
exposure
database
has
improved,
risk
assessments
are
now
conducted
for
a
variety
of
postapplication
activities
based
on
the
level
of
exposure
for
each
worker
activity
(
see
table
9,
"
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
from
Propargite:
Days
After
Treatment
at
Which
the
MOE
is
$
100").
For
a
specific
crop/
pesticide
combination,
the
duration
required
to
achieve
the
target
MOE
can
vary
depending
on
the
activity
assessed.
In
general,
EPA
prefers
to
set
a
single
REI
for
all
activities
related
to
a
crop
or
crop
group
67
without
additional
activity­
based
labeling.
This
approach
is
favored
because
handlers
and
workers
are
more
likely
to
understand
and
comply
with
simpler
labels.
Also,
permitting
activity­
based
entry
for
one
crop
could
cause
confusion
and
compromise
the
effectiveness
of
the
WPS.
However,
when
the
consideration
of
risks
and
benefits
indicate
that
a
simple
REI
is
unworkable,
EPA
may
consider
either
setting
an
REI
with
early
entry
exceptions
for
one
or
more
critical
tasks
or
establishing
a
entry
prohibition
for
a
specific
task
after
the
REI
has
expired.
For
most
propargite
uses,
a
single
REI
is
being
proposed
because
no
critical
use
was
identified
that
warrants
the
use
of
an
exception
or
prohibition.
During
the
60­
day
comment
period
for
this
RED,
however,
EPA
will
accept
further
comments
from
growers
regarding
needs
for
additional
REI
exceptions
for
specific
activities,
and
will
add
such
exceptions
where
needed
if
there
are
adequate
MOEs
and/
or
benefits
associated
with
such
activities.

In
considering
worker
risks
and
benefits,
the
Agency
considered
the
timing
of
field
activities
that
are
critical
to
crop
production.
For
many
of
the
propargite
uses
discussed
below,
scouting
and
irrigation
are
critical
activities
in
crop
production,
and
these
activities
routinely
need
to
be
performed
soon
after
application.
In
evaluating
the
restricted
entry
intervals,
the
Agency
considered
the
exceptions
to
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
that
could
inform
the
decision.
EPA's
proposed
REIs
take
into
account
the
flexibility
already
provided
by
these
exceptions.
Scouting
is
a
handler
activity
under
the
WPS,
so
anyone
performing
this
activity
may
legally
enter
the
treated
field
during
the
REI
provided
they
use
the
handler
personal
protective
equipment
(
PPE)
specified
on
the
label.
In
addition,
if
the
scout
is
a
certified
crop
advisor
as
defined
in
the
WPS
(
40
CFR
170.204(
b)),
the
individual
can
determine
the
appropriate
PPE
to
be
used.
For
many
of
these
crops,
irrigation
equipment
is
not
routinely
moved
by
hand.
For
these
methods,
the
primary
activity
involves
entering
the
field
to
turn
the
watering
equipment
on
and
off.
This
activity
is
allowed
during
the
REI
under
the
no
contact
exception
to
WPS
(
40
CFR
170.112(
b)).
Should
irrigation
equipment
need
unexpected
repairs
during
the
REI,
WPS
allows
workers
to
enter
a
treated
field
provided
early
entry
PPE
is
used
(
40
CFR
170.112(
c)).
This
exception
also
usually
applies
to
mechanical
harvesting,
tree
shaking
for
nut
crops
in
enclosed
cabs,
and
often
applies
to
mowing.

For
all
post­
application
worker
exposure
scenarios
described
above,
the
proposed
REIs
provide
estimated
dermal/
inhalation
MOEs
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
100/
1000
MOE
target
values
described
above.
Although
the
estimated
cancer
risks
for
some
of
the
scenarios
are
slightly
above
the
1
x
10­
6
target
value
(
see
table
9),
the
Agency
believes
REIs
provide
an
acceptable
level
of
protection.
Many,
if
not
most,
workers
are
actually
not
at
risk
at
this
level
because
the
assessment
assumes
workers
perform
their
activities
for
8
hours
a
day,
30
days
a
year,
for
35
years
in
propargite
treated
crops
that
were
treated
at
the
maximum
rate.
The
probability
of
a
worker
meeting
all
these
conditions
is
small.
Further,
it
was
determined
to
be
infeasible
to
decrease
the
estimated
cancer
risk
by
increasing
the
REIs.
Even
large
increases
in
the
REI
produced
only
marginal
decreases
in
cancer
risk
when
calculated
over
a
35
year
lifetime
exposure.
This
is
because
of
the
persistence
of
propargite
residues
on
foliage.

To
address
potential
risks
to
post­
application
workers,
the
Agency
is
modifying
the
REIs
for
propargite
as
described
in
table
13
below.
68
Table
13.
Restricted
Entry
Intervals
(
REIs)
for
Propargite
Crop
PHI
(
days)
REI
(
days)
Exceptions
Comments
Alfalfa
(
grown
for
seed)
NS
9
None
REI
set
on
2.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
irrigation/
scouting
MOE
$
100.
There
are
no
data
on
harvesting
exposures.
However,
harvesters
are
expected
to
be
protected
with
REI
set
on
irrigation/
scouting
exposure
data.

Almond
28
22
None
REI
set
on
3
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
pruning
MOE
$
100.
This
REI
is
also
expected
to
protect
sweeping
and
blowing
of
the
nuts.
Tree
shaking
(
and
other
activities
done
in
enclosed
cabs)
and
irrigation
would
allowed
before
REI
expires
under
the
WPS
"
no
contact"
exemption.

Avocado
(
non­
bearing)
NA1
11
None
REI
set
on
4.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
pruning
MOE
$
100.

Beans,
dry
14
9
None
REI
set
on
2.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
irrigation/
scouting
MOE
$
100.
Harvesters
are
protected
by
PHI.

Boysenberry
(
non­
bearing)
NA1
10
None
REI
set
on
2
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
pruning
and
tying
MOE
$
100.

Carrot
(
grown
for
seed)
NS
22
Hand
harvesting
prohibited
for
13
days
REI
set
on
2.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
all
activities
except
hand
harvesting
have
MOE
$
100.
Hand
harvesting
prohibited
for
13
days
Cherry
(
foliar
application
after
harvest)
NA1
22
None
REI
set
on
1.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
pruning
MOE
$
100.
Since
this
is
a
foliar
application
after
harvest,
there
are
no
harvesters
to
protect.

Christmas
Tree,
Ornamental
and/
or
shade
trees,
Ornamental
Herbaceous
Plants
NS
14
None
REI
set
on
2.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
harvesting
MOE
$
100.

Clover
(
grown
for
seed)
NS
9
None
REI
set
on
2.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
irrigation/
scouting
MOE
$
100.
There
are
no
data
on
harvesting
exposures.
However,
harvesters
are
expected
to
be
protected
with
REI
set
on
irrigation/
scouting
exposure
data.

Corn
(
field,
pop,
sweet)
30
13
None
REI
set
on
2.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
hand
harvesting
and
detasseling
MOE
$
100.

Cotton
50
6
None
REI
set
on
1.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
harvesting
MOE
$
100.

Currant
(
non­
bearing)
NA1
10
None
REI
set
on
2
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
harvesting,
pruning
and
tying
MOE
$
100.

Date
(
non­
bearing)
NA1
22
None
REI
set
on
1.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
pruning
MOE
$
100.
Crop
PHI
(
days)
REI
(
days)
Exceptions
Comments
69
Grapefruit
7­
21
20
None
REI
set
on
3.15
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
harvesting
MOE
$
100.

Grapes
21
27
days
for
grapes
(
table)
turning
cane.
16
days
for
all
other
grapes.
None
REI
set
on
3
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
cane
turning
for
table
grapes
MOE
$
100.
REI
set
on
3
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
harvesting,
pruning,
tying
MOE
$
100.

Hazel
nut
(
non­
bearing)
NA1
22
None
REI
set
on
3
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
pruning
MOE
$
100.

Hops
14
21
Special
Local
Needs
(
SLN)
registrations
over
1.9
lbs
ai/
A
are
30
days
REI
set
on
1.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
on
FIFRA
§
3
labels
where
harvesting
and
training
MOE
$
100.
REI
for
SLN
set
on
2.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
harvesting
and
training
MOE
$
100.

Jojoba
NS
22
None
REI
set
on
1.5
lb
ai/
A
rate.

Lemon
7
20
None
REI
set
on
3.15
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
harvesting
MOE
$
100.

Exception
for
pruning
is
set
where
MOE
$
100.

Lime
(
non­
bearing)
NA1
16
20
days
for
pruning.
REI
set
on
2.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
pruning
MOE
$
100.

Exception
for
pruning
is
set
where
MOE
$
100.

Macadamia
Nut
(
non­
bearing)
NA1
22
None
REI
set
on
3
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
pruning
MOE
$
100.

Mint
14
7
None
REI
set
on
2.25
lb
ai/
A
rate.

Nectarine
14
5
None
REI
set
on
2.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
pruning
MOE
$
100.
Harvesters
are
protected
by
the
PHI.

Orange
7­
21
20
None
REI
set
on
3.15
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
harvesting
MOE
$
100.

Peanuts
14
22
None
REI
set
on
1.5
lb
ai/
A
rate.

Pecan
(
non­
bearing)
NA1
22
None
REI
set
on
3
lb
ai/
A
rate
at
days
where
pruning
MOE
$
100.

Persimmon
(
non­
bearing)
NA1
22
None
REI
set
on
1.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
pruning
MOE
$
100.

Pistachio
(
non­
bearing)
NA1
22
None
REI
set
on
3
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
pruning
MOE
$
100.

Potato
14
22
None
REI
set
on
2.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
all
activities
except
hand
harvesting
have
MOE
$
100.
Harvesters
are
protected
by
the
PHI.
Crop
PHI
(
days)
REI
(
days)
Exceptions
Comments
70
Quince
(
non­
bearing)
NA1
22
None
REI
set
on
1.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
pruning
MOE
$
100.

Raspberry
(
non­
bearing)
NA1
10
None
REI
set
on
2
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
pruning
and
tying
MOE
$
100.

Sorghum
30­
45
22
None
REI
set
on
2.5
lb
ai/
A
rate.

Sugar
beets
(
grown
for
seed)
21
22
None
REI
set
on
2.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
all
activities
have
MOE
$
100.
Assumes
no
hand
harvesting.

Tangerines
(
non­
bearing)
NA1
16
None
REI
set
on
2.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
pruning
MOE
$
100.

Walnuts
21
30
21
days
for
tree
shaking
REI
set
on
4.5
lb
ai/
A
rate
where
pruning
MOE
$
100.

NS
=
None
specified
1
NA
=
Not
applicable.
In
case
of
a
non­
bearing
crops,
there
are
no
harvesting
activities
and
an
REI
is
not
necessary
to
protect
harvesters.
2
REI
is
set
on
the
WPS
default
of
48
hours
(
72
hours
for
arid
areas)
for
a
pesticide
that
is
an
acute
Toxicity
Category
1
for
eye
and
skin
irritation.

2.
Environmental
Risk
Mitigation
a.
Avian
and
Mammalian
Risk
Mitigation
As
described
in
Chapter
III.,
chronic
toxicity
testing
on
bobwhite
quail
and
mallard
duck
indicates
that
propargite
has
adverse
reproductive
effects
on
avian
species.
Based
on
a
NOAEL
of
43.2
ppm
from
these
studies,
exposures
projected
in
the
Agency's
risk
assessment
are
expected
to
result
in
chronic
risk
concerns
for
birds
(
RQs
>
1.0).
These
chronic
risk
concerns
for
birds
are
predicted
by
the
risk
assessment
for
all
propargite
crop
applications
scenarios
with
rates
over
0.5
lb
ai/
acre.
For
mammals,
chronic
risk
concerns
for
herbivorous/
insectivorous
mammals
were
exceeded
for
all
five
modeled
single
and
multiple
application
crop
use
scenarios,
and
is
predicted
for
any
application
scenario
over
1.5
lb
ai/
A.
Acute
risk
concerns
were
approached
or
exceeded
by
predicted
exposures
to
multiple
applications
of
propargite
at
rates
of
3.0
to
4.5
lb
ai/
A.

Before
discussing
the
avian
and
mammalian
risk
management
aspects
of
this
reregistration
eligibility
decision,
it
should
be
noted
that
there
are
some
uncertainties
in
the
Agency's
terrestrial
risk
assessment
which
suggest
that
identified
risks
to
birds
and
mammals
may
be
lower
than
projected
in
this
specific
case.
First,
because
there
are
no
spray
intervals
on
the
current
product
labels,
the
risk
assessment
assumed
a
7­
day
spray
interval
in
its
exposure
model.
Given
propargite's
expected
high
persistence
on
foliage,
however,
it
is
unlikely
that
many
growers
actually
apply
it
with
such
frequency.
Moreover,
although
neither
EPA
nor
USDA
were
provided
with
specific
documentary
data,
both
71
Agencies
have
been
advised
by
numerous
grower
groups
that
a
significant
portion
of
propargite
applications
are
spot
applications
used
to
address
localized
mite
outbreaks,
whereas,
the
Agency's
model
assessed
exposures
from
full
field
applications.
Second,
as
described
in
the
drinking
water
section
of
this
chapter,
use
data
compiled
by
the
State
of
California,
where
75
percent
of
total
propargite
is
used,
indicate
that
propargite
is
frequently
applied
at
rates
well
below
the
maximum
permitted
use
concentrations
used
in
EPA's
modeling
scenarios.

In
light
of
these
uncertainties
surrounding
exposures
and
risks
to
avian
and
mammalian
species,
the
registrant
has
agreed
to
develop
further
data
to
better
characterize
the
risk
to
avian
species
likely
to
be
exposed
to
propargite.
The
registrant
has
also
agreed
to
a
number
of
measures
which
will
reduce
exposures
to
birds
and
mammals.
These
measures
are
as
follows:

°
Lowering
annual
application
amounts
for
mint,
walnuts,
citrus,
dry
beans,
cotton,
jojoba,
field
corn,
and
pop
corn
(
see
Table
11);
°
lowering
the
number
of
annual
applications
for
cotton
and
jojoba;
°
adding
spray
intervals
of
21
days
for
most
food
crops
(
28
days
for
citrus)
(
see
Table
12)
°
Adding
requirements
to
minimize
spray
drift;
°
Adding
label
language
advising
against
use
of
maximum
application
rates
unless
high
mite
infestations
exist.

Given
the
conservative
assumptions
used
in
the
propargite
model,
the
mitigation
outlined
above
and
the
considerable
benefits
(
discussed
below
in
Section
IV.
D.
2.
c.),
the
Agency
believes
that
no
further
action
is
required
at
this
time
to
address
avian
and
mammalian
risks
from
the
use
of
propargite.

b.
Aquatic
Risk
Mitigation
As
stated
in
Chapter
III.,
although
propargite
is
highly
toxic
to
all
fish
and
invertebrate
species
tested
(
96
hour
LC
50
values
for
7
aquatic
species
were
below
168
ug/
L),
the
RQs
calculated
from
EECs
derived
from
Tier
II
simulations
suggest
little
potential
for
acute
risk
to
fish
or
invertebrates.
However,
several
RQs
ranged
between
0.2
and
0.5
suggesting
that
exposure
in
small,
shallow
water
bodies
(
i.
e.,
those
not
represented
by
EPA's
standard
aquatic
risk
scenario)
could
result
in
adverse
effects
to
organisms
present.

All
of
the
risk
mitigation
measures
described
above
in
the
avian
and
mammalian
risk
mitigation
section
above
also
serve
to
mitigate
risks
to
aquatic
species.
In
addition
to
those
measures,
the
registrant
has
also
agreed
to
institute
no­
spray
zones
around
lakes
reservoirs,
rivers,
permanent
streams,
marshes
or
natural
ponds,
estuaries,
and
commercial
fish
farm
ponds.
The
buffer
zones
will
be
50
feet
for
ground
applications
and
75
feet
for
aerial
applications.
This
requirement
will
decrease
the
amount
of
propargite
reaching
surface
waters
directly
via
spray
applications
and
indirectly
via
field
runoff
of
precipitation
and
irrigation
water.
The
Agency's
current
models
are
unable
to
quantify
reductions
in
surface
water
concentrations
attributable
to
buffers
because
of
the
large
number
of
variables
that
affect
the
calculation
(
type
of
vegetation
in
the
buffer
area,
grade
and
topography
of
72
the
buffer
area,
soil
type,
etc.)
It
is
clear,
however,
that
some
reduction
in
runoff
concentrations
reaching
surface
waters
will
occur
.

c.
Benefits
In
making
a
reregistration
eligibility
determination
for
a
given
pesticide,
the
Agency
assesses
not
only
the
potential
risks
that
the
pesticide
may
present
to
human
health
or
the
environment,
but
also
the
benefits
which
accrue
from
its
use.
In
the
case
of
propargite,
the
Agency
identified
several
significant
benefits.
First,
as
shown
on
Table
14
below,
there
are
very
few
other
registered
miticides
on
the
market
which
have
the
efficacy
of
propargite,
and
those
alternatives
that
do
exist
are
either
not
approved
for
use
in
some
key
states,
or
are
significantly
more
expensive
to
apply.
Second,
several
of
the
miticides
which
are
potential
alternatives
to
propargite
have
been
reported
as
having
increasing
levels
of
resistance
over
the
last
few
years.
Mites,
some
species
of
which
undergo
20
life­
cycles
per
growing
season,
are
particularly
adept
at
developing
pesticide
resistance.
Third,
because
it
is
nontoxic
to
4
out
of
the
5
mite
predator
species
tested,
propargite
is
expected
to
be
an
important
component
of
several
Integrated
Pest
Management
(
IPM)
programs
currently
under
development
by
grower
groups.
Finally,
because
propargite
is
effective
against
adult
mites,
application
can
be
delayed
until
actual
infestations
are
detected.
Most
alternative
chemicals
need
to
be
applied
prophylactically
at
the
beginning
of
the
growing
season;
because
propargite
can
be
used
as
a
spot
treatment
on
an
asneeded
basis,
lower
overall
amounts
of
pesticides
are
frequently
used
on
mite­
prone
fields
propargite
is
the
miticide
selected.

Table
14.
Propargite
Benefits,
by
crop
Crop
Propargite
Alternatives
(
Mkt
Share)
Notes
Estimated
yield
loss1
%
crop
treated
mkt
share
alfalfa
seed
17%
100%
formetanate
Hcl
(
0%)
sulfur
(
0%)
Used
in
NV,
CA,
WA,
ID.
32%

Almond
35%
75%
abamectin
(
10%)
clofentezine
(
1%)
fenbutatin­
oxide
(
10%)
pyridaben
(
2%)
CA
Propargite
is
used
to
control
spider
mites
and
European
red
mite.
Fenbutatin
oxide,
the
primary
alternative
is
equally
effective
but
more
expensive.
0.2%

Beans,
dry
2%
95%
dicofol
(
5%)
sulfur
CA,
ID,
WA
Dicofol
is
the
primary
alternative.
20%

Corn
0.4%
53%
bifenthrin
(
47%)
CA.
NE.
CO,
KS
Bifenthrin
is
the
best
alternative
but
is
not
available
in
CA.
8%
Crop
Propargite
Alternatives
(
Mkt
Share)
Notes
Estimated
yield
loss1
%
crop
treated
mkt
share
73
Cotton
1.6%
7%
abamectin
(
60%)
amitraz
bifenthrin
(
1%)
dicofol
(
32%)
hexathiazox
sulfur
CA,
AZ,
TN
Abamectin
and
dicofol
are
the
primary
alternatives.
2%

Grapes,
raisin
54%
86%
cinnamaldehyde
(
1%)
dicofol
(
2%)
fenbutatin
oxide
(
5%)
sulfur
(
6%)
CA
Fenbutatin
oxide
and
dicofol,
the
primary
alternatives,
are
equally
effective
but
more
expensive.
1%

Grapes,
table
20%
27%
dicofol
(
32%)
fenbutatin
oxide
(
41%)
CA
1%

grapes,
wine
11%
71%
abamectin
(<
1%)
cinnamaldehyde
(
1%)
dicofol
(
8)
fenbutatin
oxide
(
3)
sulfur
(
18%)
CA
1%

Hops
5%
100%
dicofol
oxythioquinox
sulfur
Mites
in
WA
are
resistant
to
dicofol
59%

Mint
22%
dicofol
oxydemeton­
methyl
ID.
OR,
WA
propargite
is
the
only
effective
acaricide
in
OR
41%

Nectarines
22%
25%
clofentezine
(
15%)
dicofol
(
20%)
formetanate
Hcl
(
20%)
fenbutatin
oxide
(
10%)
sulfur
(
10%)
CA
Fenbutatin
oxide
is
the
most
likely
alternative
10%

peanut
0.7%
100%
none
AL,
GA,
NC,
FL,
VA
6%

Potato
2%
100%
insecticidal
soap
sulfur
WA
Alternatives
are
ineffective
20%

Walnut
25%
78%
abamectin
(
2%)
clofentezine
(
5%)
dicofol
(
5%)
fenbutatin
oxide
(
10%)
narrow
range
oil
oxythioquinox
CA
8%

1/
Based
on
USDA
NAPIAP
Propargite
report
(
Osteen,
1994),
Table
1
and
pages
177­
185.
In
some
cases,
per
acre
dollar
losses
compared
to
1993
gross
revenues
from
Agricultural
Statistics
1995­
96,
table
543
to
derive
74
percent
losses
of
gross
revenues.

3.
Other
Label
Statements
In
order
to
be
eligible
for
reregistration,
various
use
and
safety
information
must
also
be
placed
on
the
labeling
of
all
end­
use
products
containing
propargite.
For
the
specific
labeling
statements,
refer
to
Section
V
of
this
document
a.
Endangered
Species
Statement
The
Agency
has
developed
the
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
to
identify
pesticides
whose
use
may
cause
adverse
impacts
on
endangered
and
threatened
species,
and
to
implement
mitigation
measures
that
address
these
impacts.
The
Endangered
Species
Act
requires
federal
agencies
to
ensure
that
their
actions
are
not
likely
to
jeopardize
listed
species
or
adversely
modify
designated
critical
habitat.
To
analyze
the
potential
of
registered
pesticide
uses
to
affect
any
particular
species,
EPA
puts
basic
toxicity
and
exposure
data
developed
for
REDs
into
context
for
individual
listed
species
and
their
locations
by
evaluating
important
ecological
parameters,
pesticide
use
information,
the
geographic
relationship
between
specific
pesticides
uses
and
species
locations,
and
biological
requirements
and
behavioral
aspects
of
the
particular
species.
This
analysis
will
take
into
consideration
any
regulatory
changes
recommended
in
this
RED
that
are
being
implemented
at
that
time.
A
determination
that
there
is
a
likelihood
of
potential
impact
to
a
listed
species
may
result
in
limitations
on
use
of
the
pesticide,
other
measures
to
mitigate
any
potential
impact,
or
consultations
with
the
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
and/
or
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
as
necessary.

The
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
as
described
in
a
Federal
Register
notice
(
54
FR
27984­
28008,
July
3,
1989)
is
currently
being
implemented
on
an
interim
basis.
As
part
of
the
interim
program,
the
Agency
has
developed
County
Specific
Pamphlets
that
articulate
many
of
the
specific
measures
outlined
in
the
Biological
Opinions
issued
to
date.
These
Pamphlets
are
available
for
voluntary
use
by
pesticide
applicators,
on
EPA's
web
site
at
www.
EPA.
gov/
espp
.
A
final
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program,
which
may
be
altered
from
the
interim
program,
is
scheduled
to
be
proposed
for
public
comment
in
the
Federal
Register
before
the
end
of
2001.

b.
Spray
Drift
Management
The
Agency
is
in
the
process
of
developing
more
appropriate
label
statements
for
spray,
and
dust
drift
control
to
ensure
that
public
health,
and
the
environment
is
protected
from
unreasonable
adverse
effects.
In
August
2001,
EPA
published
draft
guidance
for
label
statements
in
a
pesticide
registration
(
PR)
notice
("
Draft
PR
Notice
2001­
X"
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
PR_
Notices/#
2001).
A
Federal
Register
notice
was
published
on
August
22,
2001,
66
FR
44141
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr)
announcing
the
availability
of
this
draft
guidance
for
a
90­
day
public
comment
period.
After
receipt,
and
review
of
the
comments,
the
Agency
will
publish
final
guidance
in
a
PR
notice
for
registrants
to
use
when
labeling
their
products.
75
Until
EPA
decides
upon,
and
publishes
the
final
label
guidance
for
spray,
and
dust
drift,
the
registrant
for
propargite
has
agreed
to
add
the
following
spray
drift
related
language,
in
part
to
address
concerns
of
surface
water
runoff
of
propargite.

Do
not
allow
this
product
to
drift
off
target
site.

Do
not
apply
by
ground
within
50
ft.
or
by
air
within
75
ft.
of
lakes,
reservoirs,
rivers,
permanent
streams,
marshes
or
natural
ponds;
estuaries
and
commercial
fish
farm
ponds.

For
ground
applications
apply
the
coarsest
droplet
size
spectrum
that
provides
sufficient
coverage
and
mite
control.
Use
the
lowest
nozzle
height
that
provides
uniform
coverage.
Apply
only
when
wind
speeds
are
10
mph
or
less
when
measured
by
an
anemometer
outside
the
spray
area
on
the
upwind
side.

For
aerial
applications
apply
the
coarsest
droplet
size
spectrum
that
provides
sufficient
coverage
and
mite
control.
Apply
from
the
lowest
possible
height
that
provides
good
pest
control
and
flight
safety.
Use
the
shortest
boom
length
that
is
practical.
Apply
only
when
wind
speeds
are
10
mph
or
less
when
measured
by
an
anemometer
outside
the
spray
area
on
the
upwind
side.

Risk
of
exposure
to
sensitive
aquatic
areas
can
be
reduced
by
making
applications
when
the
wind
direction
is
away
from
the
aquatic
area.

Do
not
make
aerial
or
ground
applications
during
temperature
inversions.
76
V.
What
Registrants
Need
To
Do
In
order
to
be
eligible
for
reregistration,
registrants
need
to
implement
the
risk
mitigation
measures
outlined
in
Section
IV
and
V,
which
include,
among
other
things,
submission
of
the
following:

For
Propargite
technical
grade
active
ingredient
products,
registrants
need
to
submit
the
following
items.

Within
90
days
from
receipt
of
the
generic
data
call­
in
(
DCI):

(
1)
completed
response
forms
to
the
generic
DCI
(
i.
e.,
DCI
response
form
and
requirements
status
and
registrant's
response
form);
and
(
2)
submit
any
time
extension
and/
or
waiver
requests
with
a
full
written
justification.

Within
the
limit
specified
in
the
generic
DCI:

(
1)
Cite
any
existing
generic
data
which
address
data
requirements
or
submit
new
generic
data
responding
to
the
DCI.

Please
contact
Dayton
Eckerson
at
703/
308­
8038
with
questions
regarding
generic
reregistration
and/
or
the
DCI.
All
materials
submitted
in
response
to
the
generic
DCI
should
be
addressed:

By
US
mail:
By
express
or
courier
service:
Document
Processing
Desk
(
DCI/
SRRD)
Document
Processing
Desk
(
DCI/
SRRD)
Chemical
Review
Manager's
Name
Chemical
Review
Manager's
Name
US
EPA
(
7508C)
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
7508C)
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW
Room
266A,
Crystal
Mall
2
Washington,
DC
20460
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Highway
Arlington,
VA
22202
For
products
containing
the
active
ingredient
Propargite,
registrants
need
to
submit
the
following
items
for
each
product.

Within
90
days
from
the
receipt
of
the
product­
specific
data
call­
in
(
PDCI):

(
1)
Complete
response
forms
to
the
PDCI
(
i.
e.,
PDCI
response
form
and
requirements
status
and
registrant's
response
form);
and
(
2)
Submit
any
time
extension
or
waiver
requests
with
a
full
written
justification.
77
Within
eight
months
from
the
receipt
of
the
PDCI:

(
1)
Two
copies
of
the
confidential
statement
of
formula
(
EPA
Form
8570­
4);

(
2)
A
completed
original
application
for
reregistration
(
EPA
Form
8570­
1).
Indicate
on
the
form
that
it
is
an
"
application
for
reregistration";

(
3)
Five
copies
of
the
draft
label
incorporating
all
label
amendments
outlined
in
Table
[
insert
table
number]
of
this
document;

(
4)
A
completed
form
certifying
compliance
with
data
compensation
requirements
(
EPA
Form
8570­
34);

(
5)
If
applicable,
a
completed
form
certifying
compliance
with
cost
share
offer
requirements
(
EPA
Form
8570­
32);
and
(
6)
The
product­
specific
data
responding
to
the
PDCI.

Please
contact
Bonnie
Adler
at
(
703)
308­
8523
with
questions
regarding
product
reregistration
and/
or
the
PDCI.
All
materials
submitted
in
response
to
the
PDCI
should
be
addressed:

By
US
mail:
By
express
or
courier
service
only:
Document
Processing
Desk
(
PDCI/
PRB)
Document
Processing
Desk
(
PDCI/
PRB)
Chemical
Review
Manager's
Name
Chemical
Review
Manager's
Name
US
EPA
(
7508C)
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
7508C)
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW
Room
266A,
Crystal
Mall
2
Washington,
DC
20460
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Highway
Arlington,
VA
22202
78
A.
Manufacturing
Use
Products
1.
Additional
Generic
Data
Requirements
The
generic
data
base
supporting
the
reregistration
of
propargite
for
the
above
eligible
uses
has
been
reviewed
and
determined
to
be
substantially
complete.
The
following
data
gaps
remain:

°
OPPTS
GLN
830.7050
­
(
UV/
Visible
absorption)
°
OPPTS
GLN
860.1200
(
directions
for
Use)
­
Label
revisions
are
required.
°
OPPTS
GLN
860.1380
­
Additional
storage
stability
data
are
required
for
peanut,
walnut,
corn
and
tea.
°
OPPTS
GLN
860.1520
­
Additional
residue
data
are
required
for
cotton
gin
byproducts.
°
OPPTS
GLN
860.1360
­
Multi­
residue
testing
°
OPPTS
GLN
840.1100
Droplet
size
spectrum
°
OPPTS
GLN
835.7200
­
Special
Study
­
Surface
Source
Drinking
Water
Monitoring
Study.
°
OPPTS
GLN
840.1200
­
Drift
field
evaluation
°
OPPTS
GLN
850.1450
­
Estuarine/
marine
life
cycle
(
mysid)
°
OPPTS
GLN
850.1500
Freshwater
fish
full
life
cycle
°
OPPTS
GLN
850.3030
­
Honey
Bee
Toxicity
of
Residues
on
Foliage
°
Special
Study
­
Avian
Dietary
Exposure
Study.
°
OPPTS
GLN
835.2370
­
Photodegradation
in
air
°
OPPTS
GLN
835.1410
­
Laboratory
Volatilization
°
OPPTS
GLN
835.8100
­
Field
Volatility
°
OPPTS
GLN
835.6200
­
Aquatic
Sediment
Field
Dissipation
°
OPPTS
GLN
835.6400
­
Combination
Products
and
Tank
Mixes
Dissipation
2.
Labeling
for
Manufacturing
Use
Products
To
remain
in
compliance
with
FIFRA,
manufacturing
use
product
(
MUP)
labeling
must
be
revised
to
comply
with
all
current
EPA
regulations,
PR
Notices
and
applicable
policies.
The
MP
labeling
should
bear
the
labeling
contained
in
Table
15
at
the
end
of
this
section.

B.
End­
Use
Products
1.
Additional
Generic
Data
Requirements
Section
4(
g)(
2)(
B)
of
FIFRA
calls
for
the
Agency
to
obtain
any
needed
product­
specific
data
regarding
the
pesticide
after
a
determination
of
eligibility
has
been
made.
Registrants
must
review
previous
data
submissions
to
ensure
that
they
meet
current
EPA
acceptance
criteria
and
if
not,
commit
to
conduct
new
studies.
If
a
registrant
believes
that
previously
submitted
data
meet
current
79
testing
standards,
then
the
study
MRID
numbers
should
be
cited
according
to
the
instructions
in
the
Requirement
Status
and
Registrants
Response
Form
provided
for
each
product.
A
product­
specific
data
call­
in,
outlining
specific
data
requirements,
accompanies
this
RED.

2.
Labeling
for
End­
Use
Products
Labeling
changes
are
necessary
to
implement
measures
outlined
in
Section
V
above.
Specific
language
to
implement
these
changes
is
specified
in
the
Table
15
at
the
end
of
this
section..

C.
Existing
Stocks
Registrants
may
generally
distribute
and
sell
products
bearing
old
labels/
labeling
for
12
months
from
the
date
of
the
issuance
of
this
RED.
Persons
other
than
the
registrant
may
generally
distribute
or
sell
such
products
for
24
months
from
the
date
of
the
issuance
of
this
RED.
However,
existing
stocks
time
frames
will
be
established
case­
by­
case,
depending
on
the
number
of
products
involved,
the
number
of
label
changes,
and
other
factors.
Refer
to
"
Existing
Stocks
of
Pesticide
Products;
Statement
of
Policy";
Federal
Register,
Volume
56,
No.
123,
June
26,
1991.

The
Agency
has
determined
that
registrant
may
distribute
and
sell
propargite
products
bearing
old
labels/
labeling
for
26
months
from
the
date
of
issuance
of
this
RED.
Persons
other
than
the
registrant
may
distribute
or
sell
such
products
for
50
months
from
the
date
of
the
issuance
of
this
RED.
Registrants
and
persons
other
than
the
registrant
remain
obligated
to
meet
pre­
existing
label
requirements
and
existing
stocks
requirements
applicable
to
products
they
sell
or
distribute.

D.
Labeling
Changes
Summary
Table
In
order
to
be
eligible
for
reregistration,
amend
all
product
labels
to
incorporate
the
risk
mitigation
measures
outlined
in
section
IV.
Table
15
describes
how
language
on
the
labels
must
be
amended.
80
Required
Labeling
Changes
Summary
Table
Table
15
Summary
of
Required
Labeling
Changes
for
Propargite
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
Manufacturing
Use
Products
One
of
these
statements
may
be
added
to
a
label
to
allow
reformulation
of
the
product
for
a
specific
use
or
all
additional
uses
supported
by
a
formulator
or
user
group
"
Only
for
formulation
into
an
miticide
for
the
following
use(
s):
alfalfa
grown
for
seed;
almond;
apples
(
non­
bearing);
apricots
(
non­
bearing);
avocado
(
non­
bearing);
bean,
dry
(
including
dry
lima
beans);

berries
(
non­
bearing);
boysenberry
(
non­
bearing);
carrot
(
grown
for
seed);
cherry
(
foliar
after
harvest);

Christmas
tree,
ornamental
and/
or
shade,
ornamental
herbaceous
plants;
clover
grown
for
seed;
corn
(
field,
pop,
sweet);
cotton;
currant
(
non­
bearing);
dates
(
non­
bearing);
figs
(
non­
bearing);.
grapefruit;

grapes;
hazel
nut
(
non­
bearing);
hops;
jojoba;
lemon;
lime
(
non­
bearing);
macadamia
nut
(

nonbearing
mint
(
field
grown);
nectarine;
orange;
peaches
(
non­
bearing);
pears
(
non­
bearing);
peanuts;

pecan
(
non­
bearing);
persimmon
(
non­
bearing);
pistachio
(
non­
bearing);
plums
(
non­
beaing);
potato;

pruns
(
non­
bearing);
quince
(
non­
bearing);
raspberry
(
non­
bearing);
roses(
field
grown);
strawberries
(
non­
bearing);
sorghum;
sugar
beets
(
grown
for
seed);
tangerines
(
non­
bearing);
and
walnuts.
Directions
for
Use
"
This
product
may
be
used
to
formulate
products
for
specific
use(
s)
not
listed
on
the
MP
label
if
the
formulator,
user
group,
or
grower
has
complied
with
U.
S.
EPA
submission
requirements
regarding
support
of
such
use(
s)."

"
This
product
may
be
used
to
formulate
products
for
any
additional
use(
s)
not
listed
on
the
MP
label
if
the
formulator,
user
group,
or
grower
has
complied
with
U.
S.
EPA
submission
requirements
regarding
support
of
such
use(
s)."
Directions
for
Use
Environmental
Hazards
Statements
Required
by
the
RED
and
Agency
Label
Policies
This
pesticide
is
toxic
to
fish.
Do
not
discharge
effluent
into
lakes,
streams,
ponds,
estuaries,
oceans,
or
public
waters
unless
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
a
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
and
the
permitting
authority
has
been
notified
in
writing
prior
to
discharge.

Do
not
discharge
effluent
containing
this
product
to
sewer
systems
without
previously
notifying
the
sewage
without
previously
notifying
the
sewage
treatment
plant
authority.
For
guidance,
contact
your
State
Water
Board
or
Regional
Office
of
the
EPA.
Directions
for
Use
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
81
End
Use
Products
Intended
for
Occupational
Use
(
WPS)

Restricted
Use
Pesticide
Requirement
(
all
formulations)
Restricted
Use
Pesticide
"
Due
to
acute
skin
and
eye
effect.
For
retail
sale
to
and
use
only
by
Certified
Applicators,
or
persons
under
their
supervision,
and
only
for
those
uses
covered
by
the
Certified
Applicator's
certification."

PPE
Requirements
Established
by
the
RED1
for
liquid
products
"
Personal
Protective
Equipment
(
PPE)

Some
materials
that
are
chemical­
resistant
to
this
product
are"
(
registrant
inserts
correct
chemicalresistant
material).
"
If
you
want
more
options,
follow
the
instructions
for
category
[
registrant
inserts
A,
B,
C,
D,
E,
F,
G,
or
H]
on
an
EPA
chemical­
resistance
category
selection
chart."

"
Mixers,
loaders,
applicators
and
other
handlers
must
wear:

Long­
sleeved
shirt
and
long
pants
Shoes
plus
socks
Chemical­
resistant
gloves
(
except
for
flaggers
and
applicators
using
closed
cabs)

Chemical­
resistant
apron
for
mixers
and
loaders
and
persons
exposed
to
the
concentrate
See
engineering
controls
for
additional
requirements"
Immediately
following/
below
Precautionary
Statements:

Hazards
to
Humans
and
Domestic
Animals
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
82
PPE
Requirements
Established
by
the
RED1
for
Wettable
Powder
product
formulations
must
be
packaged
in
Water
Soluble
Packaging
(
WSP)

to
be
eligible
for
reregistration.
"
Personal
Protective
Equipment
(
PPE)

Some
materials
that
are
chemical­
resistant
to
this
product
are"
(
registrant
inserts
correct
chemicalresistant
material).
"
If
you
want
more
options,
follow
the
instructions
for
category
[
registrant
inserts
A,
B,
C,
D,
E,
F,
G,
or
H]
on
an
EPA
chemical­
resistance
category
selection
chart."

Mixers,
loaders,
applicators
and
other
handlers
must
wear:

Long­
sleeved
shirt
and
long
pants
Shoes
plus
socks
Chemical­
resistant
gloves
(
except
for
flaggers
and
applicators
using
closed
cabs)

Chemical­
resistant
apron
for
mixers
and
loaders.

See
engineering
controls
for
additional
requirements"
Immediately
following/
below
Precautionary
Statements:

Hazards
to
Humans
and
Domestic
Animals
User
Safety
Requirements
"
Follow
manufacturer's
instructions
for
cleaning/
maintaining
PPE.
If
no
such
instructions
for
washables
exist,
use
detergent
and
hot
water.
Keep
and
wash
PPE
separately
from
other
laundry."
Precautionary
Statements:

Hazards
to
Humans
and
Domestic
Animals
immediately
following
the
PPE
requirements
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
83
Engineering
Controls
Established
by
the
RED1
for
liquid
products
"
Engineering
Controls
"
Mixers
and
loaders
supporting
aerial
applications
to
corn
and
cotton
must
use
a
closed
system
that
meets
the
requirements
listed
in
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
(
WPS)
for
agricultural
pesticides
[
40
CFR
170.240(
d)(
4)],
and
must:

­­
wear
the
personal
protective
equipment
required
above
for
mixers/
loaders,

­­
wear
protective
eyewear
if
the
system
operates
under
pressure,
and
­­
be
provided
and
have
immediately
available
for
use
in
an
emergency,
such
as
a
broken
package,
spill,
or
equipment
breakdown:
coveralls,
and
chemical­
resistant
footwear
."

"
Pilots
must
use
an
enclosed
cockpit
in
a
manner
that
meets
the
requirements
listed
in
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
(
WPS)
for
agricultural
pesticides
[
40
CFR
170.240(
d)(
6)];

"
Applicators
using
airblast
spray
equipment
must
use
an
enclosed
cab
that
meets
the
definition
in
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
for
Agricultural
Pesticides
[
40
CFR
170.240(
d)(
5)]
for
dermal
protection.

In
addition,
such
applicators
must:

­­
wear
the
personal
protective
equipment
required
above
for
applicators,

­­
be
provided
and
must
have
immediately
available
for
use
in
an
emergency
when
they
must
exit
the
cab
in
the
treated
area:
coveralls,
chemical
resistant
gloves,
chemical­
resistant
footwear,
and
chemical­
resistant
headgear,
if
overhead
exposure,

­­
take
off
any
PPE
that
was
worn
in
the
treated
area
before
reentering
the
cab,
and
­­
store
all
such
PPE
in
a
chemical­
resistant
container,
such
as
a
plastic
bag,
to
prevent
contamination
of
the
inside
of
the
cab."

"
When
other
applicators
use
enclosed
cabs
in
a
manner
that
meets
the
requirements
listed
in
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
(
WPS)
for
agricultural
pesticides
(
40
CFR
170.240(
d)(
4­
6),
the
handler
PPE
requirements
may
be
reduced
or
modified
as
specified
in
the
WPS."
Precautionary
Statements:

Hazards
to
Humans
and
Domestic
Animals
(
Immediately
following
PPE
and
User
Safety
Requirements.)
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
84
Engineering
Controls
Established
by
the
RED1
for
Wettable
Powders
in
Water
Soluble
Packaging.

All
WP
product
must
be
packaged
in
Water
Soluble
Packaging
(
WSP)

to
be
eligible
for
reregistration.
"
Engineering
Controls
Water­
soluble
packets
when
used
correctly
qualify
as
a
closed
mixing/
loading
system
under
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
for
Agricultural
Pesticides
[
40
CFR
170.240(
d)(
4)].
Mixers
and
loaders
using
water­
soluble
packets
must
:

­­
wear
the
personal
protective
equipment
required
above
for
mixers/
loaders,
and
­­
be
provided
and
must
have
it
immediately
available
for
use
in
an
emergency,
such
as
a
broken
package,
spill,
or
equipment
breakdown:
coveralls,
chemical­
resistant
footwear,

and
a
NIOSH
approved
respirator
with
an
organic
vapor
removing
cartridge
with
a
prefilter
approved
for
pesticides
(
MSHA/
NIOSH
approval
number
prefix
TC­
23C),
or
a
canister
approved
for
pesticides
(
MSHA/
NIOSH
approval
number
prefix
TC­
14G),
or
an
organic
vapor
cartridge
or
canister
with
any
N,
R,
P
or
HE
prefilter,
and
­
Chemical­
resistant
headgear,
if
overhead
exposure."

"
Pilots
must
use
an
enclosed
cockpit
in
a
manner
that
meets
the
requirements
listed
in
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
(
WPS)
for
agricultural
pesticides
[
40
CFR
170.240(
d)(
6)];

"
Applicators
using
airblast
spray
equipment
must
use
an
enclosed
cab
that
meets
the
definition
in
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
for
Agricultural
Pesticides
[
40
CFR
170.240(
d)(
5)]
for
dermal
protection.

In
addition,
such
applicators
must:

­­
wear
the
personal
protective
equipment
required
above
for
applicators,

­­
be
provided
and
must
have
immediately
available
for
use
in
an
emergency
when
they
must
exit
the
cab
in
the
treated
area:
coveralls,
chemical
resistant
gloves,
chemical­
resistant
footwear,
and
chemical­
resistant
headgear,
if
overhead
exposure,

­­
take
off
any
PPE
that
was
worn
in
the
treated
area
before
reentering
the
cab,
and
­­
store
all
such
PPE
in
a
chemical­
resistant
container,
such
as
a
plastic
bag,
to
prevent
contamination
of
the
inside
of
the
cab."

"
When
other
applicators
use
enclosed
cabs
in
a
manner
that
meets
the
requirements
listed
in
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
(
WPS)
for
agricultural
pesticides
(
40
CFR
170.240(
d)(
4­
6),
the
handler
PPE
requirements
may
be
reduced
or
modified
as
specified
in
the
WPS."
Precautionary
Statements:

Hazards
to
Humans
and
Domestic
Animals
(
Immediately
following
PPE
and
User
Safety
Requirements.)
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
85
User
Safety
Recommendations
"
User
Safety
Recommendations
Users
should
wash
hands
before
eating,
drinking,
chewing
gum,
using
tobacco,
or
using
the
toilet.

Users
should
remove
clothing/
PPE
immediately
if
pesticide
gets
inside.
Then
wash
thoroughly
and
put
on
clean
clothing.

Users
should
remove
PPE
immediately
after
handling
this
product.
Wash
the
outside
of
gloves
before
removing.
As
soon
as
possible,
wash
thoroughly
and
change
into
clean
clothing."
Precautionary
Statements
under:
Hazards
to
Humans
and
Domestic
Animals
immediately
following
Engineering
Controls
(
Must
be
placed
in
a
box.)

Environmental
Hazards
"
This
product
is
toxic
to
aquatic
invertebrates
and
wildlife.
Do
not
apply
directly
to
water,
or
areas
where
surface
water
is
present
or
to
intertidal
areas
below
the
mean
high
water
mark.
Runoff
from
treated
areas
may
be
hazardous
to
aquatic
organisms
in
neighboring
areas.
Do
not
apply
by
ground
application
equipment
within
50
feet
of
surface
waters
or
by
aerial
application
equipment
within
75
feet
of
surface
water.
See
Directions
for
Use
for
additional
restrictions.
Do
not
contaminate
water
when
disposing
of
equipment
wash
water."
Precautionary
Statements
immediately
following
the
User
Safety
Recommendations
Restricted­
Entry
Interval
In
the
Agricultural
Use
Requirements
box,
place
the
following
statements:

"
Do
not
enter
or
allow
workers
to
enter
during
the
restricted­
entry
interval
(
REI),
except
as
provided
for
by
the
WPS.
The
REI
and
Exceptions
are
listed
in
the
Directions
for
Use
associated
with
the
crop."

"
Notify
workers
of
the
exception
(
including
when
entry
is
permitted
for
each
of
the
tasks
named
in
the
exception)."
Directions
for
Use,

Agricultural
Use
Requirements
Box
and
Application
Instructions
for
Appropriate
Crop
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
86
In
the
Directions
for
Use
under
Application
Instructions
for
each
crop,
specify
the
following
REIs:

Carrots,
cherries,
dates,
jojoba,
peanuts,
persimmon,
potatoes,
quince,
sorghum,
and
sugar
beets.
enter
crop
or
crop
group):
The
REI
is
48
hours.

Nectarine:
The
REI
is
five
days.

Cotton:
The
REI
is
six
days.

Alfalfa,
beans
(
dry),
clover,
mint:
The
REI
is
nine
days.

Mint:
The
REI
is
seven
days.

Berry
Crops:
The
REI
is
ten
days,

Avocado,
The
REI
is
eleven
days,

Corn
(
field,
pop
and
sweet):
The
REI
is
thirteen
days,

Christmas
Tree,
ornmental
and
shade
trees,
ornamental
herbaceous
plants:
The
REI
is
fourteen
days.
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
87
Lime:
The
REI
is
sixteen
days,

Hops:
The
REI
is
twenty­
one
days,

Almonds,
hazel
nut,
macadamia,
pecan,
pistachio:
The
REI
is
twenty­
two
days,

Grapes
(
except
table):
The
REI
is
sixteen
days,

Table
Grapes:
The
REI
is
twenty­
seven
days,

Walnuts:
The
REI
is
thirty
days.
Exception:
In
addition
to
the
early
entry
exceptions
allowed
by
the
Worker
Protection
Standard,
you
may
enter
or
allow
workers
to
enter
treated
areas
to
perform
tree
shaking
tasks
twenty
one
days
following
application
as
long
as
the
worker
wears
long
pants,
long
sleeved
shirt
and
shoes
plus
socks."

Citrus:
The
REI
is
twenty
days.

Early
Re­
entry
Personal
Protective
Equipment
established
by
the
RED.
"
PPE
required
for
early
entry
to
treated
areas
that
is
permitted
under
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
and
that
involves
contact
with
anything
that
has
been
treated,
such
as
plants,
soil,
or
water,
is:

­­
coveralls
over
long­
sleeved
shirt
and
long
pants,

­­
chemical­
resistant
gloves
made
of
any
waterproof
material,

­­
chemical­
resistant
footwear
plus
socks,
and
­­
protective
eyewear."

"
Notify
workers
of
the
application
by
warning
them
orally
and
by
posting
warning
signs
at
entrances
to
treated
areas."
Directions
for
Use,

Agricultural
Use
Requirements
Box
Notification
Statement
"
Notify
workers
of
the
application
by
warning
them
orally
and
by
posting
warning
signs
at
entrances
to
treated
area."
Directions
for
Use,

Agricultural
Use
Requirements
Box
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
88
Annual
Application
Rate
Crop
(
lbs.
a.
i./
Acre)
___________________________________________________________

Beans
(
6
/
bs/
gal
EC)
4.5
Beans
(
6.55
/
bs/
gal
EC)
3.7
Citrus
(
Liquid
EC)
4.1
Cotton
3.3
Field
corn/
Popcorn
1.5
Jojoba
1.6
Mint
4.5
Oranges/
Grapefruit/
Lemons
(
WP)
5.8
Walnuts
(
6
/
bs/
gal
EC)
6.8
Walnuts
(
32%
WP(
WSP))
6.4
General
Application
Restrictions
Do
not
apply
this
product
in
a
way
that
will
contact
workers
or
other
persons,
either
directly
or
through
drift.
Only
protected
handlers
may
be
in
the
area
during
application."
Place
in
the
Direction
for
Use
directly
above
the
Agricultural
Use
Box.

Other
Application
Restrictions
The
following
risk
mitigation
measures
must
be
reflected
in
the
directions
for
use:

New
Annual
Application
Rates
Restrictions:
Directions
for
Use
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
89
Crop
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
Days)
Total
Number
of
Sprays
per
year
Almonds;
beans
(
dry);
cotton;

grapes;
hops;
nectarines;
potatoes
(
excluding
Washington);
walnuts;

non­
bearing
crops
21
2
Jojoba
21
1
Citrus
(
orange,
grapefruit,
lemons)
28
2
Onamentals,
Christmas
Trees
and
Conifers
28
(
west
of
Rocky
Mts.)

7
(
east
of
Rocky
Mts.
3
Roses,
other
ornamentals
14
3
Potato
(
Washington);
peanuts;
mint
14
2
Other
Application
Restrictions
(
continued)
The
following
risk
mitigation
measures
must
be
reflected
in
the
directions
for
use:

New
Spray
Intervals
Required
for
Propargite:
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
90
Spray
Drift
Restrictions
The
following
spray
drift
statement
is
required.

Do
not
apply
by
ground
within
50
ft.
or
by
air
within
75
ft.
of
lakes,
reservoirs,
rivers,
permanent
streams,

marshes
or
natural
ponds;
estuaries
and
commercial
fish
farm
ponds.

The
following
statements
or
equivalent
statements
required
by
the
proposed
spray
drift
PR
Notice
are
required:

Do
not
allow
this
product
to
drift
off
target
site.

Do
not
apply
by
ground
within
50
ft.
or
by
air
within
75
ft.
of
lakes,
reservoirs,
rivers,

permanent
streams,
marshes
or
natural
ponds;
estuaries
and
commercial
fish
farm
ponds.

For
ground
applications
apply
the
coarsest
droplet
size
spectrum
that
provides
sufficient
coverage
and
mite
control.
Use
the
lowest
nozzle
height
that
provides
uniform
coverage.
Apply
only
when
wind
speeds
are
10
mph
or
less
when
measured
by
an
anemometer
outside
the
spray
area
on
the
upwind
side.

For
aerial
applications
apply
the
coarsest
droplet
size
spectrum
that
provides
sufficient
coverage
and
mite
control.
Apply
from
the
lowest
possible
height
that
provides
good
pest
control
and
flight
safety.
Use
the
shortest
boom
length
that
is
practical.
Apply
only
when
wind
speeds
are
10
mph
or
less
when
measured
by
an
anemometer
outside
the
orchard/
vineyard
on
the
upwind
side.

Risk
of
exposure
to
sensitive
aquatic
areas
can
be
reduced
by
making
applications
when
the
wind
direction
is
away
from
the
aquatic
area.

Do
not
make
aerial
or
ground
applications
during
temperature
inversions.
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
91
Runoff
Restrictions
Under
some
conditions,
propargite
may
have
a
high
potential
for
runoff
into
surface
water
for
several
days
after
application.
Do
not
apply
in
the
following
areas:

­­
frequently
flooded
areas
(
excluding
artificially
flooded
areas).

­­
areas
where
intense
or
sustained
rainfall
is
forecasted
to
occur
within
48
hours.

Use
best
management
practices
for
minimizing
surface
runoff
in
the
following
areas:

­­
poorly
draining
or
wet
soils
with
readily
visible
slopes
toward
adjacent
surface
water.

­­
areas
with
in­
field
canals
or
ditches
that
drain
to
surface
water.

­­
areas
not
separated
form
adjacent
surface
waters
with
vegetated
filter
1PPE
that
is
established
on
the
basis
of
Acute
Toxicity
of
the
end­
use
product
must
be
compared
to
the
active
ingredient
PPE
in
this
document.
The
more
protective
PPE
must
be
placed
in
the
product
labeling.
For
guidance
on
which
PPE
is
considered
more
protective,
see
PR
Notice
93­
7.

Instructions
in
the
Labeling
Required
section
appearing
in
quotations
represent
the
exact
language
that
must
appear
on
the
label.

Instructions
in
the
Labeling
Required
section
not
in
quotes
represent
actions
that
the
registrant
must
take
to
amend
their
labels
or
product
registrations.
92
VI.
Related
Documents
and
How
To
Access
Them
This
Reregistration
Eligibility
Document
is
supported
by
documents
that
are
presently
maintained
in
the
OPP
docket.
The
OPP
docket
is
located
in
Room
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
VA.
It
is
open
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays
from
8:
30
am
to
4
pm.

All
documents,
in
hard
copy
form,
may
be
viewed
in
the
OPP
docket
room
or
downloaded
or
viewed
via
the
Internet
at
the
following
site:
www.
epa.
gov\
pesticides\
reregistration\
propargite
93
Appendix
A:
Propargite
Use
Patterns
Eligible
for
Reregistration
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate,
ai
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate,
ai
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
days)
Preharvest
Interval,

(
days)
Reentry
Interval
(
days)
Use
Directions
and
Limitations
1
Food/
Feed
Crop
Uses
Almond
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)
3.2
lb/
A
2
Not
specified
(
NS)
21
28
22
days
Use
limited
to
AZ
and
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
50
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
grown
among
trees
is
prohibited.

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
6
lb/
gal
EC
3
lb/
A
2
NS
21
28
22
days
Use
limited
to
AZ
and
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
50
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
and
15
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
grown
among
the
trees
is
prohibited.

Bean,
dry
(
including
dry
lima
beans)

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
2.46
lb/
A
2
3.7
lbs.
ai/
A
21
14
9
days
Use
limited
to
regions
west
of
the
Rocky
Mountains.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
and
5
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.

6
lb/
gal
EC
2.53
lb/
A
2
4.5
lbs.
ai/
A
21
14
9
days
Bean
(
interplanted
with
nonbearing
almonds
and
walnuts)

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
2.46
lb/
A
2
3.37
lbs.
ai/
A
21
14
9
days
Use
limited
to
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
by
ground
and
5
gal
of
water/
A
by
air.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate,
ai
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate,
ai
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
days)
Preharvest
Interval,

(
days)
Reentry
Interval
(
days)
Use
Directions
and
Limitations
1
94
Cherry
Foliar
application
after
fruit
harvest
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)
1.92
lb/
A
NS
NS
21
Not
applicable
(
NA)
2
days
Use
limited
to
regions
west
of
the
Rocky
Mountains.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
400
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
grown
among
the
tree
and
vines
is
prohibited.

Corn
(
unspecified)

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
6
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
1.69
lb/
A
2
NS
NS
30
13
days
Use
limited
to
KS.
Split
applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
by
ground
and
5
gal
of
water/
A
by
air
with
a
3­
4
week
retreatment
interval.
The
grazing
or
feeding
of
livestock
on
treated
areas
is
prohibited.

Directed
band
spray
Ground
Early
plant
followed
by:

Broadcast
foliar
Aerial
6
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
1.13
lb/
A
(
directed
spray)

followed
by:

1.69
lb/
A
(
broadcast
spray)
2
2.53
lb/
A
NS
30
13
days
Use
limited
to
NM.
Split
applications
may
be
made
in
10
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
during
early
season
followed
by
an
aerial
application
in
a
minimum
of
5
gal
of
water/
A
during
mid
or
late
season.
The
grazing
or
feeding
of
livestock
on
treated
areas
is
prohibited.

6
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
0.84
lb/
A
(
directed
spray)

followed
by:

1.69
lb/
A
(
broadcast
spray)
2
2.53
lb/
A
NS
30
13
days
Use
limited
to
TX.
Split
applications
may
be
made
in
10
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
during
early
season
followed
by
an
aerial
application
in
a
minimum
of
5
gal
of
water/
A
during
mid
or
late
season.
The
grazing
or
cutting
for
silage
within
30
days
after
treatment
is
prohibited.

Chemigation
Overhead
irrigation
6
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
2.53
lb/
A
1
NS
NS
30
13
days
Use
limited
to
TX.
The
grazing
or
cutting
for
silage
of
treated
corn
within
30
days
is
prohibited.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate,
ai
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate,
ai
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
days)
Preharvest
Interval,

(
days)
Reentry
Interval
(
days)
Use
Directions
and
Limitations
1
95
Corn,
field
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
6
lb/
gal
EC
1.5
lb/
A
1
NS
NS
56
13
days
Use
limited
to
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
20­
50
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
and
in
a
minimum
of
10
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
2.46
lb/
A
1
NS
NS
30
13
days
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
and
in
KS
and
CO
applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
2
gal
of
finished
6
lb/
gal
EC
2.53
lb/
A1NSNS3013
daysApplications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
and
in
KS
and
CO
applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
2
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air
and
in
TX
and
NM
and
other
states,
applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
5
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.

6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
2.46
lb/
A
1
NS
NS
30
13
days
Use
limited
to
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
or
10
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.

The
grazing
or
feeding
of
livestock
on
treated
areas
is
prohibited.

Corn,
pop
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
2.46
lb/
A
1
NS
NS
30
13
days
See
"
Corn,
field".

6
lb/
gal
EC
2.53
lb/
A
1
NS
NS
30
13
days
See
"
Corn,
field".
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate,
ai
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate,
ai
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
days)
Preharvest
Interval,

(
days)
Reentry
Interval
(
days)
Use
Directions
and
Limitations
1
96
Corn,
sweet
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
2.46
lb/
A
1
NS
NS
30
13
days
Use
limited
to
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
and
in
2
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.

Broadcast
foliar
or
chemigation
Ground,

aerial,
and
overhead
irrigation
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
2.46
lb/
A
1
NS
NS
30
13
days
Use
limited
to
AZ,
ID,
OR,
and
WA.

Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
by
ground
and
in
10
gal
of
water/
A
by
air.

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
6
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
1.69
lb/
A
2
NS
NS
30
13
days
Use
limited
to
CO.
Split
applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
by
ground
and
5
gal
of
water/
A
by
air
with
a
3­
4
week
retreatment
interval.
The
grazing
or
cutting
for
silage
of
treated
corn
within
30
days
is
prohibited.

Broadcast
foliar
Aerial
6
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
1.69
lb/
A
NS
NS
NS
30
13
days
Use
limited
to
CO.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
5
gal
of
water/
A
by
air.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
treated
areas
is
prohibited.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate,
ai
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate,
ai
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
days)
Preharvest
Interval,

(
days)
Reentry
Interval
(
days)
Use
Directions
and
Limitations
1
97
Cotton
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
0.8­
1.64
lb/
A
2
3.3
lbs
ai/
A
21
50
6
days
Use
limited
to
regions
east
of
the
Rocky
Mountains.
Use
of
the
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
formulation
also
limited
to
AZ
and
CA.

Applications
may
be
made
early
season,

midseason,
and
at
layby
to
boll
opening.

Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
15­
25
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
and
in
a
minimum
of
5
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.

The
feeding
of
treated
foliage
or
cotton
trash
to
livestock
and
application
after
bolls
have
opened
are
prohibited.

6
lb/
gal
EC
0.94­
1.69
lb/
A
2
3.3
lbs.
ai/
A
21
50
6
days
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
1.64
lb/
A
2
3.3
lbs.
ai/
A
21
50
6
days
Use
limited
to
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
between
boll
opening
and
50
days
before
harvest.
Applications
may
be
made
in
25­
50
gal
of
water/
A
by
ground
and
in
5­
15
gal
of
water/
A
by
air.

ULV
application
Aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
1.64
lb/
A
3
NS
21
50
for
AR830015
NS
for
MS830024
and
TX830028
6
days
Use
limited
to
AR,
MS,
and
TX.
Applications
may
be
made
midseason
to
layby
and
at
layby
to
boll
opening.
ULV
applications
may
be
made
in
2­
3
qt
of
vegetable
oil/
A
by
air.

Application
after
bolls
have
opened
is
prohibited.

Grape
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)
2.88
lb/
A
2
NS
NS
21
27
days
for
Grapes
(
table)

turning
cane
16
days
for
al
other
Grapes
Use
limited
to
regions
west
of
the
Rocky
Mountains.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
grown
among
the
vines
is
prohibited.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate,
ai
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate,
ai
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
days)
Preharvest
Interval,

(
days)
Reentry
Interval
(
days)
Use
Directions
and
Limitations
1
98
Grapefruit
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)
3.36
lb/
A
2
5.8
lbs
ai/
A
28
7
20
days
Use
limited
to
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
1,000
gal/
A
using
ground
equipment
with
a
42­
day
retreatment
interval.
The
grazing
or
feeding
of
livestock
on
cover
crops
grown
among
the
trees
is
prohibited.

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
or
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
2.46
lb/
A
2
4.1
lbs.
ai/
A
28
21
20
days
Use
limited
to
FL
and
TX.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
25
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
and
10
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)

[
SLN]
3.2
lb/
A
2
5.8
lbs.
ai/
A
28
NS
20
days
Use
limited
to
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
from
October
1
to
petal
fall
in
a
minimum
of
200
gal
of
water/
A
by
ground
with
a
21­
day
retreatment
interval.

Foliar
application
after
fruit
harvest
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)
3.36
lb/
A
1
NS
28
NA
20
days
Use
limited
to
regions
west
of
the
Rocky
Mountains.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
100
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
grown
among
the
trees
is
prohibited.

Hops
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)
1.6
lb/
A
2
NS
21
14
21
days
Use
prohibited
in
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
200
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.
The
grazing
or
feeding
of
livestock
on
cover
crops
is
prohibited.

6
lb/
gal
EC
1.5
lb/
A
2
NS
21
14
21
days
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
200
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.

32%
WP
(
WSP)

[
SLN]
1.92
lb/
A
3
NS
21
14
30
days
Use
limited
to
ID.
Applications
may
be
made
in
100­
200
gal
of
water/
A
by
ground.

32%
WP
(
WSP)

[
SLN]
2.4
lb/
A
3
NS
21
14
30
days
Use
limited
to
OR
and
WA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
100­
200
gal
of
water/
A
by
ground.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate,
ai
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate,
ai
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
days)
Preharvest
Interval,

(
days)
Reentry
Interval
(
days)
Use
Directions
and
Limitations
1
99
Jojoba
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
or
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
1.64
lb/
A
1
NS
21
NS
2
days
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
or
5
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air
with
a
10­
day
retreatment
interval.

Lemon
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)
3.36
lb/
A
2
5.8
lbs.
ai/
A
28
7
20
days
See
"
Grapefruit".

32%
WP
(
WSP)
3.2
lb/
A
2
5.8
lbs.
ai/
A
28
7
20
days
Use
limited
to
AZ.
Applications
may
be
made
in
600­
1,500
gal/
A
using
ground
equipment.

The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
grown
among
the
trees
is
prohibited.

Mint
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
6
lb/
gal
EC
2.25
lb/
A
2
4.5
lbs.
ai/
A
21
7
7days
Applications
may
be
made
in
20­
50
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
2.05
lb/
A
2
NS
21
7
7
days
Use
limited
to
ID,
MT,
NV,
OR,
UT,
and
WA.

Nectarine
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
or
aerial
32%
WP
(
WSP)
2.88
lb/
A
2
NS
21
14
5
days
Use
limited
to
regions
west
of
the
Rocky
Mountains.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
50
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
or
20
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.

The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
is
prohibited.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate,
ai
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate,
ai
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
days)
Preharvest
Interval,

(
days)
Reentry
Interval
(
days)
Use
Directions
and
Limitations
1
100
Orange
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)
3.36
lb/
A
2
5.8
lbs.
ai/
A
28
7
20
days
See
"
Grapefruit".

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
or
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
2.46
lb/
A
2
4.1
lbs.
ai/
A
28
21
20
days
Use
limited
to
FL
and
TX.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
25
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
and
10
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)

[
SLN]
3.2
lb/
A
2
5.8
lbs.
ai/
A
28
NS
20
days
Use
limited
to
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
from
October
1
to
petal
fall
in
a
minimum
of
200
gal
of
water/
A
by
ground
with
a
21­
day
retreatment
interval.

Foliar
application
after
fruit
harvest
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)
3.36
lb/
A
1
NS
28
NA
20
days
Use
limited
to
regions
west
of
the
Rocky
Mountains.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
100
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
is
prohibited.

Peanut
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)
1.6
lb/
A
2
NS
14
14
2
days
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
or
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
1.64
lb/
A
1
NS
14
14
2
days
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
or
5
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.
The
grazing
or
feeding
of
livestock
on
treated
areas
or
cutting
treated
forage
for
hay
is
prohibited.

6
lb/
gal
EC
1.69
lb/
A
1
NS
14
14
2
days
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
1.64
lb/
A
2
NS
14
14
2
days
Use
limited
to
AL,
GA,
NC,
SC,
and
VA.

Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
or
5
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.
The
feeding
of
hay
from
treated
peanuts
to
livestock
is
prohibited.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate,
ai
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate,
ai
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
days)
Preharvest
Interval,

(
days)
Reentry
Interval
(
days)
Use
Directions
and
Limitations
1
101
Potato
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
or
aerial
6
lb/
gal
EC
2.25
lb/
A
2
4.1
lbs.
ai/
A
21
(
14
for
WA)
14
2
days
Use
limited
to
Pacific
Northwest
only.

Applications
may
be
made
in
20­
50
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
and
a
minimum
of
10
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
or
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
2.05
lb/
A
2
3.7
lbs.
ai/
A
21
(
14
for
WA)
14
2
days
Use
limited
to
Pacific
Northwest
only.

Applications
may
be
made
in
20­
50
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
and
a
minimum
of
10
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.

6
lb/
gal
EC
2.06
lb/
A
2
4.1
lbs.
ai/
A
21
(
14
for
WA)
14
2
days
Chemigation
Sprinkler
irrigation
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
2.05
lb/
A
2
3.7
lbs.
ai/
A
21
(
14
for
WA)
14
2
days
Use
limited
to
OR
and
WA.

Sorghum
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
or
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
1.64
lb/
A
1
NS
NS
30
(
silage)

60
(
grain)
2
days
Use
limited
to
regions
east
of
the
Rocky
Mountains.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
and
5
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.

6
lb/
gal
EC
]
1.69
lb/
A
1
NS
NS
30
(
silage)

60
(
grain)
2
days
Broadcast
foliar
Aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
1.64
lb/
A
NS
NS
NS
30
(
silage)

60
(
grain)
2
days
Use
limited
to
AZ.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
10
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.

6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
1.64
lb/
A
NS
NS
NS
45
2
days
Use
limited
to
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
10
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate,
ai
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate,
ai
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
days)
Preharvest
Interval,

(
days)
Reentry
Interval
(
days)
Use
Directions
and
Limitations
1
102
Walnut
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
or
aerial
6
lb/
gal
EC
4.5
lb/
A
2
6.8
lbs
ai/
A
21
21
30
days
(
21days
for
tree
shaking)
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
100
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
or
20
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
is
prohibited.

32%
WP
(
WSP)
4
lb/
A
2
6.4
lbs.
ai/
A
21
21
30
days
(
21days
for
tree
shaking)
Use
limited
to
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
100
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
or
10
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.

The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
is
prohibited.

Crops
Grown
for
Seed
Alfalfa
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
2.46
lb/
A
NS
NS
NS
NS
9
days
Use
limited
CA,
ID,
MT,
NV,
OR,
UT,
WA,

and
WY
for
alfalfa
grown
for
seed.

Applications
may
be
made
in
25­
40
gal
of
water/
A
by
ground
and
in
a
minimum
of
10
gal
of
water/
A
by
air.
The
feeding
of
treated
foliage,
alfalfa
trash
or
seed
screenings
to
livestock
and
the
grazing
of
treated
fields
are
prohibited
(
for
SLN
Nos.
CA830024,

MT890010,
and
UT790015).
The
cutting
of
the
current
years
treated
alfalfa
seed
crop
for
hay
or
forage,
the
grazing
the
current
years
treated
alfalfa
seed
crop,
and
the
sprouting
of
treated
alfalfa
seed
are
prohibited
(
for
SLN
Nos.
ID960016,
NV880007,
WA890020,
and
WY960001).
The
feeding
or
grazing
of
treated
alfalfa,
the
cutting
of
treated
alfalfa
for
hay
or
for
forage,
and
the
use
of
harvested
seed
for
sprouting
are
prohibited
(
for
SLN
No.

OR9400012).

6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
2.05
lb/
A
NS
NS
NS
NS
9
days
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
1.64
lb/
A
NS
NS
NS
NS
9
days
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate,
ai
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate,
ai
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
days)
Preharvest
Interval,

(
days)
Reentry
Interval
(
days)
Use
Directions
and
Limitations
1
103
Beet,
sugar
Broadcast
foliar
Aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
2.46
lb/
A
2
NS
NS
21
2
days
Use
limited
to
OR
for
sugar
beets
grown
for
seed.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
10
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
air.

The
feeding
of
treated
sugar
beet
tops
to
livestock
is
prohibited.

Carrot
Broadcast
foliar
Aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
2.46
lb/
A
NS
NS
NS
NS
2
days
Hand
Harvesting
prohibited
for
13
days
Use
limited
to
ID,
OR,
and
WA
for
carrots
grown
for
seed.
Applications
may
be
made
in
minimum
of
10
gal
of
water/
A
by
air.

Clover
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
2.46
lb/
A
NS
NS
NS
NS
9
days
Use
limited
to
ID,
OR,
and
WA
for
clover
grown
for
seed.
Applications
may
be
made
in
25­
40
gal
of
water/
A
by
ground
and
in
a
minimum
of
10
gal
of
water/
A
by
air.
The
feeding
of
treated
foliage,
clover
trash,
or
seed
screenings
to
livestock
and
the
grazing
of
treated
fields
are
prohibited.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate,
ai
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate,
ai
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
days)
Preharvest
Interval,

(
days)
Reentry
Interval
(
days)
Use
Directions
and
Limitations
1
104
Corn
(
unspecified)

Directed
band
spray
Ground
Early
plant
followed
by:
Broadcast
foliar
Aerial
6
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
1.13
lb/
A
(
directed
spray)

followed
by:

1.69
lb/
A
(
broadcast
spray)
2
2.53
lb/
A
NS
30
13
days
Use
limited
to
NM
for
corn
grown
for
seed.

Split
applications
may
be
made
in
10
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
during
early
season
followed
by
an
aerial
application
in
a
minimum
of
5
gal
of
water/
A
during
mid
or
late
season.
The
grazing
or
feeding
of
livestock
on
treated
areas
is
prohibited.

6
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
0.84
lb/
A
(
directed
spray)

followed
by:

1.69
lb/
A
(
broadcast
spray)
2
2.53
lb/
A
NS
30
13
days
Use
limited
to
TX
for
corn
grown
for
seed.

Split
applications
may
be
made
in
10
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground
during
early
season
followed
by
an
aerial
application
in
a
minimum
of
5
gal
of
water/
A
during
mid
or
late
season.
The
grazing
or
cutting
for
silage
within
30
days
after
treatment
is
prohibited.

Corn,
sweet
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
2.46
lb/
A
1
NS
NS
30
13
days
Use
limited
to
OR
and
WA
for
sweet
corn
grown
for
seed.

Broadcast
foliar
Aerial
6
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
1.69
lb/
A
NS
NS
NS
30
13
days
Use
limited
to
CO
for
sweet
corn
grown
for
seed.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
5
gal
of
water/
A
by
air.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
treated
areas
is
prohibited.

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
6.55
lb/
gal
EC
[
SLN]
1.64
lb/
A
NS
NS
NS
NS
13
days
Use
limited
to
ID
for
sweet
corn
grown
for
seed.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
by
ground
and
10
gal
of
water/
A
by
air.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate,
ai
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate,
ai
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
days)
Preharvest
Interval,

(
days)
Reentry
Interval
(
days)
Use
Directions
and
Limitations
1
105
Nonbearing
Crops
Almond
(
interplanted
with
beans)

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
32%
WP
(
WSP)

[
SLN]
2.46
lb/
A
2
NS
21
NA
9
days
For
use
on
nonbearing
almonds
interplanted
with
beans.
Use
limited
to
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
by
ground
and
5
gal
of
water
by
air.

Avocado
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)

[
SLN]
4.8
lb/
A
2
NS
21
NA
11
days
Use
limited
to
CA.
Use
is
restricted
to
crops
which
will
not
bear
fruit
within
one
year
of
application.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
100
gal
of
water/
A
by
ground.

Berries
(
boysenberry,
raspberry,
strawberries,
etc.)

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)
1.92
lb/
A
2
NS
21
NA
10
days
Use
is
restricted
to
crops
which
will
not
bear
fruit
within
one
year
of
application.

Applications
may
be
made
in
50­
400
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
grown
among
the
tree
and
vines
is
prohibited.

6
lb/
gal
EC
1.5
lb/
A
2
NS
21
NA
10
days
32%
WP
(
WSP)
1.92
lb/
A
NS
NS
21
NA
10
days
Use
prohibited
in
CA.
Use
is
restricted
to
crops
which
will
not
bear
fruit
within
one
year
of
application.
Applications
may
be
made
in
50­
400
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
prohibited.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate,
ai
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate,
ai
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
days)
Preharvest
Interval,

(
days)
Reentry
Interval
(
days)
Use
Directions
and
Limitations
1
106
Citrus
(
including
grapefruit,
lemon,
lime
orange,
tangerine,
etc.)

Broadcasr
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
32%
WP
(
WSP)
1.92
lb/
A
2
NS
21
NA
16
days
Use
is
restricted
to
crops
which
will
not
bear
fruit
within
one
year
of
application.

Applications
may
be
made
in
50­
400
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
grown
among
the
tree
and
vines
is
prohibited.

6
lb/
gal
EC
1.5
lb/
A
2
NS
21
NA
16
days
32%
WP
(
WSP)
1.92
lb/
A
NS
NS
21
NA
16
days
Use
prohibited
in
CA.
Use
is
restricted
to
crops
which
will
not
bear
fruit
within
one
year
of
application.
Applications
may
be
made
in
50­
400
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
prohibited.

Currant,
Date,
Figs,
Persimmon,

pome
fruits
(
apples,
pears,
and
quince),
Stone
fruits
(
apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
and
plum/
prune)

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)
1.92
lb/
A
2
NS
21
NA
2
days
Use
is
restricted
to
crops
which
will
not
bear
fruit
within
one
year
of
application.

Applications
may
be
made
in
50­
400
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
grown
among
the
tree
and
vines
is
prohibited.

6
lb/
gal
EC
1.5
lb/
A
2
NS
21
NA
2
days
32%
WP
(
WSP)
1.92
lb/
A
NS
NS
21
NA
2
days
Use
prohibited
in
CA.
Use
is
restricted
to
crops
which
will
not
bear
fruit
within
one
year
of
application.
Applications
may
be
made
in
50­
400
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
prohibited.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate,
ai
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate,
ai
Minimum
Spray
Interval
(
days)
Preharvest
Interval,

(
days)
Reentry
Interval
(
days)
Use
Directions
and
Limitations
1
107
Nut
trees
(
almond,
hazelnut,
macadamia,
pecan,
pistachio,
and
walnut)

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)
1.92
lb/
A
2
NS
21
NA
22
days
Use
is
restricted
to
crops
which
will
not
bear
fruit
within
one
year
of
application.

Applications
may
be
made
in
50­
400
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
grown
among
the
tree
and
vines
is
prohibited.

6
lb/
gal
EC
1.5
lb/
A
2
NS
21
NA
22
days
32%
WP
(
WSP)
1.92
lb/
A
NS
NS
21
NA
22
days
Use
prohibited
in
CA.
Use
is
restricted
to
crops
which
will
not
bear
fruit
within
one
year
of
application.
Applications
may
be
made
in
50­
400
gal
of
finished
spray/
A
by
ground.
The
grazing
or
feeding
livestock
on
cover
crops
prohibited.

Walnuts
(
interplanted
with
beans)

Broadcast
foliar
Ground
32%
WP
(
WSP)

[
SLN]
2.46
lb/
A
2
NS
21
NA
9
days
For
use
on
nonbearing
walnuts
interplanted
with
beans.
Use
limited
to
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
by
ground
and
5
gal
of
water
by
air.

Ornamental
Crops
Ornamental
Plants
Broadcast
foliar
Ground
and
aerial
32%
WP
(
WSP)
2.5
lb/
a
max
1
The
following
rotational
crop
restrictions
are
specified
on
the
labels
for
EPA
Reg.
Nos.
400­
82,
400­
89,
400­
426,
and
400­
427:
(
i)
planting
leafy
vegetables
in
rotation
within
2
months
after
last
application
of
propargite
to
cotton
and
corn;
and
(
ii)
planting
any
other
food
or
feed
crop
in
rotation
within
6
months
after
last
application
of
propargite
unless
the
crop
is
a
registered
use
for
propargite.

The
following
rotational
crop
restrictions
are
specified
on
the
labels
for
EPA
Reg.
Nos.
400­
104
and
400­
154:
(
i)
planting
leafy
vegetables
in
rotation
within
2
months
after
last
application
of
propargite
to
cotton
and
corn;
(
ii)
planting
small
grains
in
rotation
within
82
days
after
last
application
of
propargite
to
cotton
and
corn;
(
iii)
planting
any
other
food
or
feed
crop
in
rotation
within
6
months
after
last
application
of
propargite
unless
the
crop
is
a
registered
use
for
propargite.

The
following
rotational
crop
restriction
is
specified
on
the
label
for
EPA
Reg.
No.
400­
425:
planting
any
food
or
feed
crop
in
rotation
within
6
months
after
last
application
of
propargite
unless
the
crop
is
a
registered
use
for
propargite.

The
following
rotational
crop
restriction
is
specified
on
the
label
for
SLN
No.
CA920011:
planting
small
grains
in
rotation
within
60
days
after
last
application
of
propargite.

NS
=
Not
Specified
108
109
APPENDIX
B
Data
Supporting
Guideline
Requirements
for
the
Reregistration
of
Propargite
REQUIREMENT
USE
PATTERN
CITATION(
S)

PRODUCT
CHEMISTRY
New
Guideline
Number
Old
Guideline
Number
830.7050
None
UV/
Visable
Absorption
ABC
Data
Gap
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
850.2100
71­
1
Avian
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
ABC
00052455
850.2200
71­
2A
Avian
Dietary
Toxicity
­
Quail
ABC
00113471
850.2200
71­
2B
Avian
Dietary
Toxicity
­
Duck
ABC
00052454
850.2300
71­
4A
Avian
Reproduction
­
Quail
ABC
4104702
850.2300
71­
4B
Avian
Reproduction
­
Duck
ABC
41041701
850.1075
72­
1A
Fish
Toxicity
Bluegill
ABC
00112368
850.1075
72­
1D
Fish
Acute
Toxicity
Test,
Rainbow
Trout
(
for
typical
enduse
products)
ABC
43759001
850.1010
72­
2B
Invertebrate
Toxicity
­
TEP
ABC
43759002
None
72­
3A
Estuarine/
Marine
Toxicity
­
Fish
ABC
40514001
None
72­
3B
Estuarine/
Marine
Toxicity
­
Mollusk
ABC
00112395
None
72­
3C
Estuarine/
Marine
Toxicity
­
Shrimp
ABC
40431601
None
72­
4A
Fish­
Early
Life
Stage
ABC
00126739
None
72­
4B
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrate
Life
Cycle
ABC
00126739
850.1400
72­
4C
Early­
life
Stage
Freshwater
Fish
ABC
001267389
850.1450
72­
4D
Early­
life
Stage
Estuarine
Fish
ABC
Data
Gap
850.1500
72­
5
Fish
Life
Cycle
Study
ABC
Data
Gap
850.3020
141­
1
Honey
Bee
Acute
Contact
Toxicity
ABC
43185001
850.3030
141­
2
Honey
Bee
Toxicity
of
Residues
on
Foliage
ABC
Data
Gap
TOXICOLOGY
870.1100
81­
1
Acute
Oral
Toxicity­
Rat
ABC
42857001
870.3800
83­
4
2­
Generation
Reproduction
­
Rat
ABC
41325401
870.5140
84­
2A
Gene
Mutation
(
Ames
Test)
ABC
42885001,
42815201,
43502202
870.5375
84­
2B
Structural
Chromosomal
Aberration
ABC
40384603
None
84­
4
Other
Genotoxic
Effects
ABC
40384602
850.4230
123­
1
Terrestrial
Plant
Testing
ABC
43848801,
43848802
850.4400
123­
2
Aquatic
Plant
Acute
Toxicity
ABC
43448803,
43848807,
43414542
Data
Supporting
Guideline
Requirements
for
the
Reregistration
of
Propargite
REQUIREMENT
USE
PATTERN
CITATION(
S)

110
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
835.2120
161­
1
Hydrolysis
ABC
40358401
835.2240
161­
2
Photodegradation
­
Water
ABC
40358402
835.2410
161­
3
Photodegradation
­
Soil
ABC
40358402,
42319301,
42319307
835.2370
161­
4
Photodegradation
­
Air
ABC
Data
Gap
835.4100
162­
1
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
ABC
41003601,
42786301,
43851401
835.4200
162­
2
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
ABC
41003602
835.4400
162­
3
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
ABC
42688801
835.1240
163­
1
Leaching/
Adsorption/
Desorption
ABC
40431602,
41449202,
41449203,
41449204,
41449205,
41449206,
41449207,
42908401,
42908402
835.1410
163­
2
Laboratory
Volatilization
(
from
Soil)
Study
ABC
Data
Gap
None
163­
3
Volatility
lab
ABC
Data
Gap
835.6100
164­
1
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
ABC
40969501,
41307301,
41325901,
41432501,
41731501,
41966001,
41966002
835.6200
164­
2
Aquatic
Sediment
Field
Dissipation
Study
ABC
Data
Gap
835.6400
164­
4
Combination
Products
and
Tank
Mixes
Dissipation
Study
ABC
Data
Gap
None
165­
4
Bioaccumulation
in
Fish
ABC
40494001,
40916601
None
167­
2
Surface
Water
Monitoring
ABC
Data
Gap
RESIDUE
CHEMISTRY
860.1300
171­
4A
Nature
of
Residue
­
Plants
ABC
00025749,
00029103,
00130618,
41006002,
41570701,
43738201,
41006001,
41117001,
42943601,
44730701
860.1300
171­
4A
Nature
of
Residue
­
Plants
­
Plant
Metabolism
ABC
0025749,
41570701,
41117001,
00130618,
41006001,
41006002
860.1360
171­
4M
Multi
residue
Method
Testing
ABC
Data
Gap
860.1380
171­
4E
Storage
Stability
ABC
Data
Gap
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
ABC
Potato
00112347,
00112361,
42223502
Dry
beans
00064067,
41848602
Bean
succulent
00038033,
00064067
Data
Supporting
Guideline
Requirements
for
the
Reregistration
of
Propargite
REQUIREMENT
USE
PATTERN
CITATION(
S)

111
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
ABC
Apples
00112384,
40615504,
42223501,
43602601
Pears
00112345
Grapefruit
00112347,
00112361,
00112397,
40615508
Lemon
00112360,
00112408,
40615507
Orange
00069174,
00112347,
00112360,
00112397,
40615506,
43695901
Apricot
00112358,
44127202
Nectarine
00112358,
40615509
Peach
00112344,
00112345,
40615510,
44127201
Plum
00067553,
00112345,
40615511,
44127204
Almonds,
nutmeat,
and
hull
00080225,
44698601,
40615503,
00112342,
00112355
Walnuts
00112339,
00112345,
00138427
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
ABC
Corn,
field/
grain
00044638,
00079227,
00086708,
00112361,
00112401,
42005701,
44285701,
44285702,
40615512,
41197101,
41389001
Corn,
Sweet
00043251
Sorghum,
grain
00038032,
00038036,
42644401,
43847901,
40615513,
41831601
Corn,
forage
and
stover
00044638,
00079227,
00086708,
00112361,
00112401,
44285701,
44285702,
40615512
Sorghum,
forage
an
stover
00038032,
00038036
Cranberry
00112400
Fig
00037396
Mint
00112361,
00138428
Grape
00006678,
00048326,
00112345,
00112405,
40615501
Data
Supporting
Guideline
Requirements
for
the
Reregistration
of
Propargite
REQUIREMENT
USE
PATTERN
CITATION(
S)

112
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
ABC
Hops
00112355,
00112358,
00112398,
41848601,
41942401
Peanut,
nutmeat,
and
hay
00038650,
00044291,
00047994
Strawberry
00112336,
00112355,
00112358,
44127203
Tea
PP#
6H5100,
43905901,
44039201,
4472201
860.1520
171­
4L
Magnitude
of
Residue
in
Processed
Food/
Feed
ABC
Citrus
40615506
Citrus
43802201
Corn,
field
43802201
Fig
00037396
Cottonseed
00030794,
00094938,
00112363,
00131893,
40615515
Cotton
gin
Data
Gap
Grape
00006678,
00112355,
43260801,
44861301,
40615501
Hops
00112355,
00112358,
00112398,
41848601,
41942401
Mint
00112361,
00138428
Peanut
00038650,
43804001
Plum
000112345,
43348701
860.1480
171­
4J
Magnitude
of
Residue
in
Meat,
Milk,
Poultry,
and
Eggs
ABC
Milk
and
the
fat,
meat,
and
meat
byproducts
of
cattle
goats,
hog
horses
and
sheep
00112360,
41862302,
41862304,
42011901
Eggs
and
fat,
meat,
and
meat
byproducts
of
poultry
41862303,
41862304,
42011901
860.1850
165­
1
Confine/
Field
Accumulation
in
Rotational
Crops
ABC
43345501,
43799001,
44013801
860.1900
165­
2
Field
Rotational
Crops
ABC
42846001,
42846002,
43345501
OTHER
840.1100
201­
1
Spray
Droplet
Size
Spectrum
ABC
Data
Gap
840.1200
202­
1
Spay
Drift
Field
Evaluation
ABC
Data
Gap
113
Appendix
C:
Technical
Support
Documents
Additional
documentation
in
support
of
this
RED
is
maintained
in
the
OPP
docket,
located
in
Room
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
VA.
It
is
open
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays,
from
8:
30
am
to
4
pm.

The
docket
initially
contained
the
risk
assessments
and
related
documents
as
of
August
28,
2000.
The
Agency
considered
comments
on
the
revised
risk
assessments
and
added
the
formal
"
Response
to
Comments"
documents
to
the
docket.
All
documents,
in
hard
copy
form,
may
be
viewed
in
the
OPP
docket
room
or
downloaded
or
viewed
via
the
Internet
at
the
following
site:

www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/
reregistration/
propargite
114
Appendix
D:
Citations
Considered
To
Be
Part
Of
The
Database
Supporting
the
Interim
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(
Bibliography)

GUIDE
TO
APPENDIX
D
1.
CONTENTS
OF
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
This
bibliography
contains
citations
of
all
studies
considered
relevant
by
EPA
in
arriving
at
the
positions
and
conclusions
stated
elsewhere
in
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Document.
Primary
sources
for
studies
in
this
bibliography
have
been
the
body
of
data
submitted
to
EPA
and
its
predecessor
agencies
in
support
of
past
regulatory
decisions.
Selections
from
other
sources
including
the
published
literature,
in
those
instances
where
they
have
been
considered,
are
included.

2.
UNITS
OF
ENTRY.
The
unit
of
entry
in
this
bibliography
is
called
a
"
study."
In
the
case
of
published
materials,
this
corresponds
closely
to
an
article.
In
the
case
of
unpublished
materials
submitted
to
the
Agency,
the
Agency
has
sought
to
identify
documents
at
a
level
parallel
to
the
published
article
from
within
the
typically
larger
volumes
in
which
they
were
submitted.
The
resulting
"
studies"
generally
have
a
distinct
title
(
or
at
least
a
single
subject),
can
stand
alone
for
purposes
of
review
and
can
be
described
with
a
conventional
bibliographic
citation.
The
Agency
has
also
attempted
to
unite
basic
documents
and
commentaries
upon
them,
treating
them
as
a
single
study.

3.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
ENTRIES.
The
entries
in
this
bibliography
are
sorted
numerically
by
Master
Record
Identifier,
or
"
MRID"
number.
This
number
is
unique
to
the
citation,
and
should
be
used
whenever
a
specific
reference
is
required.
It
is
not
related
to
the
six­
digit
"
Accession
Number"
which
has
been
used
to
identify
volumes
of
submitted
studies
(
see
paragraph
4(
d)(
4)
below
for
further
explanation).
In
a
few
cases,
entries
added
to
the
bibliography
late
in
the
review
may
be
preceded
by
a
nine
character
temporary
identifier.
These
entries
are
listed
after
all
MRID
entries.
This
temporary
identifying
number
is
also
to
be
used
whenever
specific
reference
is
needed.

4.
FORM
OF
ENTRY.
In
addition
to
the
Master
Record
Identifier
(
MRID),
each
entry
consists
of
a
citation
containing
standard
elements
followed,
in
the
case
of
material
submitted
to
EPA,
by
a
description
of
the
earliest
known
submission.
Bibliographic
conventions
used
reflect
the
standard
of
the
American
National
Standards
Institute
(
ANSI),
expanded
to
provide
for
certain
special
needs.

a.
Author.
Whenever
the
author
could
confidently
be
identified,
the
Agency
has
chosen
to
show
a
personal
author.
When
no
individual
was
identified,
the
Agency
has
shown
an
identifiable
laboratory
or
testing
facility
as
the
author.
When
no
author
or
laboratory
could
be
identified,
the
Agency
has
shown
the
first
submitter
as
the
author.

b.
Document
date.
The
date
of
the
study
is
taken
directly
from
the
document.
When
the
date
is
followed
by
a
question
mark,
the
bibliographer
has
deduced
the
date
from
the
evidence
contained
in
the
document.
When
the
date
appears
as
(
1999),
the
Agency
was
unable
to
determine
or
estimate
the
date
of
the
document.
115
c.
Title.
In
some
cases,
it
has
been
necessary
for
the
Agency
bibliographers
to
create
or
enhance
a
document
title.
Any
such
editorial
insertions
are
contained
between
square
brackets.

d.
Trailing
parentheses.
For
studies
submitted
to
the
Agency
in
the
past,
the
trailing
parentheses
include
(
in
addition
to
any
self­
explanatory
text)
the
following
elements
describing
the
earliest
known
submission:

(
1)
Submission
date.
The
date
of
the
earliest
known
submission
appears
immediately
following
the
word
"
received."

(
2)
Administrative
number.
The
next
element
immediately
following
the
word
"
under"
is
the
registration
number,
experimental
use
permit
number,
petition
number,
or
other
administrative
number
associated
with
the
earliest
known
submission.

(
3)
Submitter.
The
third
element
is
the
submitter.
When
authorship
is
defaulted
to
the
submitter,
this
element
is
omitted.

(
4)
Volume
Identification
(
Accession
Numbers).
The
final
element
in
the
trailing
parentheses
identifies
the
EPA
accession
number
of
the
volume
in
which
the
original
submission
of
the
study
appears.
The
six­
digit
accession
number
follows
the
symbol
"
CDL,"
which
stands
for
"
Company
Data
Library."
This
accession
number
is
in
turn
followed
by
an
alphabetic
suffix
which
shows
the
relative
position
of
the
study
within
the
volume.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
116
00006678
Guardigli,
A.;
Taschenberg,
E.
F.;
Stafford,
E.
M.
(
1967)
Laboratory
Analytical
Data
Sheet
for
Residues:
Field
Test
Project
No.
BB
67­
100.
(
Unpublished
study
including
field
test
project
no.
PA
67­
25,
received
Jun
14,
1968
under
8F0668;
prepared
by
Rhodia,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Chipman
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.,
Burlingame,
Calif.;
CDL:
091170­
F)

00025749
Wong,
D.
T.
L.;
Tortora,
N.
J.;
Fuller,
G.
B.;
et
al.
(
1978)
Translocation
and
Fate
of
Propargite­
14C
on
Blue
Lake
Bush
Beans:
Project
No.
7834.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Dec
27,
1978
under
400­
82;
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
241586­
B)

00029103
Henderson,
S.
K.
(
1979)
Degradation
of
Omite
(
Phenyl­
14C)
on
Redhaven
Peaches:
Project
No.
7952.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Dec
17,
1979
under
6F1726;
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
099234­
A)

00030794
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1973)
Summary.
(
Unpublished
study
received
June
16,
1980
under
400­
104;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.;
CDL:
242671­
A)

00037396
Scott,
D.
C.;
Klamm,
R.
(
1973)
[
Residue
Data
for
Omite
on
Figs].
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jun
1,
1973
under
3F1402;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
and
California,
Dried
Fig
Advisory
Board,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
095348­
G)

00038032
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1974)
Residues
in
PPM:
Sorghum:
Omite.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jul
8,
1975
under
4F1520;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
and
State
Univ.
of
New
York­­
Oswego,
Lake
Ontario
Environmental
Laboratory;
CDL:
095384­
A)

00038033
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1974)
Residues
in
PPM:
Beans:
Omite.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jul
8,
1975
under
4F1520;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.;
CDL:
095384­
B)

00038036
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1974)
The
Results
of
Tests
on
the
Amount
of
Residue
Remaining,
Including
a
Description
of
the
Analytical
Methods
Used:
[
Omite].
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jun
25,
1974
under
4F1520;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.;
CDL:
095367­
B)

00038650
Scott,
D.
C.;
Klamm,
R.;
Devine,
J.
M.
(
1973)
Summary
of
Section
D:
[
Omite].
(
Unpublished
study
received
on
unknown
date
under
3F1402;
prepared
in
cooperation
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
117
with
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
and
others,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
093753­
B)

00043251
Clement,
L.
(
1980)
[
Residue
Results
of
Comite
on
Sweet
Corn].
(
Unpublished
study
received
Sep
22,
1980
under
400­
104;
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
099656­
A)

00044291
Morse
Laboratories,
Incorporated
(
1980)
Residues
in
PPM.
(
Unpublished
study
received
May
12,
1980
under
400­
104;
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
243164­
A)

00044638
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1974)
The
Results
of
Tests
on
the
Amount
of
Residue
Remaining,
Including
a
Description
of
the
Analytical
Methods
Used:
[
Omite].
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jun
25,
1974
under
4F1521;
CDL:
094554­
D)

00047994
Morse
Laboratories,
Incorporated
(
1980)
[
Residue
Studies
on
Peanuts].
(
Unpublished
study
received
Aug
14,
1980
under
400­
104;
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
243080­
A)

00048326
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1974)
Background
Information
on
the
Request
for
the
Deletion
of
California
Only
from
the
Dosage
Instructions
on
Grapes
for
Omite­
30W
and
Omite­
4D.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Mar
21,
1975
under
400­
82;
CDL:
225995­
A)

00064067
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1974)
The
Results
of
Tests
on
the
Amount
of
Residue
Remaining,
Including
a
Description
of
the
Analytical
Methods
Used:
[
Omite].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
on
unknown
date
under
4F1520;
CDL:
094031­
B)

00067553
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1972)
Summary
of
Plum
Residue
Data.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jun
17,
1973
under
3F1305;
CDL:
092209­
B)

00079227
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1981)
Summary
of
Omite
Residues
in
Field
Corn
Treated
with
Comite.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study,
including
published
data,
received
Jul
23,
1981
under
400­
104;
CDL:
245609­
A)

00080225
Von
Schmeling,
B.
(
1978)
Letter
sent
to
James
M.
Rea
dated
May
15,
1978:
Omite­
30W
(
EPA
Reg.
No.
400­
82):
Omite­
6E
(
EPA
Reg.
No.
400­
89):
Almond
petition
6F1814,
sub.
6­
4­
76.
(
Unpublished
study
received
May
23,
1978
under
6F1814;
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
070199­
A)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
118
00086708
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1981)
[
Residues
of
Propargite
in
Corn].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Sep
14,
1981
under
KS
81/
31;
submitted
by
state
of
Kansas
for
Uniroyal
Chemical;
CDL:
246186­
B)

00094938
Williams,
M.;
Buckley,
P.
M.
(
1981)
Residues
in
Ppm.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
10,
1981
under
400­
104;
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
246844­
B)

00112336
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1973)
[
Omite:
Residues
in
Strawberries].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Aug
17,
1973
under
400­
82;
CDL:
009024­
A)

00112339
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1972)
[
Omite:
Residues
in
Walnuts].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Oct
17,
1972
under
400­
89;
CDL:
023357­
A)

00112340
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1972)
[
Efficacy
of
Omite
on
Walnuts].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Oct
17,
1972
under
400­
89;
CDL:
023357­
B)

00112341
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1974)
[
Omite:
Residues
in
Hops
and
Beer].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jun
14,
1974
under
400­
89;
CDL:
023358­
A)

00112342
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1974)
[
Omite:
Residues
in
Almonds].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
May
1,
1974
under
400­
89;
CDL:
023359­
A)

00112343
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1974)
Performance
Data:
[
Omite­­
Potatoes
and
Citrus].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
May
1,
1974
under
400­
104;
CDL:
026597­
A)

00112344
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1969)
[
Omite
Residues
in
Peaches].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Nov
25,
1969
under
400­
82;
CDL:
026727­
B)

00112345
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1967)
The
Results
of
Test
on
the
Amount
of
Residue
Remaining,
Including
a
Description
of
the
Analytical
Method
Used:
[
Omite].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Dec
15,
1967
under
8G0698;
CDL:
091216­
A)

00112347
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1974)
Residue
Data:
[
Omite­­
Potatoes
and
Citrus].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
May
1,
1974
under
400­
104;
CDL:
026597­
B)

00112350
Weir,
R.;
Wallace,
A.
(
1967)
Acute
Dermal
Application­­
Rabbits:
Omite­
30W:
Project
No.
798­
129.
Final
rept.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Mar
21,
1969
under
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
119
8F0730;
prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
CT;
CDL:
091258­
E)

00112351
Weir,
R.;
Hopkins,
M.
(
1967)
Repeated
Dermal
(
Leary)
Study­­
Rabbits:
Omite­
30W:
Project
No.
798­
114
and
No.
798­
133.
Final
rept.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Mar
21,
1969
under
8F0730;
prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
CT;
CDL:
091258­
F)

00112352
Quisno,
G.;
Ede,
M.
(
1967)
Primary
Skin
Irritation
Study
on
Omite­
30W:
Report
R­
358A.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Mar
21,
1969
under
8F0730;
prepared
by
Hill
Top
Research,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
CT;
CDL:
091258­
G)

00112353
Weir,
R.;
Clarke,
O.
(
1966)
Acute
Oral
Administration­­
Albino
Rats;
Acute
Dermal
Application­­
Albino
Rabbits;
Draize
Eye
Irritation
Test­­
Albino
Rabbits:
[
Omite­
57E]:
Project
No.
798­
109.
Final
rept.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Mar
21,
1969
under
8F0730;
prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
CT;
CDL:
091258­
I)

00112354
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1966)
In
vitro
and
in
vivo
Metabolism
of
Omite.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Mar
21,
1969
under
8F0730;
CDL:
091258­
J)

00112355
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1969)
Results
of
Tests
on
the
Amount
of
Residue
Remaining,
Including
a
Description
of
the
Analytical
Method
Used.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Oct
1,
1969
under
9G0830;
CDL:
091434­
A)

00112356
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1968)
[
Efficacy
Study:
Omite
on
Specific
Crops].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Oct
1,
1969
under
9G0830;
CDL:
091435­
A)

00112357
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1969)
[
Study:
Omite
Residue
on
Specific
Crops].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Nov
17,
1969
under
0F0910;
CDL:
091564­
A)

00112358
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1969)
The
Results
of
Tests
on
the
Amount
of
Residue
Remaining,
Including
a
Description
of
the
Analytical
Method
Used:
[
Omite].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
May
20,
1970
under
0F0910;
CDL:
091564­
B)

00112359
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1972)
[
Study:
Omite
Residue
in
Milk,
Eggs
and
Animal
Tissue].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jan
22,
1973
under
0F0988;
CDL:
091701­
A)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
120
00112360
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1972)
Response
to
EPA
Letter
1­
5­
72:
Reference
to
Petition
0F0988
and
Food
Additive
Petition
0H2554:
[
Omite].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jun
13,
1972
under
0F0988;
CDL:
091702­
A)

00112361
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1972)
[
Omite:
Residues
in
Clover
and
Other
Crops].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Oct
3,
1972
under
2F1272;
CDL:
091803­
A)

00112362
Uniroyal,
Inc.
(
1972)
Reports
of
Investigations
with
Respect
to
the
Safety
of
the
Pesticide
Chemical
[
Omite].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Feb
26,
1973
under
2F1288;
CDL:
092183­
A)

00112363
Uniroyal,
Inc.
(
1972)
Comite:
Residue
Studies
in
Cottonseed.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Feb
26,
1973
under
2F1288;
CDL:
092183­
B)

00112368
Weir,
R.;
Rathbun,
F.
(
1966)
Acute
Toxicity
in
Aqueous
Exposure
to
Bluegill
Sunfish:
[
Alar
85
and
Other
Compounds]:
Project
No.
798­
100.
Final
rept.
(
Unpublished
study
received
May
29,
1967
under
7F0614;
prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
CT;
CDL:
092906­
C)

00112384
Uniroyal,
Inc.
(
1975)
[
Omite
Residue
Studies
on
Apples
and
Cattle].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jan
7,
1976
under
6F1726;
CDL:
097885­
B)

00112390
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1973)
Recommended
Procedures
for
Determination
of
Omite
Residues
in
Animal
Tissue
and
Eggs.
(
Unpublished
study
received
on
unknown
date
under
0F0988;
CDL:
098494­
A)

00112391
Uniroyal,
Inc.
(
1973)
Cotton:
[
Analyses
for
Residues
of
Omite].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
on
unknown
date
under
2F1288;
CDL:
098814­
A)

00112392
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1967)
[
Chemistry
Data
on
Omite­
30W
and
Other
Chemicals].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
May
22,
1967
under
400­
EX­
31;
CDL:
127081­
A)

00112393
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1976)
Report
of
Investigations
with
Respect
to
the
Safety
of
the
Pesticide
Chemical:
[
Omite].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
on
unknown
date
under
6F1784;
CDL:
097918­
A)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
121
00112394
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1976)
[
Determination
of
Omite
Residues
in
Alfalfa].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
on
unknown
date
under
6F1784;
CDL:
097918­
B)

00112395
Sleight,
B.
(
1972)
Acute
Toxicity
of
Omite
to
Grass
Shrimp
...
and
Fiddler
Crab
(
Uca
pugilator).
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
24,
1974
under
unknown
admin.
no.;
prepared
by
Bionomics,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
CT;
CDL:
131292­
A)

00112396
Sleight,
B.
(
1972)
Acute
Toxicity
of
Omite
to
Atlantic
Oyster
Larvae
(
Crassostrea
virginica).
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan.
24,
1974
under
unknown
admin.
no.;
prepared
by
Bionomics,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
CT;
CDL:
131292­
B)

00112397
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1976)
[
Study:
Omite
Residue
in
Grapefruit
and
Oranges].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Apr
29,
1976
under
400­
104;
CDL:
224314­
A)

00112398
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1976)
[
Study:
Omite
Residue
in
Hops].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
May
27,
1976
under
400­
82;
CDL:
225473­
A)

00112399
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1975)
[
Study:
Omite
Toxicity
to
Test
Subjects].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Aug
31,
1976
under
400­
82;
CDL:
226107­
A)

00112400
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1977)
[
Study:
Omite
Residues
in
Cranberries
and
Other
Specified
Fruits].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Aug
1,
1977
under
400­
89;
CDL:
230938­
A)

00112401
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1977)
[
Study:
Omite
Residue
on
Corn].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Nov
23,
1977
under
400­
104;
CDL:
232329­
A)

00112405
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1976)
[
Residues
of
Omite
in
Grapes].
(
Unpublished
study
received
Sep
14,
1976
under
400­
82;
CDL:
233084­
A)

00112408
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1978)
Residue
Summary:
[
Omite
in
Lemons].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Sep
15,
1978
under
400­
82;
CDL:
235312­
A)

00113471
Fink,
R.;
Beavers,
J.
(
1977)
Eight­
day
Dietary
LC50­­
Bobwhite
Quail:
Omite
Technical:
Project
No.
117­
124.
Final
rept.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Oct
19,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
122
1977
under
400­
82;
prepared
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
CT;
CDL:
232341­
A)

00126739
Forbis,
A.;
Franklin,
L.;
Boudreau,
P.;
et
al.
(
1983)
Early
Life
Stage
Toxicity
of
Omite
to
Fathead
Minnows
...
in
a
Flow­
through
System:
Early
Life
Stage
Final
Report
#
29634.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Apr
8,
1983
under
400­
104;
prepared
by
Analytical
Bio­
Chemistry
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
CT;
CDL:
249886­
A)

00130618
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1983)
Propargite
Plant
Metabolism
Studies
to
Support
Pending
Tolerances.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jul
22,
1983
under
400­
89;
CDL:
250896­
A)

00131893
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1983)
Summmary
of
Residue
Data
and
Method:
[
Comite
and
Others].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Sep
9,
1983
under
TX
83/
28;
CDL:
251200­
A)

00138428
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1975)
[
Study:
Omite
Residue
in
Mint
Crops].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Apr
29,
1976
under
400­
104;
CDL:
224313­
A)

40358401
Nowakowski,
M.
(
1987)
Aqueous
and
Soil
Photolysis
of
?
Carbon
14F
Omite:
Project
No.
8766,
87101.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
43
p.

40358402
Nowakowski,
M.
(
1987)
Omite
Hydrolysis:
Project
No.
8731.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
33
p.

40358403
Nowakowski,
M.
(
1987)
Omite
Solubility:
Project
No.
8731.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
56
p.

40384601
Godek,
E.;
Smilo,
A.;
Hastings,
C.
(
1987)
CHO/
HPRT:
Mammalian
Cell
Forward
Gene
Mutation
Assay
Omite
Technical:
Laboratory
Project
ID:
PH
314­
UN­
001­
87.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pharmakon
Research
International,
Inc.
in
cooperation
with
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
138
p.

40384602
Barfknecht,
T.
(
1987)
Rat
Hepatocyte
Primary
Culture/
DNA
Repair
Test:
Omite:
Laboratory
Project
ID:
PH
311­
UN­
001­
87.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pharmakon
Research
International,
Inc.
64
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
123
40384603
San
Sebastian,
J.
(
1987)
Micronucleus
Test
(
MNT)
EPA
Omite
Technical:
Laboratory
Project
ID:
PH
309­
UN­
001­
87.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pharmakon
Research
International,
Inc.
99
p.

40431601
Surprenant,
D.
(
1987)
Acute
Toxicity
of
Omite
Technical
to
Embryos­
larvae
of
the
Quahog
Clam
(
Mercenaria
mercenaria):
Bionomics
Report
#
87­
11­
2554:
Bionomic
Study
#
41.0587.6105.514.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Life
Sciences,
Inc.
28
p.

40431602
Spare,
W.
(
1987)
Determination
of
the
Adsorption/
Desorption
Constants
of
Omite:
Agrisearch
Project
No.
1909:
Uniroyal
Project
No.
8791.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Agrisearch,
Inc.
26
p.

40494001
Suprenant,
D.
(
1988)
Bioconcentration
and
Elimination
of
(
Carbon
14)­
Residues
by
Bluegill
(
Lipomis
macrochirus)
Exposed
to
Omite:
Report
No.
87­
12­
2549.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Life
Sciences,
Inc.
37
p.

40514001
Surprenant,
D.
(
1987)
Acute
Toxicity
of
Omite
Technical
to
Sheephead
Minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus):
Study
No.
41.0587.6106.500.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Life
Sciences,
Inc.
32
p.

40615501
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
Propargite
Residues
on
Fresh
and
Processed
Grape
Commodities:
Uniroyal
Report
No.
UR­
1213.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pan
Agricultural
Labs,
Inc.
in
cooperation
with
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
62
p.

40615502
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
Propargite
on
Hops:
Uniroyal
Report
No.
UR­
1214.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
53
p.

40615503
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
Propargite
Residues
on
Almonds:
Uniroyal
Report
No.
UR­
1215.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
in
cooperation
with
Pan
Agricultural
Labs,
Inc.
55
p.

40615504
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
Propargite
on
Apples:
Uniroyal
Report
No.
UR­
1216:
Morse
Laboratory
Report
No.
37133.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Analytical
Bio­
Chemistry
Laboratories
and
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
in
cooperation
with
Pan
Agricultural
Labs,
Inc.
175
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
124
40615505
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
the
Propargite
Residues
on
or
in
Pears
(
Fresh
Fruit):
Laboratory
Project
ID:
45599,
16196.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories
in
cooperation
with
Analytical
Bio­
Chemistry
Laboratories.
89
p.

40615506
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
Propargite
on
Orange
Fruit
and
in
Processed
Commodities:
Uniroyal
Report
No.
UR­
1218.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pan
Agricultural
Labs,
Inc.
and
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
in
cooperation
with
Analytical
Bio
Chemistry
Laboratories,
Inc.
121
p.

40615507
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
Propargite
on
Lemon:
Uniroyal
Report
No.
UR­
1219:
Morse
Laboratory
No.
46242.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories
and
Pan­
Agricultural
Labs,
Inc.
in
cooperation
with
Analytical
Bio­
Chemistry
Laboratories.
62
p.

40615508
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
Propargite
on
Grapefruit:
Uniroyal
Report
No.
UR­
1220:
Morse
Laboratories
No.
45322.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pan
Agricultural
Labs,
Inc.
and
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
in
cooperation
with
Analytical
Bio­
Chemistry
Laboratories,
Inc.
69
p.

40615509
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
the
Propargite
Residues
on
Fresh
Nectarines:
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
#
12509:
Uniroyal
Report
No.
UR1221.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories.
13
p.

40615510
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
the
Propargite
Residues
on
Fresh
Peach
Fruit:
Pan
Ag
Nos.
FR
87­
17J,
FR
87­
17K.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pan­
Agricultural
Labs,
Inc.
in
cooperation
with
Morse
Laboratories.
68
p.

40615511
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
the
Propargite
Residues
in
Fresh
and
Dried
Prunes:
Uniroyal
Report
No.
UR­
1223:
Pan
Agricultural
Lab
No.
PAL­
FR87­
17N.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pan­
Agricultural
Labs,
Inc.
in
cooperation
with
Morse
Laboratories.
46
p.

40615512
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
Propargite
Residue
in
Corn,
Raw
Agricultural
Commodities:
Uniroyal
Report
No.
UR­
1224:
ABC
Lab
Report
No.
36386.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pan
Agricultural
Labs,
Inc.
and
Analytical
Biochemistry
Labs,
Inc.
in
cooperation
with
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
222
p.

40615513
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
the
Propargite
Residues
in
Sorghum
Processed
Sample:
ABC
Labs
Study
No.
36415:
Uniroyal
Report
No.
UR­
1225.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Analytical
Bio­
Chemistry
Laboratories
in
cooperation
with
Texas
A&
M
University.
109
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
125
40615514
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
the
Propargite
Residue
in
Cherries:
Morse
Laboratories
Nos.
44542,
15883.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
37
p.

40615515
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
the
Propargite
Residue
in
Cottonseed
and
Cotton
Processed
Fractions:
ABC
Laboratory
No.
367001,
367002.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Analytical
BioChemistry
Laboratories,
Inc.
and
Texas
A&
M
University.
77
p.

40615516
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Magnitude
of
the
Propargite
Residues
in
or
on
Strawberries:
Morse
Lab
Nos.
38888,
38889.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pan
Agricultural
Laboratories,
Inc.
in
cooperation
with
Morse
Laboratories.
98
p.

40909003
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Omite
CR
and
30W
Dislodgeable
Residues
on
Citrus
Foliage:
Project
ID:
Morse
Report:
40943,
40995,
41250,
...,
44244;
Uniroyal
Report
No.
UR­
1231;
Siemer
Report
No.
2014­
2,
2014­
1,2.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.,
in
Cooperation
with
Siemer
&
Associates,
Inc.
181
p.

40909004
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Omite
6E,
Omite
CR
and
Omite
30W
Dislodgeable
Residues
on
Apple
Foliage:
Project
ID:
Morse
Report
No.
44058,
44068,
44079,
...,
44655;
Uniroyal
No.
UR­
1232.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
51
p.

40909005
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Omite
CR
Dislodgeable
Residues
on
Almond
Foliage:
Project
ID:
40359,
40376,
40396,
...,
40751;
Uniroyal:
UR­
1229.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
51
p.

40909006
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Omite
CR
Dislodgeable
Residues
on
Strawberry
Foliage:
Project
ID:
Morse
Laboratories
No.
44273,
44313,
44342,
...,
44463;
Uniroyal:
UR­
1230.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
33
p.

40909007
Polakoff,
B.
(
1988)
Omite
Dislodgeable
and
Total
Residues
on
Citrus
and
Strawberry
Foliage­­
Laboratory
Studies:
Project
ID:
Uniroyal
Study
No.
UR­
1233.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
67
p.

40916601
McManus,
J.
(
1988)
Information
and
Data
on
Purity
of
[
Carbon
14]­
Propargite
Used
in
the
Study:
"
Bioconcentration
and
Elimination
of
[
Carbon
14]­
Residues
by
Bluegill
Exposed
to
Omite".
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
6
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
126
40969501
Lengen,
M.
(
1989)
Field
Dissipation
of
Propargite
on
Two
Sites
in
California:
Uniroyal
Project
8661.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
in
cooperation
with
California
Agricultural
Research
and
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
54
p.

40969502
Harned,
W.
(
1989)
Omite
Residue
Level
Monitoring
Runoff
Study
(
Terrestrial
Runoff)
from
a
Missouri
Corn
Field:
Project
No.
8718­
B:
Project
Nos.
87015­
01,
03,
04,
06,
09,
11.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Stewart
Agricultural
Research
Services,
Inc.
in
cooperation
with
Biospherics,
Inc.
156
p.

40975301
Polakoff,
B.
(
1989)
Omite
Field
Worker
Exposure
Assessment:
Uniroyal
Chemical
#
RP­
88027:
RP­
88028.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
51
p.

40975304
Jones,
P.
(
1988)
Omite
30W
Worker
Re­
entry
Study
on
California
Grapes:
Uniroyal
Chemical:
RP­
88034:
PAL­
EF­
88­
45.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
485
p.

41003601
Dzialo,
D.
(
1988)
Omite
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism:
Project
No.
8723.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
20
p.

41003602
Dzialo,
D.
(
1988)
Omite
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism:
Project
No.
8853.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
29
p.

41003603
Schofield,
C.;
Blasberg,
J.
(
1989)
"
Determination
of
the
Vapor
Pressure
and
Henry's
Law
Constant
of
Omite":
ABC
Final
Report
#
37477.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Analytical
Bio­
Chemistry
Laboratories,
Inc.
22
p.

41006001
Lengen,
M.
(
1989)
The
Metabolism
of
Propargite
in
Corn:
Proj.
No.
8737.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
23
p.

41006002
Lengen,
M.
(
1989)
[
Carbon
14]
Propargite
Metabolism
in
Apples:
Proj.
No.
87103.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
27
p.

41041701
Beavers,
J.
(
1988)
Omite
Technical
Agricultural
Miticide:
A
One­
Generation
Reproduction
Study
with
the
Mallard
(
Anas
platyrhynchos):
Project
No.
117­
153.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
233
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
127
41041702
Beavers,
J.
(
1988)
Omite
Technical
Agricultural
Miticide:
A
One­
Generation
Reproduction
Study
with
the
Bobwhite
(
Colinus
virginianus):
Project
No.
117­
152.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
234
p.

41117001
Lengen,
M.
(
1989)
The
Metabolism
of
Propargite
in
Potatoes:
Project
No.
87104.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
28
p.

41197101
Polakoff,
B.
(
1989)
Magnitude
of
Propargite
Residue
in
Corn,
Raw
Agricultural
Commodities:
Addendum
to
MRID
#
406155­
12:
Proj.
ID
88014­
18.

41307301
Harned,
W.
(
1989)
Propargite
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
Citrus
in
Winter
Garden,
Florida:
Project
Number
8844;
SARS­
88­
FL­
82;
ML88­
0018­
UNI.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Stewart
Agricultural
Research
Services,
Inc.,
Florida
Pesticide
Research
Inc.
and
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
110
p.

41325901
Harned,
W.
(
1989)
Propargite
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
on
Cotton
in
Kerman,
California:
Lab
Project
Number:
ML88/
0016/
UNI:
CAR/
20/
88:
8820.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories
in
association
with
California
Agricultural
Research,
Inc.
41
p.

41325902
Banijamali,
A.
(
1989)
Identification
of
Carbon­
14­
Omite
Metabolites
in
Chickens:
Lab
Project
Number:
8870.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
84
p.

41399601
Polakoff,
B.
(
1990)
Propargite
Dislodgeable
Residues
on
Hop
Foliage:
Lab
Project
Number:
ML
89­
0113­
UNI:
DNJ­
89­
009:
RP­
89039.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ron
Britt
and
Associates,
Inc.,
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
and
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
122
p
41432501
Harned,
W.
(
1990)
Propargite
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation,
Cotton
in
Winterville,
Georgia:
Lab
Project
Number:
SARS­
88­
GA­
81:
ML
88­
0019­
UNI:
8845.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories
in
co­
operation
with
LFH,
Inc.
and
Stewart
Agricultural
Research
Services,
Inc.
55
p.

41449202
Spare,
W.
(
1987)
Determination
of
the
Adsorption/
Desorption
Constants
of
Omite:
Agrisearch
Project
No.
1909;
Uniroyal
Project
No.
8791.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Agrisearch,
Inc.
26
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
128
41449203
Spare,
W.
(
1987)
Determination
of
the
Adsorption/
Desorption
Constants
of
Omite
Clycol
Ether:
Agrisearch
Project
No.
1912;
Uniroyal
Project
No.
8798.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Agrisearch,
Inc.
27
p.

41449204
Korpalski,
S.;
Nowakowski,
M.
(
1988)
Adsorption/
Desorption
of
Propargite
(
Omite):
Lab
Project
No.:
88136.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.,
Crop
Protection
Dept.
108
p.

41449205
Korpalski,
S.
(
1989)
Corrected
Kd
Values
of
Adsorption/
Desorption
Study
for
Propargite:
Project
#
1909;
Uniroyal
#
8791.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Agrisearch,
Inc.
11
p.

41449206
Korpalski,
S.
(
1989)
Clay
Soil
Adsorption/
Desorption
of
Omite
Glycol
Ether:
Lab
Project
Number:
8912.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.,
Crop
Protection
Dept.
44
p.

41457806
Polakoff,
B.
(
1990)
Comite
on
Cotton:
Foliar
Dislodgeable
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
89047:
892014­
4:
ML89­
0121­
UNI.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Siemer
&
Associates
Inc.
in
Association
with
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
264
p.

41570701
Lengen,
M.
(
1990)
Metabolism
of
Propargite
in
Potatoes:
Addendum
to
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
87104.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
5
p.

41680302
Popadic,
C.
(
1990)
Comite
on
Corn­­
Foliar
Dislodgeable
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP/
89038.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
AgriSearch,
Inc.
and
Others.
157
p.

41731501
Harned,
W.
(
1990)
Propargite
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation,
Citrus
in
Fresno,
California:
Lab
Project
Number:
21­
88:
ML88­
0017­
UNI.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
California
Agricultural
Research
Inc.
in
association
with
Morse
Laboratories.
307
p.

41831601
Popadic,
G.
(
1991)
Comite
on
Sorghum:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue:
Lab
Project
Number:
B9001­
C7:
CRA­
90­
077:
RP­
90015.
Unpublished
Study
prepared
by
Biospherics,
Inc.
127
p.

41848601
Korpalski,
S.
(
1991)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
in
Green
and
Dry
Hops
(
1989
Field
Trials):
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
89030:
89017­
02.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Biospherics,
Inc.
in
coop
with
Western
Biochemical
Consulting
and
the
Univ.
of
Idaho.
256
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
129
41848602
Popadic,
C.
(
1991)
Comite
on
Dry
Beans­­
Magnitude
of
the
Residue:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
89049:
RCP­
89­
032:
ML89­
0133­
UNI.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Labs
and
Hulst
Research
Farm
Services.
98
p.

41848603
Kludas,
R.
(
1991)
Omite
6E
on
Almonds­­
Foliar
Dislodgeable:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
89040:
EF­
89­
24:
ML89­
0117­
UNI.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Labs,
Inc.
in
coop.
with
Pan­
Ag.
Labs,
Inc.
118
p.

41848604
Jones,
P.;
Rotondaro,
A.
(
1991)
Omite
6E
on
Almond­­
Worker
Re­
Entry
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
ML89­
0134­
UNI:
PAL­
EF­
89­
25:
RP­
89046.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Labs,
Inc.
in
coop.
with
Pan­
Ag.
Labs,
Inc.
235
p.

41848605
Jones,
P.;
Rotondaro,
A.
(
1991)
Omite
30W
on
Apples­­
Airblast
Applicator
Exposure
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
ML89­
0130­
UNI:
PALEF­
89­
26:
RP­
89044.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Labs,
Inc.
in
coop.
with
Pan­
Ag.
Labs,
Inc.
135
p.

41862301
Batorewicz,
W.
(
1991)
Study
Summary:
Omite
Livestock
and
Poultry
Feeding
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
9064A:
9064B:
9069.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Enviro­
Bio
Tech,
Ltd.
and
North
Coast
Lab.
41
p.

41862302
Singh,
H.
(
1991)
Feeding
Study
of
Omite
in
Dairy
Cows:
Lab
Project
Number:
9064A:
UR­
02­
90.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Enviro­
Bio­
Tech,
Ltd.
34
p.

41862303
Singh,
H.
(
1991)
Feeding
Study
of
Omite
in
Laying
Chicken:
Lab
Project
Number:
9064B:
EBT
UR­
01­
90.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Enviro­
Bio­
Tech,
Ltd.
32
p.

41862304
Noon,
P.
(
1991)
Livestock
Feeding
Study.
Analysis
of
OGE
Residues
in
Meat,
Milk
and
Egg:
Lab
Project
Number:
20/
005:
9069.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
North
Coast
Laboratories,
Inc.
225
p.

41942401
Korpalski,
S.
(
1991)
Magnitude
of
Propargite
Residue
in
Green
and
Dry
Hops
(
1990
Field
Trials):
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
90007:
B9001­
C5:
DNJ­
90­
106.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Biospherics
Inc.
and
Western
Biochemical
Consulting.
353
p.

41966001
Harned,
W.
(
1991)
Freezer
Storage
Stability:
Supplement
To
Propargite
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
on
Cotton
in
Kerman,
California:
Lab
Project
Number:
8820:
ML88­
0016­
UNI.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories.
19
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
130
41966002
Harned,
W.
(
1991)
Summary:
Propargite
Field
Dissipation
Studies.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
5
p.

42005701
Korpalski,
S.
(
1990)
Magnitude
of
Propargite
Residue
in
Corn
Grain
Applied
by
Chemigation:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
89036:
89017­
06:
CRA­
89­
046.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Biospherics,
Inc.,
Henry
Agri­
Scientific
and
Agrisearch.
139
p.

42005702
Korpalski,
S.
(
1990)
Summary
of
Storage
Conditions
for
Sweet
and
Field
Corn
from
MRID.
Nos.
40615512
and
41197101,
Magnitude
of
Propargite
Residue
on
Corn.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.
112
p.

42011801
Gaydosh,
K.
(
1990)
Comite
on
Dry
Beans:
Foliar
Dislodgeable
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
89048:
HRFS­
89074:
ML89­
0132­
UNI.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Hulst
Research
Farm
Services
and
Morse
Labs,
Inc.
194
p.

42011901
Singh,
H.
(
1991)
Livestock
Feeding
Study
Analysis
of
Propargite
Residues
in
Meat,
Milk
and
Eggs:
Lab
Project
Number:
UR­
01/
02­
90.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Enviro­
Bio­
Tech,
Ltd.
66
p.

42099702
Korpalski,
S.
(
1991)
Omite­
30W
on
Apples:
Enclosed
Cab
Applicator
Exposure
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
91046:
PAL­
EF­
91­
361:
004­
04.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pan­
Agricultural
Labs.,
Inc.,
and
Centre
Analytical
Labs.,
Inc.
194
p.

42223501
Popadic,
C.
(
1992)
Omite
30W
and
CR
on
Apples:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
91038:
DNJ­
91­
103:
GRL­
10149.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ron
Britt
&
Assocs.,
Inc.;
Qualls
Agric.,
Labs.,
McKenzie
Labs.,
Inc.,
et
al.
234
p.

42223502
Popadic,
C.
(
1992)
Comite
on
Potatoes­­
Chemigation:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
90018:
DNJ­
90­
112:
DNJ­
90­
113.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Qualls
Agric.,
Labs.;
Miller
Research,
Inc.;
Biospheric,
Inc.;
et
al.
241
p.

42319301
Nowakowski,
M.
(
1988)
Soil
Photolysis
of
[
carbon
14]­
Omite:
Lab
Project
Number:
8857.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
110
p.

42319302
Tang,
C.;
Rose,
K.
(
1988)
Omite:
Determination
of
Dissociation
Constant:
Lab
Project
Number:
88122.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ricerca,
Inc.
31
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
131
42319303
Akhtar,
M.
(
1988)
Solubility
of
Propargite
in
Water:
Lab
Project
Number:
88137.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
13
p.

42319304
Akhtar,
M.
(
1988)
Solubility
of
Propargite
in
Polar
and
Non­
Polar
Organic
Solvents:
Lab
Project
Number:
88109.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
9
p.

42319307
Korpalski,
S.
(
1990)
Soil
Photolysis
of
[
carbon
14]­
Omite:
Amended
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
9057.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
49
p.

42644401
Popadic,
C.
(
1993)
Comite
on
Sorghum:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
91041:
GRL­
10152:
AWW­
91­
007.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Ltd.
in
cooperation
with
Midwest
Research,
Inc.
and
McKenzie
Labs,
Inc.
136
p.

42644402
Popadic,
C.
(
1993)
Method
Validation
of
Propargite
on
Sorghum
Grain:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
91059.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
a
McKenzie
Labs,
Inc.
60
p.

42688801
Comezoglu,
S.
(
1993)
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
of
(
carbon
14­
U­
Phenyl)­
Omite:
Lab
Project
Number:
92038:
RPT00112.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Xenobiotic
Labs,
Inc.
132
p.

42689103
Korpalski,
S.
(
1993)
Comite
on
Cotton:
Weeder
Reentry
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
ML92­
0295­
UNI:
RP­
92006.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal.
412
p.

42689104
Korpalski,
S.
(
1993)
Comite
on
Beans:
Weeder
Reentry
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
92116:
ML92­
0291­
UNI:
RP­
92005.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal.
484
p.

42786301
White,
C.
(
1993)
Soil
Analyses
of
Sandy
Loam
Soil
from
Propargite
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Study
(
MRID
#
41003601).
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
7
p.

42815201
Bigger,
C.;
Clarke,
J.
(
1993)
CHO/
HGPRT
Mutation
Assay
with
Confirmation
(
DMSO):
Omite:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
TC864.332001.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Microbiological
Associates,
Inc.
41
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
132
42846001
Popadic,
C.
(
1993)
OMITE
Rotational
Crop
Study:
Cotton
Rotated
with
Small
Grains,
Root
Crops,
and
Leafy
Vegetables:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
91037:
GRL­
10152:
CEJ­
91­
003.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co,
Ltd.,
Pan­
Agricultural
Labs,
Inc.,
McKenzie
Labs,
Inc.,
and
North
Coast
Lab,
Inc.
644
p.

42846002
Popadic,
C.
(
1993)
OMITE
Rotational
Crop
Study:
Corn
Rotated
with
Small
Grains,
Root
Crops,
and
Leafy
Vegetables:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
91016:
GRL­
10152:
RCP­
91­
003.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co,
Ltd.,
Hulst
Research
Farm
Services,
McKenzie
Labs,
Inc.,
and
North
Coast
Lab,
Inc.
405
p.

42857001
Kiplinger,
G.
(
1993)
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
Study
in
Albino
Rats
with
Omite
Technical:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
WIL­
155012.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
WIL
Research
Labs,
Inc.
73
p.

42857002
Kiplinger,
G.
(
1993)
Acute
Dermal
Toxicity
Study
in
Albino
Rabbits
with
Omite
Technical:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
WIL­
155013.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
WIL
Research
Labs,
Inc.
35
p.

42857003
Hoffman,
G.
(
1992)
An
Acute
Nose­
Only
Inhalation
Toxicity
Study
of
Propargite
in
Rat:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
91­
8372.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Bio/
dynamics,
Inc.
107
p.

42857004
Kiplinger,
G.
(
1993)
Primary
Dermal
Irritation
Study
in
Albino
Rabbits
with
Omite
Technical:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
WIL­
155014.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
WIL
Research
Labs,
Inc.
22
p.

42857005
Kiplinger,
G.
(
1993)
Primary
Eye
Irritation
Study
in
Albino
Rabbits
with
Omite
Technical:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
WIL­
155015.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
WIL
Research
Labs,
Inc.
21
p.

42857006
Kiplinger,
G.
(
1993)
Skin
Sensitization
Study
in
Albino
Guinea
Pigs
with
Omite
Technical:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
WIL­
155016.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
WIL
Research
Labs,
Inc.
56
p.

42885001
Bigger,
C.;
Clarke,
J.
(
1993)
CHO/
HGPRT
Mutation
Assay
with
Confirmation
(
Acetone):
(
Omite
Technical):
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
TC864.332001.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Microbiological
Assoc.,
Inc.
39
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
133
42908401
Spare,
W.
(
1993)
Adsorption/
Desorption
of
(
Carbon
14)­
Omite
Glycol
Ether:
Lab
Project
Number:
1922:
9313.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Agrisearch
Inc.
80
p.

42908402
Spare,
W.
(
1993)
Adsorption/
Desorption
of
(
Carbon
14)­
Omite:
Lab
Project
Number:
1921:
9312.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Agrisearch
Inc.
91
p.

43139401
Comezoglu,
S.
(
1994)
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
of
(
U­
Phenyl­(
carbon
14))­
Omite:
Lab
Project
Number:
XBL
92039:
RPT00141:
9264.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
XenoBiotic
Laboratories,
Inc.
165
p.

43185001
Boeri,
R.;
Kowalski,
P.;
Ward,
T.
(
1994)
Acute
Toxicity
of
Omite
Technical
to
the
Honey
Bee,
Apis
mellifera:
Lab
Project
Number:
385­
UN.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
T.
R.
Wilbury
Labs.,
Inc.
20
p.

43260801
Popadic,
C.
(
1994)
OMITE
30W
on
Raisin
Grapes:
Processing
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
93016:
ERS93­
017:
ML93­
0403­
UNI.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
EXCEL
Research
Services,
Inc.
and
Morse
Labs.,
Inc.
287
p.

43345501
Smudin,
D.;
White,
C.;
Hageman,
F.;
et
al.
(
1994)
Discussion
of
Field
Crop
and
Confined
Rotation
Data
for
Propargite.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co,
Inc.
20
p.

43348701
Popadic,
C.
(
1994)
OMITE
30W
on
Prunes:
Processing
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
GRL­
10438:
RP­
93019:
ESR93­
020.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Ltd.;
EXCEL
Research
Services,
Inc.;
and
Morse
Labs,
Inc.
349
p.

43502202
Putman,
D.;
Young,
R.
(
1994)
Propargite:
Micronucleus
Cytogenetic
Assay
in
Mice:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
G94AP36/
122.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Microbiological
Associates,
Inc.
35
p.

43620401
Smudin,
D.
(
1995)
OMITE
on
Tea:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue:
Lab
Project
Number:
24/
249:
24/
250.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Aburzi
Labs
in
cooperation
with
Miyazaki
Prefecture
Central
Agricultural
Test
Station
and
Shizuoka
Prefecture
Test
Station.
132
p.

43695901
Korpalski,
S.
(
1995)
Summary
of
Residue
Data
for
Propargite
in
Citrus,
1986
to
1987.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
78
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
134
43738201
Banijamali,
A.
(
1995)
(
Carbon
14)­
Propargite:
Nature
of
the
Residue
in
Corn:
Lab
Project
Number:
9406:
FL9401.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
189
p.

43759001
Davis,
J.
(
1995)
Comite:
Acute
Toxicity
to
Rainbow
Trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Under
Flow­
Through
Test
Conditions:
Lab
Project
Number:
J9501010B.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Toxikon
Environmental
Sciences.
64
p.

43759002
Davis,
J.
(
1995)
Comite:
Acute
Toxicity
to
Water
Flea
(
Daphnia
magna)
Under
Flow­
Through
Test
Conditions:
Lab
Project
Number:
J9501010C.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Toxikon
Environmental
Sciences.
64
p.

43759201
Popadic,
C.;
Smudin,
D.
(
1995)
Comite
on
Potatoes:
Processing
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
93005:
DNJ­
93­
101:
QAL
93063.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Qualls
Agricultural
Lab;
McKenzie
Labs,
Inc.;
and
Michigan
State
University.
342
p.

43799001
Yu,
W.
(
1995)
Confined
Accumulation
in
Rotational
Crops
(
Preliminary
Data):
(
Propargite):
Lab
Project
Number:
9357.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
7
p.

43802201
Smudin,
D.
(
1995)
Comite
on
Corn:
Processing
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
93004:
SWF­
93­
042:
ML93­
0402­
UNI.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
679
p.

43804001
Smudin,
D.
(
1995)
Comite
on
Peanuts:
Processing
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
93017:
ABR­
93­
001:
ML93­
0406­
UNI.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
FS
Agricultural
Consulting,
Food
Protein
Research
&
Development
Center
and
Morse
Lab.,
Inc.
333
p.

43847901
Korpalski,
S.
(
1995)
Comite
on
Sorghum:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
95008:
AWD­
95­
902:
STBR­
95­
65­
13.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
STAR,
Inc.;
Texas
A&
M
University
and
McKenzie
Labs,
Inc.
231
p.

43905901
Korpalski,
S.
(
1996)
Omite­
57E
on
Tea:
Processing
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
94017:
SJK16\
SK51207B:
SJK­
94­
001.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Research
Institute
for
Tea
and
Cinchona
and
McKenzie
Labs,
Inc.
374
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
135
44013801
Yu,
W.;
Nag,
J.;
Chan,
J.
(
1996)
Confined
Accumulation
Study
on
Rotational
Crops
with
(
carbon
14)­
Propargite:
Lab
Project
Number:
9357.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
423
p.

44039201
Korpalski,
S.
(
1996)
OMITE­
57E
on
Tea:
Residue
Decline
and
Green
&
Brewed
Tea
Processing
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
94024:
U:\
UNIROY\
94024FR.
DOC:
SJK­
95­
001.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
McKenzie
Laboratories,
Inc.
and
Research
Institute
of
Japan
Plant
Protection
Association.
458
p.

44127201
Smudin,
D.
(
1996)
Omite
on
Peaches­­
Post
Harvest
Application:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
NCL
20.055:
DJS
1­
050996:
CEJ­
96­
101.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
North
Coast
Labs.
175
p.

44127202
Smudin,
D.
(
1996)
Omite
on
Apricots­­
Post
Harvest
Application:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
NCL
20.057:
DJS
4­
051796:
CEJ­
96­
110.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
North
Coast
Labs.
134
p.

44127203
Smudin,
D.
(
1996)
Omite
30WS
on
Strawberries­­
Pre­
bloom
Application:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
ML96­
0635­
UNI:
DJS
5­
053196:
CEC­
96­
001.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Labs.
154
p.

44127204
Smudin,
D.
(
1996)
Omite
30WS
on
Plums­­
Post
Harvest
Application:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
NCL
20.056:
DJS
3­
051696:
CEJ­
96­
107.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
North
Coast
Labs.
124
p.

44285701
Korpalski,
S.
(
1996)
Comite­
II
on
Field
Corn:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue­­
Plant
Banding/
Aerial
Application:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
95005:
AWD­
95­
901:
SWF­
95­
100.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
South
Texas
Ag
Research,
Inc.;
King
Consulting;
and
Agvise,
Inc.
356
p.
(
Relates
to
L0000138).

44285702
Korpalski,
S.
(
1997)
Comite­
II
on
Field
Corn:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue­­
Ground/
Aerial
Split
Application:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
95006:
SWF­
95­
101:
SWF­
95­
102.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Agrisan,
Inc.;
Diamond
Ag
Research,
Inc.;
and
Agvise,
Inc.
360
p.

44472201
Korpalski,
S.
(
1997)
Omite­
570EW
on
Tea:
Fresh
Tea
Residue
Decline
and
Black,
Instant,
and
Brewed
Tea
Processing
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
RP­
96001:
SJK­
96­
001:
SJK­
96­
002.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
The
Research
Foundation
of
Kenya,
Wm.
J.
Englar
&
Assoc.,
Inc.
and
McKenzie
Labs.,
Inc.
503
p.
136
44698601
Korpalski,
S.
(
1997)
Omite
6E
on
Almonds:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
Study:
Lab
Project
Number:
ML94­
0487­
UNI:
RP­
94002:
RCP­
94­
040.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.
299
p.

44730701
Banijamali,
A.
(
1998)
Response
to
EPA's
Review
of:
(
carbon­
14)­
Propargite
Nature
of
the
Residue
in
Corn:
Lab
Project
Number:
9406.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Inc.
111
p.

ADDITIONAL
REFERENCES
Hill,
E.
F.,
R.
G.
Heath,
J.
W.
Spann
and
J.
D.
Williams.
1975.
Lethal
dietary
toxicities
of
environmental
pollutants
to
birds.
USDI,
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Patuxent
Wildlife
Research
Center.
USFWS
Special
Scientific
Report
­
Wildlife,
No.
191.
(
unpublished
report).
64
pp.
MRID
00022923.

Gusey,
W.
F.
and
Z.
D.
Maturgo.
1973.
Wildlife
utilization
of
cropland.
Dept.
Of
Environmental
Affairs,
Shell
Oil
Company,
Houston,
Texas.
278
pp.

Hoerger,
F.
D.
and
E.
E.
Kenaga.
1972.
Pesticide
residues
on
plants:
Correlation
of
representative
data
as
a
basis
for
estimation
of
their
magnitude
in
the
environment.
in,
Environmental
Quality.
F.
Coulston
and
F.
Korte,
Eds.
Academic
Press,
New
York.
Vol.
I,
pp.
9­
28.

Stephan,
C.
E.
1977.
Methods
for
calculating
an
LC
50
.
in,
Aquatic
toxicology
and
hazard
evaluation.
ASTM
STP
634.
F.
L.
Mayer
and
J.
L.
Hamelink,
Eds.
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials.
pp.
65­
84.

Stephan,
C.
E.,
K.
A.
Busch,
R.
Smith,
J.
Burke
and
R.
W.
Andrews.
1978.
A
computer
program
for
calculating
an
LC
50
.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Duluth,
Minnesota,
pre­
publication
manuscript,
August,
1978.

Willis,
G.
H.
and
L.
L.
McDowell,
1987.
Pesticide
Persistance
on
Foliage.
Reviews
of
Environmental
Contamination
and
Toxicology,
Vol.
100.
137
Appendix
E:
Generic
Data
Call­
In
See
attached
table
for
a
list
of
generic
data
requirements.
Note
that
a
complete
Data
Call­
In
(
DCI),
with
all
pertinent
instructions,
is
being
sent
to
registrant
under
separate
cover.
Insert
Generic
Data
Call
In
Here
138
139
Appendix
F:
Product­
Specific
Data
Call­
In
See
attached
table
for
a
list
of
product­
specific
data
requirements.
Note
that
a
complete
Data
Call­
In
(
DCI),
with
all
pertinent
instructions,
is
being
sent
to
registrant
under
separate
cover.
140
Appendix
G:
EPA
Batching
of
End
Use
Products
for
Meeting
Data
Requirements
for
Reregistration
In
an
effort
to
reduce
the
time,
resources
and
number
of
animals
needed
to
fulfill
the
acute
toxicity
data
requirements
for
reregistration
of
products
containing
propargite
as
the
primary
active
ingredient,
the
Agency
has
batched
products
which
can
be
considered
similar
for
purposes
of
acute
toxicity.
Factors
considered
in
the
sorting
process
include
each
product's
active
and
inert
ingredients
(
identity,
percent
composition
and
biological
activity),
type
of
formulation
(
e.
g.,
emulsifiable
concentrate,
aerosol,
wettable
powder,
granular,
etc.),
and
labeling
(
e.
g.,
signal
word,
use
classification,
precautionary
labeling,
etc.).
Note
the
Agency
is
not
describing
batched
products
as
"
substantially
similar"
since
some
products
with
in
a
batch
may
not
be
considered
chemically
similar
or
have
identical
use
patterns.

Using
available
information,
batching
has
been
accomplished
by
the
process
described
in
the
preceding
paragraph.
Notwithstanding
the
batching
process,
the
Agency
reserves
the
right
to
require,
at
any
time,
acute
toxicity
data
for
an
individual
product
should
need
arise.

Registrants
of
products
within
a
batch
may
choose
to
cooperatively
generate,
submit
or
cite
a
single
battery
of
six
acute
toxicological
studies
to
represent
all
the
products
within
that
batch.
It
is
the
registrants'
option
to
participate
in
the
process
with
all
other
registrants,
only
some
of
the
other
registrants,
or
only
their
own
products
within
in
a
batch,
or
to
generate
all
the
required
acute
toxicological
studies
for
each
of
their
own
products.
If
the
registrant
chooses
to
generate
the
data
for
a
batch,
he/
she
must
use
one
of
the
products
within
the
batch
as
the
test
material.
If
the
registrant
chooses
to
rely
upon
previously
submitted
acute
toxicity
data,
he/
she
may
do
so
provided
that
the
data
base
is
complete
and
valid
by
to­
days
standards
(
see
acceptance
criteria
attached),
the
formulation
tested
is
considered
by
EPA
to
be
similar
for
acute
toxicity,
and
the
formulation
has
not
been
significantly
altered
since
submission
and
acceptance
of
the
acute
toxicity
data.
Regardless
of
whether
new
data
is
generated
or
existing
data
is
referenced,
the
registrants
must
clearly
identify
the
test
material
by
EPA
Registration
Number.
If
more
than
one
confidential
statement
of
formula
(
CSF)
exists
for
a
product,
the
registrant
must
indicate
the
formulation
actually
tested
by
identifying
the
corresponding
CSF.

In
deciding
how
to
meet
the
product
specific
data
requirements,
registrants
must
follow
the
directions
given
in
the
Data
Call­
In
Notice
and
its
attachments
appended
to
the
RED.
The
DCI
Notice
contains
two
response
forms
which
are
to
be
completed
and
submitted
to
the
Agency
within
90
days
of
receipt.
The
first
form,
"
Data
Call­
in
Response,
"
asks
whether
the
registrant
will
meet
the
data
requirements
for
each
product.
The
second
form,
"
Requirements
Status
and
Registrant's
Response,"
lists
the
product
specific
data
required
for
each
product,
including
the
standard
six
acute
toxicity
tests.
A
registrant
who
wishes
to
participate
in
a
batch
must
decide
whether
he/
she
will
provide
the
data
or
depend
on
someone
else
to
do
so.
If
the
registrant
supplies
the
data
to
support
a
batch
of
products,
he/
she
must
select
the
one
of
the
following
options:
Developing
data
(
Option
1),
Submitting
an
existing
Study
(
Option
4),
Upgrading
an
existing
Study
(
Option
5),
or
Citing
an
Existing
Study
(
Option
).
If
a
registrant
depends
on
another's
data,
he/
she
must
choose
among:
Cost
sharing
(
Option
2),
Offers
to
Cost
Share
(
Option
3)
or
Citing
an
Existing
Study
(
Option
6).
If
a
registrant
does
not
want
to
participate
in
a
batch,
the
choices
are
Options
1,
4,
5
or
6.
However,
a
registrant
should
know
that
choosing
not
to
participate
in
a
batch
does
not
preclude
other
registrants
in
the
batch
from
citing
his/
her
studies
and
offering
to
cost
share
(
Option
3)
those
studies.
141
Nine
products
were
found
which
contain
propargite
as
the
active
ingredient.
These
products
have
been
placed
into
one
batch
and
a
"
No
Batch"
category
in
accordance
with
the
active
and
inert
ingredients
and
type
of
formulation.

Batch
1
EPA
Reg.
No.
Percent
active
ingredient
Formulation
Type
400­
82
32.0
Solid
400­
425
32.0
Solid
400­
426
32.0
Solid
400­
427
32.0
Solid
No
Batch
EPA
Reg.
No.
Percent
active
ingredient
Formulation
Type
400­
89
69.2
Liquid
400­
185
69.2
Liquid
400­
83
57.0
Liquid
400­
95
90.6
Liquid
400­
104
73.6
Liquid
142
Appendix
H:
List
of
Registrants
Sent
this
Data
Call­
In
143
Insert
CRMS
Page
of
Registrants
to
Recieve
DCI
Here
144
Appendix
I:
List
of
Available
Documents
and
Electronically
Available
Forms
°
Pesticide
Registration
Forms
are
available
at
the
following
EPA
internet
site:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/.

Pesticide
Registration
Forms
(
These
forms
are
in
PDF
format
and
require
the
Acrobat
reader)

Instructions
1.
Print
out
and
complete
the
forms.
(
Note:
Form
numbers
that
are
bolded
can
be
filled
out
on
your
computer
then
printed.)

2.
The
completed
form(
s)
should
be
submitted
in
hardcopy
in
accord
with
the
existing
policy.

3.
Mail
the
forms,
along
with
any
additional
documents
necessary
to
comply
with
EPA
regulations
covering
your
request,
to
the
address
below
for
the
Document
Processing
Desk.

DO
NOT
fax
or
e­
mail
any
form
containing
'
Confidential
Business
Information'
or
'
Sensitive
Information.'

If
you
have
any
problems
accessing
these
forms,
please
contact
Nicole
Williams
at
(
703)
308­
5551
or
by
e­
mail
at
williams.
nicole@
epamail.
epa.
gov.

The
following
Agency
Pesticide
Registration
Forms
are
currently
available
via
the
internet:
at
the
following
locations:

8570­
1
Application
for
Pesticide
Registration/
Amendment
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
1.
pdf.

8570­
4
Confidential
Statement
of
Formula
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
4.
pdf.

8570­
5
Notice
of
Supplemental
Registration
of
Distribution
of
a
Registered
Pesticide
Product
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
5.
pdf.

8570­
17
Application
for
an
Experimental
Use
Permit
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
17.
pdf.

8570­
25
Application
for/
Notification
of
State
Registration
of
a
Pesticide
To
Meet
a
Special
Local
Need
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
25.
pdf.

8570­
27
Formulator's
Exemption
Statement
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
27.
pdf.

8570­
28
Certification
of
Compliance
with
Data
Gap
Procedures
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
28.
pdf.

8570­
30
Pesticide
Registration
Maintenance
Fee
Filing
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
30.
pdf.

8570­
32
Certification
of
Attempt
to
Enter
into
an
Agreement
with
other
Registrants
for
Development
of
Data
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
32.
pdf.

8570­
34
Certification
with
Respect
to
Citations
of
Data
(
in
PR
Notice
98­
5)
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opppmsd1/
PR_
Notices/
pr98­
5.
pdf.

8570­
35
Data
Matrix
(
in
PR
Notice
98­
5)
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opppmsd1/
PR_
Notices/
pr98­
5.
pdf.

8570­
36
Summary
of
the
Physical/
Chemical
Properties
(
in
PR
Notice
98­
1)
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opppmsd1/
PR_
Notices/
pr98­
1.
pdf.
145
8570­
37
Self­
Certification
Statement
for
the
Physical/
Chemical
Properties
(
in
PR
Notice
98­
1)
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opppmsd1/
PR_
Notices/
pr98­
1.
pdf.

Pesticide
Registration
Kit
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/
registrationkit/.

Dear
Registrant:

For
your
convenience,
we
have
assembled
an
online
registration
kit
which
contains
the
following
pertinent
forms
and
information
needed
to
register
a
pesticide
product
with
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP):

1.
The
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
FIFRA)
and
the
Federal
Food,
Drug
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA)
as
Amended
by
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA)
of
1996.

2.
Pesticide
Registration
(
PR)
Notices
a.
83­
3
Label
Improvement
Program­­
Storage
and
Disposal
Statements
b.
84­
1
Clarification
of
Label
Improvement
Program
c.
86­
5
Standard
Format
for
Data
Submitted
under
FIFRA
d.
87­
1
Label
Improvement
Program
for
Pesticides
Applied
through
Irrigation
Systems
(
Chemigation)
e.
87­
6
Inert
Ingredients
in
Pesticide
Products
Policy
Statement
f.
90­
1
Inert
Ingredients
in
Pesticide
Products;
Revised
Policy
Statement
g.
95­
2
Notifications,
Non­
notifications,
and
Minor
Formulation
Amendments
h.
98­
1
Self
Certification
of
Product
Chemistry
Data
with
Attachments
(
This
document
is
in
PDF
format
and
requires
the
Acrobat
reader.)

Other
PR
Notices
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opppmsd1/
PR_
Notices.

3.
Pesticide
Product
Registration
Application
Forms
(
These
forms
are
in
PDF
format
and
will
require
the
Acrobat
reader.)

a.
EPA
Form
No.
8570­
1,
Application
for
Pesticide
Registration/
Amendment
b.
EPA
Form
No.
8570­
4,
Confidential
Statement
of
Formula
c.
EPA
Form
No.
8570­
27,
Formulator's
Exemption
Statement
d.
EPA
Form
No.
8570­
34,
Certification
with
Respect
to
Citations
of
Data
e.
EPA
Form
No.
8570­
35,
Data
Matrix
4.
General
Pesticide
Information
(
Some
of
these
forms
are
in
PDF
format
and
will
require
the
Acrobat
reader.)

a.
Registration
Division
Personnel
Contact
List
B.
Biopesticides
and
Pollution
Prevention
Division
(
BPPD)
Contacts
C.
Antimicrobials
Division
Organizational
Structure/
Contact
List
d.
53
F.
R.
15952,
Pesticide
Registration
Procedures;
Pesticide
Data
Requirements
(
PDF
format)
e.
40
CFR
Part
156,
Labeling
Requirements
for
Pesticides
and
Devices
(
PDF
format)
146
f..
40
CFR
Part
158,
Data
Requirements
for
Registration
(
PDF
format)
g..
50
F.
R.
48833,
Disclosure
of
Reviews
of
Pesticide
Data
(
November
27,
1985)

Before
submitting
your
application
for
registration,
you
may
wish
to
consult
some
additional
sources
of
information.
These
include:

1.
The
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs'
Web
Site
2.
The
booklet
"
General
Information
on
Applying
for
Registration
of
Pesticides
in
the
United
States,"
PB92­
221811,
available
through
the
National
Technical
Information
Service
(
NTIS)
at
the
following
address:

National
Technical
Information
Service
(
NTIS)
5285
Port
Royal
Road
Springfield,
VA
22161
The
telephone
number
for
NTIS
is
(
703)
605­
6000.
Please
note
that
EPA
is
currently
in
the
process
of
updating
this
booklet
to
reflect
the
changes
in
the
registration
program
resulting
from
the
passage
of
the
FQPA
and
the
reorganization
of
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
We
anticipate
that
this
publication
will
become
available
during
the
Fall
of
1998.

3.
The
National
Pesticide
Information
Retrieval
System
(
NPIRS)
of
Purdue
University's
Center
for
Environmental
and
Regulatory
Information
Systems.
This
service
does
charge
a
fee
for
subscriptions
and
custom
searches.
You
can
contact
NPIRS
by
telephone
at
(
765)
494­
6614
or
through
their
Web
site.

4.
The
National
Pesticide
Telecommunications
Network
(
NPTN)
can
provide
information
on
active
ingredients,
uses,
toxicology,
and
chemistry
of
pesticides.
You
can
contact
NPTN
by
telephone
at
(
800)
858­
7378
or
through
their
Web
site:
ace.
orst.
edu/
info/
nptn.

The
Agency
will
return
a
notice
of
receipt
of
an
application
for
registration
or
amended
registration,
experimental
use
permit,
or
amendment
to
a
petition
if
the
applicant
or
petitioner
encloses
with
his
submission
a
stamped,
self­
addressed
postcard.
The
postcard
must
contain
the
following
entries
to
be
completed
by
OPP:

Date
of
receipt
EPA
identifying
number
Product
Manager
assignment
Other
identifying
information
may
be
included
by
the
applicant
to
link
the
acknowledgment
of
receipt
to
the
specific
application
submitted.
EPA
will
stamp
the
date
of
receipt
and
provide
the
EPA
identifying
File
Symbol
or
petition
number
for
the
new
submission.
The
identifying
number
should
be
used
whenever
you
contact
the
Agency
concerning
an
application
for
registration,
experimental
use
permit,
or
tolerance
petition.

To
assist
us
in
ensuring
that
all
data
you
have
submitted
for
the
chemical
are
properly
coded
and
assigned
to
your
company,
please
include
a
list
of
all
synonyms,
common
and
trade
names,
company
experimental
codes,
and
other
names
which
identify
the
chemical
(
including
"
blind"
147
codes
used
when
a
sample
was
submitted
for
testing
by
commercial
or
academic
facilities).
Please
provide
a
CAS
number
if
one
has
been
assigned.

Documents
Associated
with
this
RED
The
following
documents
are
part
of
the
Administrative
Record
for
this
RED
document
and
may
included
in
the
EPA's
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
Public
Docket.
Copies
of
these
documents
may
not
be
available
electronically.
In
cases
where
the
document
is
not
available
electronically,
contact
the
person
listed
on
the
respective
Chemical
Status
Sheet.

A.
Health
and
Environmental
Effects
Science
Chapters.
B.
Detailed
Label
Usage
Information
System
(
LUIS)
Report.