Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0479-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-12-28T05:00Z

1
of
94
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
MEMORANDUM
Date:
September
13,
2005
Subject:
Dicamba.
Residue
Chemistry
Considerations
for
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(
RED)
Document.
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data.

DP
Number:
D317703
Decision
Number:
357484
Chemical
Class:
Benzoic
acid
herbicide
40
CFR
§
180:
227
PC
Codes:
029801
­
Dicamba
acid
029802
­
Dimethylamine
(
DMA)
salt
of
dicamba
029806
­
Sodium
(
Na)
salt
of
dicamba
128931
­
Diglycolamine
(
DGA)
salt
of
dicamba
128944
­
Isopropylamine
(
IPA)
salt
of
dicamba
129043
­
Potassium
(
K)
salt
of
dicamba
From:
Christine
L,
Olinger,
Chemist
Reregistration
Branch
I
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

Through:
Whang
Phang,
Ph.
D.,
Branch
Senior
Scientist
Reregistration
Branch
I
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

Chemistry
Science
Advisory
Council
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

To:
Kendra
Tyler,
CRM
Reregistration
Branch
1
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
(
7508C)

This
document
was
originally
prepared
under
contract
by
Dynamac
Corporation
(
20440
Century
Boulevard,
Suite
100;
Germantown,
MD
20874;
submitted
06/
16/
2005).
The
document
has
been
reviewed
by
the
Health
Effects
Division
(
HED)
and
revised
to
reflect
current
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP)
policies.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
2
of
94
Executive
Summary
Dicamba
(
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
methoxybenzoic
acid
is
a
selective
benzoic
acid
herbicide
registered
for
the
control
of
weeds
prior
or
before
their
emergence.
Different
forms
of
dicamba
(
acid
and
salt)
have
registered
uses
on
several
food/
feed
crops
including
asparagus,
barley,
corn
(
field
and
pop),
grasses
grown
in
pasture
and
rangeland,
oats,
proso
millet,
rye,
sorghum,
soybeans,
sugarcane,
and
wheat.
Application
rates
range
from
0.5
to
2.8
lb
ae/
A.

The
Agency's
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
(
SRRD)
issued
a
Use
Closure
Memorandum
for
Dicamba
(
Case
No.
0065)
on
8/
2/
05
in
an
attempt
to
provide
use
information
that
will
be
incorporated
into
the
preliminary
risk
assessment
for
dicamba.
The
registrants
intend
to
support
all
currently
registered
uses
described
in
the
Use
Closure
Memo
and
all
currently
registered
products.
The
different
forms
of
dicamba
acid
and
salts
that
will
be
supported
for
reregistration,
include:
the
dicamba
acid
(
PC
Code
029801),
dimethylamine
(
DMA)
salt
(
PC
Code
029802),
sodium
(
Na)
salt
(
PC
Code
029806),
isopropylamine
(
IPA)
salt
(
PC
Code
128944),
diglycolamine
(
DGA)
salt
(
PC
Code
128931),
and
potassium
(
K)
salt
(
PC
Code
129043).

The
nature
of
the
residue
in
plants
is
adequately
understood
based
on
the
aggregate
of
metabolism
studies
conducted
on
several
crops.
The
results
of
these
studies
indicate
that
dicamba
is
rapidly
absorbed
and
translocated
by
grasses,
grapes,
black
valentine
beans,
wheat,
bluegrass,
and
soybeans.
It
is
also
rapidly
absorbed
by
sugarcane
following
foliar
application
but
it
is
very
slowly
translocated
from
the
leaves
to
the
roots.
The
metabolism
of
dicamba
in
plants
proceeds
mainly
by
demethylation
and
hydroxylation.

The
residues
of
concern
in
barley,
corn,
cotton,
grasses,
oat,
proso
millet,
sorghum,
sugarcane,
and
wheat
are
dicamba
and
its
3,6­
dichloro­
5­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
metabolite;
these
are
the
residues
currently
regulated
in
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1).
In
asparagus,
the
residues
of
concern
are
dicamba
and
its
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
metabolite
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
2)];
the
metabolite
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
is
also
referred
to
as
3,6­
dichlorosalicylic
acid
(
DCSA).
The
residues
of
concern
in/
on
aspirated
grain
fractions
and
soybeans
are
dicamba,
5­
OH
dicamba,
and
DCSA
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
3)].
The
current
tolerance
definitions
are
appropriate
for
all
crop
commodities
with
registered
uses.

The
nature
of
the
residue
in
animals
is
adequately
understood
based
on
acceptable
metabolism
studies
conducted
on
ruminants
and
poultry.
The
compounds
identified
in
these
studies
include
dicamba,
DCSA,
and
2­
amino­
3,6­
dichlorophenol.
The
latter
compound
was
identified
only
in
hen
liver
at
<
1%
of
total
radioactive
residues
and
thus,
need
not
be
included
in
the
tolerance
expression.
The
residues
of
concern
in
meat,
milk,
poultry
and
eggs
remain
unchanged
and
consist
of
dicamba
and
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
2)].

The
nature
of
the
residue
in
rotational
crops
is
understood.
The
results
of
an
acceptable
confined
rotational
crop
study
showed
that
at
a
plantback
interval
of
120
days,
the
total
radioactive
residues
were
<
0.01
ppm
in/
on
samples
of
collard
greens
(
a
representative
of
leafy
vegetables)
and
carrots
(
a
representative
of
root
crops)
but
were
>
0.01
ppm
in
the
matrices
of
barley
(
a
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
3
of
94
representative
of
small
grains).
Residue
characterization
of
barley
matrices
from
the
120­
day
rotation
showed
that
a
good
percentage
of
TRR
was
associated
with
natural
plant
constituents
(
lignin
and
cellulose).

Limited
and/
or
extensive
field
accumulation
studies
with
dicamba
need
not
be
conducted
and
rotational
crop
tolerances
need
not
be
established
provided
the
registrants
are
willing
to
amend
all
dicamba
labels
to
specify
a
120­
day
plantback
interval
when
dicamba
is
applied
at
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.75
lb
ae/
A
or
less.
At
application
rates
of
0.75­
2.0
lb
ae/
A,
the
labels
should
specify
that
only
crops
with
established
tolerances
can
be
rotated.

There
are
adequate
plant
enforcement
methods.
The
Pesticide
Analytical
Manual
(
PAM)
Vol.
II
lists
Method
I
(
AM
0268A),
a
GC
method
with
electron
capture
detection
(
GC/
ECD)
for
the
enforcement
of
dicamba
plant
tolerances.
The
sensitivity
of
the
method
is
listed
at
0.05
ppm.
An
improved
plant
enforcement
method
(
GC/
ECD)
has
resulted
from
the
requirements
of
the
6/
30/
89
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter
of
the
Dicamba
(
SRR).
The
Chapter
requested
that
Method
AM­
0691A
or
B,
both
of
which
were
modifications
to
Method
I
of
PAM
Vol.
II
(
AM
0268A),
be
subjected
to
an
independent
laboratory
validation
(
ILV)
because
the
method
procedures
included
an
acid
hydrolysis
step
which
increased
the
extraction
efficiency
of
dicamba
residues
from
various
commodities.
Method
AM­
0691B­
0593­
2
has
been
subjected
to
a
successful
ILV
as
well
as
EPA
method
validation.
Pending
a
re­
write
of
the
method
to
incorporate
suggested
changes/
corrections
made
by
Agency
chemists
from
ACL,
the
method
will
be
forwarded
to
FDA
for
publication
in
PAM
Vol.
II.
It
is
noted
that
Methods
AM­
0691B­
0593­
2
and
­
3
were
recently
superceded
by
Method
AM­
0691B­
0297­
4,
which
consists
of
a
more
detailed
step­
by­
step
description
of
the
procedures,
GC­
MS
confirmatory
tests,
and
additional
recovery
data.
The
LOQ
for
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
is
0.02
ppm.

Several
data­
collection
methods
were
used
for
the
analysis
of
samples,
collected
from
recent
field
and
processing
studies.
In
essence,
these
data­
collection
methods
were
based
on
or
modifications
of
the
improved
enforcement
method.
In
conjunction
with
PP#
4F3041,
additional
method
validation
data
using
Method
AM­
0691B­
0297­
4
are
required
for
barley
grain
and
straw
at
fortification
levels
of
6
and
15
ppm,
respectively,
and
for
wheat
straw
at
30
ppm
because
the
maximum
residues
obtained
from
the
respective
field
trials
were
not
validated
at
these
levels.
In
addition,
the
registrants
are
required
to
submit
additional
method
validation
data
using
Method
AM­
0941­
1094­
0
for
soybean
seeds
at
a
spike
level
of
10
ppm.
The
registrants
have
committed
to
generate
these
data.

For
the
enforcement
of
animal
commodity
tolerances,
PAM
Vol.
II
lists
Method
II,
a
GC/
ECD
method
which
is
identical
to
Method
I.
The
sensitivity
of
the
method
is
listed
at
0.01
ppm.
Based
on
the
results
of
animal
metabolism
study,
which
showed
that
acid
hydrolysis
can
additionally
extract
up
to
30%
of
TRR
in
goat
liver,
HED
is
requiring
the
registrants
to
revise/
improve
Method
II
to
include
an
acid
hydrolysis
step
and
submit
additional
validation
data.
Method
II
should
also
be
re­
written
specifically
for
the
analysis
of
the
parent
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
metabolite
in
animal
matrices.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
4
of
94
According
to
FDA's
PAM
Volume
I,
Appendix
II,
dicamba
is
completely
recovered
using
Section
402
E2
of
Protocol
B
but
is
only
partially
recovered
using
Section
402
E1
of
Protocol
B.
There
are
no
multiresidue
methods
recovery
data
for
the
dicamba
metabolites
of
concern
(
5­
OH
dicamba
and
DCSA),
and
these
data
are
required.

There
are
adequate
storage
stability
data
for
a
wide
variety
of
crop
commodities
except
on
sugarcane
molasses.
Storage
stability
data
are
required
for
sugarcane
molasses
to
validate
the
interval
and
conditions
of
samples
collected
from
the
submitted
sugarcane
processing
study
(
MRID
43245204).
The
available
storage
stability
data
indicate
that
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolites
are
reasonably
stable
under
frozen
storage
conditions
in/
on:
(
i)
field
corn
forage,
silage,
grain,
and
fodder
for
up
to
3
years
(
dicamba)
and
2
years
(
5­
OH
dicamba);
(
ii)
soybean
forage
for
up
to
4
months
and
in
refined
oil
for
up
to
3
months;
(
iii)
grass
forage
and
hay
for
up
to
314
and
320
days,
respectively;
(
iv)
asparagus
for
up
to
104
days
(
dicamba
and
DCSA)
and
119
days
(
5­
OH
dicamba);
and
(
iv)
refined
white
sugar
of
sugarcane
for
up
to
60
days.

There
are
no
available
storage
stability
data
for
animal
commodities.
Samples
to­
be­
collected
from
the
requested
ruminant
feeding
study
should
be
stored
frozen
and
analyzed
promptly
(
within
a
month)
to
preclude
the
need
for
supporting
storage
stability
data.
If
sample
storage
will
exceed
more
than
a
month,
then
the
registrants
are
required
to
submit
data
depicting
the
storage
stability
of
the
parent
dicamba
and
its
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
metabolite
in
milk
and
ruminant
tissues.

The
results
of
the
available
ruminant
feeding
study
conducted
at
the
feeding
level
of
400
indicate
the
maximum
total
residues
of
dicamba
were
0.32
ppm
in
milk
and
0.9
ppm
in
kidney.
However,
a
new
bovine
feeding
study
conducted
at
a
feeding
level
of
1000
ppm
is
currently
under
review
(
MRID
44891303).
Based
on
a
cursory
review
of
the
study
and
an
estimated
maximum
theoretical
dietary
burden
of
482
ppm,
tolerances
for
livestock
commodities
require
revision,
ranging
from
a
level
of
0.2
ppm
for
fat
to
25
ppm
for
kidney.

A
poultry
feeding
study
with
dicamba
is
not
required
based
on
the
results
of
the
submitted
poultry
metabolism
study.
In
the
poultry
study,
the
TRR
levels
in
eggs,
liver,
muscle,
and
fat
were
all
<
0.004
ppm
following
dosing
at
10
ppm
(­
1.9x
the
maximum
dietary
burden
of
5.2
ppm)
in
the
diet
for
four
consecutive
days.
Residues
in
eggs
plateaued
after
the
first
day
of
dosing
(
i.
e.,
there
was
no
accumulation
with
increasing
days
of
dosing).
HED
does
not
anticipate
the
occurrence
of
quantifiable
residues
of
dicamba
or
DCSA
in
poultry
eggs
and
meat
as
a
result
of
treating
crops
with
poultry
feed
items
at
the
maximum
use
patterns.
Therefore,
HED
concludes
that
tolerances
are
not
needed
in
poultry
eggs
and
meat
at
this
time
but
may
be
required
if
additional
uses
are
registered
in
the
future.

Residue
studies
that
were
generated
by
Craven
Laboratories
had
been
identified
by
HED,
and
a
Data
Call­
In
Notice
was
issued
on
02/
94
requesting
end­
use
producer(
s)
of
dicamba
to
conduct
new
field
trials
on
barley,
corn
(
field),
sorghum,
soybean,
sugarcane,
and
wheat.
Several
residue
chemistry
studies
have
been
submitted
and
reviewed
in
response
to
the
Dicamba
DCI
Notice.
These
Craven­
replacement
data
along
with
data
submitted
for
the
remainder
of
crops
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
5
of
94
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
were
re­
evaluated
in
this
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter.
Listed
below
are
HED's
findings.

Pending
label
revisions
and/
or
adjustment
of
tolerances
for
some
commodities,
there
are
adequate
residue
data
to
fulfill
reregistration
requirements
for:
asparagus;
grass
forage
and
hay;
sorghum
grain,
forage,
and
stover;
and
soybean
seed
and
hulls.

It
is
the
current
Agency
policy
to
allow
label
restrictions
on
the
feeding/
grazing
of
livestock
animals
on
soybean
forage
and
hay,
thus,
precluding
the
need
for
residue
data
and
tolerances
for
these
soybean
commodities.
HED
defers
to
RD
for
verifying
whether
such
restrictions
exist
on
product
labels.
If
such
restrictions
appear
on
the
labels,
then
residue
data
and
tolerances
for
soybean
forage
and
hay
are
not
necessary.
If
no
such
restrictions
appear
on
the
labels,
then
the
registrants
are
required
to
propose
tolerances
for
soybean
forage
and
hay;
based
on
the
available
data,
a
tolerance
level
of
0.1
ppm
would
be
appropriate
for
each
soybean
commodity.
Concomitant
with
these
tolerance
proposals,
the
registrants
are
required
to
propose
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
for
preplant
application
on
soybean
grown
for
forage
and
hay
only.

The
submitted
data
for
several
crop
commodities
are
inadequate
because
they
do
not
reflect
the
maximum
use
rates
listed
in
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile.
To
fulfill
reregistration
requirements,
the
registrants
are
required
to
submit
additional
data
for
the
following
commodities:
barley,
grain,
hay,
and
straw;
corn,
field,
grain,
forage,
and
stover;
cotton
gin
by­
products;
sugarcane;
and
wheat
grain
and
straw.
In
lieu
of
submitting
additional
data
for
the
above­
listed
commodities,
the
registrants
are
given
the
option
to
rely
on
the
available
data
provided
they
revise
their
product
labels
for
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data.

A
magnitude
of
the
residue
study
(
MRID
44891302)
in
wheat
forage
and
hay
has
been
identified
and
is
currently
under
review.

There
are
adequate
residue
data
on
the
aspirated
grain
fractions
of
sorghum,
soybean,
and
wheat.
Although
the
available
data
support
the
current
tolerance
level
of
5100
ppm,
additional
data
are
required
for
the
aspirated
grain
fractions
of
field
corn
since
an
examination
of
BEAD
Use
Pattern
Table
indicates
that
various
salt
formulations
of
dicamba
may
be
applied
early
and
late
postemergence
to
the
crop.

HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available/
requested
field
trial
data
from
some
crop
commodities
to
agronomically
related
commodities
with
identical
uses.
The
available/
requested
data
for
field
corn
grain
and
stover
may
be
translated
to
pop
corn
grain
and
stover.
The
available/
requested
data
for
wheat
grain,
forage,
hay,
and
straw
may
be
translated
to
the
respective
commodities
of
proso
millet,
oat,
and
rye.
Where
translation
of
data
is
allowed,
any
HED
recommendations
with
regards
to
label
revisions
as
well
as
tolerance
reassessment
should
apply
to
all
respective
crop
commodities.

Cotton
is
not
included
in
the
list
of
food/
feed
uses
which
will
be
supported
for
reregistration.
Therefore,
HED
is
recommending
the
revocation
of
the
established
tolerances
for
cottonseed
and
cotton
meal.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
6
of
94
The
Agency
no
longer
considers
sugarcane
forage
and
fodder
to
be
significant
livestock
feed
items,
and
these
items
have
been
deleted
from
Table
1
of
OPPTS
860.1000.
Therefore,
the
established
tolerances
for
sugarcane
forage
and
fodder
should
be
revoked.

There
are
acceptable
processing
studies
with
dicamba
on
soybean,
sugarcane,
and
wheat.
The
soybean
processing
study
resulted
in
a
processing
factor
of
3.8x
for
residues
of
dicamba
in
soybean
hulls
but
no
concentration
of
residues
was
observed
in
other
soybean
fractions
(
meal,
crude
oil
and
refined
oil).
The
sugarcane
processing
study
showed
that
the
combined
residues
were
nondetectable
(<
0.01
ppm)
in
refined
sugar
but
concentrated
in
molasses
(
processing
factor
of
24.4x).
The
combined
residues
in
soybean
hull
and
sugarcane
molasses
are
expected
to
exceed
the
respective
established
tolerances
when
the
maximum
highest
average
field
trial
(
HAFT)
residues
are
multiplied
by
the
processing
factor;
HED
is
therefore,
recommending
an
upward
adjustment
to
the
tolerances.
The
wheat
processing
study
showed
that
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
did
not
concentrate
in
any
wheat
processed
fractions.

A
corn
processing
study
(
MRID
41187301)
has
been
identified
and
is
currently
under
review.
The
available
wheat
grain
processing
data
may
be
translated
to
barley
and
oats.
A
millet
grain
processing
study
is
not
required
since
the
only
processed
commodity
associated
with
millet
is
flour.
Endnote
44
of
Table
1
OPPTS
860.1000
specifies
that
millet
flour
is
not
produced
significantly
in
the
U.
S.
for
human
consumption,
and
residue
data
are
not
needed
at
this
time.
A
sorghum
processing
study
is
not
required
since
sorghum
flour
is
used
in
the
U.
S.
exclusively
for
drywall,
and
not
as
a
human
food
or
a
feedstuff.

Regulatory
Recommendations
and
Residue
Chemistry
Deficiencies
Listed
below
is
a
summary
of
residue
chemistry
data
deficiencies
that
must
be
fulfilled
for
reregistration.
A
human
health
risk
assessment
is
forthcoming.

"
Additional
method
validation
data
using
Method
AM­
0691B­
0297­
4;
recovery
data
are
needed
for
barley
grain
and
straw
at
fortification
levels
of
6
and
15
ppm,
respectively,
and
for
wheat
straw
at
30
ppm.
Additional
method
validation
data
using
Method
AM­
0941­
1094­
0
are
also
needed
for
soybean
seeds
at
a
spike
level
of
10
ppm.

"
Revise/
improve
Method
II
of
PAM
Vol.
II
to
include
an
acid
hydrolysis
step
and
submit
additional
validation
data.
Method
II
should
also
be
re­
written
specifically
for
the
analysis
of
the
parent
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
metabolite
in
animal
matrices.

"
Multiresidue
methods
recovery
data
for
the
dicamba
metabolites
of
concern
(
5­
OH
dicamba
and
DCSA).

"
Storage
stability
data
for
sugarcane
molasses
and
animal
commodities.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
7
of
94
Cl
Cl
O
OH
OCH
3
Cl
Cl
O
O
­[
NH
2
(
CH
3
)
2
]+

OCH
3
"
Residue
data
and
tolerances
for
soybean
forage
and
hay
if
no
feeding
restrictions
appear
on
the
label.

"
Magnitude
of
the
residue
data
for
the
following
commodities:
barley,
grain,
hay,
and
straw;
corn,
field,
grain,
forage,
and
stover;
sugarcane;
and
wheat
grain
and
straw.
In
lieu
of
submitting
additional
data
for
the
above­
listed
commodities,
the
registrants
have
the
option
of
relying
on
the
available/
submitted
data
provided
they
revise
their
product
labels
for
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data.

Background
Identification
of
Active
Ingredient
The
PC
code
and
nomenclature
of
dicamba
and
its
salts
are
presented
in
Table
1.
The
physicochemical
properties
of
dicamba
and
its
salts
are
listed
in
Table
2.
PC
Codes
029803,
029804,
and
029807
are
no
longer
being
supported
and
have
been
canceled;
these
dicamba
salts
are
not
included
in
Tables
1
and
2.

Table
1.
Dicamba
and
its
Salts
Nomenclature
PC
Code
029801
Chemical
structure
Common
name
Dicamba
acid
Molecular
Formula
C8H6Cl2O3
Molecular
Weight
221.04
IUPAC
name
3,6­
dichloro­
o­
anisic
acid
CAS
name
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
methoxybenzoic
acid
or
2­
methoxy­
3,6­
dichlorobenzoic
acid
CAS
#
1918­
00­
9
PC
Code
029802
Chemical
structure
Common
name
Dicamba
dimethylamine
salt
(
DMA
salt)

Molecular
Formula
C10H13Cl2NO3
Molecular
Weight
266.1
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
1.
Dicamba
and
its
Salts
Nomenclature
8
of
94
Cl
Cl
O
O
­
Na
+

OCH
3
Cl
Cl
O
O
­[
NH
3
CH
2
CH
2
OCH
2
CH
2
OH]+

OCH
3
Cl
Cl
O
OCH
3
O
­[
NH
3
CH(
CH
3
)
2
]+
CAS
#
2300­
66­
5
PC
Code
029806
Chemical
structure
Common
name
Dicamba
sodium
salt
(
Na
salt)

Molecular
Formula
C8H5Cl2NaO3
Molecular
Weight
243.0
CAS
#
1982­
69­
0
PC
Code
128931
Chemical
structure
Common
name
Dicamba
diglycolamine
salt
(
DGA
salt)

Molecular
Formula
C12H17Cl2NO5
Molecular
Weight
326.18
CAS
#
104040­
79­
1
PC
Code
128944
Chemical
structure
Common
name
Dicamba
isopropylamine
salt
(
IPA
salt)

Molecular
Formula
C11H15Cl2NO3
Molecular
Weight
280.15
CAS
#
55871­
02­
8
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
1.
Dicamba
and
its
Salts
Nomenclature
9
of
94
Cl
Cl
O
OCH
3
O
­
K
+
PC
Code
129043
Chemical
structure
Common
name
Dicamba
potassium
salt
(
K
salt)

Molecular
Formula
C8H5Cl2KO3
Molecular
Weight
259.1
CAS
#
10007­
85­
9
Table
2.
Physicochemical
Properties
of
Dicamba
and
its
Salts
Parameter
Value
Reference
Dicamba
acid
(
PC
Code
029801)

Melting
point
114­
116
°
C
(
PAI)
90­
100
°
C
(
87%
TGAI)
SRR
Reregistration
Standard,
6/
30/
89
pH
2.5­
3.0
(
87%
TGAI)

Density,
bulk
density,
or
specific
gravity
1.57
g/
mL
at
25
°
C
(
87%
TGAI)

Water
solubility
0.5
g/
100
mL
at
25
°
C
(
PAI)

Solvent
solubility
g/
100
mL
at
25
°
C
(
PAI)
dioxane
118.0
ethanol
92.2
isopropyl
alcohol
76.0
methylene
chloride
26.0
acetone
17.0
toluene
13.0
xylene
7.8
heavy
aromatic
naphthalene
5.2
Vapor
pressure
3.4
x
10­
5
mm
Hg
at
25
°
C
(
PAI)

Dissociation
constant,
pKa
1.97
(
PAI)

Octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
0.1
(
PAI)

UV/
visible
absorption
spectrum
neutral:
511
(
275
nm)
acidic
(
pH
0­
1):
1053
(
281
nm)
basic
(
pH
13­
14):
469
(
274
nm)
RD
D266167,
6/
26/
00,
B.
Kitchens
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
2.
Physicochemical
Properties
of
Dicamba
and
its
Salts
Parameter
Value
Reference
10
of
94
Dicamba
DMA
salt
(
PC
Code
029802)

Melting
point
101.0­
114.5
°
C
D213276,
D216855,
D216859,
D216853,
D216857,
D216862,
D217061,
D218789,
D218792,
D218784,
D218787,
and
D218786,
11/
21/
95,
L.
Cheng
pH
3.89
at
25
°
C
(
1%
solution)

Density,
bulk
density,
or
specific
gravity
0.77
g/
mL
at
25
°
C
(
tap
density)

Water
solubility
94.5
g/
100
mL
at
25
°
C
Solvent
solubility
N/
A;
data
for
the
free
acid
are
representative
of
the
dicamba
salts
D198000,
5/
5/
94,
P.
Deschamp
Vapor
pressure
Dissociation
constant,
pKa
Octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
KOW
=
0.078
D213276,
D216855,
D216859,
D216853,
D216857,
D216862,
D217061,
D218789,
D218792,
D218784,
D218787,
and
D218786,
11/
21/
95,
L.
Cheng
UV/
visible
absorption
spectrum
Not
available
Dicamba
Na
salt
(
PC
Code
029806)

Melting
point
320­
325
°
C
RD
Memorandum,
9/
26/
94,
T.
Alston
pH
7.16
Density,
bulk
density,
or
specific
gravity
1.03
g/
mL
at
25
°
C
Water
solubility
N/
A;
data
for
the
organic
salts
(
DMA,
DGA,
and
IPA)
are
representative
of
the
Na
salt
D198000,
5/
5/
94,
P.
Deschamp
Solvent
solubility
N/
A;
data
for
the
free
acid
are
representative
of
the
dicamba
salts
Vapor
pressure
Dissociation
constant,
pKa
Octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
N/
A;
data
for
the
organic
salts
(
DMA,
DGA,
and
IPA)
are
representative
of
the
Na
salt
UV/
visible
absorption
spectrum
Not
available
Dicamba
DGA
salt
(
PC
Code
128931)

Melting
point
52.0­
85.0
°
C
D213276,
D216855,
D216859,
D216853,
D216857,
D216862,
D217061,
D218789,
D218792,
D218784,
D218787,
and
D218786,
11/
21/
95,
L.
Cheng
pH
7.60
at
25
°
C
(
1%
solution)

Density,
bulk
density,
or
specific
gravity
0.69
g/
mL
at
25
°
C
(
tap
density)

Water
solubility
107
g/
100
mL
at
25
°
C
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
2.
Physicochemical
Properties
of
Dicamba
and
its
Salts
Parameter
Value
Reference
11
of
94
Solvent
solubility
N/
A;
data
for
the
free
acid
are
representative
of
the
dicamba
salts
D198000,
5/
5/
94,
P.
Deschamp
Vapor
pressure
Dissociation
constant,
pKa
Octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
KOW
=
0.061
D213276,
D216855,
D216859,
D216853,
D216857,
D216862,
D217061,
D218789,
D218792,
D218784,
D218787,
and
D218786,
11/
21/
95,
L.
Cheng
UV/
visible
absorption
spectrum
Not
available
Dicamba
IPA
salt
(
PC
Code
128944)

Melting
point
93.5­
127.5
°
C
D213276,
D216855,
D216859,
D216853,
D216857,
D216862,
D217061,
D218789,
D218792,
D218784,
D218787,
and
D218786,
11/
21/
95,
L.
Cheng
pH
4.68
at
25
°
C
(
1%
solution)

Density,
bulk
density,
or
specific
gravity
0.63
g/
mL
at
25
°
C
(
tap
density)

Water
solubility
59.6
g/
100
mL
at
25
°
C
Solvent
solubility
N/
A;
data
for
the
free
acid
are
representative
of
the
dicamba
salts
D198000,
5/
5/
94,
P.
Deschamp
Vapor
pressure
Dissociation
constant,
pKa
Octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
KOW
=
0.070
D213276,
D216855,
D216859,
D216853,
D216857,
D216862,
D217061,
D218789,
D218792,
D218784,
D218787,
and
D218786,
11/
21/
95,
L.
Cheng
UV/
visible
absorption
spectrum
Not
available
Dicamba
K
salt
(
PC
Code
129043)

Melting
point
Decomposes
at
213.5
°
C
D213276,
D216855,
D216859,
D216853,
D216857,
D216862,
D217061,
D218789,
D218792,
D218784,
D218787,
and
D218786,
11/
21/
95,
L.
Cheng
pH
8.12
at
25
°
C
(
1%
solution)

Density,
bulk
density,
or
specific
gravity
0.88
g/
mL
at
25
°
C
(
tap
density)

Water
solubility
N/
A;
data
for
the
organic
salts
(
DMA,
DGA,
and
IPA)
are
representative
of
the
K
salt
D198000,
5/
5/
94,
P.
Deschamp
Solvent
solubility
N/
A;
data
for
the
free
acid
are
representative
of
the
dicamba
salts
Vapor
pressure
Dissociation
constant,
pKa
Octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
N/
A;
data
for
the
organic
salts
(
DMA,
DGA,
and
IPA)
are
representative
of
the
K
salt
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
2.
Physicochemical
Properties
of
Dicamba
and
its
Salts
Parameter
Value
Reference
12
of
94
UV/
visible
absorption
spectrum
Not
available
860.1200
Directions
for
Use
Product
List:
The
different
forms
of
dicamba
acid
and
salts
with
food/
feed
uses,
that
will
be
supported
for
reregistration,
include:
the
dicamba
acid
(
PC
Code
029801),
dimethylamine
(
DMA)
salt
(
PC
Code
029802),
sodium
(
Na)
salt
(
PC
Code
029806),
isopropylamine
(
IPA)
salt
(
PC
Code
128944),
diglycolamine
(
DGA)
salt
(
PC
Code
128931),
and
potassium
(
K)
salt
(
PC
Code
129043).
According
to
the
Status
of
Pesticides
in
Registration,
Reregistration,
and
Special
Review
(
Rainbow
Report;
1998),
the
following
salts
of
dicamba
have
been
cancelled:
the
diethanolamine
salt
(
PC
Code
029803),
monoethanolamine
dicamba
(
PC
Code
029804),
and
aluminum
salt
of
dicamba
(
PC
Code
129042).

A
4/
20/
05
product
registration
query
of
the
USEPA/
OPP
Chemical
Ingredients
(
OPPIN)
database
identified
several
active
end­
use
products
(
EPs)
containing
dicamba
acid
and/
or
salts
as
the
active
ingredient.
These
EPs,
as
well
as
all
active
Special
Local
Need
(
SLN)
registrations,
are
listed
below
in
Table
3.

Table
3.
Dicamba
End­
use
Products
(
EPs)
Food/
feed
Uses.

EPA
Reg.
No.
Status
%
AI
Product
Name
Dicamba
acid
(
PC
Code
029801)

000228­
00309
Conditionally
Registered
(
10­
Oct­
1995)
10
RIVERDALE
VETERAN
10G
000524­
00507
Conditionally
Registered
(
04­
Jun­
1999)
4.1
FALLOW
MASTER
BROAD
SPECTRUM
HERBICIDE
007969­
00142
Conditionally
Registered
(
04­
Oct­
1995)
69.4
SAN
821
H
600
HERBICIDE
007969­
00148
Conditionally
Registered
(
03­
Dec­
1996)
10.67
OPTILL
HERBICIDE
071369­
00030
Conditionally
Registered
(
26­
Sep­
2001)
4.1
NUFARM
GLYKAMBA
BROAD
SPECTRUM
HERBICIDE
Dimethylamine
(
DMA)
salt
of
dicamba
(
PC
Code
029802)
1
000228­
00295
Conditionally
Registered
(
22­
Aug­
1994)
12.82
RIVERDALE
VETERAN
720
HERBICIDE
000228­
00296
Not
listed
in
OPPIN
Summary
Report
000352­
00614
Conditionally
Registered
(
30­
Jan­
2002)
12.4
DUPONT
CIMARRON
MAX
PART
B
000352­
00615
Conditionally
Registered
(
30­
Jan­
2002)
12.25
DUPONT
CIMARRON
MAX
HERBICIDE
002217­
00639
Conditionally
Registered
(
26­
Sep­
1980)
4.24
TRIMEC
875
HERBICIDE
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
3.
Dicamba
End­
use
Products
(
EPs)
Food/
feed
Uses.

EPA
Reg.
No.
Status
%
AI
Product
Name
13
of
94
007969­
00131
Conditionally
Registered
(
30­
Aug­
1962)
48.2
BANVEL
HERBICIDE
007969­
00133
Conditionally
Registered
(
01­
Apr­
1974)
12.4
WEEDMASTER
HERBICIDE
051036­
00289
Conditionally
Registered
(
14­
May­
1997)
48.2
DICAMBA
DMA
4#
AG
051036­
00308
Conditionally
Registered
(
19­
Oct­
1998)
12.4
BANVEL
+
2,4­
D
Sodium
(
Na)
salt
of
dicamba
(
PC
Code
029806)

000100­
00923
Conditionally
Registered
(
25­
Sep­
1998)
43.9
NORTHSTAR
HERBICIDE
000100­
00927
Conditionally
Registered
(
14­
Dec­
1998)
55
RAVE
HERBICIDE
000241­
00359
Conditionally
Registered
(
07­
Feb­
1995)
61.9
RESOLVE
SG
HERBICIDE
000241­
00384
Conditionally
Registered
(
17­
Mar­
1998)
58.9
AC
513,995
DG
HERBICIDE
007969­
00135
Conditionally
Registered
(
25­
Apr­
1986)
23.15
BANVEL
SGF
HERBICIDE
007969­
00140
Conditionally
Registered
(
30­
Jun­
1994)
77
SAN845H
HERBICIDE
007969­
00150
Conditionally
Registered
(
28­
Jan­
1999)
55
DISTINCT
HERBICIDE
007969­
00166
Conditionally
Registered
(
26­
Feb­
1998)
69.3
CELEBRITY
HERBICIDE
007969­
00175
Conditionally
Registered
(
04­
Aug­
1999)
46.6
CELEBRITY
PLUS
HERBICIDE
033906­
00011
Conditionally
Registered
(
04­
Feb­
2002)
55
NC­
398
WG
042750­
00043
Conditionally
Registered
(
07­
Oct­
1998)
23.15
ALBAUGH
DICAMBA
SODIUM
SALT
051036­
00290
Conditionally
Registered
(
01­
Aug­
1997)
23.15
DICAMBA
DMA
2#
AG
Isopropylamine
(
IPA)
salt
of
dicamba
(
PC
Code
128944)

000524­
00390
Conditionally
Reregistered
(
22­
May­
1997)
7
FALLOW
MASTER
HERBICIDE
007969­
00138
Conditionally
Registered
(
07­
Jan­
1988)
40.32
IPA
SALT
OF
DICAMBA
042750­
00063
Conditionally
Registered
(
31­
May­
2001)
7
FALLOW
STAR
Diglycolamine
(
DGA)
salt
of
dicamba
(
PC
Code
128931)

000100­
00975
Conditionally
Registered
(
25­
Jan­
2001)
28.4
TD
HERBICIDE
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
3.
Dicamba
End­
use
Products
(
EPs)
Food/
feed
Uses.

EPA
Reg.
No.
Status
%
AI
Product
Name
14
of
94
007969­
00137
Conditionally
Registered
(
23­
Sep­
1987)
56.8
CLARITY
HERBICIDE
Potassium
(
K)
salt
of
dicamba
(
PC
Code
129043)

007969­
00136
Conditionally
Registered
(
25­
Apr­
1986)
13.42
MARKSMAN
HERBICIDE
033658­
00016
Conditionally
Registered
(
16­
Aug­
2000)
13.45
STRATOS
DICAMBA+
ATRAZINE
AGRICULTURAL
HERBICIDE
042750­
00041
Conditionally
Registered
(
22­
May­
1998)
13.42
DICAMBAZINE
051036­
00307
Conditionally
Registered
(
13­
Oct­
1998)
13.42
BANVEL
+
ATRAZINE
1
Includes
SLNs
CO90000200,
CO99001200,
CO99001300,
and
CO99001400.

Use
Pattern
Profile:
The
Agency's
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
(
SRRD)
issued
a
Use
Closure
Memorandum
for
Dicamba
(
Case
No.
0065)
on
8/
2/
05
in
an
attempt
to
provide
use
information
that
will
be
incorporated
into
the
preliminary
risk
assessment
for
dicamba.
The
Dicamba
Use
Closure
Memo
resulted
from
the
11/
4/
04
SMART
meeting
and
subsequent
discussions
and
review
of
product
labels
with
the
following
registrants:
Albaugh,
Inc.,
BASF
Corporation,
Gharda
USA,
Inc.,
and
Syngenta
Crop
Protection,
Inc.
The
Closure
Memo
serves
as
the
Agency's
record
of
common
understanding
on
the
uses
of
dicamba
that
will
be
supported
and
used
in
risk
assessments,
including
currently
registered
product
information.
The
registrants
intend
to
support
all
currently
registered
uses
described
in
the
Use
Closure
Memorandum
for
Dicamba
and
all
currently
registered
products.

The
Dicamba
Use
Closure
Memos's
list
of
food/
feed
uses
is
reproduced
in
Table
4
with
minor
alteration
to
include
information
pertaining
to
preharvest
intervals
(
PHI).
The
PHI
information,
added
in
the
last
column
of
Table
4,
was
obtained
from
the
2002
Food/
Feed
Use
Patterns
Summary
for
dicamba
acid
and
salts
prepared
by
a
contractor
for
BEAD;
the
BEAD
Use
Patterns
Tables
are
presented
in
Appendix
1.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
15
of
94
Table
4.
Dicamba
Food/
Feed
Use
Profile.

Use
Sites
Forms
1
Max
App.
Rate
(
lb
ae/
A)
Max
App.
Rate
(
lb
ae/
A/
year)
PHI/
PGI/
PFI/
PSI
2
Agricultural
Crops/
Soils
DMA
Salt,
Na
Salt
2.0
2.0
Agricultural
Fallow/
Idleland
All
2.0
2.0
Na
salt:
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay
and
grain)
and
30­
day
PSI;
IPA
salt:
56­
day
PFI/
PGI
Agricultural/
Farm
Premises
DMA
Salt,
DGA
Salt
1.0
1.0
Agricultural/
Farm
Structures/
Buildings
and
Equipment
DMA
Salt
1.0
1.0
Asparagus
DMA
Salt,
Na
Salt,
DGA
Salt
0.5
0.5
DMA
salt,
Na
salt,
and
DGA
salt:
1­
day
PHI
Barley
3
DMA
Salt,
Na
Salt,
DGA
Salt,
IPA
Salt
0.25
0.38
Dicamba
acid:
15­
day
PHI;
DMA
salt:
30­
day
PSI,
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay),
and
7­
day
PGI
(
dairy
animals);
Na
salt:
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay
and
grain)
and
30­
day
PSI;
DGA
salt:
7­
day
PHI;
IPA
salt:
56­
day
PFI/
PGI
Corn
(
field,
pop,
seed,
silage)
DMA
Salt,
Na
Salt,
DGA
salt,
K
Salt
0.5
0.75
Corn
unspecified
­
Dicamba
acid:
40­
day
PFI/
PGI
and
Na
salt:
30­
to
32­
day
PHI
and
30­
day
PGI;
Corn
­
DMA
salt:
30­
day
PSI,
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay),
and
7­
day
PGI
(
dairy
animals);
Field
corn
­
Dicamba
acid:
40­
day
PFI/
PGI
and
Na
salt:
30­
to
32­
day
PHI,
45­
day
PHI
(
fodder),
60­
day
PHI
(
grain),
and
30­
day
PFI/
PGI
Pop
corn
­
Dicamba
acid:
40­
day
PFI/
PGI
and
Na
salt:
45­
day
PHI
(
fodder),
60­
day
PHI
(
grain),
and
30­
day
PFI/
PGI
Cotton
Dimethylamine
Salt,
DGA
0.25
2.0
Hay
DMA
Salt,
Na
Salt,
DGA
Salt
2.0
4
2.0
DMA
salt:
30­
day
PSI,
7­
to
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay),
and
7­
day
PGI
(
dairy
animals)

Millet
(
Proso)
3
DMA
Salt
0.125
0.125
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
4.
Dicamba
Food/
Feed
Use
Profile.

Use
Sites
Forms
1
Max
App.
Rate
(
lb
ae/
A)
Max
App.
Rate
(
lb
ae/
A/
year)
PHI/
PGI/
PFI/
PSI
2
16
of
94
Oats
DMA
Salt,
Na
Salt,
DGA
Salt
0.125
1.0
Dicamba
acid:
15­
day
PHI;
DMA
salt:
30­
day
PSI,
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay),
and
7­
day
PGI
(
dairy
animals);
Na
salt:
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay);
IPA
salt:
56­
day
PFI/
PGI
Pastures
5
DMA
Salt,
Na
Salt,
DGA
Salt
2.0
2.0
DMA
salt:
30­
day
PSI,
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay),
7­
to
70­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay),
7­
day
PGI
(
dairy
animals),
and
40­
day
PGI
Na
salt:
30­
day
PSI
and
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay
and
grain);
DGA
salt:
30­
day
PSI
and
7­
day
PGI
(
dairy
animals)

7.7
7.7
Rangeland
5
DMA
Salt,
Na
Salt,
DGA
Salt
2.0
2.0
DMA
salt:
30­
day
PSI,
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay),
7­
to
70­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay),
7­
day
PGI
(
dairy
animals),
and
40­
day
PGI;
Na
salt:
30­
day
PSI
and
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay
and
grain);
DGA
salt:
30­
day
PSI
and
7­
day
PGI
(
dairy
animals)

7.7
7.7
Rye
DMA
Salt
0.5
1.0
DMA
salt:
30­
day
PSI,
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay),
and
7­
day
PGI
(
dairy
animals)

Sorghum
All
0.2748
0.5
Dicamba
acid:
15­
day
PHI
and
40­
day
PFI/
PGI;
DMA
salt:
30­
day
PSI,
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay),
and
7­
day
PGI
(
dairy
animals)
Na
salt:
30­
day
PGI
and
PHI;
IPA
salt:
56­
day
PFI/
PGI;
K
salt:
21­
day
PFI/
PGI
and
30­
to
37­
day
PHI
Soybean
Sodium
Salt,
DGA
2.0
2.0
Sudangrass
DMA
Salt
0.5
(
as
listed
for
hay)
1.0
DMA
salt:
30­
day
PSI,
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay),
and
7­
day
PGI
(
dairy
animals)

Sugarcane
DMA
Salt,
Na
Salt,
DGA
salt
2.8
2.8
DMA
salt:
30­
day
PSI,
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay),
and
7­
day
PGI
(
dairy
animals)
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
4.
Dicamba
Food/
Feed
Use
Profile.

Use
Sites
Forms
1
Max
App.
Rate
(
lb
ae/
A)
Max
App.
Rate
(
lb
ae/
A/
year)
PHI/
PGI/
PFI/
PSI
2
17
of
94
Wheat
3
DMA
Salt,
Na
Salt,
DGA
Salt,
IPA
Salt
0.5
1.0
Dicamba
acid:
15­
day
PHI;
DMA
salt:
30­
day
PSI,
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay),
7­
to
14­
day
PHI,
and
7­
day
PGI
(
dairy
animals)
Na
salt:
30­
day
PSI
and
37­
day
PHI
(
dry
hay
and
grain)
IPA
salt:
56­
day
PFI/
PGI
1
There
are
five
forms
of
dicamba
used
in
this
Master
Label:
Dimethylamine
[
DMA]
Salt
(
PC
Code
029802),
Sodium
[
Na]
Salt
(
PC
Code
029806),
Diglycolamine
[
DGA]
(
PC
Code
128931),
Isopropylamine
Salt
[
IPA]
(
PC
Code
128944),
and
Potassium
[
K]
Salt
(
PC
Code
129043).
2
PHI
=
Preharvest
interval;
PGI
=
Pregrazing
interval;
PFI
=
Prefeeding
interval;
PSI
=
Preslaughter
interval.
This
information
was
obtained
from
the
summaries
of
the
food/
feed
use
patterns
of
dicamba
as
prepared
by
BEAD
(
see
Appendix
1).
3
SLN
registration
CO990001300
is
for
small
grains
at
1.0
lbs
ae/
A.
Based
on
Agency
data,
barley,
millet,
and
wheat
are
listed
as
small
grains.
4
Based
on
label
(
EPA
Reg.
Nos.
51036­
289
and
7969­
131).
5
Label
(
EPA
Reg.
No.
100­
884)
lists
7.7
lb
ae/
A
as
the
maximum
rate
for
spot
treatment
for
pasture
and
rangeland
uses.
The
2.0
lbs
ae/
A
is
what
the
registrant
stated
at
the
SMART
meeting
as
the
rate
they
intended
to
support.

Conclusions:
The
available
residue
chemistry
data
for
dicamba
acids
and/
or
salts
were
reevaluated
in
this
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter
for
adequacy
in
fulfilling
the
maximum
use
patterns
listed
for
each
crop
in
the
8/
2/
05
Dicamba
Use
Closure
Memorandum.
For
sugarcane,
the
maximum
seasonal
rates
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Use
Closure
Memo
are
not
supported
by
adequate
field
trial
data.
To
satisfy
reregistration
requirements,
this
Chapter
is
requiring
the
registrants
to
submit
additional
data.
Alternatively,
the
registrants
are
given
the
option
of
revising
product
labels
for
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data.
In
addition,
label
revisions
are
required
to
specify
the
appropriate
rotational
crop
restrictions
based
on
the
submitted
confined
rotational
crop
study.

HED
notes
that
labels
of
basic
producers
have
been
revised
to
specify
that
aerial
applications
should
be
made
in
spray
volumes
of
>
2
gallons/
A
precluding
the
need
for
residue
data
reflecting
ultra
low
volume
application
(
ULV).
HED
requests
RD
to
verify
that
the
labels
of
non­
basic
producers
are
also
amended
to
specify
this
exact
information.
Finally,
HED
wishes
to
comment
on
certain
food/
feed
sites
listed
in
the
8/
2/
05
Dicamba
Use
Closure
Memorandum.
The
sites
`
Agricultural
Crops/
Soils'
and
`
Agricultural
Fallow/
Idleland'
are
very
broad
uses
and
should
be
deleted
unless
the
registrants
submit
residue
data
on
representative
commodities
of
all
crop
groups.
The
sites
`
Agricultural/
Farm
Premises'
and
`
Agricultural/
Farm
Structures/
Buildings
and
Equipment'
are
classified
as
nonfood
uses
since
dicamba
application
on
these
sites
would
not
be
expected
to
result
in
significant
dicamba
residues
that
could
eventually
be
consumed.

A
tabular
summary
of
the
residue
chemistry
science
assessments
for
the
reregistration
of
dicamba
is
presented
in
Table
5.
The
conclusions
listed
in
Table
5
regarding
the
reregistration
eligibility
of
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
18
of
94
the
food/
feed
uses
of
dicamba
are
based
on
the
food/
feed
uses
summarized
in
Table
4.
When
enduse
product
DCIs
are
developed,
RD
should
require
that
all
end­
use
product
labels
(
e.
g.,
MAI
labels,
SLNs,
and
products
subject
to
the
generic
data
exemption)
be
amended
such
that
they
are
consistent
with
the
master
label.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
19
of
94
Table
5.
Residue
Chemistry
Science
Assessment
for
the
Reregistration
of
Dicamba.

GLN
Data
Requirements
Tolerances
(
ppm)
[
40
CFR
§
180.227]
Additional
Data
Needed?
MRID
Nos.
1
860.1200:
Directions
for
Use
N/
A
=
Not
Applicable
Yes2
See
Appendix
1
860.1300:
Nature
of
the
Residue
­
Plants
N/
A
No
00022745
00022753
00025344
00036921
00079708
00079747
00102945
00118473
406428013
860.1300:
Nature
of
the
Residue
­
Animals
N/
A
No
00077779
00145248
432452014
432452024
434617015
435542055
860.1340:
Residue
Analytical
Method
­
Plant
Commodities
N/
A
Yes
6
00028263
00079736
00088173
00162206
40233501
428832017
438140027
438141038
438141048
­
Animal
Commodities
N/
A
Yes
9
00079744
860.1360:
Multiresidue
Method
N/
A
Yes
10
PAM
Vol.
I
860.1380:
Storage
Stability
Data
­
Plant
Commodities
N/
A
Yes11
405479113
40663801
4324520412
4324520512
4324520612
4327450112
4337070113
438141028
4386660114
­
Animal
Commodities
N/
A
Yes15
860.1400:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
­
Water,
Fish,
and
Irrigated
Crops
N/
A
No
860.1460:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
­
Food
Handling
N/
A
No
860.1480:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
­
Meat,
Milk,
Poultry,
Eggs
­
Milk
and
the
Fat,
Meat,
and
Meat
Byproducts
of
Cattle,
Goats,
Hogs,
Horses,
and
Sheep
0.2
for
fat,
meat,
and
meat
byproducts;
0.3
for
milk;
1.5
for
kidney
and
liver
Yes16
00079742
00116671
4489130317
­
Eggs
and
the
Fat,
Meat,
and
Meat
Byproducts
of
Poultry
None
established
No
00148127
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
5.
Residue
Chemistry
Science
Assessment
for
the
Reregistration
of
Dicamba.

GLN
Data
Requirements
Tolerances
(
ppm)
[
40
CFR
§
180.227]
Additional
Data
Needed?
MRID
Nos.
1
20
of
94
860.1500:
Crop
Field
Trials
Legume
Vegetables
(
Crop
Group
6)

­
Soybean
seed
10.0
No18
00102944
438141018
4408930714
Foliage
of
Legume
Vegetables
(
Crop
Group
7)

­
Soybean
forage
and
hay
None
established
No19
00075729
00102944
438141018
4408930714
Cereal
Grains
(
Crop
Group
15)

­
Barley
grain
6.0
No
00028252
00162206
4408930414
­
Corn,
field,
grain
0.5
No
00015636
00015637
00015640
00015641
00015642
00015786
00016435
00016436
00016437
00016438
00022612
00022613
00022618
00023584
00023684
00025364
00025383
00028269
00075715
00088172
4408930314
­
Corn,
pop,
grain
0.5
No20
­
Millet
grain
0.5
No20
00025330
­
Oat
grain
0.5
No20
00023687
00028252
­
Rye
grain
None
established
No20
­
Sorghum
grain
3.0
No21
00022622
00078448
4324520312
4408930622
­
Wheat
grain
2.0
Yes23
00004541
00004566
00023687
00025394
00028398
00162206
40663801
4408930514
Forage,
Fodder,
and
Straw
of
Cereal
Grains
(
Crop
Group
16)

­
Barley
hay
and
straw
2.0
for
hay;
15.0
for
straw
No
00028252
00162206
4408930414
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
5.
Residue
Chemistry
Science
Assessment
for
the
Reregistration
of
Dicamba.

GLN
Data
Requirements
Tolerances
(
ppm)
[
40
CFR
§
180.227]
Additional
Data
Needed?
MRID
Nos.
1
21
of
94
­
Corn,
field,
forage
and
stover
0.5
for
corn
forage
and
stover;
3.0
for
field
corn
forage
and
stover
Yes24
00015636
00015637
00015640
00015641
00015642
00015786
00016435
00016436
00016437
00016438
00022612
00022613
00022618
00023584
00023684
00025364
00025383
00028269
00075715
00088172
4408930314
­
Corn,
pop,
stover
3.0
No23
­
Millet
forage,
hay,
and
straw
0.5
for
straw
No23
00025330
­
Oat
forage,
hay,
and
straw
80
for
forage;
20
for
hay;
0.5
for
straw
No23
00023687
00028252
­
Rye
forage
and
straw
None
established
No23
­
Sorghum
forage
and
stover
3.0
for
forage
and
stover
No25
00022622
00078448
4324520312
4408930625
­
Wheat
forage,
hay,
and
straw
80.0
for
forage;
20.0
for
hay;
30.0
for
straw
Yes26
00004541
00004566
00023687
00025394
00055662
00162206
4327450127
4408930514
4489130228
Grass,
Forage,
Fodder,
and
Hay
(
Crop
Group
17)
­
Pasture
and
rangeland
grasses
125
for
forage;
200
for
hay
No29
00028173
00028200
00028267
00028268
4337070130
Miscellaneous
Commodities
­
Asparagus
4.0
No31
00025338
4324520612
4342580312
­
Aspirated
grain
fractions
5100
Yes32
4324520512
438141028
4408930514
­
Cotton,
undelinted
seed,
and
gin
byproducts
5.0
for
cottonseed
No33
4381400131
­
Sugarcane
0.1
for
cane,
fodder,
and
forage
Yes34
00030701
00079738
00149626
4408930225
860.1520:
Processed
Food/
Feed
­
Barley
grain
None
established
No23
­
Corn
grain
None
established
Yes35
4118730136
­
Cotton
5.0
for
meal
No37
­
Millet
grain
None
established
No37
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
5.
Residue
Chemistry
Science
Assessment
for
the
Reregistration
of
Dicamba.

GLN
Data
Requirements
Tolerances
(
ppm)
[
40
CFR
§
180.227]
Additional
Data
Needed?
MRID
Nos.
1
22
of
94
­
Oat
None
established
No23
­
Sorghum
None
established
No38
­
Soybean
13.0
for
hulls
No
438141028
­
Sugarcane
2.0
for
molasses
No39
4324520412
­
Wheat
None
established
No
4066380140
4267590141
860.1650:
Submittal
of
Analytical
Standards
N/
A
Yes42
860.1850:
Confined
Accumulation
in
Rotational
Crops
Not
applicable
No
4197200143
4369860144
860.1900:
Field
Accumulation
in
Rotational
Crops
None
established
No45
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
23
of
94
1.
Unless
otherwise
specified
by
an
endnote,
all
references
were
originally
reviewed
in
the
8/
12/
83
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter
of
the
Dicamba
Registration
Standard
and
re­
summarized
in
the
6/
30/
89
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter
of
the
Dicamba
(
SRR)
Registration
Standard.

2.
For
sugarcane,
the
maximum
seasonal
rates
listed
in
the
8/
2/
05
Dicamba
Use
Closure
Memorandum
are
not
supported
by
adequate
field
trial
data.
To
satisfy
reregistration
requirements,
this
Chapter
is
requiring
the
registrants
to
submit
additional
data.
Alternatively,
the
registrants
are
given
the
option
of
revising
product
labels
for
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data.
In
addition,
label
revisions
are
required
to
specify
the
appropriate
rotational
crop
restrictions
based
on
the
submitted
confined
rotational
crop
study.

HED
requests
RD
to
verify
that
the
labels
of
non­
basic
producers
are
amended
to
specify
that
aerial
applications
should
be
made
in
spray
volumes
of
>
2
gallons/
A;
this
would
preclude
the
need
for
residue
data
reflecting
ultra
low
volume
application
(
ULV).

HED
wishes
to
comment
on
certain
food/
feed
sites
listed
in
the
8/
2/
05
Dicamba
Use
Closure
Memorandum.
The
sites
`
Agricultural
Crops/
Soils'
and
`
Agricultural
Fallow/
Idleland'
are
very
broad
uses
and
should
be
deleted
unless
the
registrants
submit
residue
data
on
representative
commodities
of
all
crop
groups.
The
sites
`
Agricultural/
Farm
Premises'
and
`
Agricultural/
Farm
Structures/
Buildings
and
Equipment'
are
classified
as
nonfood
uses
since
dicamba
application
on
these
sites
would
not
be
expected
to
result
in
significant
dicamba
residues
that
could
eventually
be
consumed.

3.
DEB
Nos.
4424
and
4425,
5/
18/
89,
E.
Haeberer.

4.
DP
Barcode
D204482,
3/
7/
96,
L.
Cheng.

5.
DP
Barcode
D226526,
6/
24/
96,
D.
Miller.
[
This
memo
acknowledges
receipt
of
the
cited
studies
relevant
to
confirmation
of
residues
using
the
enforcement
analytical
method.
This
HED
memo
stated
that
the
study
is
presently
in­
house
awaiting
review.]

6.
In
conjunction
with
PP#
4F3041,
additional
method
validation
data
using
Method
AM­
0691B­
0297­
4
are
required
for
barley
grain
and
straw
at
fortification
levels
of
6
and
15
ppm,
respectively,
and
for
wheat
straw
at
30
ppm
because
the
maximum
residues
obtained
from
the
respective
field
trials
were
not
validated
at
these
levels.
In
addition,
the
registrants
are
required
to
submit
additional
method
validation
data
using
Method
AM­
0941­
1094­
0
for
soybean
seeds
at
a
spike
level
of
10
ppm.
The
registrants
have
committed
to
generate
these
data.

7.
DP
Barcodes
D220469,
D220471,
D220473,
and
D220430,
5/
2/
96,
F.
Griffith;
DP
Barcode
D227359,
6/
27/
96,
F.
Griffith;
and
DP
Barcode
D194776,
12/
14/
93,
D.
Miller.

8.
DP
Barcodes
D223283,
D223292,
D223300,
D223311,
D223316,
D223320,
D223355,
D223356,
D223361,
D223363,
D223373,
D223374,
D223380,
and
D223383,
7/
29/
96,
S.
Knizner,
W.
Dykstra,
and
C.
Lewis.

9.
The
Pesticide
Analytical
Manual
(
PAM)
Vol.
II
lists
Method
II,
a
GC/
ECD
method
which
is
identical
to
Method
I,
for
the
enforcement
of
dicamba
animal
tolerances.
Based
on
the
results
of
animal
metabolism
study,
which
showed
that
acid
hydrolysis
can
additionally
extract
up
to
30%
of
TRR
in
goat
liver,
HED
is
requiring
the
registrants
to
revise/
improve
Method
II
to
include
an
acid
hydrolysis
step
and
submit
additional
validation
data
for
animal
matrices
using
the
improved
method.
Method
II
should
also
be
rewritten
specifically
for
the
analysis
of
the
parent
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
metabolite
in
animal
matrices.

10.
There
are
no
multiresidue
methods
recovery
data
for
the
dicamba
metabolites
of
concern
(
5­
OH
dicamba
and
DCSA),
and
these
data
are
required.
The
registrants
are
required
to
follow
the
directions
for
the
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
24
of
94
protocols
found
in
PAM
Vol.
I,
Appendix
II
under
paragraph
(
d)(
1)
of
OPPTS
860.1360
GLN,
starting
with
the
decision
tree
for
multiresidue
methods
testing
and
the
accompanying
guidance
found
in
the
suggestions
for
producing
quality
data.

11.
Storage
stability
data
are
required
for
sugarcane
molasses
to
validate
the
interval
and
conditions
(
64
days,
<­
1
°
C)
of
samples
collected
and
analyzed
from
the
submitted
sugarcane
processing
study
(
MRID
43245204).

12.
DP
Barcodes
D204488,
D204809,
and
D209229,
7/
14/
97,
L.
Cheng.

13.
DP
Barcode
D207649,
3/
11/
96,
L.
Cheng.

14.
DP
Barcode
D228703,
7/
16/
98,
S.
Chun.

15.
There
are
no
available
storage
stability
data
for
animal
commodities.
There
is
a
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.
If
the
samples
were
stored
frozen
and
analyzed
promptly
(
within
a
month),
then
supporting
storage
stability
data
would
not
be
required.
Otherwise
storage
stability
studies
of
the
parent
dicamba
and
its
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
metabolite
in
milk
and
ruminant
tissues
would
be
required.

16.
A
new
bovine
feeding
study
(
MRID
44891303)
is
currently
under
review.

17.
This
study
is
currently
under
review.

18.
For
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data,
HED
will
have
no
objection
if
the
registrants
revise
their
labels
to
specify
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
2.5
lb
ae/
A
on
soybeans
since
this
rate
is
supported
by
adequate
data.
The
available
data
indicate
that
the
established
tolerance
of
10
ppm
for
soybean
seed
will
not
be
exceeded
when
representative
salt
formulations
of
dicamba
are
applied
at
a
slightly
exaggerated
total
rate
of
2.5
lb
ae/
A.

19.
It
is
the
current
Agency
policy
to
allow
label
restrictions
on
the
feeding/
grazing
of
livestock
animals
on
soybean
forage
and
hay,
thus,
precluding
the
need
for
residue
data
and
tolerances
for
these
soybean
commodities.
HED
defers
to
RD
for
verifying
whether
such
restrictions
exist
on
product
labels.
If
such
restrictions
appear
on
the
labels,
then
residue
data
and
tolerances
for
soybean
forage
and
hay
are
not
necessary.
If
no
such
restrictions
appear
on
the
labels,
then
the
registrants
are
required
to
propose
tolerances
for
soybean
forage
and
hay
at
0.1
ppm
each.
Concomitant
with
these
tolerance
proposals,
the
registrants
are
required
to
propose
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
for
preplant
application
on
soybean
grown
for
forage
and
hay
only.

20.
HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available/
requested
field
trial
data
from
some
crop
commodities
to
agronomically
related
commodities
with
similar
uses.
The
available/
requested
data
for
field
corn
grain
and
stover
may
be
translated
to
pop
corn
grain
and
stover.
The
available/
requested
data
for
wheat
grain,
forage,
hay,
and
straw
may
be
translated
to
the
respective
commodities
of
proso
millet,
oat,
and
rye.
Finally,
the
available
wheat
grain
processing
data
may
be
translated
to
barley
and
oats.
Where
translation
of
data
is
allowed,
any
HED
recommendations
with
regards
to
label
revisions
as
well
as
tolerance
reassessment
should
apply
to
all
respective
crop
commodities.

21.
HED
is
recommending
label
revision
to
specify
a
30­
day
PHI
for
sorghum
grain
for
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data.

22.
DP
Barcodes
D304019,
D306687­
D306690,
x/
x/
05,
C.
Olinger.

23.
The
registrants
are
required
to
submit
a
complete
set
of
residue
data
on
wheat
grain
reflecting
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A.
Alternatively,
the
registrants
may
rely
on
the
available
data
provided
they
are
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
25
of
94
willing
to
revise
product
labels
for
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data.
If
the
registrants
elect
to
choose
the
latter
option,
then
they
will
be
required
to
revise
product
labels
to
specify
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A.
The
existing
tolerance
of
2.0
ppm
for
wheat
grain
will
be
considered
adequate
if
the
registrants
elect
to
revise
product
labels.

24.
The
registrants
are
required
to
submit
additional
data
on
field
corn
forage
and
stover
reflecting
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.75
lb
ae/
A.
Alternatively,
the
registrants
may
rely
on
the
available
data
provided
they
are
willing
to
revise
product
labels
for
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data.
If
the
registrants
elect
to
choose
the
latter
option,
then
they
will
be
required
to
revise
product
labels
to
specify
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
2.75
lb
ae/
A,
a
39­
day
PHI/
PGI
for
forage,
and
a
66­
day
PHI
for
stover.
The
existing
tolerances
of
3.0
ppm
for
field
corn
forage
and
fodder
would
remain
adequate
if
the
registrants
elect
to
revise
product
labels.

25.
For
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data,
label
revisions
are
required
to
specify:
(
i)
a
20­
day
PHI
and
a
maximum
single/
seasonal
rate
of
0.25
lb
ae/
A
for
sorghum
forage;
and
(
ii)
a
30­
day
PHI
for
sorghum
fodder
(
stover)
at
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A.
Following
an
examination
of
use
directions
for
sorghum,
HED
will
allow
a
lower
use
rate
for
forage
since
this
RAC
will
be
harvested
prior
to
the
second
crop
application.

26.
A
magnitude
of
the
residue
study
(
MRID
44891302)
in
wheat
forage
and
hay
is
currently
under
review.

The
registrants
are
required
to
submit
additional
data
on
wheat
straw
reflecting
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A.
Alternatively,
the
registrants
may
rely
on
the
available
data
provided
they
are
willing
to
revise
product
labels
for
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data.
If
the
registrants
elect
to
choose
the
latter
option,
then
they
will
be
required
to
revise
product
labels
to
specify
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
and
a
7­
day
PHI
for
wheat
straw.
The
existing
tolerance
of
30
ppm
for
wheat
straw
will
be
considered
adequate
if
the
registrants
elect
to
revise
product
labels.

27.
DP
Barcodes
D220430,
D220469,
D220471,
and
D220473,
5/
2/
96,
F.
Griffith.

28.
A
magnitude
of
the
residue
study
(
MRID
44891302)
in
wheat
forage
and
hay
is
currently
under
review.

29.
HED
is
requesting
RD
to
verify
that
all
dicamba
labels
specify
a
0­
day
PHI/
PGI
for
grass
forage
and
a
7­
day
PHI
for
grass
hay
when
applied
at
a
maximum
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A.
In
addition,
HED
is
recommending
the
removal
of
the
spot
treatment
use
on
pastures
and
rangeland
at
7.7
lb
ae/
A
(
from
EPA
Reg.
No.
100­
884)
because
there
are
no
available
data
supporting
this
use
rate;
alternatively,
the
registrants
may
submit
data
to
support
this
application
rate.

30.
This
grass
forage
and
hay
submission
was
initially
reviewed
in
a
3/
11/
96
memo
(
DP
Barcode
207649,
L
Cheng)
to
fulfill
reregistration
requirements.
The
study
was
re­
evaluated
in
conjunction
with
PP#
6F4604:
(
i)
DP
Barcodes
D220469,
D220471,
D220473,
and
D220430,
5/
2/
96,
F.
Griffith;
and
(
ii)
DP
Barcodes
D228694
and
D239967,
6/
25/
98,
S.
Chun.

31.
There
are
adequate
residue
data
on
asparagus.
However,
HED
requests
RD
to
verify
that
the
label
PHI
for
asparagus
is
24
hours
or
1
day
for
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data.

32.
Data
on
the
aspirated
grain
fractions
of
field
corn
are
required
since
an
examination
of
the
BEAD
Use
Pattern
Table
indicates
that
various
salt
formulations
of
dicamba
may
be
applied
early
and
late
postemergence
to
the
crop.
The
required
data
on
the
aspirated
grain
fractions
of
corn
should
analyze
for
all
residues
of
concern
(
parent,
5­
OH
dicamba,
and
DCSA).

33.
It
does
not
appear
that
the
registrants
are
supporting
uses
on
cotton.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
26
of
94
34.
The
registrants
are
required
to
submit
additional
data
on
sugarcane
reflecting
a
maximum
single/
yearly
rate
of
2.8
lb
ae/
A.
Alternatively,
the
registrants
may
rely
on
the
available
data
provided
they
are
willing
to
revise
product
labels
for
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data.
If
the
registrants
elect
to
choose
the
latter
option,
then
they
will
be
required
to
revise
product
labels
to
specify
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A
and
an
87­
day
PHI
for
sugarcane.
The
existing
tolerance
of
0.1
ppm
for
sugarcane
is
inadequate
and
HED
is
recommending
that
it
be
reassessed
at
0.3
ppm
if
the
registrants
elect
to
revise
product
labels
as
detailed
above.

35.
The
registrants
have
not
responded
to
the
requirement
of
the
Dicamba
SRR
(
6/
89)
to
submit
a
field
corn
grain
processing
study.
This
requirement
remains
outstanding.
(
Note:
A
corn
processing
study
(
MRID
41187301)
has
been
identified
and
will
be
reviewed.)

36.
A
corn
processing
study
(
MRID
41187301)
has
been
identified
and
will
be
reviewed.

37.
According
to
Table
1
of
OPPTS
860.1000,
the
only
processed
commodity
associated
with
millet
is
flour.
Endnote
44
of
Table
1
specify
that
millet
flour
is
not
produced
significantly
in
the
U.
S.
for
human
consumption,
and
residue
data
are
not
needed
at
this
time.

38.
The
Dicamba
SRR
(
6/
89)
required
a
sorghum
processing
study
depicting
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
hydroxy
metabolite
in
milled
products
(
flour
and
starch)
from
sorghum
grain
bearing
measurable,
weathered
residues.
In
response,
the
registrant
submitted
a
protocol
(
S.
Knizner,
6/
11/
93)
and
a
rebuttal
to
the
review
of
the
protocol
(
R.
Perfetti,
10/
20/
93).
The
Agency
concluded
that
residue
data
are
not
required
for
sorghum
flour
or
starch.
Based
on
this
previous
HED
determination,
a
sorghum
processing
study
is
not
required
for
reregistration.

39.
Pending
submission
of
supporting
storage
stability
data
for
sugarcane
molasses,
an
adequate
sugarcane
processing
study
is
available.

40.
DEB
Nos.
3968,
3969,
4018,
and
4019,
11/
4/
88,
F.
Griffith.

41.
DP
Barcodes
D189039,
D189041,
and
D189043,
4/
23/
93,
L.
Cheng.

42.
Analytical
standards
for
dicamba
acid,
DMA
salt
of
dicamba,
and
Na
salt
of
dicamba
are
currently
available
(
as
of
5/
6/
2005)
in
the
National
Pesticide
Standards
Repository;
however,
no
standards
are
available
for
5­
OH
dicamba
and
DCSA.
Analytical
reference
standards
of
dicamba
and
its
regulated
metabolites
must
be
supplied,
and
supplies
replenished
as
requested
by
the
Repository.
The
reference
standards
should
be
sent
to
the
Analytical
Chemistry
Lab,
which
is
located
at
Fort
Meade,
to
the
attention
of
either
Theresa
Cole
or
Frederic
Siegelman
at
the
following
address:

USEPA
National
Pesticide
Standards
Repository/
Analytical
Chemistry
Branch/
OPP
701
Mapes
Road
Fort
George
G.
Meade,
MD
20755­
5350
(
Note
that
the
mail
will
be
returned
if
the
extended
zip
code
is
not
used.)

43.
DP
Barcode
D197629,
2/
16/
96,
L.
Cheng.

44.
DP
Barcodes
D228694
and
D239967,
6/
25/
98,
S.
Chun.

45.
Limited
and/
or
extensive
field
accumulation
studies
with
dicamba
need
not
be
conducted
and
rotational
crop
tolerances
need
not
be
established
provided
the
registrants
are
willing
to
amend
all
dicamba
labels
with
food/
feed
use
claims
to
specify
a
120­
day
plantback
interval
when
dicamba
is
applied
at
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.75
lb
ae/
A
or
less.
At
application
rates
of
0.75­
2.0
lb
ae/
A,
the
labels
should
specify
that
only
the
crops
with
established
dicamba
tolerances
can
be
rotated.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
27
of
94
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
28
of
94
Cl
Cl
O
OH
OCH
3
Cl
Cl
O
OH
O
H
OCH
3
Cl
Cl
O
OH
OH
SUMMARY
OF
SCIENCE
FINDINGS
860.1300
Nature
of
the
Residue
­
Plants
The
nature
of
the
residue
in
plants
is
adequately
understood.
The
residues
of
concern
in
barley,
corn,
cotton,
grasses,
oat,
proso
millet,
sorghum,
sugarcane,
and
wheat
are
dicamba
and
its
3,6­
dichloro­
5­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
metabolite;
these
are
the
residues
currently
regulated
in
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1).
In
asparagus,
the
residues
of
concern
are
dicamba
and
its
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
metabolite
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
2)];
the
metabolite
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
metabolite
is
also
referred
to
as
3,6­
dichlorosalicylic
acid
(
DCSA).
The
residues
of
concern
in/
on
aspirated
grain
fractions
and
soybeans
are
dicamba,
5­
OH
dicamba,
and
DCSA
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
3)].
The
current
tolerance
definitions
are
appropriate
for
all
crop
commodities
with
registered
uses.
The
chemical
names
and
structures
of
dicamba
and
its
regulated
metabolites
are
depicted
below
in
Figure
1.

Figure
1.
Chemical
names
and
structures
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolites.

Dicamba
(
3,6­
dichloro­
o­
anisic
acid)
5­
hydroxy
dicamba
(
3,6­
dichloro­
5­
hydroxy­
o­
anisic
acid)
DCSA
(
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
or
3,6­
dichlorosalicylic
acid)

The
available
plant
metabolism
studies
with
dicamba
were
originally
reviewed
in
the
8/
12/
83
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter
of
the
Dicamba
Registration
Standard
and
re­
summarized
in
the
6/
30/
89
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter
of
the
Dicamba
(
SRR)
Registration
Standard.
The
Dicamba
SRR
concluded
that
dicamba
is
rapidly
absorbed
and
translocated
by
grasses
(
MRID
00022753),
grapes
(
MRID
00022745),
black
valentine
beans
(
MRID
00079708),
wheat
and
bluegrass
(
MRID
00036921),
and
soybeans
(
MRID
00102945).
Dicamba
is
also
rapidly
absorbed
by
sugarcane
following
foliar
application
but
it
is
very
slowly
translocated
from
the
leaves
to
the
roots
(
MRID
00079747).
Dicamba
is
metabolized
in
plants
mainly
by
demethylation
and
hydroxylation.

860.1300
Nature
of
the
Residue
­
Livestock
MRID
43245201
(
Ruminant)
(
DP
Barcode
D204482,
3/
7/
96,
L.
Cheng)
MRID
43245202
(
Poultry)
(
DP
Barcode
D204482,
3/
7/
96,
L.
Cheng)

The
nature
of
the
residue
in
animals
is
adequately
understood
based
on
acceptable
metabolism
studies
conducted
on
ruminants
and
poultry.
The
compounds
identified
in
these
studies
include
dicamba,
3,6­
dichlorosalicylic
acid
(
DCSA)
and
2­
amino­
3,6­
dichlorophenol.
The
latter
compound
was
identified
only
in
hen
liver
at
<
1%
and
thus,
need
not
be
included
in
the
tolerance
expression.
The
residues
of
concern
in
meat,
milk,
poultry
and
eggs
remain
unchanged
and
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
29
of
94
consist
of
dicamba
and
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
2)].
The
chemical
structures
of
dicamba
residues
of
concern
in
animals
are
depicted
in
Figure
1.
The
salient
features
of
the
reviewed
animal
metabolism
studies
are
summarized
below.

Ruminants:
In
a
goat
metabolism
study
(
MRID
43245201),
[
14C]
dicamba
was
administered
orally
once
daily
for
four
consecutive
days
to
two
goats
(
Goat
A
and
Goat
B)
at
a
dose
equivalent
to
5.91
or
630.8
ppm,
respectively
in
the
diet.
The
test
substance
had
a
radiochemical
purity
of
99%
and
a
specific
activity
of
3.99
mCi/
mmol.
The
dose
rates
were
based
on
actual
body
weights
of
41
and
39
kg
for
goats
A
and
B,
respectively,
and
a
feed
consumption
of
approximately
63­
68
grams
of
feed/
kg
of
body
weight/
day.
Only
analyses
of
tissue
samples
from
Goat
A
were
presented.
The
5.91
ppm
dose
is
substantially
below
the
estimated
maximum
theoretical
dietary
exposure
of
1153.63
ppm
(
see
Table
6).

Milk
was
collected
twice
daily.
Within
24
hours
following
the
final
dose,
the
test
animals
were
sacrificed
and
kidney,
liver,
muscle,
and
fat
were
collected.
Samples
were
stored
frozen
(­
20
°
C)
until
analysis.
In
a
follow­
up
submission
(
No
MRID
No.;
DP
Barcode
D226526,
6/
24/
96,
D.
Miller),
the
registrant
stated
that
in
no
case
were
samples
stored
for
longer
than
6
months
(
from
date
of
collection)
prior
to
preliminary
chromatographic
analyses.
The
follow­
up
review
concluded
that
there
are
no
storage
stability
concerns
associated
with
the
previously
submitted
metabolism
studies.

The
total
radioactive
residues
(
TRR,
expressed
as
dicamba
equivalents)
in
samples
taken
from
the
treated
goat
were:
0.0007­
0.0020
ppm
in
milk,
0.0105
ppm
in
fat,
0.0536
ppm
in
kidney,
0.0141
ppm
in
liver,
and
0.0040
ppm
in
muscle.
Kidney,
liver,
and
fat
samples
were
subjected
to
residue
extraction
procedures
using
organic
solvents,
and
the
nonextractable
residues
were
acid
hydrolyzed
to
release
bound
residues.
The
extractable
residues
were
analyzed
by
TLC
and
HPLC,
and
the
identity
of
dicamba
was
confirmed
by
GC/
MS.

Approximately
95­
100%
of
the
TRRs
were
extractable
from
kidney,
liver,
and
fat
and
64­
100%
of
the
TRRs
were
identified/
characterized
in
the
three
matrices.
Dicamba
per
se,
accounting
for
63.28­
92.82%
of
the
TRR,
was
detected
in
kidney,
liver,
and
fat.
The
metabolite
DCSA
was
a
major
metabolite
in
kidney
(
10.55%
TRR;
0.0057
ppm)
and
liver
(
11.77%
TRR;
0.0017
ppm)
and
only
a
minor
component
in
fat
(
1.23%
TRR;
0.0001
ppm).
An
unknown,
accounting
for
<
10%
of
the
TRR
was
detected
in
liver.
A
trace
(
0.006%
TRR)
of
5­
OH
dicamba
(
a
plant
dicamba
metabolite)
was
detected
in
urine.
Dicamba
metabolism
in
ruminants
is
proposed
by
the
registrant
to
proceed
via
formation
of
DCSA
or
5­
OH
dicamba.

In
its
review,
HED
noted
that
the
14C­
residues
in
goat
milk
and
muscle
were
not
characterized/
identified,
and
the
animals
were
dosed
at
only
about
6
ppm.
The
registrant
stated
that
14C­
residues
from
milk
and
muscle
were
not
characterized
because
of
low
total
radioactivity
in
the
samples.
HED
concludes
that
in
this
case,
characterization
and
identification
of
14Cresidues
in
milk
and
muscle
is
not
critical
because
residues
would
be
expected
to
be
qualitatively
similar
to
those
found
in
fat,
kidney,
and
liver.
In
addition,
HED
notes
that
the
registrants
have
committed
to
conducting
a
ruminant
feeding
study
at
a
feeding
level
of
1,000
ppm.
The
residue
to
be
regulated
consists
of
dicamba
and
DCSA
as
currently
stated
in
the
tolerance
expression.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
30
of
94
The
initial
study
review
had
required
that
samples
from
these
animal
metabolism
studies
must
be
analyzed
using
GLC/
EC
method
AM­
0685
to
ensure
that
these
compounds
can
be
adequately
recovered.
Method
AM­
0685
has
been
successfully
validated
in
milk,
muscle,
liver,
kidney,
and
fat
in
an
Agency
laboratory
(
Dicamba
SRR,
6/
30/
89).
In
a
follow­
up
submission
(
No
MRID
No.;
DP
Barcode
D226526,
6/
24/
96,
D.
Miller),
the
registrant
has
responded
that
study
reports
have
now
been
submitted
relating
to
new
method
validation
(
MRID
43461701)
and
confirmation
of
residues
using
the
enforcement
analytical
method
(
MRID
43554205).
The
6/
24/
96
memo
stated
that
these
studies
are
presently
in­
house
awaiting
review.

Poultry:
In
a
poultry
metabolism
study
(
MRID
43245202),
[
14C]
dicamba
was
administered
orally
via
capsule
once
daily
for
four
consecutive
days
to
five
laying
hens
at
a
dose
equivalent
to
10
ppm
in
the
diet.
An
additional
three
hens
were
orally
dosed
at
500
ppm.
Only
the
analyses
of
the
hens
dosed
at
10
ppm
were
presented.
The
10
ppm
dose
is
­
1.9x
the
estimated
maximum
theoretical
dietary
exposure
of
5.2
ppm
(
see
Table
6).
The
test
substance
had
a
radiochemical
purity
of
99%
and
a
specific
activity
of
9.21
mCi/
mmol.
Two
additional
hens
served
as
controls.
Eggs
were
collected
twice
daily.
Within
24
hours
following
the
final
dose,
the
test
animals
were
sacrificed
and
liver,
muscle,
and
fat
samples
were
collected.
Samples
were
stored
frozen
(­
20
°
C)
until
analysis.
All
initial
analyses
were
performed
within
6
months
of
sample
collection.

TRRs,
expressed
as
dicamba
equivalents,
in
samples
taken
from
the
treated
hens
were:
0.0014­
0.004
ppm
in
egg
yolk;
0.0018­
0.0037
ppm
in
egg
white;
0.0029
ppm
in
liver;
0.0003
ppm
in
breast
muscle;
0.0005
ppm
in
leg
muscle;
and
0.0002
ppm
in
fat.
The
maximum
residues
were
found
in
egg
whites
and
egg
yolks
(
0.004
ppm).
Although
TRRs
were
<
0.01
ppm
for
all
matrices,
residue
characterization
was
conducted
on
liver
and
eggs.
Radioactive
residues
in
these
matrices
were
extracted
using
organic
solvents,
and
the
nonextractable
residues
were
acid
hydrolyzed
to
release
bound
residues.
The
extractable
residues
were
analyzed
by
TLC,
and
the
identity
of
metabolites
was
confirmed
by
HPLC.

The
results
show
that
virtually
100%
of
the
TRRs
from
liver
and
egg
were
extractable,
and
95­
97%
of
the
TRRs
were
identified/
characterized
in
the
two
matrices.
Dicamba
per
se
accounted
for
61.16%
and
95.25%
of
the
TRR
in
liver
and
eggs,
respectively.
The
metabolite
2A36DCP
was
detected
in
liver
(
35.76%
TRR;,
0.001
ppm)
but
not
in
eggs.
The
metabolites
DCSA
and
5­
OH
dicamba
were
not
detected
in
liver
or
eggs
but
were
detected
in
excreta
and
together
accounted
for
<
3%
of
the
TRR.
Dicamba
metabolism
in
poultry
is
proposed
by
the
registrant
to
proceed
via
formation
of
DCSA
subsequently
followed
by
formation
of
2A36DCP.

860.1340
Residue
Analytical
Methods
Plant
commodities
The
Pesticide
Analytical
Manual
(
PAM)
Vol.
II
lists
Method
I
(
AM
0268A),
a
GC
method
with
electron
capture
detection
(
GC/
ECD)
for
the
enforcement
of
dicamba
tolerances
for
plant
commodities.
Using
this
method,
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolites
are
extracted
from
crop
commodities
with
sulfuric
acid­
ether
mixture,
and
the
extract
is
passed
through
a
buffered
Celite
column.
Residues
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
hydroxy
metabolite
are
determined
by
GC/
ECD
by
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
31
of
94
comparing
the
chromatograms
with
calibration
curves
made
with
methyl
2­
methoxy­
3,
6­
dichlorobenzoate
and
methyl
2,5­
dimethoxy­
3,
6­
dichlorobenzoate
as
standards.
Residues
of
3,5­
dichloro­
o­
anisic
acid
are
also
determined
by
GC/
ECD
by
comparing
the
chromatograms
with
a
calibration
curve
made
with
methyl
2­
methoxy­
3,
5­
dichlorobenzoate
as
the
standard.
Method
I
was
validated
by
Agency
chemists
on
corn
and
sorghum
commodities
as
matrices.
The
sensitivity
of
the
method
is
listed
at
0.05
ppm.

An
improved
plant
enforcement
method
(
GC/
ECD)
has
resulted
from
the
requirements
of
the
6/
30/
89
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter
of
the
Dicamba
(
SRR).
The
Chapter
requested
that
Method
AM­
0691A
or
B,
both
of
which
were
modifications
to
Method
I
of
PAM
Vol.
II
(
AM
0268A),
be
subjected
to
an
independent
laboratory
validation
(
ILV)
because
the
method
procedures
included
an
acid
hydrolysis
step
which
increased
the
extraction
efficiency
of
dicamba
residues
from
various
commodities.
Method
AM­
0691B­
0593­
2
(
MRID
42883201)
underwent
successful
ILV
(
DP
Barcode
D194776,
12/
14/
93,
D.
Miller)
and
EPA
method
validation
(
DP
Barcode
D232478,
1/
21/
97,
J
Stokes).
In
principle,
Method
AM­
0691B
has
not
changed
over
years.
In
brief,
samples
are
treated
with
1
N
HCl
and
hydrolyzed
for
1.5
hours
in
a
95
°
C
water
bath.
The
hydrolysate
is
adjusted
to
pH
$
8
with
a
50
mL
aliquot
removed
for
analysis,
then
acidified
to
pH
<
1,
and
extracted
twice
with
diethyl
ether.
The
combined
ether
extracts
are
concentrated
and
then
methylated
with
diazomethane.
Cleanup
is
by
silica
gel
columns.
Determination
of
the
methylated
residues
is
by
capillary
63NiEC­
GC.
Some
of
the
minor
changes
that
occurred
in
this
method
pertain
to
the
extraction
step
(
no
extraction
with
80%
ethanol
in
1
N
HCl),
changes
in
the
GC
columns,
and
the
addition
of
a
GC­
MSD
confirmatory
step.
[
Note:
The
use
of
diazomethane
for
enforcement
methods
is
being
discouraged
by
the
Agency
wherever
an
alternative
is
feasible.
The
registrant
has
shown
elsewhere
(
DEB
memo
3/
27/
90,
F.
Griffith;
DEB
No.
6712,
7/
26/
90,
S.
Funk)
that
neither
N,
O­
bis(
trimethylsilyl)­
trifluoroacetamide
(
BSTFA)
nor
BF
3
/
CH
3
OH
will
derivatize
dicamba.
Therefore,
the
continued
use
of
diazomethane
is
necessitated.]

Pending
a
re­
write
of
the
method
to
incorporate
suggested
changes/
corrections
made
by
Agency
chemists
from
ACL,
the
method
will
be
forwarded
to
FDA
for
publication
in
PAM
Vol.
II
as
an
addition
to
the
entries
of
available
enforcement
methods
for
dicamba.
It
is
noted
that
this
method
was
recently
superceded
by
method
AM­
0691B­
0297­
4
(
MRID
44394102),
which
consists
of
a
more
detailed
step­
by­
step
description
of
the
procedures,
GC­
MS
confirmatory
tests,
and
additional
recovery
data.
The
LOQ
for
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
is
0.02
ppm.

The
data­
collection
method,
used
for
the
analysis
of
samples
collected
from
field
and
processing
studies
intended
to
replace
Craven
data,
was
AM­
0691B.
In
all
cases,
the
concurrent
method
recoveries
were
well
within
the
acceptable
range
of
70­
120%.
However,
in
conjunction
with
PP#
4F3041
(
DP
Barcode
D228703,
7/
16/
98,
S.
Chun),
additional
method
validation
data
using
Method
AM­
0691B­
0297­
4
were
requested
for
barley
grain
and
straw
at
fortification
levels
of
6
and
15
ppm,
respectively,
and
for
wheat
straw
at
30
ppm
because
the
maximum
residues
obtained
from
the
respective
field
trials
were
not
validated
at
these
fortification
levels.

The
data­
collection
method,
used
for
the
analysis
of
samples,
collected
from
soybean
field
and
processing
studies,
was
the
capillary
GC­
EC
residue
analytical
Method
AM­
0941­
1094­
0.
The
extraction
steps
of
Method
AM­
0941­
1094­
0
and
Method
AM­
0691B­
0297­
4
are
essentially
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
32
of
94
identical.
HED's
PIRAT
has
previously
determined
that
adequate
validation
data
for
Method
AM­
0941­
1094­
0
are
available
and,
therefore,
will
not
require
additional
ILV
or
PMV
for
this
method.
The
registrant
has
committed
to
performing
additional
residue
validation
for
soybean
seeds
at
a
fortification
level
of
10
ppm
using
method
AM­
0941­
1094­
0
in
order
validate
the
results
of
the
soybean
field
trials.

Animal
commodities
The
Pesticide
Analytical
Manual
(
PAM)
Vol.
II
lists
Method
II,
a
GC/
ECD
method
which
is
identical
to
Method
I,
for
the
enforcement
of
dicamba
animal
tolerances.
The
sensitivity
of
the
method
is
listed
at
0.01
ppm.
Based
on
the
results
of
animal
metabolism
study,
which
showed
that
acid
hydrolysis
can
additionally
extract
up
to
30%
of
TRR
in
goat
liver,
HED
is
requiring
the
registrants
to
revise/
improve
Method
II
to
include
an
acid
hydrolysis
step
and
submit
additional
validation
data
for
animal
matrices
using
the
improved
method.
Method
II
should
also
be
rewritten
specifically
for
the
analysis
of
the
parent
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
metabolite
in
animal
matrices.

860.1360
Multiresidue
Methods
According
to
FDA's
PAM
Volume
I,
Appendix
II,
dicamba
is
completely
recovered
using
Section
402
E2
of
Protocol
B
but
is
only
partially
recovered
using
Section
402
E1
of
Protocol
B.
There
are
no
multiresidue
methods
recovery
data
for
the
dicamba
metabolites
of
concern
(
5­
OH
dicamba
and
DCSA),
and
these
data
are
required.
To
fulfill
this
requirement,
the
registrants
are
required
to
follow
the
directions
for
the
protocols
found
in
PAM
Vol.
I,
Appendix
II
under
paragraph
(
d)(
1)
of
OPPTS
860.1360
GLN,
starting
with
the
decision
tree
for
multiresidue
methods
testing
and
the
accompanying
guidance
found
in
the
suggestions
for
producing
quality
data.

860.1380
Storage
Stability
MRID
43245204
(
Sugarcane
(
DP
Barcodes
D204488,
D204809,
and
D209229;
7/
14/
97;
L.
Cheng)
MRID
43245205
(
Sorghum)
(
DP
Barcodes
D204488,
D204809,
and
D209229;
7/
14/
97;
L.
Cheng)
MRID
43245206
(
Asparagus)
(
DP
Barcodes
D204488,
D204809,
and
D209229;
7/
14/
97;
L.
Cheng)
MRID
43274501
(
Wheat)
(
DP
Barcodes
D204488,
D204809,
and
D209229;
7/
14/
97;
L.
Cheng)
MRID
43370701
(
Grass
forage
and
hay)
(
DP
Barcode
D207649,
3/
11/
96,
L.
Cheng)
MRID
43866601
(
Corn)
(
DP
Barcode
D228703,
7/
16/
98,
S.
Chun)
MRID
43814102
(
Soybean)
(
DP
Barcodes
D223283,
...;
7/
29/
96;
S.
Knizner,
W.
Dykstra,
and
C.
Lewis)

Plant
commodities
The
Dicamba
(
SRR)
Registration
Standard
dated
6/
30/
89
noted
disparity
in
the
storage
stability
data
from
a
few
earlier
study
submissions
and
requested
additional
data.
New
storage
stability
data
have
subsequently
been
submitted,
and
many
of
these
storage
stability
data
were
included
in
the
submissions
for
field
and
processing
studies
to
replace
Craven
data.
The
new
data
have
all
been
reviewed
and
deemed
adequate
to
satisfy
reregistration
requirements
except
for
the
requirement
to
submit
data
for
sugarcane
molasses.
HED
is
requiring
storage
stability
data
for
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
33
of
94
sugarcane
molasses
to
validate
the
interval
and
conditions
(
64
days,
<­
1
°
C)
of
samples
from
the
submitted
sugarcane
processing
study
(
MRID
43245204).

There
are
now
adequate
storage
stability
data
for
various
representative
crop
commodities.
These
data
indicate
that
residues
of
dicamba,
5­
OH
dicamba
and
DCSA
are
reasonably
stable
under
frozen
storage
conditions
at
the
maximum
intervals
tested.
The
data
summarized
below
fulfill
the
reregistration
requirements
for
storage
stability
data
on
plant
commodities
except
for
sugarcane
molasses.
For
the
purpose
of
tolerance
reassessment,
the
maximum
residues
observed
in
the
field
and
processing
studies
need
not
be
adjusted
or
corrected
for
any
decline
in
residues.

A
storage
stability
study
for
field
corn
matrices
(
MRID
43866601)
is
available.
In
this
study,
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
were
found
to
be
stable
under
frozen
storage
conditions
in/
on
field
corn
forage,
silage,
grain,
and
fodder
for
up
to
3
and
2
years,
respectively.
These
data
validate
the
storage
conditions
and
intervals
of
samples
collected
from
the
most
recent
field
corn
trials.
The
HED
review
of
these
corn
storage
stability
data
concluded
that
the
data
may
be
translated
to
other
cereal
grains.
The
storage
conditions
and
intervals
of
samples
collected
from
residue
field
studies
of
various
cereal
grain
crops
follow.
Wheat
grain
samples
reviewed
in
conjunction
with
PP#
4F3041
were
stored
frozen
for
35­
197
days
(~
1­
7
months),
and
wheat
straw
samples
were
stored
frozen
for
51­
220
days
(~
2­
7
months).
Barley
forage
samples
were
stored
frozen
for
29­
149
days
(~
1­
5
months),
barley
grain
samples
were
stored
frozen
for
21­
147
days
(~
1­
5
months),
barley
hay
samples
were
stored
frozen
for
40­
160
days
(~
1­
5
months),
and
barley
straw
samples
were
stored
frozen
for
27­
177
days
(~
1­
6
months).

A
storage
stability
study
for
soybean
matrices
(
MRID
43814102)
has
been
submitted/
reviewed.
The
results
show
that
residues
of
dicamba
and
DCSA
are
stable
under
frozen
storage
conditions
in/
on
soybean
forage
for
up
to
4
months
and
in
refined
oil
for
up
to
3
months.
Samples
of
soybeans
and
processed
soybean
fractions,
collected
from
the
field
and
processing
studies,
were
stored
frozen
from
4­
10
months
prior
to
residue
analysis.

In
conjunction
with
the
wheat
field
trials
(
MRID
43274501),
the
registrant
conducted
a
storage
stability
study
using
wheat
forage
and
hay.
The
data
indicate
that
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
OH
metabolite
are
stable
in/
on
frozen
wheat
forage
and
hay
for
up
to
258
and
283
days,
respectively.
Wheat
forage
and
hay
samples
from
the
field
study
were
stored
at
<­
17
°
C
for
4­
357
days
prior
to
analysis;
however,
only
10
of
the
­
350
samples
had
a
storage
interval
of
>
200
days.

In
conjunction
with
the
grass
field
trials
(
MRID
43370701),
the
registrant
submitted
data
depicting
the
frozen
storage
stability
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
OH
metabolite
in/
on
grass
forage
and
hay.
These
data
indicate
that
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
are
stable
in/
on
frozen
grass
forage
and
hay
for
up
to
314
and
320
days,
respectively
(
10
months).
Samples
collected
from
this
study
were
stored
frozen
for
up
to
13
months
prior
to
residue
analysis.

In
conjunction
with
the
sorghum
processing
study
(
MRID
43245205),
the
registrant
submitted
data
depicting
the
frozen
storage
stability
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
OH
metabolite
in/
on
sorghum
grain.
These
data
indicate
that
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
are
stable
in/
on
frozen
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
34
of
94
sorghum
grain
for
up
to
5
months
and
are
adequate
to
support
the
storage
interval
and
conditions
of
the
grain
and
grain
dust
samples
(
up
to
5
months,
<­
17
°
C).

In
conjunction
with
the
asparagus
field
trial
(
MRID
43245206),
the
registrant
submitted
supporting
storage
stability
data
which
indicate
that
residues
of
dicamba
and
DCSA
are
stable
in/
on
asparagus
for
up
to
104
days
of
frozen
(<­
12
°
C)
storage
and
that
residues
of
5­
OH
dicamba
are
stable
for
up
to
119
days
of
frozen
(<­
12
°
C)
storage.
Samples
in
the
asparagus
field
trials
(
MRIDs
43245206
and
43245803)
were
stored
frozen
at
<­
12
°
C
for
up
to
95
days
prior
to
analysis.

In
conjunction
with
the
sugarcane
processing
study
(
MRID
43245204),
the
registrant
submitted
supporting
storage
stability
data
which
indicate
that
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
hydroxy
metabolite
are
stable
in
the
refined
white
sugar
of
sugarcane
stored
frozen
up
to
60
days
at
<­
1
°
C.
Confirmatory
storage
stability
data
reflecting
storage
interval
of
64
days
are
required
for
sugarcane
molasses.

Animal
commodities
There
are
no
available
storage
stability
data
for
animal
commodities.
There
is
a
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.
If
the
samples
were
stored
frozen
and
analyzed
promptly
(
within
a
month),
then
supporting
storage
stability
data
would
not
be
required.
Otherwise
storage
stability
studies
of
the
parent
dicamba
and
its
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid
metabolite
in
milk
and
ruminant
tissues
would
be
required.

860.1400
Water,
Fish,
and
Irrigated
Crops
There
are
no
registered
or
proposed
uses
that
are
relevant
to
this
guideline
topic.

860.1460
Food
Handling
There
are
no
registered
or
proposed
uses
that
are
relevant
to
this
guideline
topic.

860.1480
Meat,
Milk,
Poultry,
and
Eggs
Maximum
theoretical
dietary
burden
(
MTDB)

There
are
several
livestock
feed
items
associated
with
the
crops
which
are
being
supported
for
reregistration.
Following
tolerance
reassessment,
the
MTDBs
of
dicamba
have
been
calculated
as
follows:
82
ppm
for
beef
cattle;
482
ppm
dairy
cattle;
5.65ppm
swine;
and
5.2
ppm
for
poultry;
see
Tables
6
and
7.
The
feed
items
which
contribute
significantly
to
the
dietary
burdens
for
ruminants
include
grass
forage/
hay,
aspirated
grain
fractions,
and
cereal
grains.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
35
of
94
Table
6.
Calculation
of
Maximum
Dietary
Burdens
of
Dicamba
to
Livestock.

Feedstuff
%
Dry
Matter
1
%
Diet
1
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Dietary
Contribution
(
ppm)
2
Beef
Cattle
Grass
hay
88
20
250
56.82
Aspirated
grain
fractions
85
5
1000
58.82
Corn
grain
88
60
0.1
0.07
Soybean
Meal
82
15
10
1.83
TOTAL
BURDEN
­­
100
­­
117.54
Dairy
Cattle
Grass
forage
25
30
400
480.00
Undelinted
Cotton
Seed
88
10
5
0.57
Corn
grain
88
50
0.1
0.06
Wheat
grain
89
20
2.0
0.45
Soybean
Meal
82
10
10
1.22
TOTAL
BURDEN
­­
100
­­
481.84
Swine
Sorghum
grain
86
80
4.0
3.82
Soybean
Meal
82
15
10
1.83
TOTAL
BURDEN
­­
100
­­
5.65
Poultry
Soybean
seed
89
20
10
2.0
Sorghum
grain
86
80
4.0
3.2
TOTAL
BURDEN
­­
100
­­
5.2
1
Table
1
(
OPPTS
Guideline
860.1000).
2
Contribution
=
([
tolerance
/%
DM]
x
%
diet)
for
beef
and
dairy
cattle;
contribution
=
(
tolerance
x
%
diet)
for
poultry
and
swine.

Ruminants
Established
tolerance(
s):
Tolerances
have
been
established
under
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
2)
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
DCSA
metabolite
in
the:
(
i)
fat,
meat,
and
meat
byproducts
of
cattle,
goat,
hog,
horse,
and
sheep
at
0.2
ppm;
(
ii)
kidney
and
liver
of
cattle,
goat,
hog,
horse,
and
sheep
at
1.5
ppm;
and
(
iii)
milk
at
0.3
ppm.

Conclusions:
The
available
ruminant
feeding
study
(
MRID
00079742),
which
was
discussed
in
PP#
3F2794
and
re­
summarized
in
the
HED
review
(
DP
Barcodes
D220430,...
5/
2/
96,
F.
Griffith)
was
conducted
at
400
ppm.
A
new
bovine
feeding
study
was
required.
HED
notes
that
the
registrant,
BASF,
has
committed
(
DP
Barcode
D228703,
7/
16/
98,
S.
Chun)
to
conduct
a
bovine
feeding
study
at
a
feeding
level
of
1000
ppm.
The
study
has
been
submitted
(
MRID
44891303)
and
is
currently
under
review.
A
cursory
review
of
the
study
indicates
that
modification
of
the
tolerances
are
required
at
levels
ranging
from
0.2
ppm
for
fat
to
25
ppm
for
kidney.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
36
of
94
Poultry
Established
tolerance(
s):
No
tolerances
are
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
DCSA
metabolite
in
poultry
eggs
and
meat.

Conclusions:
A
poultry
feeding
study
with
dicamba
is
not
required
based
on
the
results
of
the
submitted
poultry
metabolism
study
(
MRID
43245202).
In
this
study,
the
TRR
levels
in
eggs,
liver,
muscle,
and
fat
were
all
<
0.004
ppm
following
dosing
at
10
ppm
(­
1.9x
the
maximum
dietary
burden
of
5.2
ppm)
in
the
diet
for
four
consecutive
days.
Residues
in
eggs
plateaued
after
the
first
day
of
dosing
(
i.
e.,
there
was
no
accumulation
with
increasing
days
of
dosing).
HED
does
not
anticipate
the
occurrence
of
quantifiable
residues
of
dicamba
or
DCSA
in
poultry
eggs
and
meat
as
a
result
of
treating
crops
with
poultry
feed
items
at
the
maximum
use
patterns.
Therefore,
HED
concludes
that
tolerances
are
not
needed
in
poultry
eggs
and
meat
at
this
time
but
may
be
required
if
additional
uses
are
registered
in
the
future.
A
poultry
feeding
study
(
MRID
00148127)
with
dicamba,
reflecting
feeding
rates
equivalent
to
2,
6,
and
20
ppm
in
the
diet,
is
available;
these
data
were
summarized
in
PP#
3F2794
(
8/
15/
85
memo,
M.
Firestone).

860.1500
Crop
Field
Trials
Residue
studies
that
were
generated
by
Craven
Laboratories
had
been
identified
by
HED,
and
a
Data
Call­
In
Notice
was
issued
on
02/
94
requesting
end­
use
producer(
s)
of
dicamba
to
conduct
new
field
trials
on
barley,
corn
(
field),
sorghum,
soybean,
sugarcane,
and
wheat
(
D204754,
7/
12/
94,
S.
Funk).
Several
residue
chemistry
studies
have
been
submitted
and
reviewed
in
response
to
the
Dicamba
DCI
Notice.
These
Craven­
replacement
data
along
with
those
data
for
other
crops
which
will
be
supported
for
reregistration
were
re­
evaluated
in
this
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter.

Legume
Vegetables
(
Crop
Group
6)

Soybean
seed
MRID
43814101
(
DP
Barcodes
D223283,
...
7/
29/
96,
S.
Knizner,
W.
Dykstra,
and
C.
Lewis)
MRID
44089307
(
DP
Barcode
D228703,
7/
16/
98,
S.
Chun)

Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
10
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
two
metabolites
(
5­
OH
dicamba
and
DCSA)
in/
on
soybean
seed
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
3)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
use
of
dicamba
and
its
salts
on
soybeans
will
be
supported
at
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A.
In
conjunction
with
PP#
s
6F4604
and
4F3041
(
DP
Barcode
D249098,
10/
13/
98,
W.
Donovan),
the
registrant
has
submitted
a
revised
Section
B
specifying
a
7­
day
PHI
for
soybeans.

Conclusions:
There
are
adequate
Craven
replacement
studies
depicting
magnitude
of
the
regulated
residues
in/
on
soybean
seed.
Data
from
these
submissions
show
that
the
highest
total
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
37
of
94
residues
(
dicamba
+
DCSA
+
5­
OH
dicamba)
were
3.74
ppm
(
MRID
43814101)
and
8.13
ppm
(
MRID
44089307)
in/
on
samples
of
soybean
seed
harvested
6­
8
days
following
the
last
of
a
treatment
schedule
which
includes
a
preplant
application
at
0.5
lb
ae/
A
followed
by
a
preharvest
broadcast
application
at
2.0
lb
ae/
A
for
a
total
of
2.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1.25x
the
maximum
rate
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile).
The
available
data
indicate
that
the
established
tolerance
of
10
ppm
for
soybean
seed
will
not
be
exceeded
when
representative
salt
formulations
of
dicamba
are
applied
at
a
slightly
exaggerated
total
rate
of
2.5
lb
ae/
A.

Discussion
of
data:
The
study
reported
in
MRID
43814101
include
data
from
17
soybean
trials
conducted
during
the
1994
growing
season
in
AR,
GA,
IL(
2)
,
IN(
2),
IA(
2),
LA,
MN(
2),
MS,
MO(
2),
NE,
OH,
and
TN.
The
number
and
locations
of
soybean
trials
from
this
study
along
with
those
conducted
in
MRID
44089307
are
adequate
to
satisfy
GLN
860.1500
with
regard
to
geographic
representation
of
data.
Two
types
of
treatment
patterns
were
evaluated
using
the
DMA
salt
formulation
of
dicamba:
(
i)
a
single
preplant
(
14
days
prior
to
planting)
broadcast
application
at
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
0.25x);
and
(
ii)
preplant
treatment
at
0.5
lb
ae/
A
plus
preharvest
broadcast
application
at
2.0
lb
ae/
A
for
a
total
of
2.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1.25x).
In
addition,
four
side­
byside
trials
were
conducted
in
IA,
IL,
IN,
and
MN
with
the
DGA,
DMA,
and
Na
salt
formulations
of
dicamba
at
the
same
application
rates
and
harvest
intervals;
soybeans
seeds
were
harvested
6­
8
days
following
posttreatment.
Injury
(
e.
g.,
delayed
emergence,
delayed
opening
of
cotyledons,
and
reduced
stand)
was
observed
in
the
treated
plots
after
the
preplant
treatment.

The
harvested
soybean
seed
samples
were
analyzed
using
GC
Method
No.
AM­
0941­
1094­
0
with
a
limit
of
detection
of
0.01
ppm
for
each
residue
in
all
matrices.
In
this
method,
residues
of
dicamba
and
DCSA
were
quantitated
by
GC
using
a
Ni
electron
capture
detector
(
ECD)
whereas
residues
of
5­
OH
dicamba
were
quantitated
separately
by
GC/
ECD.
This
method
was
validated
at
fortification
range
of
0.01­
0.5
ppm.
The
method
recoveries
were
well
within
the
acceptable
range.
Soybean
seed
samples
were
stored
frozen
for
a
maximum
interval
of
220
days
(­
7
months)
prior
to
residue
analysis.
There
are
adequate
storage
stability
data
to
support
this
interval.

The
results
show
that
following
a
single
preplant
broadcast
treatment
(
14
days
prior
to
planting)
of
the
DMA
salt
of
dicamba
at
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
0.25x),
residues
of
dicamba,
DCSA,
and
5­
OHdicamba
were
each
<
0.01
ppm
in/
on
soybean
seeds.
Following
preplant
plus
preharvest
treatments
for
a
total
of
2.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1.25x),
individual
residues
in/
on
soybean
seed
samples
harvested
at
a
6­
8
day
PHI
were
0.072­
3.301
ppm
for
dicamba
per
se,
<
0.01­
0.115
ppm
for
DCSA,
and
<
0.01­
0.357
ppm
for
5­
OH
dicamba.
The
HAFT
combined
residues
in/
on
treated
soybean
seed
from
this
study
was
3.6
ppm.
In
side­
by­
side
trials
using
the
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
salts
of
dicamba,
residue
levels
did
not
vary
according
to
the
formulation
used.

MRID
44089307:
Six
soybean
field
trials
were
conducted
in
IA,
IN,
IL(
2),
MO,
and
NC
using
the
DMA
salt
formulation
of
dicamba.
Two
types
of
treatments
were
used.
Treatment
A
(
PRPR1)
consisted
of
a
preplant
broadcast
application
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
0.25x),
made
to
the
soil
surface
14
days
before
planting
soybean.
Treatment
B
(
POPO1)
consisted
of
Treatment
A
plus
a
preharvest
broadcast
application
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A
for
a
total
of
2.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1.25x),
made
7
days
before
normal
harvest.
Only
grain
samples
were
collected
from
Treatment
B.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
38
of
94
Samples
were
analyzed
for
dicamba,
its
5­
OH
dicamba
metabolite,
and
its
DCSA
metabolite
using
a
GC/
ECD
method
(
AM­
0941­
1094­
0).
The
LOQ
for
this
method
is
0.02
ppm.
The
method
was
validated
over
a
range
of
0.02­
1.0
ppm
for
soybean
commodities.
The
overall
average
corrected
recovery
for
all
matrices
(
hay,
grain,
and
forage)
was
98%
±
13
(
n=
17)
for
dicamba,
93%
±
18
(
n=
16)
for
DCSA,
and
90%
±
11
(
n=
15)
for
5­
OH
dicamba.
HED
review
of
this
study
noted
that
residues
in
soybean
seed
were
found
well
above
the
range
of
the
method
validation,
and
therefore,
requested
additional
method
validation
at
a
spike
level
of
up
to
10
ppm
in
soybean
seed.
Total
storage
interval,
between
harvest
and
analysis,
for
all
samples
was
31­
104
days
(~
1­
3
months).
This
interval
is
supported
by
adequate
storage
stability
data.

The
results
show
that
following
preplant
broadcast
application
at
0.25x,
residues
of
dicamba,
DCSA,
and
5­
OH
dicamba
were
<
0.01
ppm
each
in/
on
soybean
seed.
Total
residues
(
dicamba
+
DCSA
+
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
soybean
seed
from
Treatment
A
were
calculated
at
<
0.015
ppm.
Following
a
combination
of
preplant
+
preharvest
applications
at
1.25x,
the
ranges
of
individual
residues
in/
on
soybean
seed
harvested
at
a
7­
day
PHI
were:
0.027­
8.1
ppm
for
dicamba,
<
0.01­
0.033
ppm
for
DCSA,
and
<
0.01­
0.011ppm
for
5­
OH
dicamba.
Total
residues
(
dicamba
+
DCSA
+
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
soybean
seed
which
received
preplant
plus
preharvest
treatments
were
0.037­
8.13
ppm.
The
HAFT
combined
residues
in/
on
treated
soybean
seed
from
this
study
was
7.44
ppm.

Foliage
of
Legume
Vegetables
(
Crop
Group
7)

Soybean
forage
and
hay
MRID
43814101
(
DP
Barcodes
D223283,
...
7/
29/
96,
S.
Knizner,
W.
Dykstra,
and
C.
Lewis)
MRID
44089307
(
DP
Barcode
D228703,
7/
16/
98,
S.
Chun)

Established
tolerance(
s):
No
dicamba
tolerances
are
currently
established
on
soybean
forage
and
hay.

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
use
of
dicamba
and
its
salts
on
soybeans
will
be
supported
at
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
There
are
Craven
replacement
studies
(
MRIDs
43814101
and
44089307)
depicting
magnitude
of
the
regulated
residues
in/
on
soybean
forage
and
hay.
Data
from
MRID
43814101
show
that
following
one
preplant
application
of
the
DMA
salt
formulation
of
dicamba
at
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
0.25x
the
maximum
rate
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile),
the
total
residues
(
dicamba,
DCSA,
and
5­
OH­
dicamba)
ranged
<
0.03­<
0.097
ppm
for
soybean
forage
and
<
0.03­
<
0.04
ppm
for
soybean
hay.
In
another
submission
(
MRID
44089307),
it
was
reported
that
the
total
residues
in/
on
samples
treated
similarly
were
0.015­
0.062
ppm
for
soybean
forage
and
<
0.015
ppm
for
soybean
hay.

It
is
the
current
Agency
policy
to
allow
label
restrictions
on
the
feeding/
grazing
of
livestock
animals
on
soybean
forage
and
hay,
thus,
precluding
the
need
for
residue
data
and
tolerances
for
these
soybean
commodities.
HED
defers
to
RD
for
verifying
whether
such
restrictions
exist
on
product
labels.
If
such
restrictions
appear
on
the
labels,
then
residue
data
and
tolerances
for
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
39
of
94
soybean
forage
and
hay
are
not
necessary.
If
no
such
restrictions
appear
on
the
labels,
then
the
registrants
are
required
to
propose
tolerances
for
soybean
forage
and
hay
at
0.1
ppm
each.
Concomitant
with
these
tolerance
proposals,
the
registrants
are
required
to
propose
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
for
preplant
application
on
soybean
grown
for
forage
and
hay
only.

Discussion
of
data:
The
study
reported
in
MRID
43814101
include
data
from
17
soybean
trials
conducted
during
the
1994
growing
season
in
AR,
GA,
IL(
2)
,
IN(
2),
IA(
2),
LA,
MN(
2),
MS,
MO(
2),
NE,
OH,
and
TN.
The
number
and
locations
of
soybean
trials
from
this
study
along
with
those
conducted
in
MRID
44089307
are
adequate
to
satisfy
GLN
860.1500
with
regard
to
geographic
representation
of
data.
Two
types
of
treatment
patterns
were
evaluated
using
the
DMA
salt
formulation
of
dicamba:
(
i)
a
single
preplant
(
14
days
prior
to
planting)
broadcast
application
at
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
0.25x);
and
(
ii)
preplant
treatment
at
0.5
lb
ae/
A
plus
preharvest
broadcast
application
at
2.0
lb
ae/
A
for
a
total
of
2.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1.25x).
In
addition,
four
side­
byside
trials
were
conducted
in
IA,
IL,
IN,
and
MN
with
the
DGA,
DMA,
and
Na
salt
formulations
of
dicamba
at
the
same
application
rates
and
harvest
intervals.
Soybean
forage
and
hay
were
collected
from
plants
receiving
only
preplant
treatment.
Only
soybeans
seeds
were
collected
from
plants
which
received
both
preplant
and
preharvest
treatments.
Samples
were
analyzed
using
GC
Method
No.
AM­
0941­
1094­
0
with
a
limit
of
detection
of
0.01
ppm
for
each
residue
in
all
matrices.
In
this
method,
residues
of
dicamba
and
DCSA
were
quantitated
by
GC
using
a
Ni
ECD
whereas
residues
of
5­
OH
dicamba
were
quantitated
separately
by
GC/
ECD.
This
method
was
validated
at
fortification
range
of
0.01­
0.5
ppm.
The
method
recoveries
were
well
within
the
acceptable
range.
Samples
were
stored
frozen
for
maximum
intervals
of
175­
316
days
(­
6­
10
months)
for
forage
and
140­
230
days
(­
5­
8
months)
for
hay
prior
to
residue
analysis.
There
are
adequate
storage
stability
data
to
support
these
intervals.
The
results
show
that
following
a
single
preplant
broadcast
treatment
(
14
days
prior
to
planting)
of
the
DMA
salt
of
dicamba
at
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
0.25x),
the
total
residues
(
dicamba,
DCSA,
and
5­
OH­
dicamba)
ranged
<
0.03­<
0.097
ppm
for
soybean
forage
and
<
0.03­<
0.04
ppm
for
soybean
hay.
In
side­
by­
side
trials
using
the
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
salts
of
dicamba,
residue
levels
did
not
vary
according
to
the
formulation
used.

MRID
44089307:
Six
soybean
field
trials
were
conducted
in
IA,
IN,
IL(
2),
MO,
and
NC
using
the
DMA
salt
formulation
of
dicamba.
Two
types
of
treatments
were
used.
Treatment
A
(
PRPR1)
consisted
of
a
preplant
broadcast
application
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
0.25x),
made
to
the
soil
surface
14
days
before
planting
soybean.
Treatment
B
(
POPO1)
consisted
of
Treatment
A
plus
a
preharvest
broadcast
application
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A
for
a
total
of
2.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1.25x),
made
7
days
before
normal
harvest.
Forage
and
hay
samples
were
collected
from
Treatment
A.
Samples
were
analyzed
for
dicamba,
its
5­
OH
dicamba
metabolite,
and
its
DCSA
metabolite
using
a
GC/
ECD
method
(
AM­
0941­
1094­
0).
The
LOQ
for
this
method
is
0.02
ppm.
The
method
was
validated
over
a
range
of
0.02­
1.0
ppm
for
soybean
commodities.
The
overall
average
corrected
recovery
for
all
matrices
(
hay,
grain,
and
forage)
was
98%
±
13
(
n=
17)
for
dicamba,
93%
±
18
(
n=
16)
for
DCSA,
and
90%
±
11
(
n=
15)
for
5­
OH
dicamba.
Total
storage
interval,
between
harvest
and
analysis,
for
all
samples
was
31­
104
days
(~
1­
3
months).
This
interval
is
supported
by
adequate
storage
stability
data.
The
results
show
that
the
total
residues
(
dicamba
+
DCSA
+
5­
OH
dicamba)
were
0.015­
0.062
ppm
in/
on
soybean
forage
and
<
0.015
ppm
in/
on
soybean
hay
samples
following
a
preplant
treatment
at
0.5
lb
ae/
A;
the
PHI
was
not
specified.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
40
of
94
Cereal
Grains
(
Crop
Group
15)

The
adequacy
of
available
residue
data
for
the
individual
cereal
grains,
which
are
being
supported
for
reregistration,
are
detailed
below.

Barley
grain
MRID
44089304
(
DP
Barcode
D228703,
7/
16/
98,
S.
Chun)

Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
6.0
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
barley
grain
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA,
Na,
DGA,
and
IPA
salts
will
be
supported
on
barley
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.25
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
0.38
lb
ae/
A.
In
conjunction
with
PP#
s
6F4604
and
4F3041
(
DP
Barcode
D249098,
10/
13/
98,
W.
Donovan),
the
registrant
has
submitted
a
revised
Section
B
specifying
a
7­
day
PHI
for
barley.

Conclusions:
There
are
Craven
replacement
data
(
MRID
44089304)
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
barley
grain
at
application
rates
of
0.125
or
0.375
lb
ae/
A.
The
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
ranged
0.021­
1.203
ppm
in/
on
samples
of
barley
grain
harvested
7
days
following
one
broadcast
application
made
to
the
crop
prior
to
first
joint
stage
using
representative
dicamba
salt
formulations
at
0.125
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).
Other
data
points
indicate
that
the
combined
residues
were
0.671­
5.063
ppm
in/
on
grain
samples
harvested
7
days
following
the
last
of
two
treatments
(
with
the
first
made
prior
to
joint
stage
followed
by
a
preharvest
treatment)
for
a
total
of
0.375
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).
The
existing
tolerance
of
6.0
ppm
for
barley
grain
is
adequate
and
no
additional
data
are
required.

Discussion
of
data:
The
submission
for
MRID
44089304
depicts
magnitude
of
the
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
barley
grain.
Eleven
field
trials
were
conducted
in
CA,
ID,
MN,
MT,
ND(
2),
OR,
PA,
SD(
2),
and
UT.
A
field
trial
was
also
conducted
in
WY
but
no
samples
were
collected
from
this
trial
site.
Geographic
representation
of
data
is
adequate
since
the
number
and
location
of
barley
trials
is
in
accordance
with
Table
1
of
GLN
860.1500.
The
barley
field
trials
were
conducted
using
the
following
salt
formulations
of
dicamba:
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na.

Two
types
of
treatments
were
used.
Treatment
A
(
POPO1)
consisted
of
one
broadcast
application
at
0.125
lb
ae/
A,
made
to
the
crop
immediately
prior
to
first
joint
stage.
Treatment
B
(
POPO2)
consisted
of
Treatment
A
plus
a
preharvest
broadcast
application
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A,
made
7
days
before
normal
harvest.
The
DMA
salt
formulation
of
dicamba
was
applied
in
five
trial
locations.
Side­
by­
side
trials
with
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
salt
formulations
of
dicamba
were
conducted
at
four
different
trial
locations.
Samples
were
analyzed
for
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
using
a
GC/
ECD
method
(
Sandoz
Method
AM­
0691B­
0593­
3)
with
an
LOQ
of
0.01
ppm.
The
adequacy
of
the
method
for
data
collection
was
validated
by
fortifying
grain
control
samples
with
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
at
0.01­
1.0
ppm.
The
average
method
recoveries
for
the
field
trials
were
acceptable
(>
70%)
for
all
barley
commodities.
However,
the
HED
review
noted
that
the
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
41
of
94
method
was
not
validated
over
an
acceptable
range
since
residue
levels
in
barley
grain
were
found
well
above
the
ranges
of
the
method
validation.
The
HED
review,
thus,
requested
additional
method
validation
at
a
spike
level
of
up
to
6.0
ppm
for
barley
grain.
Barley
grain
samples
were
stored
frozen
for
21­
147
days
(~
1­
5
months)
prior
to
residue
analysis.
There
are
adequate
storage
stability
data
available
for
field
corn
matrices
which
may
be
translated
to
barley
grain.

The
results
indicate
that
the
total
residues
(
dicamba
+
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
all
treated
barley
grain
samples
ranged
0.021­
1.203
ppm
for
Treatment
A
(
1x)
and
0.671­
5.063
ppm
for
Treatment
B
(
1x).
Statistical
analysis
performed
by
the
registrant
suggested
that
there
was
no
significant
difference
in
the
magnitude
of
the
residue
samples
based
on
formulation.

Corn,
field,
grain
MRID
44089303
(
DP
Barcode
D228703,
7/
16/
98,
S.
Chun)

Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
0.5
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
"
corn,
grain"
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA,
Na,
DGA,
and
K
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
field
corn
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
0.75
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
There
are
Craven
replacement
data
(
MRID
44089303)
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
field
corn
grain.
These
data
represent
not
only
the
application
specifically
listed
for
corn,
but
also
the
use
on
fallow
agricultural
soils
at
2
lb
ae/
A
for
a
total
rate
of
2.75
lb
ae/
A.
The
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
ranged
from
<
0.01
to
0.015
ppm
in/
on
field
corn
grain
samples
harvested
69­
123
days
following
the
last
of
three
sequential
treatments
(
2.0
lb
ae/
A
+
0.5
lb
ae/
A
+
0.25
lb
ae/
A)
of
representative
dicamba
salt
formulations
for
a
total
of
2.75
lb
ae/
A.
No
residues
of
dicamba
per
se
were
detected
in/
on
any
of
the
treated
grain
samples
from
any
of
the
trial
locations.
Residues
of
5­
OH
dicamba
ranged
from
<
0.01
to
0.015
ppm.
The
data
support
reduction
of
the
tolerance
to
0.1
ppm.

Discussion
of
data:
The
submission
for
MRID
44089303
includes
data
from
a
total
of
20
field
corn
trials
conducted
between
1994­
1995
in
16
states:
IA(
2),
IL(
2),
IN,
KS,
KY,
MN(
2),
MI,
MO,
NE(
2),
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
PA,
SD
and
WI.
These
states
cover
EPA
regions
I
(
1),
II
(
1),
V
(
17),
and
VI
(
1).
Geographic
representation
of
data
is
adequate
since
the
number
and
location
of
field
corn
trials
is
in
accordance
with
Tables
1
and
5
of
GLN
860.1500.
The
DMA
salt
formulation
was
applied
in
12
trial
locations.
Side­
by­
side
trials
with
the
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
salt
formulations
of
dicamba
were
conducted
at
8
trial
locations
to
compare
the
residues
found
from
use
of
the
different
salt
formulations.

Three
broadcast
applications
of
dicamba
were
used
on
each
treated
plot
at
each
site.
The
first
application
at
2.0
lb
ae/
A
was
made
to
crop
stubble,
fallow
or
bare
ground
in
the
fall
of
1994
prior
to
ground
freeze,
with
subsequent
planting
of
field
corn
in
the
spring
of
1995.
The
second
application
at
0.5
lb
ae/
A
was
made
in
the
spring
to
8­
inch
tall
field
corn.
The
last
application
at
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
42
of
94
0.25
lb
ae/
A
was
made
in
the
spring
or
summer
to
36­
inch
tall
field
corn.
The
total
applied
rate
was
2.75
lb
ae/
A
(
3.7x
the
maximum
yearly
rate
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile).
Samples
of
field
corn
grain
were
collected
at
a
PHI
range
of
66­
123
days.

Samples
of
field
corn
grain
were
analyzed
for
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
using
a
GC/
ECD
method
(
Sandoz
Method
AM­
0691B­
0593­
3)
with
a
limit
of
detection
of
0.01
ppm.
The
adequacy
of
the
method
for
data
collection
was
validated
by
separately
fortifying
grain
control
samples
with
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
at
the
following
levels:
0.010,
0.10,
0.50,
and
1.0
ppm.
Method
recoveries
were
within
the
acceptable
range.
Information
pertaining
to
sample
storage
intervals
was
not
specified
in
the
HED
review.
However,
there
are
adequate
storage
stability
data
which
indicate
that
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
residues
are
stable
in/
on
corn
matrices
under
frozen
storage
conditions
for
up
to
3
and
2
years,
respectively.

The
results
indicate
that
the
total
residues
(
dicamba
+
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
all
treated
grain
samples
ranged
from
<
0.01
to
0.015
ppm.
No
residues
of
dicamba
were
detected
in
any
of
the
treated
grain
samples
from
any
of
the
trial
locations.
Residues
of
5­
OH
dicamba
ranged
from
<
0.01
to
0.015
ppm.
Analysis
of
Variance
(
ANOVA)
statistical
analysis
was
performed
on
the
data
collected
from
the
8
locations
where
the
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
dicamba
salt
formulations
were
used.
The
results
indicate
that
the
difference
in
the
magnitude
of
the
residues
observed
in
grain
was
influenced
by
the
difference
in
the
trial
locations
and
not
by
the
difference
in
the
dicamba
salt
formulations.

Corn,
pop,
grain
Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
0.5
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
"
corn,
grain"
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA,
Na,
DGA,
and
K
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
pop
corn
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
0.75
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
There
are
no
residue
data
on
pop
corn
grain
reflecting
the
maximum
rate
of
0.75
lb
ae/
A
which
is
the
maximum
single/
yearly
application
rate
the
registrants
wish
to
support
for
pop
corn.
HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available
data
for
field
corn
grain
to
pop
corn
grain
since
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
indicates
that
the
application
rate
of
the
two
crops
is
identical.
However,
any
label
revision
for
field
corn
should
also
be
made
for
pop
corn.

Millet,
proso,
grain
Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
0.5
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
proso
millet
grain
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA
salt
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
proso
millet
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.125
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
0.125
lb
ae/
A.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
43
of
94
Conclusions:
The
current
RAC
tolerance
level
of
0.5
ppm
was
established
through
an
IR­
4
petition
(
PP#
9E2166)
based
on
limited
residue
data
generated
on
proso
millet
from
two
field
trials
conducted
in
NE
at
0.125
lb
ae/
A
(
0.125x).
Consistent
with
the
recommendation
of
Dicamba
(
SRR)
Registration
Standard
dated
6/
30/
89,
HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available
data
for
wheat
grain
to
proso
millet
grain
since
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
indicates
that
the
application
rate
for
wheat
is
higher.
Based
on
the
wheat
grain
data,
HED
recommends
that
the
tolerance
be
increased
to
2.0
ppm.

Oat
grain
Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
0.5
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
oat
grain
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA,
Na,
and
DGA
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
oats
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.125
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
There
are
no
residue
data
on
oat
grain
reflecting
the
maximum
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A
which
is
the
maximum
single/
yearly
application
rate
the
registrants
wish
to
support
for
oats.
The
current
RAC
tolerance
level
of
0.5
ppm
was
established
through
PP#
8F0666
based
on
limited
data
generated
on
spring­
seeded
oats
from
trials
conducted
in
VA
at
application
rates
of
0.125
to
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(
0.125x
to
0.25x).
Consistent
with
the
recommendation
of
Dicamba
(
SRR)
Registration
Standard
dated
6/
30/
89,
HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available
and
requested
data
for
wheat
grain
to
oat
grain
since
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
indicates
that
the
application
rate
of
the
two
crops
is
identical.
Any
label
revision
for
wheat
should
also
be
made
for
oats.
Concurrently,
any
adjustment
to
the
wheat
grain
tolerance
should
also
be
applied
as
necessary
to
the
oat
grain
tolerance.

Rye
grain
Established
tolerance(
s):
No
dicamba
tolerance
has
been
established
for
rye
grain.

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA
salt
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
rye
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
There
are
no
available
residue
data
on
rye
grain.
HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available
and
requested
data
for
wheat
grain
to
rye
grain
since
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
indicates
that
the
yearly
application
rate
of
the
two
crops
is
identical.
Any
label
revision
for
wheat
should
also
be
made
for
rye.
Concurrently,
any
adjustment
to
the
wheat
grain
tolerance
should
also
be
applied
as
necessary
to
the
rye
grain
tolerance
that
needs
to
be
established.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
44
of
94
Sorghum
grain
MRID
43245203
(
DP
Barcodes
D204488,
D204809,
and
D209229;
7/
14/
97;
L.
Cheng)
MRID
44089306
(
DP
Barcodes
D304019,
D306687­
D306690;
in
review,
C.
Olinger)

Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
3.0
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
sorghum
grain
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
all
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
sorghum
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.2748
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
The
registrant
has
submitted
Craven
replacement
data
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
sorghum
grain.
These
data
have
been
reviewed
and
deemed
adequate
to
satisfy
reregistration
requirements
pending
label
revisions
and
tolerance
adjustment.
The
submitted
data
show
that
the
maximum
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
OH
metabolite
were
2.73
ppm
(
MRID
43245203)
and
3.164
ppm
(
MRID
44089306)
in/
on
sorghum
grain
harvested
30­
42
days
following
the
last
of
a
treatment
schedule
which
includes
one
post
directed
application
made
under
the
crop
canopy
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A
followed
by
a
second
broadcast
application
made
at
soft
dough
stage
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A
for
a
total
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1x
the
maximum
rate
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile).
These
data
suggest
that
the
established
tolerance
for
sorghum
grain
may
be
too
low.
Based
on
the
reviewed
data,
HED
is
recommending
tolerance
level
of
4.0
ppm
for
sorghum
grain
concomitant
with
label
revision
to
specify
a
30­
day
PHI.

Discussion
of
data:
The
submission
for
MRID
43245203
contain
data
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
OH
metabolite
in/
on
sorghum
grain.
A
total
of
40
field
trials
were
conducted
in
KS(
8),
MO(
8),
NE(
8),
OK(
8),
and
TX(
8)
using
four
salt
formulations
of
dicamba:
the
Na,
DGA,
K,
and
DMA
salts.
Geographic
representation
of
data
is
more
than
adequate
when
the
trials
conducted
from
this
study
along
with
those
conducted
from
MRID
44089306
are
considered.
At
each
test
site,
one
or
two
applications
of
each
of
the
four
dicamba
formulations
were
made
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A/
application
for
total
rates
of
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(­
0.5x)
and
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).
Applications
were
made
in
19.6­
21.5
GPA
using
ground
equipment.
The
0.5x
plots
were
treated
when
the
plants
were
15"
tall
using
a
broadcast
application
sprayed
directly
under
the
canopy
(
20­
109
PTI).
The
1x
plots
received
an
additional
application
of
0.25
lb
ae/
A
when
the
crop
was
at
the
soft
dough
stage
(
30­
42
PTI).

Sorghum
grain
samples
were
analyzed
for
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
using
a
GC/
ECD
method
(
Method
AM­
0691B)
with
a
limit
of
detection
of
0.01
ppm
for
each
analyte.
The
adequacy
of
the
method
for
data
collection
was
validated
by
fortifying
untreated
grain
samples
with
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
at
0.01­
0.1
ppm.
Method
recoveries
were
within
the
acceptable
range.
Samples
were
stored
frozen
at
<­
17
°
C
for
28­
160
days
(­
1­
5
months)
prior
to
analysis.
There
are
adequate
storage
stability
data
for
sorghum
grain
to
support
sample
storage
conditions
and
intervals.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
45
of
94
The
results
show
that
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
OH
metabolite
were
<
0.02­
0.184
ppm
in/
on
18
grain
samples
harvested
81­
109
days
following
a
single
postemergence
application
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(
0.5x).
Following
two
applications
for
a
seasonal
total
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1x),
the
maximum
combined
residues
were
2.73
ppm
in/
on
20
grain
samples
collected
at
PHIs
of
30­
42
days.

MRID
44089306:
A
total
of
seven
sorghum
trials
were
conducted
in
Regions
2
(
NC;
1
trial),
4
(
LA;
1
trial),
5
(
IL
and
KS;
2
trials);
6
(
OK;
1
trial),
7
(
NE;
1
trial),
and
8
(
TX;
1
trial)
during
the
1995
growing
season.
The
DMA
salt
of
dicamba
was
the
test
formulation
used
in
all
trials.
At
each
field
trial
site,
two
separate
plots
were
treated
with
either
a
single
post
directed
spray
application
made
under
the
crop
canopy
of
15­
inch
tall
sorghum
plants
at
a
rate
of
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(
0.5x)
or
two
applications
(
one
post
directed
application
followed
by
a
second
broadcast
application
made
at
soft
dough
stage)
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A/
application,
with
a
44­
to
65­
day
retreatment
interval,
for
a
total
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).
Applications
were
made
in
10­
36
gal/
A
of
water
using
ground
equipment.
Sorghum
grain
was
collected
from
1x­
treated
sites
at
PHIs
of
30­
to
34­
days.

Samples
were
analyzed
for
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
OH
metabolite
using
GC/
ECD
method
AM­
0691B­
0593­
3
with
a
validated
LOQ
of
0.02
ppm
for
each
analyte.
The
method
is
adequate
for
data
collection
based
on
acceptable
concurrent
method
recovery
data.
The
grain
samples
were
stored
frozen
for
99
days
(
3.3
months)
prior
to
residue
analysis.
There
are
adequate
storage
stability
data
for
sorghum
grain
to
support
sample
storage
conditions
and
intervals.

The
results
show
that
the
maximum
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
OH
metabolite
were
0.174
ppm
in/
on
sorghum
grain
harvested
74­
88
days
following
a
single
post
directed
spray
application
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(
0.5x).
The
maximum
combined
residues
were
3.164
ppm
in/
on
sorghum
grain
harvested
30­
34
days
following
the
last
of
two
applications
for
a
total
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).

Wheat
grain
MRID
44089305
(
DP
Barcode
D228703,
7/
16/
98,
S.
Chun)

Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
2.0
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
wheat
grain
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA,
Na,
DGA,
and
IPA
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
wheat
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A.
In
conjunction
with
PP#
s
6F4604
and
4F3041
(
DP
Barcode
D249098,
10/
13/
98,
W.
Donovan),
the
registrant
has
submitted
a
revised
Section
B
specifying
a
7­
day
PHI
for
wheat.

Conclusions:
There
are
Craven
replacement
data
(
MRID
44089305)
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
wheat
grain.
These
data,
however,
do
not
support
the
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A
that
is
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
because
the
wheat
trials
were
conducted
at
application
rates
of
0.25
or
0.5
lb
ae/
A.
The
combined
residues
of
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
46
of
94
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
ranged
from
<
0.01
to
0.15
ppm
in/
on
samples
of
wheat
grain
harvested
63­
125
days
following
one
spring
broadcast
application
of
representative
dicamba
salt
formulations
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(
0.5x).
The
combined
residues
ranged
from
0.039
to
1.4
ppm
in/
on
grain
samples
harvested
6­
12
days
following
the
last
of
two
treatments
for
a
total
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
0.5x).

For
the
purpose
of
reregistration,
the
registrants
are
required
to
submit
a
complete
set
of
residue
data
on
wheat
grain
reflecting
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A.
Alternatively,
the
registrants
may
rely
on
the
available
data
provided
they
are
willing
to
revise
product
labels
for
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data.
If
the
registrants
elect
to
choose
the
latter
option,
then
they
will
be
required
to
revise
product
labels
to
specify
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A.
The
existing
tolerance
of
2.0
ppm
for
wheat
grain
will
be
considered
adequate
if
the
registrants
elect
to
revise
product
labels.

Discussion
of
data:
The
submission
for
MRID
44089305
depicts
magnitude
of
the
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
wheat
grain.
A
total
of
20
field
trials
were
conducted
during
the
1995
growing
season
in
16
states:
CO(
2),
ID,
IL,
KS(
2),
MN,
MO,
MS,
MT(
2),
NE,
NM,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK(
2),
TX,
and
WY.
These
states
cover
EPA
regions
II
(
1),
IV
(
1),
V(
5),
VI
(
1),
VII
(
5),
VIII
(
6),
and
XI
(
1).
Geographic
representation
of
data
is
adequate
since
the
number
and
location
of
wheat
trials
is
in
accordance
with
Tables
1
and
5
of
GLN
860.1500.
The
wheat
field
trials
were
conducted
using
the
following
salt
formulations
of
dicamba:
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na.

Two
treatment
patterns,
designated
as
A
and
B,
were
employed
in
this
study.
Treatment
A
consisted
of
a
spring
broadcast
application
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(
0.25x)
made
to
the
crop
immediately
prior
to
first
joint
(
POPO1).
Treatment
B
consisted
of
Treatment
A
plus
a
preharvest
broadcast
application
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A,
made
7
days
before
harvest
(
POPO2)
for
a
total
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
0.5x).
The
DMA
salt
formulation
of
dicamba
was
applied
in
10
trial
locations.
Side­
by­
side
trials
with
the
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
salt
formulations
of
dicamba
were
conducted
at
four
trial
locations
to
compare
the
residues
found
from
use
of
the
different
salt
formulations.

Samples
were
analyzed
for
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
using
a
GC/
ECD
method
(
Sandoz
Method
AM­
0691B­
0593­
3)
with
a
limit
of
detection
of
0.01
ppm.
The
adequacy
of
the
method
for
data
collection
was
validated
by
fortifying
untreated
grain
samples
with
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
at
0.010,
0.020,
0.10,
and
1.0
ppm.
Method
recoveries
were
within
the
acceptable
range.
Wheat
grain
samples
were
stored
frozen
for
35­
197
days
(~
1­
7
months)
prior
to
residue
analysis.
There
are
adequate
storage
stability
data
available
for
field
corn
matrices
which
may
be
translated
to
wheat
grain.

The
results
indicate
that
the
total
residues
(
dicamba
+
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
all
treated
grain
samples
ranged
<
0.01­
0.15
ppm
for
Treatment
A
(
0.25x)
and
0.039­
1.4
ppm
for
Treatment
B
(
0.5x).
Analysis
of
Variance
(
ANOVA)
statistical
analysis
was
performed
on
the
data
collected
from
the
four
locations
where
the
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
dicamba
salt
formulations
were
used.
The
results
indicate
that
the
difference
in
the
magnitude
of
the
residues
observed
in
grain
was
influenced
by
the
difference
in
the
trial
locations
and
not
by
the
differences
in
the
dicamba
salt
formulations.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
47
of
94
Forage,
Fodder,
and
Straw
of
Cereal
Grains
(
Crop
Group
16)

Barley
hay
and
straw
MRID
44089304
(
DP
Barcode
D228703,
7/
16/
98,
S.
Chun)

Established
tolerance(
s):
Tolerances
of
2.0
ppm
and
15.0
ppm
have
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
barley
hay
and
straw,
respectively
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA,
Na,
DGA,
and
IPA
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
barley
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.25
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
0.38
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
There
are
Craven
replacement
data
(
MRID
44089304)
conducted
at
application
rates
of
0.125
or
0.375
lb
ae/
A.
The
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
were
<
0.02­
1.876
ppm
in/
on
samples
of
barley
hay
harvested
7
days
following
one
broadcast
application
made
to
the
crop
prior
to
first
joint
stage
using
representative
dicamba
salt
formulations
at
0.125
lb
ae/
A
(
0.5x).
The
combined
residues
were
0.388­
10.519
ppm
in/
on
barley
straw
samples
harvested
7
days
following
the
last
of
two
treatments
(
with
the
first
made
prior
to
joint
stage
followed
by
a
preharvest
treatment)
for
a
total
of
0.375
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).
The
existing
tolerances
of
2.0
ppm
and
15.0
ppm
for
barley
hay
and
straw,
respectively,
are
adequate.

Discussion
of
data:
The
submission
for
MRID
44089304
depicts
magnitude
of
the
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
barley
hay
and
straw.
[
It
is
noted
that
this
study
also
included
data
for
barley
forage
which
are
not
presented
herein
because
forage
is
not
a
significant
commodity
of
barley
as
per
Table
1
of
GLN
860.1000.]
Eleven
field
trials
were
conducted
in
CA,
ID,
MN,
MT,
ND(
2),
OR,
PA,
SD(
2),
and
UT.
A
field
trial
was
also
conducted
in
WY
but
no
samples
were
collected
from
this
trial
site.
Geographic
representation
of
data
is
adequate
as
the
number
and
location
of
barley
trials
is
in
accordance
with
Table
1
of
GLN
860.1500.
The
barley
field
trials
were
conducted
using
the
following
salt
formulations
of
dicamba:
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na.

Two
types
of
treatments
were
used.
Treatment
A
(
POPO1)
consisted
of
one
broadcast
application
at
0.125
lb
ae/
A,
made
to
the
crop
immediately
prior
to
first
joint
stage.
Treatment
B
(
POPO2)
consisted
of
Treatment
A
plus
a
preharvest
broadcast
application
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A,
made
7
days
before
normal
harvest.
The
DMA
salt
formulation
of
dicamba
was
applied
in
five
trial
locations.
Side­
by­
side
trials
with
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
salt
formulations
of
dicamba
were
conducted
at
four
different
trial
locations.
Samples
were
analyzed
for
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
using
a
GC/
ECD
method
(
Sandoz
Method
AM­
0691B­
0593­
3)
with
an
LOQ
of
0.01
ppm.
The
adequacy
of
the
method
for
data
collection
was
validated
by
fortifying
untreated
hay
and
straw
samples
with
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
at
0.01­
4.0
ppm.
The
average
method
recoveries
for
the
field
trials
were
acceptable
(>
70%)
for
all
barley
commodities.
However,
the
HED
review
noted
that
the
method
was
not
validated
over
an
acceptable
range
since
residue
levels
in
barley
straw
were
found
well
above
the
ranges
of
the
method
validation.
The
HED
review,
thus,
requested
additional
method
validation
at
a
spike
level
of
up
to
15
ppm
for
barley
straw.
Barley
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
48
of
94
hay
samples
were
stored
frozen
for
40­
160
days
(~
1­
5
months),
and
barley
straw
samples
were
stored
frozen
for
27­
177
days
(~
1­
6
months)
prior
to
residue
analysis.
There
are
adequate
storage
stability
data
available
for
field
corn
matrices
which
may
be
translated
to
barley
hay
and
straw.

The
results
of
Treatment
A
indicate
that
residues
of
dicamba
per
se
in/
on
barley
hay
and
straw
were
<
0.01­
1.046
ppm
and
<
0.01­
0.251
ppm,
respectively.
Residues
of
5­
OH
dicamba
ranged
as
follows:
<
0.01­
0.830
ppm
in/
on
barley
hay
and
<
0.01­
0.375
ppm
in/
on
barley
straw.
The
total
residue
levels
(
dicamba
+
5­
OH
dicamba)
were
<
0.02­
1.876
ppm
in/
on
barley
hay
and
<
0.02­
0.626
ppm
in/
on
barley
straw.

The
results
of
Treatment
B
indicate
that
the
residues
of
dicamba
per
se
were
0.331­
10.466
ppm
in/
on
barley
straw.
The
residue
levels
of
5­
OH
dicamba
were
<
0.01­
2.058
ppm
in/
on
barley
straw.
The
total
residue
levels
(
dicamba
+
5­
OH
dicamba)
were
0.388­
10.519
ppm
in/
on
barley
straw.
The
statistical
analysis
performed
by
the
registrant
indicated
that
there
was
no
significant
difference
in
the
magnitude
of
the
residue
samples
based
on
formulation.

Corn,
field,
forage
and
stover
MRID
44089303
(
DP
Barcode
D228703,
7/
16/
98,
S.
Chun)

Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
3.0
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
field
corn
forage
and
field
corn
stover
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].
A
generic
tolerance
of
0.5
ppm
is
also
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
"
corn
forage"
and
"
corn
stover"
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA,
Na,
DGA,
and
K
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
field
corn
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
0.75
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
There
are
Craven
replacement
data
(
MRID
44089303)
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
field
corn
forage
and
fodder
(
stover).
These
data
represent
not
only
the
application
specifically
listed
for
corn,
but
also
the
use
on
fallow
agricultural
soils
at
2
lb
ae/
A
for
a
total
rate
of
2.75
lb
ae/
A.
The
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
ranged
from
<
0.01
to
2.27
ppm
in/
on
field
corn
forage
harvested
39­
71
days
following
the
last
of
three
sequential
treatments
(
2.0
+
0.5
lb
+
0.25
lb
ae/
A)
of
crop
using
representative
dicamba
salt
formulations
for
a
total
of
2.75
lb
ae/
A.
The
combined
residues
ranged
from
<
0.01
to
2.45
ppm
in/
on
field
corn
fodder
harvested
66­
123
days
following
same
sequential
treatments.
The
existing
tolerances
of
3.0
ppm
for
field
corn
forage
and
fodder
are
adequate.

Discussion
of
data:
The
submission
for
MRID
44089303
includes
data
from
a
total
of
20
field
corn
trials
conducted
between
1994­
1995
in
16
states:
IA(
2),
IL(
2),
IN,
KS,
KY,
MN(
2),
MI,
MO,
NE(
2),
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
PA,
SD
and
WI.
These
states
cover
EPA
regions
I
(
1),
II
(
1),
V
(
17),
and
VI
(
1).
Geographic
representation
of
data
is
adequate
since
the
number
and
location
of
field
corn
trials
is
in
accordance
with
Tables
1
and
5
of
GLN
860.1500.
The
DMA
salt
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
49
of
94
formulation
was
applied
in
12
trial
locations.
Side­
by­
side
trials
with
the
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
salt
formulations
of
dicamba
were
conducted
at
8
trial
locations
to
compare
the
residues
found
from
use
of
the
different
salt
formulations.

Three
broadcast
applications
of
dicamba
were
used
on
each
treated
plot
at
each
site.
The
first
application
at
2.0
lb
ae/
A
was
made
to
crop
stubble,
fallow
or
bare
ground
in
the
fall
of
1994
prior
to
ground
freeze,
with
subsequent
planting
of
field
corn
in
the
spring
of
1995.
The
second
application
at
0.5
lb
ae/
A
was
made
in
the
spring
to
8­
inch
tall
field
corn.
The
last
application
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A
was
made
in
the
spring
or
summer
to
36­
inch
tall
field
corn.
The
total
applied
rate
was
2.75
lb
ae/
A
(
3.7x
the
maximum
yearly
rate
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile).
Samples
of
field
corn
forage
were
collected
at
a
PHI
range
of
39­
71
days
whereas
fodder
PHIs
ranged
66­
123
days.

Samples
of
field
corn
forage
and
fodder
were
analyzed
for
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
using
a
GC/
ECD
method
(
Sandoz
Method
AM­
0691B­
0593­
3)
with
a
limit
of
detection
of
0.01
ppm.
The
adequacy
of
the
method
for
data
collection
was
validated
by
separately
fortifying
control
samples
with
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
at
0.01,
0.10,
0.50,
and
1.0
ppm
for
forage
and
at
0.5
and
1.0
ppm
for
fodder.
Method
recoveries
were
within
the
acceptable
range.
The
HED
review
did
not
capture
information
pertaining
to
sample
storage
intervals.
However,
there
are
adequate
storage
stability
data
which
indicate
that
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
residues
are
stable
in/
on
corn
matrices
under
frozen
storage
conditions
for
up
to
3
and
2
years,
respectively.

The
results
indicate
that
the
total
residues
(
dicamba
+
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
all
treated
forage
samples
ranged
from
<
0.01
to
2.27
ppm.
Individual
residues
in
forage
were
<
0.01­
0.31
ppm
for
dicamba
and
<
0.01­
1.97
ppm
for
5­
OH
dicamba.
In
treated
fodder,
the
total
residues
ranged
from
<
0.01
to
2.45
ppm.
Individual
residues
in
fodder
were
<
0.01­
0.33
ppm
for
dicamba
and
<
0.01­
2.12
ppm
for
5­
OH
dicamba.
Analysis
of
Variance
(
ANOVA)
statistical
analysis
was
performed
on
the
data
collected
from
the
8
locations
where
the
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
dicamba
salt
formulations
were
used.
The
results
indicate
that
the
difference
in
the
magnitude
of
the
residues
observed
in
forage
and
fodder
was
influenced
by
the
difference
in
the
trial
locations
and
not
by
the
difference
in
the
dicamba
salt
formulations.

Corn,
pop,
stover
Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
3.0
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
pop
corn
stover
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA,
Na,
DGA,
and
K
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
pop
corn
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
0.75
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
There
are
no
residue
data
on
pop
corn
stover
reflecting
the
maximum
rate
of
0.75
lb
ae/
A
which
is
the
maximum
single/
yearly
application
rate
the
registrants
wish
to
support
for
pop
corn.
HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available
data
from
field
corn
stover
to
pop
corn
stover
since
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
indicates
that
the
application
rate
of
the
two
crops
is
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
50
of
94
identical.
However,
any
label
revision
for
field
corn
should
also
be
made
for
pop
corn.
Concurrently,
any
adjustment
to
the
field
corn
stover
tolerance
should
also
be
applied
as
necessary
to
the
pop
corn
stover
tolerance.

Millet
(
proso)
forage,
hay,
and
straw
Established
tolerance:
A
tolerance
of
0.5
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
proso
millet
straw
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].
No
tolerances
have
been
established
for
proso
millet
forage
and
hay.

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA
salt
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
proso
millet
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.125
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
0.125
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
The
current
RAC
tolerance
level
of
0.5
ppm
for
millet
straw
was
established
through
an
IR­
4
petition
(
PP#
9E2166)
based
on
residue
data
(
MRID
00025330)
reflecting
application
rates
of
0.125
and
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(
1x
and
2x).
HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available
and
requested
data
for
wheat
forage,
hay,
and
straw
to
proso
millet
forage,
hay,
and
straw
since
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
indicates
that
the
application
rate
of
wheat
is
higher.
Appropriate
tolerance
levels
will
be
determined
once
all
of
the
available
studies
have
been
reviewed.

Oat
forage,
hay,
and
straw
Established
tolerance(
s):
Tolerances
of
80.0
ppm,
20.0
ppm,
and
0.5
ppm
are
currently
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
oat
forage,
hay,
and
straw,
respectively
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA,
Na,
and
DGA
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
oats
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.125
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
There
are
no
residue
data
on
oat
forage,
hay,
and
straw
reflecting
the
maximum
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A
which
is
the
maximum
single/
yearly
application
rate
the
registrants
wish
to
support
for
oats.
For
chronological
perspective,
it
is
noted
that
the
tolerance
for
oat
straw
was
initially
established
through
PP#
8F0666
based
on
limited
data
generated
on
spring­
seeded
oats
from
trials
conducted
in
VA
at
application
rates
of
0.125
lb
ae/
A
(
0.125x).
In
conjunction
with
PP#
s
6F4604
and
4F3041
(
DP
Barcode
D249098,
10/
13/
98
W.
Donovan),
the
tolerance
for
oat
forage
was
revised
to
80.0
ppm,
and
a
tolerance
for
oat
hay
was
established
at
20
ppm
based
on
residue
data
translated
from
wheat
forage
and
hay;
the
cited
petition
reviews
did
not
address
the
requirements
for
oat
straw.

For
the
purpose
of
reregistration,
HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available
and
requested
data
for
wheat
forage,
hay,
and
straw
to
oat
forage,
hay,
and
straw
since
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
indicates
that
the
application
rate
of
the
two
crops
is
identical.
Any
label
revision
for
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
51
of
94
wheat
should
also
be
made
for
oats.
Concurrently,
any
adjustment
to
the
wheat
forage,
hay,
and
straw
tolerances
should
also
be
applied
as
necessary
to
the
oat
forage,
hay,
and
straw
tolerances.

Rye
forage
and
straw
Established
tolerance(
s):
No
dicamba
tolerances
have
been
established
for
rye
forage
and
straw.

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA
salt
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
rye
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
There
are
no
available
residue
data
on
rye
forage
and
straw.
HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available
and
requested
data
for
wheat
forage
and
straw
to
rye
forage
and
straw
since
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
indicates
that
the
yearly
application
rate
of
the
two
crops
is
identical.
Any
label
revision
for
wheat
should
also
be
made
for
rye.
Concurrently,
any
adjustment
to
the
wheat
forage
and
straw
tolerances
should
also
be
applied
as
necessary
to
the
rye
forage
and
straw
tolerances
that
need
to
be
established.

Sorghum
forage
and
stover
MRID
43245203
(
DP
Barcodes
D204488,
D204809,
and
D209229;
7/
14/
97;
L.
Cheng)
MRID
44089306
(
DP
Barcodes
D304019,
D306687­
D306690;
in
review,
C.
Olinger)

Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
3.0
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
sorghum
forage
and
sorghum
stover
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
all
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
sorghum
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.2748
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
The
registrant
has
submitted
Craven
replacement
data
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
sorghum
forage
and
fodder
(
stover).
These
data
have
been
reviewed
and
deemed
adequate
to
satisfy
reregistration
requirements
pending
label
revisions
and
tolerance
adjustments.
The
submitted
data
show
that
the
maximum
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
OH
metabolite
were
0.46
ppm
(
MRID
43245203)
and
0.350
ppm
(
MRID
44089306)
in/
on
sorghum
forage
samples
harvested
20­
72
days
following
a
single
postemergence
application
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(
0.5x
the
seasonal
rate
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile).
The
maximum
combined
residues
were
8.22
ppm
(
MRID
43245203)
and
4.29
ppm
(
MRID
44089306)
in/
on
sorghum
fodder
samples
collected
at
PHIs
of
30­
42
days
following
the
last
of
two
applications
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A/
application
for
a
total
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).
These
data
suggest
that
the
established
tolerance
for
sorghum
forage
may
be
too
high
and
the
tolerance
for
fodder
too
low.
Based
on
these
data,
HED
is
recommending
tolerance
levels
of
0.5
ppm
for
sorghum
forage
and
10.0
ppm
for
sorghum
stover
concomitant
with
the
following
label
revisions:
(
i)
a
20­
day
PHI
and
a
maximum
single/
seasonal
rate
of
0.25
lb
ae/
A
for
sorghum
forage;
and
(
ii)
a
30­
day
PHI
for
sorghum
fodder
(
stover)
at
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A.
Following
an
examination
of
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
52
of
94
use
directions
for
sorghum,
HED
will
allow
a
lower
use
rate
for
forage
since
this
RAC
will
be
harvested
prior
to
the
second
crop
application.

Discussion
of
data:
The
submission
for
MRID
43245203
contain
data
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
OH
metabolite
in/
on
sorghum
forage
and
stover
(
fodder);
this
study
also
include
data
on
sorghum
silage
which
are
not
presented
herein
because
silage
is
no
longer
considered
a
significant
livestock
feed
item
as
per
Table
1
of
OPPTS
860.1000.
A
total
of
40
field
trials
were
conducted
in
KS(
8),
MO(
8),
NE(
8),
OK(
8),
and
TX(
8)
using
four
salt
formulations
of
dicamba:
the
Na,
DGA,
K,
and
DMA
salts.
Geographic
representation
of
data
is
more
than
adequate
when
the
trials
conducted
from
this
study
along
with
those
conducted
from
MRID
44089306
are
considered.
At
each
test
site,
one
or
two
applications
of
each
of
the
four
dicamba
salt
formulations
were
made
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A/
application
for
total
rates
of
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(­
0.5x)
and
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).
Applications
were
made
in
19.6­
21.5
GPA
using
ground
equipment.
The
0.5x
plots
were
treated
when
the
plants
were
15"
tall
using
a
broadcast
application
sprayed
directly
under
the
canopy
(
20­
109
PTI).
The
1x
plots
received
an
additional
application
of
0.25
lb
ae/
A
when
the
crop
was
at
the
soft
dough
stage
(
30­
42
PTI).

Sorghum
forage
and
fodder
samples
were
analyzed
for
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
using
a
GC/
ECD
method
(
Method
AM­
0691B)
with
a
limit
of
detection
of
0.01
ppm
for
each
analyte.
The
adequacy
of
the
method
for
data
collection
was
validated
by
fortifying
untreated
forage
and
fodder
samples
with
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
at
0.01­
0.1
ppm.
Method
recoveries
were
within
the
acceptable
range.
Samples
were
stored
frozen
at
<­
17
°
C
for
28­
160
days
(­
1­
5
months)
prior
to
analysis.
There
are
adequate
storage
stability
data
for
corn
matrices
which
can
be
translated
to
sorghum.

The
results
show
that
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
OH
metabolite
ranged
0.029­
0.46
ppm
in/
on
sorghum
forage
samples
harvested
20­
54
days
following
a
single
postemergence
application
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(
0.5x).
The
combined
residues
ranged
0.132­
8.22
ppm
in/
on
sorghum
fodder
samples
collected
at
PHIs
of
30­
42
days
following
the
last
of
two
applications
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A/
application
for
a
total
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).

MRID
44089306:
A
total
of
seven
sorghum
trials
were
conducted
in
Regions
2
(
NC;
1
trial),
4
(
LA;
1
trial),
5
(
IL
and
KS;
2
trials);
6
(
OK;
1
trial),
7
(
NE;
1
trial),
and
8
(
TX;
1
trial)
during
the
1995
growing
season.
The
DMA
salt
of
dicamba
was
the
test
formulation
used
in
all
trials.
At
each
field
trial
site,
two
separate
plots
were
treated
with
either
a
single
post
directed
spray
application
made
under
the
crop
canopy
of
15­
inch
tall
sorghum
plants
at
a
rate
of
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(
0.5x)
or
two
applications
(
one
post
directed
application
followed
by
a
second
broadcast
application
made
at
soft
dough
stage)
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A/
application,
with
a
44­
to
65­
day
retreatment
interval,
for
a
total
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).
Applications
were
made
in
10­
36
gal/
A
of
water
using
ground
equipment.
Forage
samples
were
collected
from
0.5x­
treated
sites
at
PHIs
of
49­
72­
days.
Fodder
samples
were
collected
from
the
1x­
treated
sites
at
PHIs
of
30­
34
days.

Samples
were
analyzed
for
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
OH
metabolite
using
GC/
ECD
method
AM­
0691B­
0593­
3
with
a
validated
LOQ
of
0.02
ppm
for
each
analyte.
The
method
is
adequate
for
data
collection
based
on
acceptable
concurrent
method
recovery
data.
Samples
were
stored
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
53
of
94
frozen
for
56­
137
days
(
1.8­
4.5
months)
for
forage
and
43­
191days
(
1.4­
6.3
months)
for
fodder
prior
to
residue
analysis.
There
are
adequate
storage
stability
data
for
corn
matrices
which
can
be
translated
to
sorghum.

The
results
show
that
the
maximum
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
OH
metabolite
were
0.350
ppm
in/
on
sorghum
forage
harvested
49­
72
days
following
a
single
post
directed
spray
application
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(
0.5x).
The
maximum
combined
residues
were
4.29
ppm
in/
on
sorghum
fodder
harvested
30­
34
days
following
the
last
of
two
applications
(
one
post
directed
followed
by
a
second
broadcast
application
made
at
soft
dough
stage)
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A/
application
for
a
total
rate
of
0.50
lb
ae/
A
(
1.0x).

Wheat
forage
and
hay
MRID
43274501
(
DP
Barcodes
D220469,
D220471,
D220473,
and
D220430;
5/
2/
96;
F.
Griffith)

Established
tolerance(
s):
Tolerances
of
80.0
ppm
and
20.0
ppm
are
currently
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
wheat
forage
and
hay,
respectively
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA,
Na,
DGA,
and
IPA
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
wheat
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
The
registrant
has
submitted
data
(
MRID
43274501)
from
seven
field
trials
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
wheat
forage
and
hay.
These
data
have
been
reviewed
and
deemed
inadequate
because
of
inadequate
geographic
representation
of
data.
The
registrant
has
committed
(
DP
Barcodes
D228694
and
D239967,
6/
25/
98,
S.
Chun)
to
conduct
additional
wheat
forage
and
hay
field
trials.
A
magnitude
of
the
residue
study
(
MRID
44891302)
in
wheat
forage
and
hay
has
been
identified
and
is
currently
under
review.

The
available
data,
excluding
those
under
review,
indicate
that
the
maximum
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
were
16
ppm,
14
ppm,
and
12
ppm
in/
on
wheat
forage
samples
harvested
immediately
(
0­
day
PHI)
following
a
single
application
of
the
respective
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
salts
of
dicamba
at
0.125­
0.5
lb
ai/
A.
In
wheat
hay,
the
maximum
combined
residues
were
4.9
ppm,
4.6
ppm,
and
4.8
ppm
from
samples
harvested
14
days
following
a
single
application
of
the
respective
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
salts
of
dicamba
at
0.125­
0.5
lb
ai/
A.
The
adequacy
of
the
existing
tolerances
will
be
addressed
once
all
of
the
studies
have
been
reviewed.

Discussion
of
wheat
forage
and
hay
data:
The
submission
for
MRID
43274501
contain
data
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
wheat
forage
and
hay
from
seven
trials
conducted
during
the
1993
growing
season.
The
locations
of
wheat
trials
from
the
subject
study
are
as
follows:
Regions
5
(
KS;
1
trial),
6
(
TX;
1
trial),
7
(
ND;
1
trial),
8
(
CO
and
KS;
2
trials),
9
(
MT;
1
trial),
and
11
(
WA;
1
trial).
The
initial
HED
review
of
this
study
(
DP
Barcodes
D220430,
...
5/
2/
96,
F.
Griffith)
concluded
that
geographic
representation
of
data
is
inadequate.
The
registrant
has
subsequently
committed
to
conduct
additional
wheat
forage
and
hay
field
trials
(
DP
Barcodes
D228694
and
D239967,
6/
25/
98,
S.
Chun).
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
54
of
94
Five
of
these
trials
were
with
winter
wheat
varieties,
and
two
were
with
spring
wheat
varieties.
Each
trial
location
consisted
of
a
control
plot
and
six
test
plots
for
three
different
dicamba
formulations
(
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
salts)
at
two
different
application
rates.
Three
treated
test
plots
received
one
application
at
0.125
lb
ai/
A
in
9­
31
gallons
of
water
using
ground
equipment
with
wheat
forage
samples
harvested
at
a
0­
day
PHI.
The
other
three
test
plots
received
one
application
at
0.5
lb
ai/
A
with
wheat
forage
samples
harvested
at
a
0­
day
PHI.
Wheat
hay
samples
from
all
test
plots
were
cut
14
days
later
and
allowed
to
field
dry
3­
7
days
before
collection/
harvest
as
wheat
hay.
Samples
were
analyzed
for
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
using
a
GC/
ECD
method
(
Method
AM­
0691B­
0593­
3)
with
an
LOQ
of
0.01
ppm.
Recovery
data
for
wheat
forage
and
hay
were
acceptable
to
support
the
method
as
suitable
to
gather
the
magnitude
of
the
residue
data.
Samples
were
stored
frozen
for
an
unspecified
interval
prior
to
residue
analysis.
The
HED
review
concluded
that
there
are
adequate
storage
stability
data
on
wheat
forage
and
hay
which
support
sample
storage
conditions
and
intervals.

The
results
show
that
all
field
trials
from
the
0.125
lb
DMA
dicamba
application
to
wheat
forage
had
detectable
residues
at
0­
day
PHI
ranging
from
6.7
to
16
ppm
(
2
trials).
Maximum
residues
were
14
ppm
when
the
DGA
dicamba
was
applied,
and
12
ppm
from
the
application
of
the
Na
salt.
Likewise,
all
wheat
hay
samples
had
detectable
total
dicamba
results.
Total
residues
of
dicamba
on
14­
day
PHI
wheat
hay
ranged
from
0.62
ppm
to
4.9
ppm
from
application
of
DMA
dicamba.
Maximum
residues
were
4.6
ppm
from
the
application
of
DGA
dicamba,
and
4.8
ppm
from
the
application
of
the
Na
salt.

Wheat
straw
MRID
44089305
(
DP
Barcode
D228703,
7/
16/
98,
S.
Chun)

Established
tolerance:
A
tolerance
of
30.0
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
wheat
straw
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA,
Na,
DGA,
and
IPA
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
wheat
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
There
are
Craven
replacement
data
(
MRID
44089305)
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
wheat
straw.
These
data,
however,
do
not
support
the
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A
that
is
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
because
the
wheat
trials
were
conducted
at
application
rates
of
0.25
or
0.5
lb
ae/
A.
The
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
ranged
from
0.011
to
0.97
ppm
in/
on
samples
of
wheat
straw
harvested
63­
125
days
following
one
spring
broadcast
application
of
representative
dicamba
salt
formulations
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(
0.25x).
The
combined
residues
ranged
from
0.13
to
26
ppm
in/
on
straw
samples
harvested
6­
12
days
following
the
last
of
two
treatments
for
a
total
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
0.5x).

For
the
purpose
of
reregistration,
the
registrants
are
required
to
submit
additional
data
on
wheat
straw
reflecting
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A.
Alternatively,
the
registrants
may
rely
on
the
available
data
provided
they
are
willing
to
revise
product
labels
for
consistency
with
the
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
55
of
94
reviewed
data.
If
the
registrants
elect
to
choose
the
latter
option,
then
they
will
be
required
to
revise
product
labels
to
specify
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
and
a
7­
day
PHI
for
wheat
straw.
The
existing
tolerance
of
30
ppm
for
wheat
straw
will
be
considered
adequate
if
the
registrants
elect
to
revise
product
labels.

Discussion
of
data:
The
submission
for
MRID
44089305
report
data
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
wheat
straw.
A
total
of
20
field
trials
were
conducted
during
the
1995
growing
season
in16
states:
CO(
2),
ID,
IL,
KS(
2),
MN,
MO,
MS,
MT(
2),
NE,
NM,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK(
2),
TX,
and
WY.
These
states
cover
EPA
regions
II
(
1),
IV
(
1),
V(
5),
VI
(
1),
VII
(
5),
VIII
(
6),
and
XI
(
1).
Geographic
representation
of
data
is
adequate
since
the
number
and
location
of
wheat
trials
is
in
accordance
with
Tables
1
and
5
of
GLN
860.1500.
The
wheat
field
trials
were
conducted
using
the
following
salt
formulations
of
dicamba:
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na.

Two
treatment
patterns,
designated
as
A
and
B,
were
employed
in
this
study.
Treatment
A
consisted
of
a
spring
broadcast
application
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(
0.25x)
made
to
the
crop
immediately
prior
to
first
joint
(
POPO1).
Treatment
B
consisted
of
Treatment
A
plus
a
preharvest
broadcast
application
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A,
made
7
days
before
harvest
(
POPO2)
for
a
total
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
0.5x).
The
DMA
salt
formulation
of
dicamba
was
applied
in
10
trial
locations.
Side­
by­
side
trials
with
the
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
salt
formulations
of
dicamba
were
conducted
at
four
trial
locations
to
compare
the
residues
found
from
use
of
the
different
salt
formulations.
Samples
were
analyzed
for
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
using
a
GC/
ECD
method
(
Sandoz
Method
AM­
0691B­
0593­
3)
with
a
limit
of
detection
of
0.01
ppm.
The
adequacy
of
the
method
for
data
collection
was
validated
by
fortifying
straw
control
samples
with
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
at
0.02
and
0.10
ppm.
Method
recoveries
were
within
the
acceptable
range.
However,
the
HED
review
noted
that
the
method
was
not
validated
over
an
acceptable
range
since
residue
levels
in
wheat
straw
were
found
well
above
the
ranges
of
the
method
validation.
The
HED
review,
thus,
requested
additional
method
validation
at
a
spike
level
of
up
to
30
ppm
for
wheat
straw.
Wheat
straw
samples
were
stored
frozen
for
51­
220
days
(~
2­
7
months)
prior
to
residue
analysis.
There
are
adequate
storage
stability
data
available
for
field
corn
matrices
which
may
be
translated
to
wheat
straw.

The
results
indicate
that
the
total
residues
(
dicamba
+
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
all
treated
straw
samples
ranged
0.011­
0.97
ppm
for
Treatment
A
(
0.25x)
and
0.13­
26
ppm
for
Treatment
B
(
0.5x).
Analysis
of
Variance
(
ANOVA)
statistical
analysis
was
performed
on
the
data
collected
from
the
four
locations
where
the
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
dicamba
salt
formulations
were
used.
The
results
indicate
that
the
difference
in
the
magnitude
of
the
residues
observed
in
straw
was
influenced
by
the
difference
in
the
trial
locations
and
not
by
the
differences
in
the
dicamba
salt
formulations.

Grass,
Forage,
Fodder,
and
Hay,
Group
17
Pasture
and
rangeland
grasses
MRID
43370701
(
DP
Barcode
D207649,
3/
11/
96,
L
Cheng)
(
DP
Barcodes
D220469,
D220471,
D220473,
and
D220430;
5/
2/
96;
F.
Griffith)
(
DP
Barcodes
D228694
and
D239967,
6/
25/
98,
S.
Chun)
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
56
of
94
Established
tolerance(
s):
Tolerances
for
Crop
Group
17
(
grass,
forage,
fodder,
and
hay
group)
are
currently
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
grass
forage
at
125.0
ppm
and
grass
hay
at
200.0
ppm
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
The
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4)
lists
separate
entries
on:
(
i)
hay;
(
ii)
pastures;
(
iii)
rangeland;
and
(
iv)
Sudangrass.
On
hay,
the
DMA,
Na,
and
DGA
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
at
a
maximum
single
and
yearly
application
rate
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A
based
on
labels
for
EPA
Reg.
Nos.
51036­
289
and
7969­
131.
On
pastures
and
rangeland,
the
DMA,
Na,
and
DGA
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
at
a
maximum
single
and
yearly
application
rate
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A.
There
is
an
endnote
in
Table
4
which
specifies
that
the
label
for
EPA
Reg.
No.
100­
884
lists
7.7
lb
ae/
A
as
the
maximum
rate
for
spot
treatment
of
pastures
and
rangelands.
The
2.0
lb
ae/
A
is
what
the
registrant
stated
at
the
SMART
Meeting
as
the
rate
they
intended
to
support.
On
Sudangrass,
the
DMA
salt
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
at
a
maximum
single
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
for
hay
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
An
acceptable
study
(
MRID
43370701)
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
is
available
and
may
be
used
to
satisfy
reregistration
requirements
pending
tolerance
adjustments
and
label
amendments.
This
study
was
first
reviewed
by
HED
(
DP
Barcode
207649,
3/
11/
96,
L
Cheng)
as
a
response
to
the
requirements
of
the
Dicamba
(
SRR)
Registration
Standard
dated
6/
30/
89.
The
study
was
re­
evaluated
and
addressed
in
conjunction
with
PP#
6F4604:
(
i)
DP
Barcodes
D220469,
D220471,
D220473,
and
D220430;
5/
2/
96;
F.
Griffith;
and
(
ii)
DP
Barcodes
D228694
and
D239967,
6/
25/
98,
S.
Chun.
The
currently
established
tolerance
levels
of
125.0
ppm
and
200.0
ppm
for
grass
forage
and
hay,
respectively,
were
established
in
conjunction
with
PP#
6F4604
based
on
residue
data
reflecting
a
maximum
seasonal
application
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A.

According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile,
the
registrants
now
wish
to
support
a
maximum
single/
yearly
application
rate
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A
for
grasses
grown
in
pastures
and
rangeland.
For
the
purpose
of
generating
this
Chapter,
the
available
grass
forage
and
hay
data
were
re­
evaluated
with
the
information
that
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A
will
be
supported
at
a
0­
day
PHI/
PGI
for
forage
and
a
7­
day
PHI
for
hay.
The
Agency
currently
requires
zero­
day
crop
field
residue
data
for
grasses
cut
for
forage
(
unless
its
is
not
feasible,
e.
g.,
preplant/
preemergence
uses)
but
allow
a
reasonable
interval
before
cutting
for
hay
(
Table
I
of
OPPTS
860.1000).
A
7­
day
PHI
for
grass
hay
is
the
interval
that
the
registrants
previously
proposed
in
PP#
6F4604.

The
available
data
indicate
that
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
ranged
66­
358
ppm
in/
on
grass
forage
samples
harvested
immediately
(
0­
day)
following
a
single
application
of
representative
formulations
of
dicamba
(
DMA,
DGA,
or
Na
salts)
at
2.0
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).
The
combined
residues
ranged
25­
201
ppm
in/
on
grass
hay
samples
harvested
7
days
following
a
single
application
of
representative
formulations
at
2.0
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).
Based
on
these
data,
HED
is
reassessing
the
grass
forage
tolerance
at
400
ppm
and
the
grass
hay
tolerance
at
250
ppm.

Concomitant
with
these
tolerance
reassessment,
HED
is
requesting
RD
to
verify
that
all
dicamba
labels
specify
a
0­
day
PHI/
PGI
for
grass
forage
and
a
7­
day
PHI
for
grass
hay
when
applied
at
a
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
57
of
94
maximum
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A.
In
addition,
HED
is
recommending
the
removal
of
the
spot
treatment
use
on
pastures
and
rangeland
at
7.7
lb
ae/
A
(
from
EPA
Reg.
No.
100­
884)
because
there
are
no
available
data
supporting
this
use
rate;
alternatively,
the
registrants
may
submit
data
to
support
this
application
rate.

Discussion
of
data:
The
submission
for
MRID
43370701
contain
data
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
grass
forage
and
hay.
A
total
of
295
tests
were
conducted
in
FL(
15),
GA(
35),
IN(
15),
KS(
15),
TN(
15),
MI(
15),
NE(
15),
OK­
1(
35),
OK­
2(
15),
OR(
35),
MO(
35),
TX(
15),
and
WI(
35)
using
three
formulations:
the
DMA,
DGA,
and
Na
salts
of
dicamba.
Geographic
representation
of
residue
data
is
adequate
with
regard
to
the
number
of
field
trials.
One
application
of
the
DMA
salt
was
made
at
0.5,
1.0,
or
2.0
lb
ae/
A
in
separate
tests
at
each
test
site.
For
the
DGA
and
Na
salts,
one
application
was
made
at
0.5
or
2.0
lb
ae/
A
in
separate
tests
at
each
test
site;
however,
samples
were
collected
only
from
WI,
MO,
OR,
GA,
and
OK­
1
test
sites.
Applications
were
made
in
7­
23
GPA
of
water
using
ground
equipment
to
actively
growing
grasses.
Forage
and
hay
samples
were
collected
at
0,
7,
14,
28,
and
56­
day
post
treatment
intervals
(
PTI).
Hay
samples
were
allowed
to
field
dry
for
2­
3
days
prior
to
collection.
One
to
two
controls
samples
were
collected
from
the
7,14,
28,
and
56­
day
PTI
plots.

Samples
were
stored
at
<­
1
°
C
for
72
to
402
days
prior
to
analysis.
This
storage
interval
is
supported
by
adequate
storage
stability
data.
Samples
were
analyzed
for
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
hydroxy
metabolite
using
GC/
ECD
Method
AM­
0691B
which
was
deemed
adequate
for
data
collection
based
on
acceptable
concurrent
method
recoveries.

The
results
show
that
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
ranged
66­
358
ppm
in/
on
grass
forage
samples
harvested
immediately
(
0­
day)
following
a
single
application
of
representative
formulations
of
dicamba
(
DMA,
DGA,
or
Na
salts)
at
2.0
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).
The
combined
residues
ranged
25­
201
ppm
in/
on
grass
hay
samples
harvested
7
days
following
a
single
application
of
representative
formulations
at
2.0
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).
Based
on
the
results,
it
was
concluded
that
dicamba
residues
are
not
dependent
on
which
formulation
is
used,
but
may
depend
on
the
location
where
used.

Miscellaneous
Commodities
Asparagus
MRIDs
43245206
and
43425803
(
DP
Barcodes
D204488,
D204809,
and
D209229;
7/
14/
97;
L.
Cheng)

Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
4.0
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
DCSA
metabolite
in/
on
asparagus
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
2)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA,
Na,
and
DGA
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
asparagus
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
The
registrant
has
submitted
adequate
data
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
DCSA
metabolite
in/
on
asparagus.
These
data
indicate
that
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
58
of
94
and
its
DCSA
metabolite
ranged
0.28­
3.29
ppm
in/
on
asparagus
(
n=
48
samples)
harvested
24
hours
following
a
single
application
of
representative
dicamba
salt
formulations
at
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1x
the
maximum
rate
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile).
These
data
support
the
currently
established
tolerance
of
4.0
ppm
on
asparagus
pending
verification
by
RD
that
the
label
PHI
for
asparagus
is
24
hours
or
1
day.

Discussion
of
data:
The
submissions
for
MRIDs
43245206
and
43425803
contain
data
depicting
residues
of
dicamba,
5­
OH
dicamba,
and
DCSA
in/
on
asparagus.
A
total
of
24
asparagus
field
trials
were
conducted
in
CA(
3)
and
WA(
3)
in
1993
and
in
CA(
6),
MI(
6),
and
WA(
6)
in
1994.
The
number
and
location
of
asparagus
trials
are
adequate
with
respect
to
geographic
representation
of
data.
For
the
tests
conducted
in
1994,
the
six
trials
in
each
state
represent
two
test
locations
(
1
and
2)
with
three
tests
at
each
site.
At
each
test
site,
the
following
three
dicamba
salt
formulations
were
used:
Na,
DGA,
and
DMA.
At
each
test
site,
one
broadcast
application
of
each
of
the
three
dicamba
formulations
was
made
at
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1x)
in
20­
50
GPA
of
water
using
ground
equipment.
Asparagus
spears
were
harvested
24
hours
after
application.

Samples
were
analyzed
for
dicamba
and
DCSA
using
GC/
ECD
method
AM­
0766A.
Additional
samples
were
analyzed
for
5­
OH
dicamba
using
method
AM­
0691B.
These
methods
are
adequate
for
data
collection
based
on
acceptable
concurrent
method
recoveries.
Samples
were
stored
frozen
at
<­
12
°
C
for
12­
95
days
prior
to
analysis.
Adequate
storage
stability
data
are
available
which
indicate
that
residues
of
dicamba
and
DCSA
are
stable
in/
on
asparagus
for
up
to
104
days
of
frozen
(<­
12
°
C)
storage,
and
that
residues
of
5­
OH
dicamba
are
also
stable
for
up
to
119
days
of
frozen
(<­
12
°
C)
storage.

The
results
show
that
the
maximum
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
DCSA
were
1.1
ppm
in/
on
36
asparagus
samples
from
CA
and
WA
harvested
24
hours
following
a
single
application
at
0.5
lb
ae/
A
of
the
Na
salt,
DGA
salt,
or
the
DMA
salt
of
dicamba.
The
maximum
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
DCSA
were
3.29
ppm
in/
on
12
asparagus
samples
grown
in
MI
harvested
24
hours
following
a
single
application
at
0.5
lb
ae/
A
of
the
dicamba
Na,
DGA,
or
DMA
salt
formulation.
The
field
trial
data
indicate
that
the
residue
levels
are
not
dependent
on
the
salt
formulation
used.

Aspirated
grain
fractions
MRID
43245205
(
Sorghum)
(
DP
Barcodes
D204488,
D204809,
and
D209229;
7/
14/
97,
L.
Cheng)
MRID
43814102
(
Soybean)
(
DP
Barcodes
D223283,
...,
7/
29/
96;
S.
Knizner,
W.
Dykstra,
and
C.
Lewis)
MRID
44089305
(
Wheat)
(
DP
Barcode
D228703,
7/
16/
98,
S.
Chun)

Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
5100
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolites
(
5­
OH
dicamba
and
DCSA)
in/
on
aspirated
grain
fractions
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
3)].

Uses
to
be
supported:
Refer
to
"
Legume
Vegetables
(
Crop
Group
6)"
section
for
supported
uses
on
soybean
seed
and
"
Cereal
Grains
(
Crop
Group
15)"
section
for
supported
uses
on
field
corn,
sorghum,
and
wheat.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
59
of
94
Conclusions:
There
are
adequate
residue
data
on
the
aspirated
grain
fractions
(
also
known
as
grain
dusts)
of
sorghum,
soybean,
and
wheat.
[
Although
samples
collected
from
the
sorghum
and
wheat
studies
were
only
analyzed
for
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba,
HED
would
not
ask
registrants
to
repeat
these
studies
because
samples
from
the
soybean
study,
which
produced
the
highest
residues,
were
analyzed
for
dicamba,
5­
OH
dicamba,
and
DCSA.]
Summaries
of
the
submitted
grain
dust
data
are
presented
below.
The
highest
processing
factor
found
was
670x,
for
dicamba
in
soybean
seed
aspirated
grain
fractions.
The
average
residues
found
in
the
field
trial
application
schedule
was
1.36
ppm.
Multiplying
670
by
1.36
yields
941
ppm,
so
the
rounded
value
for
the
reassessed
tolerance
would
be
1000
ppm.

Sorghum
aspirated
grain
fractions:
Two
trials
were
conducted
in
Peru
(
1)
and
Dodge
City
(
1),
KS
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
the
aspirated
grain
fractions
of
sorghum.
Applications
were
made
at
a
total
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1x
the
maximum
yearly
rate
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile)
and
1.5
lb
ae/
A
(
3x)
at
both
sites.
Grain
samples
were
harvested
and
analyzed
by
Sandoz
Agro,
Inc.
(
Des
Plaines,
IL)
as
pre­
qualifier
samples.
The
3x­
trial
from
Dodge
City
bore
the
highest
residues
in
grain
samples,
therefore,
only
treated
samples
from
this
trial
were
processed
for
grain
dust
generation.
Grain
dust
was
generated
in
a
steel
bucket
elevator
using
a
process
that
was
designed
to
simulate
a
commercial
elevator
operation.
Upon
generation,
the
grain
dust
samples
were
sent
to
the
analytical
facility
of
Sandoz
where
they
were
held
frozen
at
<­
17
°
C
for
up
to
2
months
prior
to
analysis.
The
treated
RAC
sample
was
held
frozen
for
4
months
prior
to
analysis.
One
treated
grain
sample
and
one
of
each
>
2030,
>
1180,
>
850,
>
425,
and
<
425
:
m
treated
grain
dust
samples
were
analyzed.
Residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
were
determined
using
the
GC/
ECD
method
AM­
0691B
which
is
adequate
for
data
collection.
Following
treatment
at
a
total
of
1.5
lb
ae/
A,
the
maximum
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
were
6.9
ppm
in/
on
sorghum
grain
(
RAC)
and
27.1
ppm
in/
on
the
aspirated
grain
fractions
of
sorghum.
Individual
ranges
of
residues
in/
on
treated
sorghum
grain
dusts
were
10.0­
17.6
ppm
and
3.2­
9.5
ppm
for
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba,
respectively.

Soybean
aspirated
grain
fractions:
One
trial
was
conducted
in
IL
depicting
residues
of
dicamba,
DCSA,
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
the
aspirated
grain
fractions
of
soybeans.
In
this
trial,
soybean
seeds
were
harvested
5
days
following
a
single
preharvest
broadcast
application
of
the
4
lb/
gal
soluble
concentrate
DMA
formulation
of
dicamba
at
10
lb
ae/
A
(
5x
the
maximum
rate
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile).
Samples
were
harvested
using
a
combine,
and
the
harvested
samples
were
transported
in
gravity
flow
wagons
to
the
machine
shed
for
bagging.
Samples
were
frozen
within
3
hours
of
harvest
and
shipped
frozen
to
the
processing
facility,
Texas
A
&
M
Food
Protein
Research
and
Development
Center
(
Bryan,
TX)
26
days
after
harvest.
Adequate
descriptions
of
procedures
used
for
the
generation
of
soybean
grain
dusts
were
included
in
the
study.
It
is,
however,
noted
that
grain
dust
was
separated
into
various
fractions
by
sieving,
and
that
the
sieved
fractions
were
then
recombined
before
residue
analysis.
Samples
were
analyzed
for
residues
of
dicamba,
5­
OH
dicamba,
and
DCSA
using
GC
Method
No.
AM­
0941­
1094­
0
with
an
LOQ
of
0.01
ppm
for
each
soybean
matrix.
In
this
method,
residues
of
dicamba
and
DCSA
were
quantitated
by
GC
with
a
Ni
ECD,
while
residues
of
5­
OH
dicamba
were
quantitated
separately
by
GC/
ECD.
The
data­
collection
method
used
is
adequate
based
on
acceptable
recoveries
from
method
validations.
All
samples
were
stored
frozen
at
the
analytical
laboratory
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
60
of
94
prior
to
analysis.
Total
storage
interval,
between
harvest
and
analysis,
were
146­
170
days
(
5­
6
months)
for
grain
dusts.

The
results
of
the
study
indicate
that
the
average
residues
of
dicamba,
5­
OH
dicamba,
and
DCSA
in/
on
two
treated
soybean
seed
(
RAC)
samples
were
0.543
ppm,
<
0.01
ppm,
and
0.014
ppm,
respectively.
In
treated
soybean
aspirated
grain
fractions,
for
which
>
50%
of
the
fractions
were
<
425
:
m
in
size,
the
average
residues
were:
365
ppm
for
dicamba,
2.8
ppm
for
5­
OH
dicamba,
and
3.0
ppm
for
DCSA.

Wheat
aspirated
grain
fractions:
For
the
generation
of
wheat
grain
dust,
30­
lb
grain
samples
were
collected
from
the
wheat
field
trials
and
batched
together.
The
grain
samples
were
dried
at
110­
150
°
F
until
the
moisture
content
was
10­
13%.
The
grain
samples
were
then
placed
in
a
dust
generation
room
on
a
drag
conveyor
and
moved
for
120
minutes.
As
the
sample
was
moved
in
the
system,
aspiration
was
used
to
remove
the
grain
dust.
The
resulting
dust
was
classified
by
size
using
sieves.
The
whole
grain,
representing
the
RAC
before
the
generation
of
grain
dusts,
bore
a
combined
residue
(
dicamba
+
5­
OH
dicamba)
of
0.44
ppm.
The
grain
dust
samples
had
combined
residues
of
4.8
ppm
(>
425
:
m
to
<
2030
:
m)
and
4.7
ppm
(<
425
:
m).

Cotton,
undelinted
seed
and
gin
byproducts
MRID
43814001
(
DP
Barcodes
D220469,
D220471,
D220473,
and
D220430;
5/
2/
96;
F.
Griffith)
MRID
45196801
(
C.
Olinger,
under
review)

Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
5.0
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
undelinted
cottonseed
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].
No
tolerance
is
established
for
cotton
gin
byproducts.

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA,
and
DGA
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
field
corn
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
0.25
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
A
study
describing
dicamba
residues
on
cotton
gin
by­
products
is
currently
under
review
(
MRID
45196801),
and
will
be
completed
by
Phase
III
of
reregistration.
In
MRID
43814001,
12
field
trials
were
conducted
in
1994
as
follows:
one
from
Region
2
[
Georgia],
8
from
Region
4
[
Louisiana
(
3),
Mississippi
(
2),
Tennessee,
and
Arkansas
(
2)],
two
from
Region
6
[
Texas],
and
one
from
Region
8
[
Texas].
The
dicamba
sodium
salt
formulation
was
applied
once
at
the
0.5
lb
ai/
acre
rate
in
10­
20
gallons
of
water
using
ground
equipment
14
days
prior
to
planting
cotton.
Cotton
was
harvested
at
maturity
by
hand,
ginned
with
the
lint
discarded,
and
the
cottonseed
and
gin
by­
products
(
consisting
of
burrs,
stems,
and
leaves)
were
collected
for
analysis.
The
maximum
residue
detected
in
cottonseed
from
the
proposed
new
use
is
0.05
ppm
of
the
5­
OH
metabolite
in
only
one
field
trial.
Several
control
cotton
gin
by­
product
samples
contained
dicamba
or
5­
OH
dicamba
equivalents
in
the
0.04­
0.06
ppm
range,
which
was
comparable
to
the
levels
found
in
the
treated
samples.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
61
of
94
Sugarcane
MRID
44089302
(
DP
Barcodes
D304019,
D306687­
D306690;
under
review;
C.
Olinger)

Established
tolerance(
s):
Tolerances
of
0.1
ppm
are
currently
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
sugarcane,
sugarcane
forage,
sugarcane
fodder
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].
The
Agency
no
longer
considers
sugarcane
forage
and
fodder
to
be
significant
livestock
feed
items,
and
these
items
have
been
deleted
from
Table
1
of
OPPTS
860.1000.
Therefore,
HED
is
recommending
the
revocation
of
the
tolerances
for
sugarcane
forage
and
fodder.

Uses
to
be
supported:
According
to
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
(
see
Table
4),
the
DMA,
Na,
and
DGA
salts
of
dicamba
will
be
supported
on
sugarcane
at
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
2.8
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
yearly
rate
of
2.8
lb
ae/
A.

Conclusions:
There
are
Craven
replacement
data
(
MRID
44089302)
depicting
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
in/
on
sugarcane.
These
data,
however,
do
not
support
the
maximum
seasonal
single/
yearly
rate
of
2.8
lb
ae/
A
that
is
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
because
the
sugarcane
trials
were
conducted
at
an
application
rate
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A
(­
0.7x).
The
submitted
data
indicate
that
the
maximum
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
hydroxy
metabolite
were
0.202
ppm,
0.186
ppm,
and
0.054
ppm
in/
on
sugarcane
harvested
87­
173
days
following
a
single
layby
application
of
the
respective
DMA,
DGA,
Na
salt
formulations
of
dicamba
to
sugarcane
crop
at
2.0
lb
ae/
A.
The
maximum
combined
HAFT
level
was
0.183
ppm
obtained
from
samples
treated
with
the
DGA
salt.

For
the
purpose
of
reregistration,
the
registrants
are
required
to
submit
additional
data
on
sugarcane
reflecting
a
maximum
single/
yearly
rate
of
2.8
lb
ae/
A.
Alternatively,
the
registrants
may
rely
on
the
available
data
provided
they
are
willing
to
revise
product
labels
for
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data.
If
the
registrants
elect
to
choose
the
latter
option,
then
they
will
be
required
to
revise
product
labels
to
specify
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A
and
an
87­
day
PHI
for
sugarcane.
The
existing
tolerance
of
0.1
ppm
for
sugarcane
is
inadequate
and
HED
is
recommending
that
it
be
reassessed
at
0.3
ppm
if
the
registrants
elect
to
revise
product
labels
as
detailed
above.

Discussion
of
data:
The
submission
for
MRID
44089302
depict
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
sugarcane.
A
total
of
eight
sugarcane
trials
were
conducted
in
Regions
3
(
FL;
3
trials),
4
(
LA;
3
trials),
6
(
TX;
1
trial),
and
13
(
HI;
1
trial)
during
the
1995
growing
season.
The
number
and
locations
of
field
trials
are
adequate
and
in
accordance
with
OPPTS
Guideline
860.1500.
At
three
test
locations
(
FL,
HI,
and
LA),
the
DMA,
DGA,
Na
salt
formulations
of
dicamba
were
applied
side­
by­
side
to
separate
plots
of
sugarcane
at
layby
at
a
rate
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A
(­
0.7x
the
maximum
yearly
rate
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile).
At
the
remaining
five
test
locations
(
FL;
2
trials,
LA;
2
trials,
and
TX;
1
trial),
a
single
application
of
the
DMA
salt
formulation
was
also
made
at
layby
at
the
same
rate.
Applications
were
made
in
15­
30
gal/
A
of
water
using
ground
equipment.
Sugarcane
was
harvested
87­
173
days
posttreatment.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
62
of
94
Samples
were
analyzed
for
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
hydroxy
metabolite
using
GC/
ECD
method
AM­
0691B­
0593­
3.
The
validated
LOQ
is
0.02
ppm
for
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba.
The
LOD
is
0.01
ppm.
The
method
is
adequate
for
data
collection
based
on
acceptable
concurrent
method
recovery
data.
The
maximum
storage
intervals
of
sugarcane
samples
from
harvest
to
analysis
were
140
days
(
4.6
months).
No
storage
stability
data
are
available
for
sugarcane.
HED
will
translate
the
available
storage
stability
data
for
corn
forage
and
fodder
to
sugarcane.
These
data
(
MRID
43866601;
D228703,
S.
Chun,
7/
16/
98)
indicate
that
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
are
stable
in/
on
all
corn
RACs
(
forage,
silage,
grain,
and
fodder)
stored
frozen
for
up
to
3
and
2
years,
respectively.

The
results
show
that
the
maximum
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
5­
hydroxy
metabolite
were
0.202
ppm,
0.186
ppm,
and
0.054
ppm
in/
on
sugarcane
harvested
87­
173
days
following
a
single
layby
application
of
the
respective
DMA,
DGA,
Na
salt
formulations
of
dicamba
at
2.0
lb
ae/
A.
The
maximum
combined
HAFT
level
was
0.183
ppm
obtained
from
samples
treated
with
the
DGA
salt.

860.1520
Processed
Food
and
Feed
Barley
Established
tolerance(
s):
No
tolerance
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
any
barley
processed
commodities.

Conclusions:
There
are
no
available
barley
processing
data
with
dicamba.
Consistent
with
the
recommendation
of
the
Dicamba
SRR,
HED
will
allow
translation
of
the
submitted
wheat
processing
data
to
barley.
The
most
recent
acceptable
wheat
processing
study
(
MRID
42675901)
indicates
that
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
did
not
concentrate
in
any
of
the
wheat
processed
fractions.
Thus,
tolerances
in
the
barley
processed
fractions
(
pearled
barley,
flour,
and
bran)
are
not
necessary.

Corn
Established
tolerance(
s):
No
tolerance
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
any
corn
processed
commodities.

Conclusions:
A
corn
processing
study
(
MRID
41187301)
is
currently
under
review.

Cottonseed
Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
5.0
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
cotton
meal
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Conclusions:
Unless
the
registrants
elect
to
support
uses
on
cotton,
HED
is
recommending
the
revocation
of
the
established
tolerance
for
cotton
meal.
Should
the
registrants
change
their
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
63
of
94
decision
and
elect
to
support
dicamba
uses
on
cotton
in
the
future,
HED
will
re­
evaluate
the
available
cotton
processing
data
in
PP#
1G2502
(
7/
28/
81
memo
of
A.
Rathman).

Millet
Established
tolerance(
s):
No
tolerance
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
any
millet
processed
commodities.

Conclusions:
According
to
Table
1
of
OPPTS
860.1000,
the
only
processed
commodity
associated
with
millet
is
flour.
Endnote
44
of
Table
1
specifies
that
millet
flour
is
not
produced
significantly
in
the
U.
S.
for
human
consumption,
and
residue
data
are
not
needed
at
this
time.

Oat
Established
tolerance(
s):
No
tolerance
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
any
oat
processed
commodities.

Conclusions:
There
are
no
available
oat
processing
data
with
dicamba.
Consistent
with
the
recommendation
of
the
Dicamba
SRR,
HED
will
allow
translation
of
the
submitted
wheat
processing
data
to
oats.
The
most
recent
acceptable
wheat
processing
study
(
MRID
42675901)
indicates
that
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
did
not
concentrate
in
any
of
the
wheat
processed
fractions.
Thus,
tolerances
in
the
oat
processed
fractions
(
flour
and
groats/
rolled
oats)
are
not
necessary.

Sorghum
Established
tolerance(
s):
No
tolerance
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
any
sorghum
processed
commodities.

Conclusions:
The
Dicamba
SRR
(
6/
89)
required
a
sorghum
processing
study
depicting
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
hydroxy
metabolite
in
milled
products
(
flour
and
starch)
and
grain
dust
from
sorghum
grain
bearing
measurable,
weathered
residues.
In
response,
the
registrant
submitted
a
protocol
(
S.
Knizner,
6/
11/
93)
and
a
rebuttal
to
the
review
of
the
protocol
(
R.
Perfetti,
10/
20/
93).
The
Agency
concluded
that
residue
data
are
not
required
for
sorghum
flour
or
starch,
but
data
are
required
for
the
aspirated
grain
fractions
of
sorghum.
Based
on
this
previous
HED
determination,
a
sorghum
processing
study
is
not
required
for
reregistration.
Data
on
sorghum
grain
dusts
have
been
submitted
and
reviewed;
these
data
are
presented
under
"
Aspirated
grain
fractions"
section
of
Miscellaneous
Commodities.

Soybean
MRID
43814102
(
DP
Barcodes
D223283,
...
7/
29/
96;
S.
Knizner,
W.
Dykstra,
and
C.
Lewis)

Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
13
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
two
metabolites
(
5­
OH
dicamba
and
DCSA)
in
soybean
hulls
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
3)].
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
64
of
94
Conclusions:
An
acceptable
soybean
processing
study
with
dicamba,
submitted
as
an
alternate
to
previous
data
generated
by
Craven
Laboratories,
is
available.
The
results
indicate
that
residues
of
dicamba
concentrated
by
a
factor
of
3.8x
in
soybean
hulls
but
did
not
concentrate
in
any
of
the
other
soybean
processed
fractions
(
meal,
crude
oil
and
refined
oil).
The
HAFT
combined
residues
from
the
two
soybean
field
studies,
reflecting
both
the
preplant
and
preharvest
uses
at
2.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1.25x),
are:
3.6
ppm
(
MRID
43814101)
and
7.44
ppm
(
MRID
44089307).
When
the
HAFT
combined
residue
level
(
7.44
ppm)
is
multiplied
by
the
observed
concentration
factor
for
soybean
hulls
(
3.8x),
the
resulting
level
is
28.272
ppm
which
suggests
that
the
existing
tolerance
of
13.0
ppm
for
soybean
hulls
needs
increasing.
For
the
purpose
of
tolerance
reassessment,
HED
recommends
that
the
tolerance
for
soybean
hulls
be
increased
from
13.0
ppm
to
30.0
ppm.
Tolerances
in
the
soybean
processed
fractions
of
meal
and
refined
oil
are
not
necessary.

Discussion
of
data:
In
the
subject
study
(
MRID
43814102),
soybeans
grown
in
IL
were
harvested
five
days
following
a
single
preharvest
broadcast
application
of
a
formulation
containing
the
DMA
salt
of
dicamba
at
10
lb
ae/
A
(
5x).
Soybean
seeds
were
harvested,
and
the
collected
samples
were
frozen
and
shipped
to
Texas
A
&
M
Food
Protein
Research
and
Development
for
processing
according
to
simulated
commercial
procedures.
RAC
samples
were
processed
into
crude
and
refined
oil,
meal,
hulls
and
soapstock;
aspirated
grain
fractions
were
also
collected.

The
treated
soybean
seed
(
RAC)
bore
average
residues
of
0.543
ppm
for
dicamba,
<
0.01
ppm
for
5­
OH
dicamba,
and
0.014
ppm
for
DCSA.
Following
processing,
the
average
residues
of
the
parent
and
its
metabolites
in
the
processed
fractions
were:
(
i)
meal
(
0.190
ppm
dicamba
+
<
0.01
ppm
5­
OH
dicamba
+
<
0.01
ppm
DCSA);
(
ii)
hulls
(
2.088
ppm
dicamba
+
<
0.01
ppm
5­
OH
dicamba
+
<
0.01
ppm
DCSA);
(
iii)
crude
oil
(<
0.01
ppm
dicamba
+
<
0.01
ppm
5­
OH
dicamba
+
<
0.01
ppm
DCSA);
and
(
iv)
refined
oil
(<
0.01
ppm
dicamba
+
<
0.01
ppm
5­
OH
dicamba
+
<
0.01
ppm
DCSA).
Samples
were
analyzed
by
a
GC/
ECD
method
(
Method
AM­
0941­
1094­
0).
The
data­
collection
method
is
adequate
based
on
acceptable
concurrent
method
recoveries.
Samples
were
stored
frozen
before
residue
analysis.
Total
storage
intervals
between
harvest
and
analysis
were
approximately
6
months
for
seed,
5
months
for
meal,
5­
6
months
for
hulls,
and
4
months
for
refined
oil.
These
storage
intervals
are
supported
by
adequate
storage
stability
data.
The
study
also
included
data
on
the
aspirated
grain
fractions
of
soybeans.
The
results
of
this
portion
of
study
are
presented
under
"
Aspirated
Grain
Fractions"
section
of
Miscellaneous
Commodities.

Sugarcane
MRID
43245204
(
DP
Barcodes
D204488,
D204809,
and
D209229;
7/
14/
97;
L.
Cheng)

Established
tolerance(
s):
A
tolerance
of
2.0
ppm
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in
sugarcane
molasses
[
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)].

Conclusions:
Pending
submission
of
supporting
storage
stability
data
and
adjustment
of
tolerance
level
for
sugarcane
molasses,
an
adequate
sugarcane
processing
study
is
available.
The
study
results
show
that
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
were
0.054
ppm
in/
on
the
RAC
(
sugarcane)
harvested
130
days
following
a
single
broadcast
application
of
the
DMA
salt
formulation
of
dicamba
to
sugarcane
at
layby
at
a
rate
of
5.0
lbs
ae/
A
(­
1.8x).
Following
processing
of
treated
RAC
samples,
the
combined
residues
were
nondetectable
(<
0.01
ppm)
in
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
65
of
94
refined
sugar
but
concentrated
in
bagasse
(
processing
factor
of
6.6x)
and
molasses
(
processing
factor
of
24.4x);
bagasse
has
been
deleted
from
Table
1
of
OPPTS
860.1000
as
a
significant
livestock
feed
item
and
is
no
longer
regulated.

The
initial
HED
review
of
the
subject
processing
study
previously
reported
that
in
PP#
1F2569,
the
HAFT
was
0.036
ppm
(
Accession
#
070319,
Belle
Glade,
FL,
3
lb
ae/
A
and
PHI
of
158
days).
A
more
recent
sugarcane
field
study
(
MRID
44089302)
reported
a
combined
HAFT
residue
of
0.183
ppm
from
RAC
samples
harvested
87­
173
days
following
a
single
layby
application
of
the
DGA
salt
formulations
at
2.0
lb
ae/
A.
When
the
maximum
HAFT
combined
residue
level
(
0.183
ppm)
is
multiplied
by
the
observed
concentration
factor
for
molasses
(
24.4x),
the
resulting
level
is
4.465
ppm
which
is
higher
than
the
currently
established
tolerance
of
2.0
ppm
for
sugarcane
molasses.
For
the
purpose
of
tolerance
reassessment,
HED
recommends
that
the
tolerance
for
sugarcane
molasses
be
increased
from
2.0
ppm
to
5.0
ppm.
A
tolerance
in
refined
sugar
is
not
necessary.

Discussion
of
data:
A
sugarcane
processing
study
(
MRID
43245204)
depicting
magnitude
of
the
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
is
available.
To
generate
samples
for
processing,
two
trials
were
conducted
in
Opelousas
(
1)
and
Washington
(
1),
LA.
At
each
trial
site,
a
single
broadcast
application
of
the
DMA
salt
formulation
of
dicamba
was
applied
at
5.0
lbs
ae/
A
(­
1.8x)
to
sugarcane
at
layby.
Applications
were
made
in
10
and
11.6
GPA.
RAC
samples
from
both
sites
were
harvested
and
analyzed
by
Sandoz
Agro,
Inc.
(
Des
Plaines,
IL)
as
prequalifier
samples.
Residues
in
the
RAC
(
130­
day
PTI)
sample
collected
from
the
Washington,
LA
trial
were
higher,
and
this
sample
was
the
only
one
processed.
The
RAC
sample
was
processed
within
15
days
of
harvest
following
standard
commercial
practices
into
bagasse,
molasses,
and
refined
sugar
by
the
Audubon
Sugar
Institute
at
Louisiana
State
University
in
Baton
Rouge.

Samples
were
analyzed
for
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
hydroxy
metabolite
using
GC/
ECD
method
AM­
0691B­
0593­
3.
The
validated
LOQ
is
0.02
ppm
for
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba.
The
LOD
is
0.01
ppm.
The
method
is
adequate
for
data
collection
based
on
acceptable
concurrent
method
recovery
data.
The
RAC
and
processed
samples
were
stored
frozen
(<­
1
°
C)
for
up
to
58
and
64
days,
respectively,
prior
to
analysis.
The
available
storage
stability
data
are
adequate
to
support
the
storage
interval
and
conditions
for
refined
sugar.
However,
the
HED
review
required
supporting
storage
stability
data
for
molasses
before
the
study
may
be
deemed
acceptable.

The
results
show
that
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
were
0.054
ppm
in/
on
the
RAC
(
sugarcane)
harvested
130
days
following
a
single
broadcast
application
of
the
DMA
salt
formulation
of
dicamba
at
5.0
lbs
ae/
A
(­
1.8x)
to
sugarcane
at
layby.
Following
processing
of
treated
RAC,
the
combined
residues
were
nondetectable
(<
0.01
ppm)
in
refined
sugar
but
concentrated
in
bagasse
(
processing
factor
of
6.6x)
and
molasses
(
processing
factor
of
24.4x);
bagasse
has
been
deleted
from
Table
1
of
OPPTS
860.1000
as
a
significant
livestock
feed
item.

The
submitted
sugarcane
processing
study
is
adequate,
pending
submission
of
adequate
supporting
storage
stability
data
for
sugarcane
molasses.
The
initial
HED
review
of
the
subject
processing
study
previously
reported
that
in
PP#
1F2569,
the
HAFT
was
0.036
ppm
(
Accession
#
070319,
Belle
Glade,
FL,
3
lb
ae/
A
and
PHI
of
158
days).
A
more
recent
sugarcane
field
study
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
66
of
94
(
MRID
44089302)
reported
a
maximum
combined
HAFT
residue
of
0.183
ppm
from
RAC
samples
harvested
87­
173
days
following
a
single
layby
application
of
the
DGA
salt
formulations
at
2.0
lb
ae/
A.
When
the
maximum
HAFT
combined
residue
level
(
0.183
ppm)
is
multiplied
by
the
observed
concentration
factor
for
molasses
(
24.4x),
the
resulting
level
is
4.465
ppm
which
is
higher
than
the
currently
established
tolerance
of
2.0
ppm
for
sugarcane
molasses.
For
the
purpose
of
tolerance
reassessment,
HED
recommends
that
the
tolerance
for
sugarcane
molasses
be
increased
from
2.0
ppm
to
5.0
ppm.
A
tolerance
in
refined
sugar
is
not
necessary.

Wheat
MRID
40663801(
DEB
Nos.
3968,
3969,
4018,
and
4019;
11/
4/
88;
F.
Griffith)
MRID
42675901
(
DP
Barcodes
D189039,
D189041,
and
D189043;
4/
23/
93,
L.
Cheng)

Established
tolerance(
s):
No
tolerance
has
been
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
(
5­
OH
dicamba)
in/
on
any
wheat
processed
commodities.

Conclusions:
Two
wheat
processing
studies
with
dicamba
have
been
submitted
and
reviewed.
The
first
study
(
MRID
40663801)
was
initially
deemed
(
DEB
Nos.
3968,
3969,
4018,
and
4019;
11/
4/
88;
F.
Griffith)
inadequate
because
the
wheat
grain
samples
that
were
used
for
processing
did
not
have
sufficient
residues
and,
therefore,
any
concentration
of
residues
(
if
any)
in
the
processed
fractions
could
not
be
reliably
estimated.
The
Dicamba
SRR,
independent
of
the
11/
4/
88
review,
cited
concentration
of
dicamba
residues
(
2x)
in
wheat
processed
fractions
(
other
than
flour)
and
requested
registrants
to
propose
a
tolerance
for
wheat
processed
fractions
(
other
than
flour).
Based
on
the
results
of
this
study,
the
Dicamba
SRR
allowed
translation
of
the
wheat
processing
data
to
barley
and
oats.

A
second
wheat
processing
study
(
MRID
42675901)
was
later
submitted
and
deemed
adequate
(
DP
Barcodes
D189039,
D189041,
and
D189043;
4/
23/
93,
L.
Cheng).
The
results
show
that
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
5­
OH
dicamba
did
not
concentrate
in
any
of
the
wheat
processed
fractions.
Thus,
tolerances
in
the
wheat
processed
fractions
(
bran,
flour,
middlings,
shorts,
and
germs)
are
not
necessary.

Discussion
of
data:
In
a
wheat
processing
study
(
MRID
42675901),
the
K
salt
of
dicamba
(
Banvel
K+
SL)
was
applied
as
a
spray
to
wheat
when
the
crop
was
at
the
hard
dough
stage
at
a
rate
of
either
0.25
lb
ai/
A
(
0.25x)
or
0.125
lb
ai/
A
(
1.25x).
The
wheat
plants
were
harvested
14
days
later,
and
the
harvested
grains
were
processed
into
bran,
middlings,
shorts
and
germ,
and
patent
flour
using
procedures
simulating
commercial
practices.
Only
treated
samples
from
the
1.25x
rate
were
analyzed.
The
treated
whole
wheat
grain
(
RAC)
bore
residues
of
0.440
ppm
for
dicamba
and
0.034
ppm
for
5­
OH
dicamba.
Following
processing,
residues
of
the
parent
and
its
metabolite
were
measurable
but
did
not
increase
in
any
of
the
processed
fractions.
Residues
in
the
processed
fractions
were:
(
i)
bran
(
0.436
ppm
dicamba
+
0.037
ppm
5­
OH
dicamba);
(
ii)
middlings
(
0.070
ppm
dicamba
+
<
0.01
ppm
5­
OH
dicamba);
(
iii)
shorts
&
germ
(
0.236
ppm
dicamba
+
0.030
ppm
5­
OH
dicamba);
and
(
iv)
patent
flour
(
0.023
ppm
dicamba
+
<
0.01
ppm
5­
OH
dicamba).
Samples
were
analyzed
by
a
GC
method
with
either
EC
or
HECD
detection
(
Method
AM­
0691B).
The
data­
collection
method
is
adequate
and
is
well
supported
by
the
concurrent
method
recovery
data
where
control
samples
of
wheat
fractions
were
fortified
with
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
67
of
94
dicamba
and
its
plant
metabolite,
each
at
0.01
and
0.1
ppm.
Samples
were
stored
frozen
for
about
4
months
before
residue
analysis.
This
storage
interval
is
supported
by
adequate
storage
stability
data
The
reregistration
requirement
for
data
on
the
aspirated
grain
fractions
of
wheat
are
discussed
under
"
Aspirated
Grain
Fractions"
section
of
Miscellaneous
Commodities.

860.1650
Submittal
of
Analytical
Reference
Standards
Analytical
standards
for
dicamba
acid,
DMA
salt
of
dicamba,
and
Na
salt
of
dicamba
are
currently
available
(
as
of
5/
6/
2005)
in
the
National
Pesticide
Standards
Repository;
however,
no
standards
are
available
for
5­
OH
dicamba
and
DCSA.
Analytical
reference
standards
of
dicamba
and
its
regulated
metabolites
must
be
supplied,
and
supplies
replenished
as
requested
by
the
Repository.
The
reference
standards
should
be
sent
to
the
Analytical
Chemistry
Lab,
which
is
located
at
Fort
Meade,
to
the
attention
of
either
Theresa
Cole
or
Frederic
Siegelman
at
the
following
address:

USEPA
National
Pesticide
Standards
Repository/
Analytical
Chemistry
Branch/
OPP
701
Mapes
Road
Fort
George
G.
Meade,
MD
20755­
5350
(
Note
that
the
mail
will
be
returned
if
the
extended
zip
code
is
not
used.)

860.1850
Confined
Accumulation
in
Rotational
Crops
MRID
41972001
(
DP
Barcode
D197629,
2/
16/
96,
L.
Cheng)
MRID
43698601
(
DP
Barcodes
D228694
and
D239967,
6/
25/
98,
S.
Chun)

Two
confined
rotational
crop
studies
with
dicamba
are
available.

The
first
study
(
MRID
41972001)
was
deemed
inadequate
because
the
test
substance,
uniformly
ring­
labeled
[
14C]
dicamba
acid,
was
applied
at
only
0.5
lb
ae/
A
which
is
0.5x
the
maximum
rate
of
1.0
lb
ae/
A
for
cereal
grains
or
0.25x
the
maximum
rate
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A
for
pasture
and
rangeland
grasses;
see
Use
Closure
Memorandum
for
Dicamba
In
Table
4.
The
possibility
of
obtaining
rotational
crop
commodity
samples
with
sufficient
radioactive
residues
(
e.
g.,
at
the
131­
and
369­
day
plantback
interval)
may
have
been
compromised
as
a
result
of
the
<
1x
application
rate.
Furthermore,
the
reported
results
of
the
characterization
and
identification
of
radioactive
residues,
using
samples
from
the
32­
day
plantback
interval,
are
inconclusive
since
details
and
quantitative
raw
data
(
e.
g.,
material
balance
to
account
for
the
radioactivity
in
extractable
and
non­
extractable
fractions
as
well
as
sample
chromatograms)
were
not
provided.
The
Agency
review
of
this
study
required
a
new
confined
rotational
crop
study
since
upgrading
the
study
by
further
analyses
on
stored
samples
is
not
feasible
because
the
study
was
initiated
in
1986.

A
new
confined
rotational
crop
study
(
MRID
43698601)
was
subsequently
submitted.
The
HED
review
of
this
study
noted
two
major
deficiencies:
(
i)
the
test
material
was
applied
to
growing
corn
plants
instead
of
bare
ground
as
specified
in
OPPTS
Guideline
860.1850;
and
(
ii)
carrot
tops
were
not
sampled.
The
first
deviation
would
be
expected
to
effect
the
quantitative
aspects
of
the
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
68
of
94
study
since
the
plants
would
prevent
an
unknown
percentage
of
the
test
substance
from
reaching
the
soil;
i.
e.,
the
actual
application
rate
is
unknown.
Carrot
tops
should
have
been
sampled
as
they
are
a
representative
of
the
root
crop
group
and
there
are
some
members
of
this
which
have
edible
foliage.
However,
the
HED
review
concluded
that
the
study
need
not
be
repeated
because
the
TRR
values
at
the
plantback
interval
of
120
days,
which
the
registrant
wishes
to
support,
were
very
low
and
were
found
to
be
associated
with
natural
products.
It
is,
thus,
unlikely
that
the
addition
of
the
test
material
intercepted
by
the
corn
plants
would
result
in
significant
residues
of
metabolites
or
that
residues
would
be
significantly
different
in
carrot
tops
from
those
in
the
other
RACs.
A
brief
summary
of
the
reviewed
confined
rotational
crop
study
is
presented
below.

Uniformly
ring
labeled
[
14C]
dicamba
was
applied
to
corn
plants
at
0.75
lb
ai/
A
when
the
plants
were
at
the
two­
to
three­
leaf
stage.
At
30
and
120
days
after
treatment
(
DAT),
corn
was
removed
prior
to
planting
barley,
carrots,
and
collards.
For
the
365
DAT
plantings,
corn
was
harvested
at
maturity
(
160
DAT).
At
365
DAT,
soybeans
were
planted.
The
crops
were
grown
to
maturity
and
harvested.
The
raw
agricultural
commodities
(
RACs)
harvested
for
radiocarbon
residue
determination
at
30,
120,
and
365
DAT
were
barley
forage,
grain,
and
straw;
carrot
roots
and
collard
greens.
Data
from
carrot
tops
were
not
included
despite
EPA's
requirement
of
analysis
of
the
aerial
and
root
portions
of
root
crops.
RACs
harvested
for
radioactive
residue
determination
at
365
DAT
only
were
soybean
forage,
hay,
and
seed.
All
RACs
were
analyzed
within
4.5
months
of
harvest,
obviating
the
storage
stability
data
requirement.
Total
radioactive
residue
levels
in
plant
samples
are
listed
in
Table
7.

Table
7.
Total
Radioactive
Residue
of
[
14C]
Dicamba
in
Rotational
Crops
(
MRID
43698601).

RAC
TRR
in
Rotational
Crop
RACs
in
ppm1
30
DAT
120
DAT
365
DAT
Barley
forage
4.741
(
80)
0.036
(
177)
BLD2
(
419)

Barley
straw
9.487
(
129)
0.027
(
259)
0.008
(
463)

Barley
grain
0.272
(
129)
0.022
(
259)
0.009
(
463)

Collard
greens
0.026
(
126)
0.007
(
209)
BLD2
(
434)

Carrot
roots
1.022
(
171)
0.005
(
260)
BLD2
(
463)

Soybean
forage
NA3
NA3
0.006
(
497)

Soybean
hay
NA3
NA3
BLD2
(
518)

Soybean
seed
NA3
NA3
BLD2
(
583)

1
In
parenthesis
is
the
number
of
days
from
dicamba
treatment
to
harvest
for
the
RAC/
plantback
interval
combination
indicated.
2
Below
limit
of
detection.
3
Not
applicable.

Because
TRRs
as
high
as
9.5
ppm
were
found
in
the
30­
DAT
plantback
interval
samples,
the
registrant
is
requesting
a
120­
DAT
plantback
interval
without
tolerances.
Table
7
shows
that
the
TRRs
for
all
rotational
crop
RACs
planted
120
and
365
DAT
were
#
0.036
and
<
0.01
ppm,
respectively.
Ordinarily,
when
residues
are
<
0.01
ppm,
no
further
characterization
of
the
residue
is
required.
Hence,
no
characterization
is
needed
for
any
of
the
365
DAT
samples
or
the
120­
DAT
collard
green
or
carrot
root
samples.
However
the
TRRs
for
the
barley
grain,
forage,
and
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
69
of
94
hay
were
all
>
0.01
ppm,
requiring
determination
of
the
composition
of
the
TRR.
This
was
accomplished
by
subjecting
samples
to
acetonitrile
extraction
(
to
obtain
extractable
residues)
and
acid/
base
hydrolysis
steps
(
to
obtain
bound
residues).
The
results
of
the
extraction
profile
for
120­
DAT
barley
forage,
grain,
and
straw
indicate
that
approximately
35­
52%
of
TRRs
are
associated
with
natural
plant
constituents
(
lignin
and
cellulose).

860.1900
Field
Accumulation
in
Rotational
Crops
Limited
and/
or
extensive
field
accumulation
studies
with
dicamba
need
not
be
conducted
and
rotational
crop
tolerances
need
not
be
established
provided
the
registrants
are
willing
to
amend
all
dicamba
labels
with
food/
feed
use
claims
to
specify
a
120­
day
plantback
interval
when
dicamba
is
applied
at
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.75
lb
ae/
A
or
less.
At
application
rates
of
0.75­
2.0
lb
ae/
A,
the
labels
should
specify
that
only
crops
with
established
tolerances
can
be
rotated.

The
results
of
the
available
confined
rotational
crop
study
showed
that
at
a
plantback
interval
of
120
days,
the
total
radioactive
residues
were
<
0.01
ppm
in/
on
samples
of
collard
greens
(
a
representative
of
leafy
vegetables)
and
carrots
(
a
representative
of
root
crops)
but
were
>
0.01
ppm
in
the
matrices
of
barley
(
a
representative
of
small
grains).
Residue
characterization
of
barley
matrices
from
the
120­
day
rotation
showed
that
a
good
percentage
of
TRR
was
associated
with
natural
plant
constituents.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
70
of
94
TOLERANCE
REASSESSMENT
SUMMARY
The
established
tolerances
for
dicamba
are
listed
in
40
CFR
§
180.227.
There
are
three
dicamba
tolerance
expressions.
Under
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1),
the
tolerances
are
expressed
in
terms
of
the
combined
residues
of
the
herbicide
dicamba
(
3,6­
dichloro­
o­
anisic
acid)
and
its
metabolite
3,6­
dichloro­
5­
hydroxy­
o­
anisic
acid.
The
tolerances
listed
in
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
2)
are
expressed
in
terms
of
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid.
Finally,
the
tolerances
listed
in
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
3)
are
expressed
in
terms
of
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolites
3,6­
dichloro­
5­
hydroxy­
o­
anisic
acid
and
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid.

The
results
of
plant
and
animal
metabolism
studies
suggest
that
the
various
tolerance
expressions
for
dicamba
are
appropriate.
The
results
of
a
confined
rotational
crop
study
indicate
that
tolerances
need
not
be
established
for
rotational
crops
pending
label
revisions
to
specify
appropriate
rotational
crop
restrictions.

A
summary
of
the
tolerance
reassessment
and
recommended
modifications
in
commodity
definitions
for
dicamba
is
presented
in
Table
8.

Tolerances
Established
Under
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)

Pending
label
revisions
and/
or
adjustment
of
tolerances,
there
are
adequate
residue
data
to
reassess
the
tolerances
for:
barley,
grain,
hay,
and
straw;
corn,
field,
grain,
forage,
and
stover;
grass
forage
and
hay;
wheat
grain,
straw,
forage
and
hay;
and
sorghum
grain,
forage,
and
stover.

The
submitted
data
for
several
commodities
do
not
support
the
established
tolerances
because
they
do
not
reflect
the
maximum
use
rates
listed
in
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile.
To
fulfill
reregistration
requirements,
the
registrant
are
required
to
submit
additional
data.
In
lieu
of
submitting
additional
data,
the
registrants
are
given
the
option
to
rely
on
the
available
data
provided
they
revise
their
product
labels
for
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data.

HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available/
requested
data
from
some
crop
commodities
to
agronomically
related
commodities
with
identical
uses.
Where
this
situation
exists,
any
HED
recommendations
with
regards
to
label
revision
and
tolerance
reassessment
should
apply
to
both
crop
commodities.
The
following
translations
have
been
made
in
this
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter:
(
i)
data
from
field
corn
grain
and
stover
may
be
translated
to
pop
corn
grain
and
stover;
(
ii)
data
from
wheat
grain
may
be
translated
to
proso
millet
grain
and
rye
grain;
(
iii)
data
from
wheat
forage,
hay,
and
straw
may
be
translated
to
oat
forage,
hay,
and
straw;
and
(
iv)
data
from
wheat
straw
may
be
translated
to
proso
millet
straw.

Pending
submission
of
supporting
storage
stability
data,
an
acceptable
sugarcane
processing
study
is
available
to
reassess
the
established
tolerance
for
sugarcane
molasses.
When
the
maximum
HAFT
combined
residue
level
(
0.183
ppm)
of
the
RAC
is
multiplied
by
the
observed
concentration
factor
for
sugarcane
molasses
(
24.4x),
the
resulting
level
is
4.465
ppm
which
is
higher
than
the
current
tolerance
of
2.0
ppm.
Based
on
these
data,
HED
recommends
that
the
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
71
of
94
tolerance
for
sugarcane
molasses
be
increased
from
2.0
ppm
to
5.0
ppm,
toxicological
considerations
permitting.

The
Agency
no
longer
considers
sugarcane
forage
and
fodder
to
be
significant
livestock
feed
items,
and
these
items
have
been
deleted
from
Table
1
of
OPPTS
860.1000.
Therefore,
the
respective
tolerances
should
be
revoked.

The
generic
"
corn,
forage"
tolerance
should
be
revoked
since
a
separate
tolerance
for
field
corn
forage
is
established.
The
generic
"
corn,
stover"
tolerance
should
be
revoked
since
separate
tolerances
are
established
for
field
corn
stover
and
pop
corn
stover.
The
generic
"
corn,
grain"
tolerance
should
be
split
into:
"
corn,
field,
grain"
and
"
corn,
pop,
grain".

Tolerances
Needed
Under
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)

Tolerances
are
needed
for
proso
millet
forage
and
hay.
The
available/
requested
data
for
wheat
forage
and
hay
may
be
translated
to
proso
millet
forage
and
hay.

Tolerances
are
needed
for
rye
grain,
forage,
and
straw.
The
available/
requested
data
for
wheat
grain,
forage,
and
straw
may
be
translated
to
rye
grain,
forage,
and
straw.

Tolerances
Established
Under
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
2)

Pending
label
revisions
and/
or
adjustment
of
tolerance,
there
are
adequate
data
to
reassess
the
established
tolerance
for
asparagus.

A
ruminant
feeding
study
conducted
at
a
dosing
level
of
1000
ppm
is
under
review.
Assuming
this
study
is
adequate
sufficient
data
are
available
to
reassess
the
established
ruminant
tolerances.

Tolerances
Established
Under
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
3)

There
are
adequate
data
to
reassess
the
tolerances
for
soybean
seed
and
soybean
hulls.

An
acceptable
soybean
processing
study
is
available
to
reassess
the
established
tolerance
for
soybean
hulls.
When
the
HAFT
combined
residue
level
(
7.44
ppm)
for
the
RAC
is
multiplied
by
the
observed
concentration
factor
for
soybean
hulls
(
3.8x),
the
resulting
level
is
28.272
ppm
which
suggests
that
the
existing
tolerance
of
13.0
ppm
needs
an
upward
adjustment.
Based
on
these
data,
HED
recommends
that
the
tolerance
for
soybean
hulls
be
increased
from
13.0
ppm
to
30.0
ppm.

There
are
adequate
residue
data
on
the
aspirated
grain
fractions
of
sorghum,
soybean,
and
wheat
and
may
be
translated
to
corn.

Tolerances
That
May
Be
Needed
Under
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
3)
It
is
the
current
Agency
policy
to
allow
label
restrictions
on
the
feeding/
grazing
of
livestock
animals
on
soybean
forage
and
hay,
thus,
precluding
the
need
for
residue
data
and
tolerances
for
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
72
of
94
these
soybean
commodities.
HED
defers
to
RD
for
verifying
whether
such
restrictions
exist
on
product
labels.
If
such
restrictions
appear
on
the
labels,
then
residue
data
and
tolerances
for
soybean
forage
and
hay
are
not
necessary.
If
no
such
restrictions
appear
on
the
labels,
then
the
registrants
are
required
to
propose
tolerances
for
soybean
forage
and
hay;
based
on
the
available
data,
a
tolerance
level
of
0.1
ppm
would
be
appropriate
for
each
soybean
commodity.
Concomitant
with
these
tolerance
proposals,
the
registrants
are
required
to
propose
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
for
preplant
application
on
soybean
grown
for
forage
and
hay
only.

Pending
Tolerance
Petition:

PP#
6E06209:
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4
(
IR­
4)
has
submitted
a
petition,
on
behalf
of
the
Agricultural
Experiment
Stations
of
MN,
ND
and
WI,
proposing
the
following
permanent
tolerances
for
the
combined
residues
of
the
herbicide
dicamba
and
its
5­
hydroxy
(
5­
OH)
metabolite
(
3,6­
dichloro 
5­
hydroxy­
o­
anisic
acid)
in/
on:
sweet
corn
forage
at
1.0
ppm,
fresh
sweet
corn
at
0.1
ppm,
and
sweet
corn
stover
at
1.0
ppm.
HED's
evaluation
of
residue
data
and
analytical
methods
(
DP
Barcode
D275611,
7/
26/
2001,
G.
Kramer)
concluded
that
additional
field
residue
trials
need
to
be
conducted
and
a
revised
Section
F
must
be
submitted
before
a
favorable
recommendation
can
be
made.

Codex/
International
Harmonization
No
Codex
MRLs
have
been
established
for
dicamba;
therefore,
issues
of
compatibility
between
Codex
MRLs
and
U.
S.
tolerances
do
not
exist.
Compatibility
cannot
be
achieved
with
the
Canadian
negligible
residue
limits
or
with
Mexican
MRLs
because
these
levels
are
expressed
in
terms
of
parent
compound
only.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
73
of
94
Table
8.
Tolerance
Reassessment
Summary
for
Dicamba.

Commodity
Current
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comments/

Correct
commodity
definition
Dicamba
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
1)

[
Expressed
in
terms
of
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
3,6­
dichloro­
5­
hydroxy­
o­
anisic
acid]

Barley,
grain
6.0
6.0
Barley,
hay
2.0
2.0
Barley,
straw
15.0
15.0
Corn,
field,
forage
3.0
3.0
The
combined
residues
ranged
from
<
0.01
to
2.27
ppm
in/
on
field
corn
forage
harvested
39­
71
days
following
the
last
of
three
sequential
treatments
for
a
total
of
2.75
lb
ae/
A.
The
combined
residues
ranged
from
<
0.01
to
2.45
ppm
in/
on
field
corn
fodder
harvested
66­
123
days
following
same
sequential
treatments.

Corn,
field,
stover
3.0
3.0
Corn,
forage
0.5
Revoke
The
generic
"
corn,
forage"
tolerance
should
be
revoked
since
a
separate
tolerance
for
field
corn
forage
is
established.

Corn,
grain
0.5
0.1
The
combined
residues
ranged
from
<
0.01
to
0.015
ppm
in/
on
field
corn
grain
samples
harvested
69­
123
days
following
the
last
of
three
sequential
treatments
for
a
total
of
2.75
lb
ae/
A.
The
generic
"
corn,
grain"
tolerance
should
be
split
into:
"
corn,
field,
grain";
and
"
corn,
pop,
grain".

Corn,
pop,
stover,
3.0
3.0
HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available
data
for
field
corn
stover
to
pop
corn
stover.
Any
label
revision
for
field
corn
should
also
be
made
for
pop
corn.

Concurrently,
any
adjustment
to
the
field
corn
stover
tolerance
should
also
be
applied
as
necessary
to
the
pop
corn
stover
tolerance.

Corn,
stover
0.5
Revoke
The
generic
"
corn,
stover"
tolerance
should
be
revoked
since
separate
tolerances
are
established
for
field
corn
stover
and
pop
corn
stover.

Cotton,
undelinted
seed
5.0
TBD
Cotton,
meal
5.0
TBD
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
8.
Tolerance
Reassessment
Summary
for
Dicamba.

Commodity
Current
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comments/

Correct
commodity
definition
74
of
94
Crop
Group
17
(
grass
forage,
fodder,
and
hay)
The
combined
residues
ranged
66­
358
ppm
in/
on
grass
forage
samples
harvested
immediately
(
0­
day)
following
a
single
application
at
2.0
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).
The
combined
residues
ranged
25­
201
ppm
in/
on
grass
hay
samples
harvested
7
days
following
a
single
application
1x.
Based
on
these
data,
HED
is
reassessing
the
grass
forage
tolerance
at
400
ppm
and
the
grass
hay
tolerance
at
250
ppm.

Concomitant
with
the
reassessment
of
these
tolerances,
HED
is
requesting
RD
to
verify
that
all
dicamba
labels
specify
a
0­
day
PHI/
PGI
for
grass
forage
and
a
7­

day
PHI
for
grass
hay
when
applied
at
a
maximum
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A.

­
Grass
forage
125.0
400
­
Grass
hay
200.0
250
Millet,
proso,
grain
0.5
2.0
HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available/
requested
data
for
wheat
grain
and
straw
to
proso
millet
grain
and
straw
since
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
indicates
that
the
application
rate
for
wheat
is
higher
than
millet.

Millet,
proso,
straw
0.5
TBD
Oat,
grain
0.5
TBD
HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available/
requested
data
for
wheat
grain
to
oat
grain
since
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
indicates
that
the
application
rate
of
the
two
crops
is
identical.

Oat,
forage
80.0
2.0
HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available/
requested
data
for
wheat
forage,
hay,

and
straw
to
oat
forage,
hay,
and
straw
since
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
indicates
that
the
application
rate
of
the
two
crops
is
identical.

Oat,
hay
20.0
TBD
Oat,
straw
0.5
30
Sorghum,
grain
3.0
4.0
The
maximum
combined
residues
were
2.73
ppm
(
MRID
43245203)
and
3.164
ppm
(
MRID
44089306)
in/
on
sorghum
grain
harvested
30­
42
days
following
sequential
treatments
for
a
total
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1x
the
maximum
rate
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile).
These
data
suggest
that
the
established
tolerance
for
sorghum
grain
may
be
too
low.
Based
on
the
reviewed
data,
HED
is
recommending
a
tolerance
level
of
4.0
ppm
for
sorghum
grain
concomitant
with
label
revision
to
specify
a
30­
day
PHI.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
8.
Tolerance
Reassessment
Summary
for
Dicamba.

Commodity
Current
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comments/

Correct
commodity
definition
75
of
94
Sorghum,
forage
3.0
0.5
The
maximum
combined
residues
were
0.46
ppm
(
MRID
43245203)
and
0.350
ppm
(
MRID
44089306)
in/
on
sorghum
forage
samples
harvested
20­
72
days
following
a
single
postemergence
application
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A
(
0.5x
the
seasonal
rate
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile).
The
maximum
combined
residues
were
8.22
ppm
(
MRID
43245203)
and
4.29
ppm
(
MRID
44089306)

in/
on
sorghum
fodder
(
stover)
samples
collected
at
PHIs
of
30­
42
days
following
the
last
of
two
applications
for
a
total
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
(
1x).
These
data
suggest
that
the
established
tolerance
for
sorghum
forage
may
be
too
high
and
the
tolerance
for
fodder
too
low.
Based
on
these
data,
HED
is
recommending
tolerance
levels
of
0.5
ppm
for
sorghum
forage
and
10.0
ppm
for
sorghum
stover
concomitant
with
the
following
recommended
label
revisions:
(
i)
a
20­
day
PHI
and
a
maximum
single/
seasonal
rate
of
0.25
lb
ae/
A
for
sorghum
forage;
and
(
ii)

a
30­
day
PHI
for
sorghum
fodder
(
stover)
at
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A.

Sorghum,
grain,
stover
3.0
10
Sugarcane,
cane
0.1
TBD
1
The
available
data
do
not
support
the
maximum
seasonal
single/
yearly
rate
of
2.8
lb
ae/
A
that
is
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
because
the
sugarcane
trials
were
conducted
at
an
application
rate
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A.
The
maximum
combined
residues
were
0.202
ppm
in/
on
sugarcane
harvested
87­
173
days
following
a
single
layby
application
at
2.0
lb
ae/
A.

The
registrants
are
required
to
submit
additional
data
on
sugarcane
reflecting
a
maximum
single/
yearly
rate
of
2.8
lb
ae/
A.
Alternatively,
the
registrants
may
rely
on
the
available
data
provided
they
are
willing
to
revise
their
product
labels
for
consistency
with
the
reviewed
data.
If
the
registrants
elect
to
choose
the
latter
option,
then
they
will
be
required
to
revise
product
labels
to
specify
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
2.0
lb
ae/
A
and
an
87­
day
PHI
for
sugarcane.
Based
on
the
reviewed
data,
the
existing
tolerance
of
0.1
ppm
for
sugarcane
is
too
low,

and
HED
is
recommending
that
it
be
reassessed
at
0.3
ppm
if
the
registrants
elect
to
revise
product
labels
as
detailed
above.

Sugarcane,
fodder
0.1
Revoke
These
items
are
no
longer
regulated
and
have
been
removed
from
Table
1
of
OPPTS
860.1000.

Sugarcane,
forage
0.1
Revoke
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
8.
Tolerance
Reassessment
Summary
for
Dicamba.

Commodity
Current
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comments/

Correct
commodity
definition
76
of
94
Sugarcane,
molasses
2.0
5.0
When
the
maximum
HAFT
combined
residue
level
(
0.183
ppm)
of
the
RAC
is
multiplied
by
the
observed
concentration
factor
for
sugarcane
molasses
(
24.4x),

the
resulting
level
is
4.465
ppm
which
is
higher
than
the
current
tolerance
of
2.0
ppm.
Based
on
these
data,
HED
recommends
that
the
tolerance
for
sugarcane
molasses
be
increased
from
2.0
ppm
to
5.0
ppm,
pending
submission
of
supporting
storage
stability
data.

Wheat,
forage
80.0
TBD
Additional
data
are
currently
under
review.

Wheat,
grain
2.0
2.0
The
combined
residues
were
<
0.01
to
0.15
ppm
in/
on
samples
of
wheat
grain
harvested
63­
125
days
following
one
spring
broadcast
application
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A.
The
combined
residues
were
0.039
to
1.4
ppm
in/
on
grain
samples
harvested
6­
12
days
following
the
last
of
two
treatments
for
a
total
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A.

Wheat,
hay
20.0
TBD
Additional
data
are
currently
under
review.

Wheat,
straw
30.0
30.0
The
combined
residues
were
0.011
to
0.97
ppm
in/
on
samples
of
wheat
straw
harvested
63­
125
days
following
one
spring
broadcast
application
at
0.25
lb
ae/
A.
The
combined
residues
were
0.13
to
26
ppm
in/
on
straw
samples
harvested
6­
12
days
following
the
last
of
two
treatments
for
a
total
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A.

Dicamba
Tolerances
Needed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.227(
a)(
1)

Millet,
proso,
forage
None
TBD
HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available/
requested
data
for
wheat
forage
and
hay
to
proso
millet
forage
and
hay
since
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
indicates
that
the
application
rate
for
wheat
is
slightly
higher
than
millet.

Millet,
proso,
hay
None
TBD
Rye,
grain
None
2.0
HED
will
allow
the
translation
of
available/
requested
data
for
wheat
grain,

forage,
and
straw
to
rye
grain,
forage,
and
straw
since
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile
indicates
that
the
yearly
application
rate
of
the
two
crops
is
identical.

Rye,
forage
None
TBD
Rye,
straw
None
30.0
Dicamba
Tolerances
Listed
in
40
CFR
§
180.227
(
a)(
2)

[
Expressed
in
terms
of
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolite
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid]
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
8.
Tolerance
Reassessment
Summary
for
Dicamba.

Commodity
Current
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comments/

Correct
commodity
definition
77
of
94
Asparagus
4.0
4.0
Th
combined
residues
ranged
0.28­
3.29
ppm
in/
on
asparagus
samples
harvested
24
hours
following
a
single
application
at
1x
the
maximum
rate
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile.
These
data
support
the
currently
established
tolerance
of
4.0
ppm
on
asparagus
pending
verification
by
RD
that
the
label
PHI
for
asparagus
is
24
hours
or
1
day.

Cattle,
fat
0.2
0.3
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Cattle,
kidney
1.5
25
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Cattle,
liver
1.5
Revoke
Residues
in
liver
will
be
covered
by
redefined
meat
by­
products
tolerance.

Cattle,
meat
byproducts
0.2
3.0
Cattle,
meat
by­
products,
except
kidney.
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Cattle,
meat
0.2
0.25
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Goat,
fat
0.2
0.3
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Goat,
kidney
1.5
25
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Goat,
liver
1.5
Revoke
Residues
in
liver
will
be
covered
by
redefined
meat
by­
products
tolerance.

Goat,
meat
byproducts
0.2
3.0
Goat,
meat
by­
products,
except
kidney
Goat,
meat
0.2
0.25
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Hog,
fat
0.2
0.3
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Hog,
kidney
1.5
25
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Hog,
liver
1.5
Revoke
Residues
in
liver
will
be
covered
by
redefined
meat
by­
products
tolerance.

Hog,
meat
byproducts
0.2
3.0
Hog,
meat
by­
products,
except
kidney
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
8.
Tolerance
Reassessment
Summary
for
Dicamba.

Commodity
Current
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comments/

Correct
commodity
definition
78
of
94
Hog,
meat
0.2
0.25
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Horse,
fat
0.2
0.3
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Horse,
kidney
1.5
25
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Horse,
liver
1.5
Revoke
Residues
in
liver
will
be
covered
by
redefined
meat
by­
products
tolerance.

Horse,
meat
byproducts
0.2
3.0
Horse,
meat
by­
products,
except
kidney
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Horse,
meat
0.2
0.25
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Milk
0.3
0.2
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Sheep,
fat
0.2
0.3
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Sheep,
kidney
1.5
25
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Sheep,
liver
1.5
Revoke
Residues
in
liver
will
be
covered
by
redefined
meat
by­
products
tolerance.

Sheep,
meat
byproducts
0.2
3.0
Sheep,
meat
by­
products,
except
kidney
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Sheep,
meat
0.2
0.25
Reassessed
values
are
based
on
a
new
ruminant
feeding
study
currently
under
review.

Dicamba
Tolerances
Under
40
CFR
§
180.227(
a)(
3)

[
Expressed
in
terms
of
the
combined
residues
of
dicamba
and
its
metabolites
3,6­
dichloro­
5­
hydroxy­
o­
anisic
acid
and
3,6­
dichloro­
2­
hydroxybenzoic
acid]

Grain,
aspirated
grain
fractions
5100
1000
There
are
adequate
residue
data
on
the
aspirated
grain
fractions
of
sorghum,

soybean,
and
wheat,
and
can
be
translated
to
corn.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
8.
Tolerance
Reassessment
Summary
for
Dicamba.

Commodity
Current
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comments/

Correct
commodity
definition
79
of
94
Soybean,
hulls
13.0
30.0
When
the
maximum
HAFT
combined
residue
level
(
7.44
ppm)
of
the
RAC
is
multiplied
by
the
observed
concentration
factor
for
soybean
hulls
(
3.8x),
the
resulting
level
is
28.272
ppm
which
suggests
that
the
existing
tolerance
of
13.0
ppm
is
too
low.
HED
recommends
that
the
tolerance
for
soybean
hulls
be
increased
from
13.0
ppm
to
30.0
ppm.

Soybean,
seed
10.0
10.0
The
highest
total
residues
were
8.13
ppm
in/
on
samples
of
soybean
seed
harvested
6­
8
days
following
treatments
at
1.25x
the
maximum
rate
listed
in
the
Dicamba
Master
Use
Profile.

Dicamba
Tolerances
That
May
Be
Needed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.227(
a)(
3)

Soybean,
forage
None
TBD
It
is
the
current
Agency
policy
to
allow
label
restrictions
on
the
feeding/
grazing
of
livestock
animals
on
soybean
forage
and
hay,
thus,
precluding
the
need
for
residue
data
and
tolerances.
HED
defers
to
RD
for
verifying
whether
such
restrictions
exist
on
product
labels.
If
such
restrictions
appear
on
the
labels,
then
residue
data
and
tolerances
for
soybean
forage
and
hay
are
not
necessary.
If
no
such
restrictions
appear
on
the
labels,
then
the
registrants
are
required
to
propose
tolerances
for
soybean
forage
and
hay;
based
on
the
available
data,
a
tolerance
level
of
0.1
ppm
would
be
appropriate
for
each
soybean
commodity.

Concomitant
with
these
tolerance
proposals,
the
registrants
are
required
to
propose
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
0.5
lb
ae/
A
for
preplant
application
on
soybean
grown
for
forage
and
hay.

Soybean,
hay
None
TBD
1
TBD
=
To
be
determined.
Additional
data/
information
are
required
for
tolerance
reassessment.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
80
of
94
RESIDUE
CHEMISTRY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
FROM
OPPIN
(
Sorted
by
MRID)

Study
Citations
References
citations
listed
below
were
obtained
from
a
4/
20/
04
search
of
the
Agency's
database
(
OPPIN
bibliography)
of
study
submissions
for
dicamba
acid
(
029801),
dimethylamine
(
DMA)
salt
of
dicamba
(
029802),
sodium
(
Na)
salt
of
dicamba
(
029806),
isopropylamine
(
IPA)
salt
of
dicamba
(
128944),
diglycoamine
(
DGA)
salt
of
dicamba
(
128931),
and
potassium
(
K)
salt
of
dicamba
(
129043).

00004541
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1974)
Summary
of
Mondak
Residue
Studies­­
Winter
Wheat.
(
Unpublished
study
including
Velsicol
Report
#
147
and
#
150,
received
Dec
11,
1974
under
876­
45;
CDL:
003548­
A)

00004566
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1972)
Wheat
(
Fall
Seeded):
Report
No.
123.
(
Unpublished
study
received
May
21,
1973
under
876­
45;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Northwestern
Agricultural
Research
Center;
CDL:
021027­
A)

00015636
Suzuki,
H.
K.;
Whitacre,
D.
M.;
Anderson,
R.
F.
(
1975)
Laboratory
Report:
Residue
Project
74­
1­
D;
Banvel
®
­
­
Corn:
Report
No.
163.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Mar
5,
1979
under
876­
25;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Cal­
Laboratories,
Inc.
and
ABC
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
237957­
A)

00015637
Suzuki,
H.
K.;
Whitacre,
D.
M.;
Anderson,
R.
F.
(
1976)
Laboratory
Report:
Residue
Project
75­
1­
D;
Banvel
®
:
Corn­­
Harvest
Aid:
Report
No.
171.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Mar
5,
1979
under
876­
25;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
IRDC
and
ABC
Laboratories,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
237957­
B)

00015640
Suzuki,
H.
K.;
Whitacre,
D.
M.;
Nickell,
L.
G.
(
1978)
Laboratory
Report:
Residue
Project
77­
1­
D;
Banvel­­
Dual­­
Corn:
Report
No.
191.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Mar
5,
1979
under
876­
25;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Craven
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
237957­
E)

00015641
Suzuki,
H.
K.;
Whitacre,
D.
M.;
Anderson,
R.
F.
(
1976)
Laboratory
Report:
Residue
Project
75­
1­
D;
Banvel
®
­
­
Corn
(
No­
Till):
Report
No.
173.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Mar
5,
1979
under
876­
25;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Cal­
Laboratories,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
237957­
F)
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
81
of
94
00015642
Suzuki,
H.
K.;
Whitacre,
D.
M.;
Anderson,
R.
F.
(
1975)
Laboratory
Report:
Residue
Project
74­
1­
D;
Banvel
®
­
­
Bladex­­
Corn:
Report
No.
164.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Mar
5,
1979
under
876­
25;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Cal­
Laboratories,
Inc.,
Purdue
Univ.
and
Univ.
of
Wisconsin,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
237957­
G)

00015786
Chamberlain,
E.;
Taylor,
T.
D.
(
1978)
Metolachlor,
Dual
®
8E;
Dicamba,
Banvel:
AG­
A
No.
4865
I,
II.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Mar
16,
1979
under
100­
583;
submitted
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.,
Greensboro,
N.
C.;
CDL:
237818­
E)

00016435
Houseworth,
L.
D.
(
1977)
Residues
of
Metolachlor
and
Dicamba
in
or
on
Corn
Grain
Resulting
from
Preemergence
Tank
Mix
Applications:
Report
No.
ABR­
77071.
Summary
of
studies
232192­
B
through
232192­
D.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
10,
1977
under
100­
EX­
59;
submitted
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.,
Greensboro,
N.
C.;
CDL:
232192­
A)

00016436
Chamberlain,
E.;
Coan,
R.
M.
(
1977)
Residue
Report:
Field
Corn:
AG­
A
No.
4253
II.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
10,
1977
under
100­
EX­
59;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
submitted
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.,
Greensboro,
N.
C.;
CDL:
232192­
B)

00016437
Chamberlain,
E.;
Kern,
C.
L.
(
1977)
Residue
Report:
Field
Corn:
AG­
A
No.
4264
II.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
10,
1977
under
100­
EX­
59;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.
and
Craven
Laboratories,
submitted
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.,
Greensboro,
N.
C.;
CDL:
232192­
C)

00016438
Chamberlain,
E.;
Taylor,
T.
D.
(
1977)
Residue
Report:
Field
Corn:
AG­
A
No.
4270
III.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
10,
1977
under
100­
EX­
59;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.
and
Craven
Laboratories,
submitted
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.,
Greensboro,
N.
C.;
CDL:
232192­
D)

00022612
Fletchall,
O.
H.;
Rues,
O.
G.;
Probst,
N.;
et
al.
(
1970)
Residue
Results:
Summary.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jun
10,
1971
under
876­
25;
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
005045­
I)

00022613
Suzuki,
H.
K.;
Jolliffe,
V.
A.;
Polen,
P.
B.;
et
al.
(
1970)
Residue
Project
70­
6H:
Banvel­
Atrazine­­
Corn:
Report
No.
29.
(
Unpublished
study
received
May
19,
1970
under
876­
25;
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
004523­
B)

00022618
Staniforth,
D.;
Fletchall,
O.
H.;
Stroube,
E.;
et
al.
(
1965)
[
Efficacy
Study
of
Dicamba
and
other
Herbicides
on
Corn].
(
Unpublished
study
received
Mar
11,
1965
under
876­
25;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Iowa
State
Univ.
and
others,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
022213­
A)
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
82
of
94
00022622
Woofter,
D.;
Appleby,
A.
P.;
Watson,
V.
H.;
et
al.
(
1972)
[
Chemical
Sprays
on
Corn,
Sorghum
and
Wheat].
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
3,
1973
under
876­
25;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Oregon
State
Univ.
and
others,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
005052­
C)

00022745
Leonard,
O.
A.;
lider,
L.
A.;
Glenn,
R.
K.
(
1965)
Absorption
and
Translocation
of
Herbicides
by
Thompson
Seedless
(
Sultanina)
Grape,
Vitis
vinifera
L.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Aug
30,
1965
under
6F0466;
prepared
by
Univ.
of
California­­
Davis,
Depts.
of
Botany
and
Viticulture
and
Enology,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
090517­
AT)

00022753
Quinn,
R.
M.;
Bingham,
W.
(
1965)
Translocation
of
Dicamba
in
Herbaceous
Plants.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Aug
30,
1965
under
6F0466;
prepared
by
Big
Sandy
High
School
(
Montana)
in
cooperation
with
Virginia
Polytechnic
Institute
and
State
Univ.,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
090517­
BG)

00023584
Aschoff,
J.;
Shephard,
D.;
Shephard,
D.;
et
al.
(
1973)
Residue
Results.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Feb
15,
1974
under
876­
25;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Purdue
Univ.
and
others,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
022193­
D)

00023684
Velsicol
Chemical
Company
(
1965)
[
Corn:
Banvel­
D
Residue
(
Uncorrected
Basis)
Preemergent
Treatment]:
TSR
No.
F­
35.
(
Unpublished
study
including
TSR
nos.
F­
45,
F­
43,
F­
43A...,
received
Mar
11,
1965
under
876­
25;
CDL:
120179­
A)

00023687
Rydrych,
D.;
Behrens,
R.;
Wallace,
K.;
et
al.
(
1972)
[
Residues
from
Various
Chemicals
on
Grains].
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
3,
1973
under
unknown
admin.
no.;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Univ.
of
Minnesota
and
others,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
120182­
A)

00025330
Suzuki,
H.
K.;
Fenster,
C.
R.
(
1976)
Dicamba:
Residue
Tolerance
Petition­­
Proso
Millet.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
24,
1979
under
9E2166;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Univ.
of
Nebraska,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
097773­
A)

00025338
Klausen­
Rogers,
G.;
Renfrow,
J.;
Slater,
L.;
et
al.
(
1970)
Residue
Results:
[
Dicamba].
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jun
15,
1973
under
1F1131;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Del
Monte
Corp.
and
others,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
090907­
F)

00025344
Diaz,
L.
I.;
Schwemmer,
B.
A.
(
1973)
Radiotracer
Study
of
Dicamba
on
Asparagus:
Report
No.
40400,
No.
124.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jun
15,
1973
under
1F1131;
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
090907­
N)
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
83
of
94
00025364
Bodnarchuk,
D.;
Laporta,
M.;
Potts,
C.;
et
al.
(
1975)
Summary­­
Prowl
and
Banvel­­
Residues
in
Corn
Plants.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Dec
23,
1975
under
241­
243;
submitted
by
American
Cyanamid
Co.,
Princeton,
N.
J.;
CDL:
223338­
A)

00025383
Suzuki,
H.
K.;
Behrens,
R.;
Kilmer,
D.
(
1975)
Residue
Chemistry:
[
Dicamba].
(
Unpublished
study
including
report
no.
404000,
nos.
174,
176
and
179,
received
Nov
18,
1976
under
876­
255;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
International
Research
and
Development
Corp.
and
Univ.
of
Wisconsin,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
226930­
A)

00025394
Rydrich,
D.;
Wallace,
K.;
Beck,
B.;
et
al.
(
1976)
Residue
Results:
Banvel
plus
Bromoxynil
plus
MCPA
Tank
Mix:
Summary.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Feb
18,
1976
under
876­
25;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Oregon
State
Univ.,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
225197­
C)

00028173
Hoffman,
C.;
Haas,
R.;
Criswell,
T.;
et
al.
(
1970)
Grass:
Project
No.
404000.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jun
15,
1970
under
876­
25;
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
004524­
D)

00028200
Tullos,
B.;
Martin,
L.;
Morse,
R.;
et
al.
(
1975)
Weedmaster
Herbicide
Residue
Data.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Oct
2,
1975
under
876­
203;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Kerr
Foundation
and
others,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
195015­
A)

00028252
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1967)
Residue
Data:
Small
Grains.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
3,
1968
under
8F0666;
CDL:
091168­
R)

00028263
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1967)
Determination
of
Residue
of
Dicamba
and
5­
Hydroxy
Dicamba.
Undated
method
AM
0268A;
undated
method
addendum
to
AM
0268A
entitled:
Determination
of
Residues
of
3,5­
Dichloro­
o­
anisic
acid.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
5,
1968
under
8F0725;
CDL:
091252­
V)

00028267
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1966)
Summary
Data
Sheet­­
Residue
Dissipation
Study.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
5,
1968
under
8F0725;
CDL:
091252­
AD)

00028268
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1967)
Banvel­
D
Treated
Grass:
Summary
of
Residue
Data:
Report
404000,
No.
6.
(
Unpublished
study
including
report
16­
166­
04,
nos.
1­
3,
received
Jan
5,
1968
under
8F0725;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Texas
A
&
M
Univ.,
Dept.
of
Range
Science;
CDL:
091252­
AE)

00028269
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1966)
Field
Corn
Banvel
®
D
Residue
(
Uncorrected
Basis)
Preemergence
Treatment.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Feb
24,
1966
under
unknown
admin.
no.;
CDL:
120183­
A)
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
84
of
94
00028398
Collins,
R.
L.;
Appleby,
A.;
Baldridge,
D.;
et
al.
(
1970)
Summary
of
Dicamba
Spot
Treatments
for
Perennial
Weed
Control
in
Cropland
Rotated
to
Wheat:
Pacific
Northwest
States.
(
Unpublished
study
including
published
data,
received
Jul
13,
1970
under
876­
25;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Oregon
State
Univ.,
Pendleton
Branch
Experiment
Station
and
others,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
126372­
B)

00030701
Suzuki,
H.
K.;
Whitacre,
D.
M.;
Boudreaux,
H.;
et
al.
(
1980)
Weed­
master
®
Herbicide
on
Sugarcane:
Residue
Data
and
Processing
Studies.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Apr
12,
1980
under
876­
203;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
International
Research
&
Development
Corp.
and
T.
Lanaux
&
Sons,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
242414­
B)

00036921
Broadhurst,
N.
A.;
Montgomery,
M.
L.;
Freed,
V.
H.
(
1966)
Metabolism
of
2­
Methoxy­
3,6­
dichlorobenzoic
acid
(
Dicamba)
by
wheat
and
bluegrass
plants.
Journal
of
Agricultural
and
Food
Chemistry
14(
6):
585­
588.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Jan
3,
1968
under
8F0666;
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
091168­
V)

00055662
Suzuki,
H.
K.;
Whitacre,
D.
M.;
Fraase,
E.;
et
al.
(
1975)
Summary:
Residues
of
Dicamba
and
2,4­
D
on
Fall
Wheat.
Includes
method
dated
Oct
30,
1975.
(
Unpublished
study
including
report
404000,
nos.
156
and
162,
received
Nov
11,
1976
under
876­
44;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
ABC
Labs
and
International
Research
and
Development
Corp.,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
24320­
A)

00075715
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1981)
[
Residues
in
Corn].
Includes
undated
method
AM­
0691.
(
Compilation,
unpublished
study
received
Jun
12,
1981
under
876­
25;
CDL:
245471­
B)

00075729
Velsicol
(
1977)
(
Banvel
and
Dicamba
in
Crops
and
Soil).
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jun
22,
1981
under
CO
81/
11;
CDL:
245581­
F)

00077779
Oehler,
D.
D.;
Ivie,
G.
W.
(
1980)
Metabolic
fate
of
the
herbicide
dicamba
in
a
lactating
cow.
Journal
of
Agricultural
and
Food
Chemistry
28(
4):
685­
689.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Apr
20,
1981
under
876­
25;
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
070028­
U)

00078448
Velsicol
Chemical
Company
(
1966)
General:
[
Dicamba].
Summary
of
studies
090716­
I
and
090716­
J.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Feb
14,
1967
under
7F0568;
CDL:
090716­
H)
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
85
of
94
00079708
Hurtt,
W.;
Foy,
C.
L.
(
19??)
Some
Factors
Influencing
the
Excretion
of
Foliarly­
applied
Dicamba
and
Picloram
from
Roots
of
Black
Valentine
Beans.
Taken
from:
[
Without
title].
N.
P.
(
Abstract
11:
45).
(
Page
xlviii
only;
also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Aug
30,
1965
under
6F0466;
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
090517­
AQ)

00079736
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1979)
Determination
of
Dicamba
and
5­
Hydroxy
Dicamba
Residues
in
Vegetables,
Forage
Crops,
Legumes,
Cottonseed
and
Cottonseed
Fractions
and
Grains.
Method
no.
AM­
0691
dated
Jul
25,
1979.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Sep
11,
1981
under
876­
25;
CDL:
070319­
B)

00079738
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1981)
Sugarcane
Residue
Studies.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Sep
11,
1981
under
876­
25;
CDL:
070319­
D)

00079742
Gilsdorf,
D.
V.;
Weissenburger,
B.
(
1979)
Effect
of
Feeding
Dicamba
to
Dairy
Cattly
[
sic]
(
Residues
in
Liver,
Kidney,
Muscle,
and
Fat):
ADC
Project
#
379.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Sep
11,
1981
under
876­
25;
prepared
by
Analytical
Development
Corp.,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
070319­
N)

00079744
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1979)
Determination
of
Dicamba
and
3,6­
Dichlorosalicylic
Acid
(
DCSA)
in
Liver,
Kidney,
Skeletal
Muscle,
Adipose
Tissue
and
Milk.
Method
no.
AM
0685
dated
May
7,
1979.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Sep
11,
1981
under
876­
25;
CDL:
070319­
Q)

00079747
Butz,
R.
G.;
Atallah,
Y.
H.;
Kunkel,
J.
F.;
et
al.
(
1981)
Metabolic
Fate
of
Dicamba
in
Sugarcane
Plants:
Project
No.
480068,
Report
No.
24.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Sep
11,
1981
under
876­
25;
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
070319­
T)

00088172
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1981)
Discussion
of
Residue
Data.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study,
including
project
nos.
414698
and
404000,
received
Dec
2,
1981
under
876­
EX­
37;
CDL:
246330­
A)

00088173
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1979)
Determination
of
Dicamba
and
5­
Hydroxy
Dicamba
Residues
in
Vegetables,
Forage
Crops,
Legumes,
Cottonseed
and
Cottonseed
Fractions
and
Grains.
Method
no.
AM­
0691
dated
Jul
25,
1979.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Dec
2,
1981
under
876­
EX­
37;
CDL;
246330­
B)

00102944
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.
(
1982)
The
Results
of
Tests
on
the
Amount
of
Residue
Remaining,
Including
a
Description
of
the
Analytical
Method
Used:
[
Banvel].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
May
20,
1982
under
876­
25;
CDL:
070876­
A)
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
86
of
94
00102945
Butz,
R.;
Atallah,
Y.
(
1982)
Foliar
Absorption,
Metabolism
and
Translocation
of
Dicamba
by
Soybeans
at
Early
Podfill
and
Late
Senescent
Stages:
Report
No.
480068­
39.
(
Unpublished
study
received
May
20,
1982
under
876­
25;
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
IL;
CDL:
070876­
B)

00116671
Santos,
F.;
Butz,
R.
(
1982)
Dicamba
Residues
in
Milk:
Statistical
Analysis.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Oct
29,
1982
under
876­
25;
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
IL;
CDL:
071196­
A)

00118473
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.
(
1982)
The
Results
of
Tests
on
the
Amount
of
[
Banvel]
Residue
Remaining,
Including
a
Description
of
the
Analytical
Method
Used.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Nov
23,
1982
under
876­
25;
CDL:
071261­
A)

00145248
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.
(
1984)
Foliar
Absorption,
Metabolism
and
Translocation
of
Dicamba;
[
Residue
of
Banvel
Herbicide
in
Cotton
and
Grain
Crops;
Toxicology
of
Contaminants].
Unpublished
compilation.
367
p.

00148127
Cahill,
W.;
Johnson,
L.
(
1984)
Determination
of
Dicamba
Residue
in
Laying
Hen
Tissues
and
Eggs
after
a
28
Day
Feeding
Study:
Project
No.
480068.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.
98
p.

00149626
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1985)
[
Banvel
Herbicide
Residues
in
Vegetables,
Peanuts
and
Alfalfa].
Unpublished
compilation.
156
p.

00162206
Cahill,
W.;
Jimenez,
N.
(
1986)
Analysis
of
Barley,
Corn,
Sorghum,
Sugar
Cane
and
Wheat
Samples
for
Dicamba
and
5­
Hydroxy
Dicamba
Residues:
Project
No.
480068:
Report
No.
88.
Unpublished
compilation.
68
p.

40233501
Armstrong,
T.;
Jimenez,
N.;
Cahill,
W.
(
1987)
Dicamba
and
5­
Hydroxy
Dicamba
Levels
in
Palm
Oil:
Laboratory
Project
I.
D.:
480068­
97.
Unpublished
compilation
prepared
by
Monsanto
Agricultural
Co.
in
cooperation
with
Sandoz
Crop
Protection
Corp.
160
p.

40547911
Suzuki,
H.;
Butz,
B.
(
1985)
Dicamba
Residue
Stability
in
Stored
Frozen
Sample:
Laboratory
Project
ID
480068­
82.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation.
20
p
40642801
Butz,
R.
(
1988)
Uptake,
Translocation
and
Metabolism
of
Dicamba
Herbicide
in
Cotton
after
Fallow
Application:
Project
No.
480065;
Report
No.
9.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sandoz
Crop
Protection
Corp.
85
p.

40663801
Jimenez,
N.
(
1986)
Analysis
of
Wheat
and
Wheat
Processed
Fractions
for
Dicamba
and
5­
Hydroxy
Dicamba
Residues:
Project
No.
480068:
Report
No.
92.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sandoz
Crop
Protection
Corp.
37
p.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
87
of
94
41187301
Bade,
T.
(
1989)
Dicamba
Residues
in
Corn
Processing
Fractions
from
a
Pre­
Harvest
Application
of
Banvel:
Laboratory
Project
ID:
480068:
Report
No.
104.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sandoz
Crop
Protection
Corporation.
182
p.

41972001
Moore,
P.;
Butz,
R.
(
1988)
Confined
Accumulation
Studies
of
Dicamba
on
Rotational
Crops
After
Spring
Application:
Lab
Project
Number
480065:
16.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sandoz
Crop
Protection
Corp.
125
p.

42675901
Bade,
T.
(
1990)
Dicamba
Residues
in
Wheat
Processing
Fractions
from
a
Pre­
harvest
Application
of
Banvel:
Lab
Project
Number:
480068:
105.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sandoz
Crop
Protection
Corp.
217
p.

42883201
Pfaff,
J.
(
1993)
Confirmatory
Method
Trial
of
the
Residue
Method,
AM­
0691B­
0593­
2,
"
Determination
of
Dicamba
and
5­
Hydroxy
Dicamba
Residues
in
Barley,
Corn,
Cotton,
Cotton
Processed
Fractions,
Pasture
Grass,
Peanut,
Sorghum,
Soybean,
Sugar
Cane,
Tomato,
Tomato
Processed
Fractions,
Wheat
and
Wheat
Processed
Fractions
(
GC)":
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
930901:
05/
93/
AM.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Chem
Analysis
Inc.
110
p.

43245201
Guirguis,
A.;
Yu,
C.
(
1994)
Metabolism
of
Dicamba
in
Lactating
Goats:
Laboratory
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
480065:
28:
114­
002­
12.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sandoz
Agro,
Inc.
156
p.

43245202
Nietschmann,
D.;
Yu,
C.
(
1994)
Dicamba:
Metabolism
in
Laying
Hens:
Laboratory
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
480065:
25:
DP301493.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sandoz
Agro,
Inc.
80
p.

43245203
Laban,
S.
(
1994)
Crop
Residue
Study
with
Dicamba
Formulations
on
Grain
Sorghum:
Laboratory
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
110/
92/
10:
480068:
119.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
MVTL
Laboratories
Inc.
684
p.

43245204
Formanski,
L.
(
1994)
Dicamba
Residue
Study
on
Sugar
Cane
and
Sugar
Cane
Processed
Fractions:
Laboratory
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
105/
93/
01:
480068:
129.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sandoz
Agro,
Inc.
496
p.

43245205
Rosas,
M.
(
1994)
Dicamba
Residue
Study
on
Sorghum
Grain
and
Sorghum
Processed
Fractions:
Laboratory
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
104/
93/
01:
104/
93/
01­
606­
02:
480068.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sandoz
Agro,
Inc.,
Beason
Ag
Research
and
Diamond
Ag
Research.
281
p.

43245206
Clouser,
A.
(
1994)
Crop
Residue
Study
with
Dicamba
Formulations
on
Asparagus:
Laboratory
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
480068:
124:
DP­
301441.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sandoz
Agro,
Inc.,
Spray
Tech
and
Univ.
California
Ext.
Service.
322
p.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
88
of
94
43274501
Guirguis,
M.
(
1994)
Crop
Residue
Study
with
Dicamba
Formulations
on
Wheat
(
Forage
&
Hay):
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
103/
93/
01:
480068:
125.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sandoz
Agro,
Inc.
740
p.

43370701
Jimenez,
N.
(
1994)
Crop
Residue
Study
with
Dicamba
Formulations
on
Grass
Forage
and
Hay:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
480068:
128:
DP/
301489.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
ChemAlysis
Inc.
1596
p.

43425803
Clouser,
A.
(
1994)
Crop
Residue
Study
with
Dicamba
Formulations
on
Asparagus:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
480068:
131:
DP­
301623.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sandoz
Agro,
Inc.
590
p.

43461701
Baldi,
B.
(
1994)
Confirmatory
Method
Trial
of
the
Residue
Method,
AM­
0938­
0994­
0,
"
Determination
of
Dicamba
and
Dichlorosalicylic
Acid
Residues
in
Beef
Tissues
(
GC)":
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Numbers:
94­
0037:
09/
94­
AM.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
115
p.

43554205
Formanski,
L.
(
1995)
Confirmation
of
Dicamba
and
3,6­
dichlorosalicylic
Acid
Residues
Detected
in
Goat
Liver
and
Kidney
from
a
Dicamba
Metabolism
Study
Conducted
at
SAI:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
480068:
134:
DP/
301753.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sandoz
Agro
Analytical
Chemistry
&
Environmental
Sciences.
104
p.

43698601
Pierotti,
M.
(
1995)
Confined
Accumulation
Studies
of
Dicamba
on
Rotational
Crops:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
480065:
22:
301712.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pan­
Agricultural
Labs,
Inc.
and
Sandoz
Agro,
Inc.
524
p.

43814001
Guirguis,
M.
(
1995)
Crop
Residue
Study
with
Dicamba
on
Cotton:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
480068:
137:
DP­
301822.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Chemalysis
Labs.
569
p.

43814002
Jimenez,
N.
(
1993)
Determination
of
Dicamba
5­
Hydroxy
Dicamba
Residues
in
Barley,
Corn,
Cotton,
Cotton
Processed
Fractions,
Pasture
Grass,
Peanut,
Sorghum,
Soybean,
Sugar
Cane,
Tomato,
Tomato
Processed
Fractions,
Wheat
and
Wheat
Processed
Fractions
(
GC):
(
Revised):
Lab
Project
Number:
AM­
069B­
0593­
03.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sandoz
Agro,
Inc.
64
p.

43814101
Jimenez,
N.
(
1995)
Crop
Residue
Study
with
Dicamba
Formulations
on
Soybeans:
Final
Report:
(
Data
Submitted
as
Alternate
to
Craven
Laboratories
Generated
Data):
Lab
Project
Number:
100/
94/
01:
480068:
133.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Minnesota
Valley
Testing
Labs,
Inc.
1466
p.

43814102
Formanski,
L.
(
1995)
Dicamba
Residue
Study
on
Soybean
Grain
and
Soybean
Processed
Fractions:
Final
Report:
(
Data
Submitted
as
Alternate
to
Craven
Laboratories
Generated
Data):
Lab
Project
Number:
100/
94/
01:
480068:
140.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
89
of
94
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Alvey
Agricultural
Research
and
Texas
A&
M
University.
511
p.

43814103
Jimenez,
N.
(
1994)
Determination
of
Dicamba
Dichlorosalicyclic
Acid
and
5­
Hydroxy
Dicamba
Residues
in
Asparagus
and
Soybeans
(
GC):
(
Data
Submitted
as
Alternate
to
Craven
Laboratories
Generated
Data):
Lab
Project
Number:
AM­
0941­
1094­
0.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sandoz
Agro,
Inc.
63
p.

43814104
Smith,
M.
(
1995)
Confirmatory
Method
Trial
for
the
Residue
Method,
AM­
0941­
1094­
0
"
Determination
of
Dicamba,
Dichlorosalicylic
Acid
and
5­
Hydroxy
Dicamba
Residues
in
Asparagus
and
Soybeans
(
GC)":
(
Submitted
as
Alternate
to
Craven
Laboratories
Generated
Data):
Lab
Project
Number:
111S24:
111P18:
DP­
101844.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
EPL
Bio­
Analytical
Services,
Inc.
198
p.

43866601
Jimenez,
N.
(
1995)
Stability
of
Dicamba
and
5­
Hydroxy
Dicamba
in
Stored
Frozen
Field
Corn:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
480068:
127:
DP­
301949.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Minnesota
Valley
Testing
Labs,
Inc.
239
p.

44089302
Formanski,
L.
(
1996)
Crop
Residue
Study
with
Dicamba
Formulations
on
Sugar
Cane:
Final
Report:
(
Data
submitted
as
alternate
to
Craven
Laboratories
generated
data):
Lab
Project
Number:
480068/
150:
DP­
303099:
105/
95/
01.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
MVTL
Labs.
250
p.
(
Relates
to
L0000128).

44089303
Jimenez,
N.
(
1996)
Crop
Residue
Study
with
Dicamba
Formulations
on
Field
Corn:
Final
Report:
(
Data
submitted
as
alternate
to
Craven
Laboratories
generated
data):
Lab
Project
Number:
480068/
149:
DP­
303325:
104/
95/
01.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
EPL­
Bio­
Analytical
Services,
Inc.
544
p.
(
Relates
to
L0000127).

44089304
Jimenez,
N.
(
1996)
Crop
Residue
Study
with
Dicamba
Formulations
on
Barley:
Final
Report:
(
Data
submitted
as
alternate
to
Craven
Laboratories
generated
data):
Lab
Project
Number:
480068/
146:
DP­
302071:
106/
95/
01.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
EPL­
Bio­
Analytical
Services,
Inc.
536
p.

44089305
Jimenez,
N.
(
1996)
Crop
Residue
Study
with
Dicamba
Formulations
on
Wheat:
Final
Report:
(
Data
submitted
as
alternate
to
Craven
Laboratories
generated
data):
Lab
Project
Number:
480068/
145:
DP­
302049:
103/
95/
01.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Minnesota
Valley
Testing
Labs,
Inc.
797
p.

44089306
Guirguis,
M.
(
1996)
Crop
Residue
Study
with
Dicamba
Formulation
on
Sorghum:
Final
Report:
(
Data
submitted
as
alternate
to
Craven
Laboratories
generated
data):
Lab
Project
Number:
480068/
148:
DP­
302998:
110/
95/
01.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Minnesota
Valley
Testing
Lab.
284
p.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
90
of
94
44089307
Guirguis,
M.
(
1996)
Crop
Residue
and
Residue
Decline
Study
with
Dicamba
Formulation
on
Soybean:
Final
Report:
(
Data
submitted
as
alternate
to
Craven
Laboratories
generated
data):
Lab
Project
Number:
480068/
147:
DP­
302093:
100/
95/
01.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Minnesota
Valley
Testing
Lab.
328
p.

44891302
Guirguis,
M.;
Haughley,
D.;
Riley,
M.
(
1999)
The
Magnitude
of
Dicamba
Residues
in
Wheat
Forage
and
Hay:
Lab
Project
Number:
97073:
99/
5008:
903­
97073.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
BASF
Corp.
123
p.
{
OPPTS
860.1500
44891303
Wofford,
J.;
Malinsky,
D.;
Riley,
M.
(
1998)
A
Meat
and
Milk
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
Study
with
Dicamba
in
Lactating
Dairy
Cows:
Lab
Project
Number:
98/
5106:
97076:
AM­
0938­
0994­
0.

45196801
Haughey,
D.;
Malinsky,
D.
(
2000)
The
Magnitude
of
Dicamba
Residues
in
Cotton
Gin
Byproducts:
Lab
Project
Number:
2000/
5151:
97075:
ADPEN­
903­
99­
B97075­
001.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
BASF
Corporation.
82
p.
{
OPPTS
870.1500}
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
91
of
94
AGENCY
MEMORANDA
RELEVANT
TO
THIS
RESIDUE
CHAPTER
AND
TOLERANCE
REASSESSMENT
Table
9.
Agency
Memoranda
Citations.

Date
DP
Barcode
CB
No.
From
To
MRID
Nos.
Subject
under
review
D304019,
D306687­

D306690
None
C.
Olinger
44089302,
44089306
Dicamba.
Case
0065.
PC
Code
029801.
Residue
Data
in
Sorghum
and
Sugarcane.

3/
10/
05
D312086
None
G.
Kramer
D.
Kenny/

J.
Miller
None
Review
of
Label
Amendment
for
Dicamba
+
2,4­
D
(
Outlaw
 
,
EPA
Registration
#
42750­
68).

7/
26/
01
D275611
None
G.
Kramer
S.
Brothers/

R.
Forrest
45154001
PP#
6E06209.
Dicamba
(
Distinct
®
,
EPA
Reg
#
7969­

150)
on
Sweet
Corn.
Evaluation
of
Residue
Data
and
Analytical
Methods.

10/
13/
98
D249098
None
W.
Donovan
J.
Miller/

E.
Wilson
None
PP#
s
6F4604
and
4F3041
­
Dicamba
(
Clarity
®

Herbicide)
on
Asparagus,
Corn,
Cotton,
Grass
Forage
and
Hay,
and
Wheat
Forage
and
Hay.
Preharvest
Use
on
Wheat,
Barley,
and
Soybean.
Amendment
of
31­
Aug­

1998.

7/
16/
98
D228703
None
S.
Chun
J.
Miller/

E.
Wilson
43866601,
44089303,

44089304,
44089305,

44089307
PP#
4F3041­
Dicamba
(
Banvel
®
,
Clarity
®
,
IPA
Salt
of
Dicamba,
Banvel
®
SGF)
Preharvest
Use
on
Wheat,

Barley,
Corn,
and
Soybeans;
Preplant
burndown
use
on
Soybeans.
Amendment
of
9/
9/
97.

6/
25/
98
D228694,

D239967
None
S.
Chun
J.
Miller/

E.
Wilson
43698601
PP#
6F4604­
Dicamba
(
Banvel
®
,
Clarity
®
,
IPA
Salt
of
Dicamba,
Banvel
®
SGF)
on
Cotton,
Asparagus,
Grass
Forage
and
Hay,
and
Wheat
Forage
and
Hay.

Amendment
of
9/
9/
97.

7/
14/
97
D204488,
D204809,

D209229
13882,
13948,

14695
L.
Cheng
K.
Whitby
43245203,
43274501,

43245206,
43425803,

43245204,
43245205
Dicamba.
Case
0065.
PC
Code
029801.
Residue
Data
in
Sorghum,
Wheat,
Asparagus,
and
Sorghum
and
Sugarcane
Processed
Fractions.

1/
21/
97
D232478
17705
J.
Stokes
D.
McCall
None
PP#
6F4604.
Dicamba.
Petition
Method
Validation
Results.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
9.
Agency
Memoranda
Citations.

Date
DP
Barcode
CB
No.
From
To
MRID
Nos.
Subject
92
of
94
7/
29/
96
D223283,
D223292,
D223300,
D223311,
D223380,
D223383,
D223361,
D223363,
D223316,
D223320,
D223373,
D223374,
D223355,

D223356
None
S.
Knizner,

W.
Dykstra,

and
C.
Lewis
J.
Whitehurst
43814101,
43814102,

43814103,
43814104
Dicamba
Amendment
to
PP#
4F3041/
FAP#
4H5428
and
PP#
4G3061
for
Preharvest
Use
of
Dicamba
on
Wheat,

Barley,
and
Soybeans.
Withdrawal
of
PP#
4G3061
­

Preplant
Burndown
Use
of
Dicamba
in
Soybeans.

6/
27/
96
D227359
None
F.
Griffith
D.
Marlow
42883201,
43814002
PP#
6F4604
­
Dicamba
(
Banval
®
)
on
Cotton,
Asparagus,

Grass
Forage
and
Hay,
and
Wheat
Forage
and
Hay.

Tolerance
Method
Validation
(
TMV)
Request.

6/
24/
96
D226526
17271
D.
Miller
P.
Deschamp
None
Dicamba
(
029801).
Registrant
Response
to
Ruminant
and
Hen
Metabolism
Studies.
GDLN
171­
4b.

5/
2/
96
D220430,
D220469,
D220471,

D220473
16431,
16432,
16433,

16434
F.
Griffith
D.
McCall
42283201,
43814001,

43814002,
43274501,

43370701
PP#
6F4604
­
Dicamba
(
Banval
®
)
on
Cotton,
Asparagus,

Grass
Forage
and
Hay,
and
Wheat
Forage
and
Hay.

3/
11/
96
D207649
14378
L.
Cheng
J.
Mitchell
43370701
Dicamba.
Case
0065.
Residue
Data
in
Grass
Forage
and
Hay.

3/
7/
96
D204482
13874
L.
Cheng
J.
Mitchell
43245201
and
43245202
Dicamba.
Case
No.
0065.
Ruminant
and
Hen
Metabolism
Data
for
GLN
171­
4b.

2/
16/
96
D197629
12947
L.
Cheng
J.
Mitchell
41972001
Dicamba.
Case
0065.
Confined
Rotational
Crop
Study.

7/
12/
94
D204754
13923
S.
Funk
W.
Waldrop/

J.
Mitchell
None
Dicamba
(
List
A,
Case
No.
0065,
Chemical
No.

029801).
Sandoz
Proposal
for
the
Replacement
of
Craven
Data.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
9.
Agency
Memoranda
Citations.

Date
DP
Barcode
CB
No.
From
To
MRID
Nos.
Subject
93
of
94
1/
31/
94
None
None
M.
Metzger
J.
Mitchell
None
Dicamba.
Meeting
with
Registrant
on
1/
12/
94,
phone
call
of
1/
19/
94.
Field
Trial
Requirements.

12/
14/
93
D194776
12482
D.
Miller
J.
Mitchell
42883201
Dicamba.
Independent
Method
Validation.

9/
13/
93
D193993,

D193995
12358,

12359
D.
Davis
R.
Taylor/

V.
Walters/

A.
Kocialski
None
PP#
3F2794/
PP#
4H5439.
Dicamba
in/
on
Cotton
(
Preplant
Application).

5/
21/
93
D189821
11702
D.
Davis
R.
Taylor/

V.
Walters
None
PP#
3F02794.
Dicamba
in/
on
Cotton
(
Between
Crop
Application).
Amendment
to
Permanent
Tolerance
Petition
to
Replace
DMA
Salt
of
Dicamba
with
Sodium
Salt.

D189823
11703
D.
Davis
R.
Taylor/

V.
Walters
None
PP#
3F02794.
Dicamba
in/
on
Cotton
(
Between
Crop
Application).
Amendment
to
FAT
Petition
to
Replace
DMA
Salt
of
Dicamba
with
Sodium
Salt.

D189825
11704
D.
Davis
R.
Taylor/

V.
Walters
None
ID#
055947­
00028.
Banvel
SGF
®
Herbicide.
Label
Amendment.

4/
23/
93
D189039,
D189041,

D189043
11542
L.
Cheng
R.
Taylor/

V.
Walters
and
Toxicology
Branch
42675901
Dicamba
(
SRR)
Registration
Standard:
Response.

PP#
4F3041/
FAP#
4H5428.
Dicamba
(
ID
#
55947­
38;

Potassium
Salt)
on
Grass
and
Grains.
Amendment
Wheat
Processing
Study.

1/
17/
92
D169036
8617
R.
Lascola
R.
Taylor
None
Dicamba
(
Banvel).
Impact
of
Craven
Laboratories
Analytical
Data
on
Registrations.

9/
23/
91
D167962
8517
M.
Metzger
S.
Stanton
None
91­
MS­
11.
Dicamba
on
Cotton.
(
EPA
Reg.
No.
55947­

1).

7/
26/
90
None
6712
S.
Funk
R.
Taylor/

V.
Walters
41387001
Amended
Registration
Request
for
Banvel
Herbicide
(
Dicamba
DMA
Salt);
Petitioner's
Response
to
Deficiencies.
I.
D.
No.
55947­
1.
Record
No.
265171.

6/
30/
89
None
None
R.
Schmitt
R.
Engler/

L.
Rossi
Refer
to
the
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter
Dicamba
(
SRR)
Registration
Standard.
Dicamba
Summary
of
Analytical
Chemistry
and
Residue
Data
Barcode:
D317703
Table
9.
Agency
Memoranda
Citations.

Date
DP
Barcode
CB
No.
From
To
MRID
Nos.
Subject
94
of
94
5/
18/
89
None
4424
and
4425
E.
Haeberer
R.
Taylor
and
Toxicology
Branch
40642801
and
40547911
PP#
3F2794/
FAP#
4H5439;
Dicamba
in/
on
Cotton,

Supplemental
Submission
of
May
27,
1988;
Cotton
Metabolism
Study,
Storage
Stability
Study.

11/
4/
88
None
3968,
3969,
4018,

4019
F.
Griffith
R.
Taylor
and
Toxicology
Branch
40663801
PP#
4F3041/
FAP#
4H5428
­
Dicamba
on
Grass
and
Grains.
Evaluation
of
June
14,
1988,
Amendment.

8/
12/
83
None
None
C.
Trichilo
A.
Rispin/

R.
Taylor
Refer
to
the
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter
Dicamba
Registration
Standard.