DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Herbicides for Roadside Weed Control in New Mexico

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Herbicides for Roadside Weed Control in New Mexico Evaluation of Herbicides for Roadside Weed Control in New Mexico Item Type text; Article Authors Quimby, P. C.; McDonald, R. L.; Lohmiller, R. G.; Brammer, R. L. Citation Quimby, P. C., McDonald, R. L., Lohmiller, R. G., & Brammer, R. L. (1978). Evaluation of herbicides for roadside weed control in New Mexico. Journal of Range Management, 31(4), 270-273. DOI 10.2307/3897598 Publisher Society for Range Management Journal Journal of Range Management Rights Copyright © Society for Range Management. Download date 25/09/2021 17:06:07 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final published version Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/646649 Evaluation of Herbicides for Roadside Weed Control in New Mexico P. C. QUIMBY, JR., R. L. MCDONALD, R. G. LOHMILLER, AND R. L. BRAMMER Highlight: Twenty-eight herbicides or combinations of the second and third season after planting. Mowing the newly herbicides were evaluated for selecting control for kochia and established grass stands, even for weed control, is undesirable Russian thistle in grasses desirable for roadside erosion control: because the young grass seedlings need as much top growth as sideoats grama, sand dropseed, western wheatgrass, Indian rice- possible during the first growing season to establish their root grass, and threeawn. Based on their ability to control weeds with- system. Moreover, it is difficult to mow all the grass before the out injuring desirable grasses, treatments that were superior to weeds get a good start and offer serious competition to the grass. the bromacil standard (2 lb/acre) were: bromoxynil at 0.5 and 1 The purpose of this project was to evaluate herbicides for lb/acre, dicamba at 1 lb/acre, and 2,4-D amine at 3 lb/acre. control of annual weeds, such as kochia and Russian thistle, in established stands of grasses that were planted or had volun- teered from indigenous stands along highways in New Mexico. The control of annual broadleaved weeds in seedings of native grasses along roadsides in low rainfall areas of New Materials and Methods Mexico (Quimby 1971) is quite different from the control of The herbicides were evaluated for: low toxicity to established, noxious perennial grasses encountered along highways in desirable grasses; an acceptable level of control of the undesirable higher rainfall areas, e.g., Oklahoma (Huffine et al. 1968), annual weeds; and minimum hazard to crops and ornamentals growing Arkansas (Sckerl et al. 1966), and Mississippi (Hussey 1966; adjacent to or within the right-of-way. The major herbicide previously used by the highway department Snuggs 1973). In New Mexico, the Soil Conservation Service was bromacil (Table l), a nonselective soil sterilant, at 2 lb/acre. It has suggested the use of native grasses for “critical area” was included in the tests, along with another soil sterilant, karbutilate stabilization (Lohmiller 1971). Dates selected for seeding are (Table I) to establish an index of grass injury and weed control for those with the highest probability of receiving 0.6 inch or more these chemicals. precipitation during each of two, consecutive, 3-week periods. Fifteen herbicides (Table 1) were applied at various rates and com- A minimum probability of 60% is preferred, and dates within binations (28 treatments total) to plots replicated in quadruplicate in a the “rainy” season of July, August, and early September are randomized complete block design at three locations along Interstate usually selected (Lohmiller 197 1; Brammer 197 1). Rainfall 25 and Interstate 40 in the vicinity of Albuquerque, New Mexico, in during these 3 months may constitute about half the annual August, 197 1. These three areas were selected to include as large a precipitation for much of the state. Weeds and grasses compete number of plant species as possible in the treatments. for this limited moisture. Herbicides wereapplied with a push-type bicycle sprayer delivering Russian thistle (Sal.sola kali L. var. terzuifolia Tausch) and 25 gal/acre of carrier on a 36-inch wide strip. A nonionic surfactant at kochia [Kochiu scopariu (L.) Schrad.] are the worst weed 0.5% (v/v) was included with all treatments. Treated areas were mowed at irregular intervals by the New Mexico State Highway problems in roadside seedings of native grasses in New Mexico. Mowning is recommended the first year of seeding for the control Table 1. List of herbicides evaluated in 1971 for control of weeds along of Russian thistle when it is the predominant weed. The mowed roadsides in New Mexico. thistles provide some cover for the soil and shade the new grass seedlings without undue competition. However, even when Common name Chemical name i-lowed, kochia competes strongly for water and nutrients, and a Benefin N-butyl-N-ethyl-a,cr,a-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-p-toluidine dense stand can completely crowd out the grass seedlings. In Bromacil 5-bromo-3-set-butyl-6-methyluracil those areas that cannot be mowed (e.g., along steep slopes in Bromoxynil 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile Chlotflurenol Methyl 2-chloro-9-hydroxyfluorene-9-carboxylate interchanges), Russian thistle and kochia often crowd out new 2,4-D amide (2,4-dichlorophenoxy) acetamide grass seedlings and compete with the established grasses during 2,4-D amine (2,4-dichlorophenoxy) acetamine DCPA dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate Dicamba 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid At the time of the research, authors were plant physiologist and agricultural research technician, Plant Science Research Division, Agricultural Research Service; soil con- Fenac (2,3,6-trichlorophenyl) acetic acid servationist, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. DepartmentofAgriculture, Los Lunas, New Karbutilate rert-butylcarbamic acid ester with 3(m-hydroxyphenyl)- Mexico; and horticulturist, New Mexico State Highway Dep.,Santa Fe. Quimby is 1,l -dimethylurea presently plant physiologist, Southern Weed Sci. Lab., Stoneville, Mississippi; McDonald is agricultural research technician, Cotton Physiology Lab., Phoenix, Arizona; Methazole 2-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methyl-1,2,4-oxadiazolidine- Lohmiller is plant materials specialist, Soil Conserv. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agr., Bozeman, 3,5-dione Montana; and Brammer is principal landscape architect, Construction Div., New Mexico MH 1,2-dihydro-3,6_pyridazinedione State Highway Dep., Santa Fe. Picloram 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid The report represents cooperative investigation of Sci. and Educ. Admin. and Soil Simazine 2-chloro-4,6-bis(ethylamino)-s-triazine Con\crv. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agr. and the New Mexico State Highway Dep. 2,3,6-TBA 2,3,6-trichlorobenzoic acid Manuscript received June 16, 1977. 270 JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT31 (4), July 1978 Department. Plots were visually evaluated by three or four observers at Table 2. Mean weed control scores for herbicides evaluated 3 and 6 weeks 3 and 6 weeks after treatment. Weed control and grass injury scores after application in August, 1971, for control of Russian thistle and were based on 0 = no injury; 100 = dead. Weed control scores were kochia along roadsides at Tiieras Canyon and Interstate 40 (I-40) 2 miles averages of the two visual estimates of percent kill of weeds and west of Albuquerque, N. Mex. percent injury to weeds at the time of evaluation (postemergence Location effects) at Tijeras Canyon and Interstate 40 west of Albuquerque. The percent kill of weed seedlings (preemergence effect) was included in Tijeras I-40 west of the average of Tijeras Canyon where seedlings had emerged after Rate Canyon Albuquerque Mean treatment. A performance index score (PI) was calculated for each Treatment (lb/acre) (score) (score) (score) treatment by subtracting the mean percent injury to grasses (all Bromacil 2 lOOa’ 1OOa 1OOa locations) from the mean weed control score. The data were subjected Karbutilate 2 97a 1OOa 98a to analyses of variance and standard errors of means (Sz) and co- 2,4-D amine + methazole 1+3 95 a 98a 96 ab 1 86 ab IOOa 93 ab ettlclents of variation (CV) were calculated. The means were compared Karbutilate 2,4-D amine + methazole 1+1 77 abc 1OOa 88 abc with Duncan’s multiple range test at the .Ol level of significance. Dicamba 1 66bcd 1OOa 83 a-d Bromoxynil 1 66 bed 1OOa 83 a-d Highway Areas Selected for Herbicide Evaluation 2,4-D amine 3 58 cd 91a 74 a-d 2,4-D amine + DCPA 1+4 65 bed 82 ab 74 a-d Dicamba 0.5 57 cd 90a 73 a-e This area was located east of Tijeras Canyon on the median of I-40 Bromoxynil 0.5 47 def 98a 73 a-e and began about 100 ft west of the State Road 2 17 overpass. The 2,4-D amine + 2,4-D amide 1+2 54 cde 89a 72 a-e median was about 60 ft wide; the plots were approximately 50 ft long. 2,4-D amine + 2,4-D amide 1+1 53 cde 89a 71 a-e 2,4-D amine 2 55 cd 81ab 68 a-f The Highway Department had reseeded the area. The predominant 2,4-D amine + fenac 1+3 47 def 88 ab 68 a-f grass was western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii Rydb.) with some 2,4-D amine 1 44 def 88 ab 66 a-f squirreltail [Sitanion hystrix (Nutt.) J. G. Smith), Kentucky bluegrass Picloram + 2,4-D amine 0.25+0.5 44def 86 ab 65 a-f (Pact pratensis L.), sideoats grama [Bouteloua curtipendula Michx.) 2,4-D amine + Benefin 1+1 40 d-g 89a 64 a-f Tort-.], and sand dropseed [Sporobolus cryptandrus (Torr.) A. Gray). 2,4-D amine + fenac 0.5+1.5 26 fgh 95a 60 a-f Kochia had developed to a good stand over most of the area.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the WSSA
    Weed Science 2010 58:511–518 Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America Below is the complete list of all common and chemical of herbicides as approved by the International Organization names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of for Standardization (ISO). A sponsor may submit a proposal America (WSSA) and updated as of September 1, 2010. for a common name directly to the WSSA Terminology Beginning in 1996, it has been published yearly in the last Committee. issue of Weed Science with Directions for Contributors to A herbicide common name is not synonymous with Weed Science. This list is published in lieu of the selections a commercial formulation of the same herbicide, and in printed previously on the back cover of Weed Science. Only many instances, is not synonymous with the active ingredient common and chemical names included in this complete of a commercial formulation as identified on the product list should be used in WSSA publications. In the absence of label. If the herbicide is a salt or simple ester of a parent a WSSA-approved common name, the industry code number compound, the WSSA common name applies to the parent as compiled by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) with compound only. CAS systematic chemical name or the systematic chemical The chemical name used in this list is that preferred by the name alone may be used. The current approved list is also Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) according to their system of available at our web site (www.wssa.net).
    [Show full text]
  • AP-42, CH 9.2.2: Pesticide Application
    9.2.2PesticideApplication 9.2.2.1General1-2 Pesticidesaresubstancesormixturesusedtocontrolplantandanimallifeforthepurposesof increasingandimprovingagriculturalproduction,protectingpublichealthfrompest-bornediseaseand discomfort,reducingpropertydamagecausedbypests,andimprovingtheaestheticqualityofoutdoor orindoorsurroundings.Pesticidesareusedwidelyinagriculture,byhomeowners,byindustry,andby governmentagencies.Thelargestusageofchemicalswithpesticidalactivity,byweightof"active ingredient"(AI),isinagriculture.Agriculturalpesticidesareusedforcost-effectivecontrolofweeds, insects,mites,fungi,nematodes,andotherthreatstotheyield,quality,orsafetyoffood.Theannual U.S.usageofpesticideAIs(i.e.,insecticides,herbicides,andfungicides)isover800millionpounds. AiremissionsfrompesticideusearisebecauseofthevolatilenatureofmanyAIs,solvents, andotheradditivesusedinformulations,andofthedustynatureofsomeformulations.Mostmodern pesticidesareorganiccompounds.EmissionscanresultdirectlyduringapplicationorastheAIor solventvolatilizesovertimefromsoilandvegetation.Thisdiscussionwillfocusonemissionfactors forvolatilization.Thereareinsufficientdataavailableonparticulateemissionstopermitemission factordevelopment. 9.2.2.2ProcessDescription3-6 ApplicationMethods- Pesticideapplicationmethodsvaryaccordingtothetargetpestandtothecroporothervalue tobeprotected.Insomecases,thepesticideisapplieddirectlytothepest,andinotherstothehost plant.Instillothers,itisusedonthesoilorinanenclosedairspace.Pesticidemanufacturershave developedvariousformulationsofAIstomeetboththepestcontrolneedsandthepreferred
    [Show full text]
  • AP-42, Vol. 1, Final Background Document for Pesticide Application
    Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 9.2.2 Pesticide Application Final Report For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emission Inventory Branch EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159 Work Assignment No. I-08 MRI Project No. 4601-08 September 1994 Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 9.2.2 Pesticide Application Final Report For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emission Inventory Branch Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Attn: Mr. Dallas Safriet (MD-14) Emission Factor and Methodology EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0159 Work Assignment No. I-08 MRI Project No. 4601-08 September 1994 NOTICE The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-D2-0159 to Midwest Research Institute. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. iii iv PREFACE This report was prepared by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 005 and I-08. Mr. Dallas Safriet was the EPA work assignment manager for this project. Approved for: MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE Roy M. Neulicht Program Manager Environmental Engineering Department Jeff Shular Director, Environmental Engineering Department September 29, 1994 v vi CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ................................................ viii LIST OF TABLES ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Minnesota Chemicals of High Concern List
    Minnesota Department of Health, Chemicals of High Concern List, 2019 Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic (PBT) or very Persistent, very High Production CAS Bioaccumulative Use Example(s) and/or Volume (HPV) Number Chemical Name Health Endpoint(s) (vPvB) Source(s) Chemical Class Chemical1 Maine (CA Prop 65; IARC; IRIS; NTP Wood and textiles finishes, Cancer, Respiratory 11th ROC); WA Appen1; WA CHCC; disinfection, tissue 50-00-0 Formaldehyde x system, Eye irritant Minnesota HRV; Minnesota RAA preservative Gastrointestinal Minnesota HRL Contaminant 50-00-0 Formaldehyde (in water) system EU Category 1 Endocrine disruptor pesticide 50-29-3 DDT, technical, p,p'DDT Endocrine system Maine (CA Prop 65; IARC; IRIS; NTP PAH (chem-class) 11th ROC; OSPAR Chemicals of Concern; EuC Endocrine Disruptor Cancer, Endocrine Priority List; EPA Final PBT Rule for 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene x x system TRI; EPA Priority PBT); Oregon P3 List; WA Appen1; Minnesota HRV WA Appen1; Minnesota HRL Dyes and diaminophenol mfg, wood preservation, 51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol Eyes pesticide, pharmaceutical Maine (CA Prop 65; IARC; NTP 11th Preparation of amino resins, 51-79-6 Urethane (Ethyl carbamate) Cancer, Development ROC); WA Appen1 solubilizer, chemical intermediate Maine (CA Prop 65; IARC; IRIS; NTP Research; PAH (chem-class) 11th ROC; EPA Final PBT Rule for 53-70-3 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Cancer x TRI; WA PBT List; OSPAR Chemicals of Concern); WA Appen1; Oregon P3 List Maine (CA Prop 65; NTP 11th ROC); Research 53-96-3 2-Acetylaminofluorene Cancer WA Appen1 Maine (CA Prop 65; IARC; IRIS; NTP Lubricant, antioxidant, 55-18-5 N-Nitrosodiethylamine Cancer 11th ROC); WA Appen1 plastics stabilizer Maine (CA Prop 65; IRIS; NTP 11th Pesticide (EPA reg.
    [Show full text]
  • PESTICIDES Criteria for a Recommended Standard
    CRITERIA FOR A RECOMMENDED STANDARD OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE DURING THE MANUFACTURE AND FORMULATION OF PESTICIDES criteria for a recommended standard... OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE DURING THE MANUFACTURE AND FORMULATION OF PESTICIDES * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Public Health Service Center for Disease Control National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health July 1978 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 DISCLAIMER Mention of company names or products does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78-174 PREFACE The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 emphasizes the need for standards to protect the health and provide for the safety of workers occupationally exposed to an ever-increasing number of potential hazards. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has implemented a formal system of research, with priorities determined on the basis of specified indices, to provide relevant data from which valid criteria for effective standards can be derived. Recommended standards for occupational exposure, which are the result of this work, are based on the effects of exposure on health. The Secretary of Labor will weigh these recommendations along with other considerations, such as feasibility and means of implementation, in developing regulatory standards. Successive reports will be presented as research and epideiriologic studies are completed and as sampling and analytical methods are developed. Criteria and standards will be reviewed periodically to ensure continuing protection of workers. The contributions to this document on pesticide manufacturing and formulating industries by NIOSH staff members, the review consultants, the reviewer selected by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), other Federal agencies, and by Robert B.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Lists
    United States Office of Solid Waste EPA 550-B-10-001 Environmental Protection and Emergency Response May 2010 Agency www.epa.gov/emergencies LIST OF LISTS Consolidated List of Chemicals Subject to the Emergency Planning and Community Right- To-Know Act (EPCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act • EPCRA Section 302 Extremely Hazardous Substances • CERCLA Hazardous Substances • EPCRA Section 313 Toxic Chemicals • CAA 112(r) Regulated Chemicals For Accidental Release Prevention Office of Emergency Management This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction................................................................................................................................................ i List of Lists – Conslidated List of Chemicals (by CAS #) Subject to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act ................................................. 1 Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Consolidated List ..................................................................... A-1 Appendix B: Radionuclides Listed Under CERCLA .......................................................................... B-1 Appendix C: RCRA Waste Streams and Unlisted Hazardous Wastes................................................ C-1 This page intentionally left blank. LIST OF LISTS Consolidated List of Chemicals
    [Show full text]
  • IPCS IPCS International Programme on Chemical Safety International Programme on Chemical Safety
    and and Guidelines to Classification Guidelines to Classification 2000-2002 2000-2002 UNEP UNEP United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Environment Programme International Labour Organization International Labour Organization IPCS IPCS International Programme on Chemical Safety International Programme on Chemical Safety INTER-ORGANIZATION PROGRAMME FOR THE SOUND INTER-ORGANIZATION PROGRAMME FOR THE SOUND IOMC MANAGEMENT CHEMICALS IOMC MANAGEMENT CHEMICALS World Health Organization World Health Organization A cooperative agreement among UNEP, ILO, FAO, WHO, UNIDO, UNITAR & OECD World Health Organization A cooperative agreement among UNEP, ILO, FAO, WHO, UNIDO, UNITAR & OECD WHO/PCS/01.5 ENGLISH ONLY THE WHO RECOMMENDED CLASSIFICATION OF PESTICIDES BY HAZARD AND GUIDELINES TO CLASSIFICATION 2000-01 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard was approved by the 28th World Health Assembly in 1975 and has since gained wide acceptance. When it was published in the WHO Chronicle, 29, 397-401 (1975), an annex, which was not part of the Classification, illustrated its use by listing examples of classification of some pesticidal active ingredients and their formulations. Later suggestions were made by Member States and pesticide registration authorities that further guidance should be given on the classification of individual pesticides. Guidelines were first issued in 1978, and have since been revised and reissued at 2-yearly intervals. The document is arranged as follows: Part I: The Classification as recommended by the World Health Assembly. This part is not subject to periodic review and the classification table and text can only be changed by resolution of the World Health Assembly. Part II: Guidelines to Classification. Individual products are classified in a series of tables, according to the oral or dermal toxicity of the technical product, and its physical state.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 230/Friday, November 29, 2019
    Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2019 / Proposed Rules 65739 are operated by a government LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 49966 (Sept. 24, 2019). The Office overseeing a population below 50,000. solicited public comments on a broad Of the impacts we estimate accruing U.S. Copyright Office range of subjects concerning the to grantees or eligible entities, all are administration of the new blanket voluntary and related mostly to an 37 CFR Part 210 compulsory license for digital uses of increase in the number of applications [Docket No. 2019–5] musical works that was created by the prepared and submitted annually for MMA, including regulations regarding competitive grant competitions. Music Modernization Act Implementing notices of license, notices of nonblanket Therefore, we do not believe that the Regulations for the Blanket License for activity, usage reports and adjustments, proposed priorities would significantly Digital Uses and Mechanical Licensing information to be included in the impact small entities beyond the Collective: Extension of Comment mechanical licensing collective’s potential for increasing the likelihood of Period database, database usability, their applying for, and receiving, interoperability, and usage restrictions, competitive grants from the Department. AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library and the handling of confidential of Congress. information. Paperwork Reduction Act ACTION: Notification of inquiry; To ensure that members of the public The proposed priorities do not extension of comment period. have sufficient time to respond, and to contain any information collection ensure that the Office has the benefit of SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is requirements. a complete record, the Office is extending the deadline for the extending the deadline for the Intergovernmental Review: This submission of written reply comments program is subject to Executive Order submission of written reply comments in response to its September 24, 2019 to no later than 5:00 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • NJ Environmental Hazardous Substance List by CAS Number
    NJ Community Right to Know Environmental Hazardous Substance (EHS) List in CAS Number Order Reporting Quantity (RQ) Sub. DOT if below CAS Number Substance Name No. No. 500 pounds Haz Waste, N.O.S. (only if EHS reported) liquid 2461 3082 Haz Waste, N.O.S. (only if EHS reported) solid 2461 3077 Organorhodium Complex (PMN-82-147) * + 2611 2811 10 Petroleum Oil4 2651 1270 Substance Samples (only if EHS reported) 3628 Waste Oil4 2851 1270 50-00-0 Formaldehyde * 0946 1198 50-07-7 Mitomycin C * 1307 1851 50-14-6 Ergocalciferol * 2391 1851 50-29-3 DDT 0596 2761 51-03-6 Piperonyl butoxide 3732 51-21-8 Fluorouracil * 1966 1851 51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2950 0076 51-75-2 Mechlorethamine * + (S) 1377 2810 10 51-75-2 Nitrogen mustard * + (S) 1377 2810 10 51-79-6 Urethane 1986 51-83-2 Carbachol chloride * 2209 52-68-6 Trichlorfon 1882 2783 52-85-7 Famphur 2915 2588 53-96-3 2-Acetylaminofluorene 0010 54-11-5 Nicotine * + 1349 1654 100 54-62-6 Aminopterin * 2112 2588 55-18-5 N-Nitrosodiethylamine 1404 55-21-0 Benzamide 2895 55-38-9 Fenthion 0916 2902 (O,O-Dimethyl O-[3-methyl-4-(methylthio) phenyl] ester, phosphorothioic acid) 55-63-0 Nitroglycerin 1383 0143 55-91-4 Isofluorphate * + 2500 3018 100 56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride 0347 1846 56-25-7 Cantharidin * + 2207 100 56-35-9 Bis(tributyltin) oxide 3479 2902 56-38-2 Parathion * + 1459 2783 100 56-72-4 Coumaphos * + 0536 2783 100 57-12-5 Cyanide 0553 1588 57-14-7 1,1-Dimethyl hydrazine * 0761 2382 57-24-9 Strychnine * + 1747 1692 100 57-33-0 Pentobarbital sodium 3726 57-41-0 Phenytoin 1507 57-47-6 Physostigmine * + 2681 2757 100 57-57-8 beta-Propiolactone * 0228 57-64-7 Physostigmine, salicylate (1:1) * + 2682 2757 100 57-74-9 Chlordane * 0361 2762 58-36-6 Phenoxarsine, 10,10'-oxydi- * 2653 1557 58-89-9 Lindane * 1117 2761 59-88-1 Phenylhydrazine hydrochloride * 2659 2572 59-89-2 N-Nitrosomorpholine 1409 60-09-3 4-Aminoazobenzene 0508 1602 60-11-7 4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene (S) 0739 1602 60-11-7 C.I.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Name Or Designation Chemical Name Common And
    Common Name or Designation Chemical Name isouron (i-so- u-ron) N'-[5-(l,l-dimethylethyl)-3-isoxazolyl] -N,iV-dimethylurea isoxaben (i-'sok-a-ben) /V-[3-(l-ethyl-l-methylpropyl)-5-isoxazolyl] -2,6-dimethoxybenzamide karbutilate (kar- 'bu-ta-lat) 3-[[(dimethylamino)carbonylJ amino] phenyl (l,l-dimethylethyl)carbamate linuron (lin-u-ron) N'-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-/V-methoxy-A/-methylurea MAA methylarsonic acid MAMA monoammonium salt of MAA MCPA (4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid MCPB 4-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)butanoic acid mecoprop (Ynek-o-prop)^ (±)-2-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)propanoic acid mefluidide (me- floo-i-did) N-[2,4-dimethyl-5-[ [(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyll amino] phenyl] acetamide metham ( meth-am) methylcarbamodithioic acid methazole ( meth-a-zol) 2-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methyl-l,2,4-oxadiazolidine-3,5-dione metolachlor (ma- tol-a-klor) 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-A/-(2-methoxy-l-methylethyl)acetamide metribuzin ('me-tri- 'bu-zan) 4-amino-6-(l,l-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-l,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one metsulfuron (met-'sul-fu-ron) 2-[[ [ [(4-methoxy-6-methyl-l,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino] carbonyl] amino] sulfonyl] benzoic acid MH l,2-dihydro-3,6-pyridazinedione molinate ( mo-lin-at) S-ethyl hexahydro-lH-azepine-l-carbothioate monuron TCA ( mon-u-ron) Salt of monuron and TCA MSMA monosodium salt of MAA napropamide (na-pro-pa-mid) /V,N-diethyl-2-(l-naphthalenyloxy)propanamide naptalam ('nap-ta-lam) 2-[(l-naphthalenylamino)carbonyl] benzoic acid nitrofen ( ni-tro-fen) 2,4-dichloro-l-(4-nitrophenqxy)benzene norea (nor- e-a)
    [Show full text]