Acephate Facts

Home , Bensulide

United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA 738-F-01-013 Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances September 2001 Agency (7508C)

Acephate Facts

EPA has assessed the risks of acephate and reached an Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) for this organophosphate (OP) pesticide. Provided that risk mitigation measures are adopted, acephate fits into its own “risk cup”-- its individual, aggregate risks are within acceptable levels. Acephate also is eligible for reregistration, pending a full reassessment of the cumulative risk from all OPs.

Acephate residues in food and drinking water do not pose risk concerns, and by reducing exposure The OP Pilot Public Participation Process in homes and through residential lawns, acephate fits The organophosphates are a group of into its own “risk cup.” EPA made this related pesticides that affect the functioning of the determination after the registrants agreed to drop nervous system. They are among EPA’s highest indoor residential uses and certain turf uses. With priority for review under the Food Quality other mitigation measures, acephate’s worker and Protection Act. ecological risks also will be below levels of concern EPA is encouraging the public to participate in the review of the OP pesticides. for reregistration. Through a six-phased pilot public participation process, the Agency is releasing for review and EPA’s next step under the Food Quality comment its preliminary and revised scientific risk Protection Act (FQPA) is to consider risks from assessments for individual OPs. (Please contact cumulative exposure to all the OP pesticides, which the OP Docket, telephone 703-305-5805, or see EPA’s web site, www.epa.gov/pesticides/op .) share a common mechanism of toxicity. The interim EPA is exchanging information with decision on acephate cannot be considered final until stakeholders and the public about the OPs, their the cumulative risk has been considered. Further uses, and risks through Technical Briefings, risk mitigation may be warranted at that time. stakeholder meetings, and other fora. USDA is coordinating input from growers and other OP pesticide users. EPA is reviewing the OP pesticides to Based on current information from determine whether they meet current health and interested stakeholders and the public, EPA is safety standards. Older OPs need decisions about making interim risk management decisions for their eligibility for reregistration under FIFRA. OPs individual OP pesticides, and will make final decisions after the cumulative risk from all OPs with residues in food, drinking water, and other non- has been considered. occupational exposures also must be reassessed to make sure they meet the new FQPA safety standard.

The acephate interim decision was made through the OP pilot public participation process, a process that increases transparency and maximizes stakeholder involvement in EPA’s development of risk assessments and risk management decisions. EPA worked extensively with affected parties to reach the decisions presented in this interim decision document that concludes the OP pilot process for acephate. Uses

• Acephate is an organophosphate insecticide currently registered for use on a variety of field, fruit, and vegetable crops (e.g., cotton, tobacco, cranberries, mint); in food handling establishments; on ornamental plants both in greenhouses and outdoors (e.g., nonbearing fruit trees, Christmas trees, and cut flowers); and in and around the home.

• Annual domestic use is approximately 4 to 5 million pounds of active ingredient per year.

Health Effects

• Acephate can cause cholinesterase inhibition in humans; that is, it can overstimulate the nervous system causing nausea, dizziness, confusion, and at very high exposures (e.g., accidents or major spills), respiratory paralysis and death.

Risks

• Dietary exposures to acephate from eating food crops treated with acephate are below the level of concern for the entire U.S. population, including infants and children. Drinking water is not a significant source of acephate exposure. However, people in the U.S. may be exposed to amounts of the acephate degradate methamidophos through food and drinking water as a result of acephate use. This exposure will be more fully addressed in the methamidophos IRED.

• EPA found risks are of concern for homeowners and children entering homes and lawn areas treated with acephate (excluding golf courses and spot or mound treatments for ant control).

• For agricultural and turf/Pest Control Operator (PCO) uses of acephate, several mixer/loader/applicator risk scenarios currently exceed the Agency’s level of concern. In addition, there are postapplication risks from the use of acephate in cut flowers.

• Ecological risks are also of concern to the Agency. Acephate and its degradate methamidophos are highly toxic to honey bees and beneficial predatory insects on an acute contact basis. Acute and chronic risks to birds and chronic risk to mammals are also high.

2 Risk Mitigation

Dietary Risk

No mitigation is necessary at this time for any dietary exposure to acephate. The acute and chronic dietary risks from acephate do not exceed the Agency’s level of concern.

However, the Agency reserves the right to require further acephate mitigation to address risks from methamidophos residues resulting from acephate uses. Any additional mitigation measures will be addressed when the methamidophos interim RED is completed.

Occupational Risk

In order to mitigate occupational risks, the following risk mitigation measures are necessary:

• Formulate all soluble powder formulations into water soluble bags, except for soluble powders sold for fire ant, harvester ant, or hopper box seed treatment uses. • Limit the 1 pound active ingredient per acre (lb ai/A) cotton aerial application rate to cotton grown in California and Arizona; reduce the maximum aerial application rate for cotton to 0.75 ai/A for all other areas of the United States. • Delete aerial application to turf. • Require enclosed cockpits and mechanical flagging for all aerial applications. • Reduce maximum sod farm and golf course turf application rates (non-granular formulations) to 3 lb ai/A and 4 lb ai/A, respectively. • Reduce maximum application rates for greenhouse floral and foliage plant crops, and outdoor floral and ground covers to 1 lb ai per 100 gallons water (not to exceed 0.75 lb ai/A for cut flowers and 1.0 lb ai/A for other ornamentals). • Delete the application of acephate by low pressure handwand to treat trees, shrubs, and outdoor flora; for the control of wasps; and for perimeter treatment by PCOs. • Delete the use of granular formulations to be applied by belly grinder, shaker can, or by hand to trees, shrubs, and 12" pots. • Add personal protective equipment to end use product labels for workers who mix and load, and/or apply acephate.

Residential Risk

In order to mitigate residential postapplication risk, the following risk mitigation measures are necessary:

• Delete residential indoor uses. • Delete all turfgrass uses (except golf course, sod farm, and spot or mound treatment for ant control). • Establish a 3 day pre-harvest interval (PHI) for the harvesting of sod.

3 Ecological Risk

The Agency has determined that the following mitigation measures are needed to address ecological risk concerns:

• Establish minimum spray intervals for all agricultural crops of 3 days for application rates up to 0.5 lb ai/A and of 7 days for application rates greater than 0.5 lb ai/A. • Require labeling to protect honeybees. • Require labeling to reduce the potential for spray drift.

In addition, the measures to reduce occupational and residential risk will also reduce environmental loading and the potential impact to non-target organisms.

Next Steps

• Numerous opportunities for public comment were offered as this decision was being developed. The acephate IRED therefore is issued in final (see www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm or www.epa.gov/pesticides/op ), without a formal public comment period. The docket remains open, however, and any comments submitted in the future will be placed in this public docket.

• In addition, further mitigation of acephate uses may be necessary to reduce risks from methamidophos residues that result from acephate applications. Once the methamidophos IRED is complete, the Agency will determine whether the methamidophos exposure resulting from acephate use poses risk concerns. Any potential further mitigation will be discussed at the time the methamidophos interim RED is released.

• When the cumulative risk assessment for all organophosphate pesticides is completed, EPA will issue its final tolerance reassessment decision for acephate and may request further risk mitigation measures. The Agency will revoke 3 tolerances and lower 4 tolerances for acephate now. Reassessment of 14 tolerances will be made once additional residue data on cotton gin byproducts have been reviewed. For all OPs, raising and/or establishing tolerances will be considered once a cumulative assessment is completed.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

Directorate E – Food Safety: plant health, animal health and welfare, international questions E1 - Plant health

Acephate SANCO/3057/99-final 31 May 2002

Review report for the active substance acephate Finalised in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health at its meeting on 18 October 2002 in support of a decision concerning the non-inclusion of acephate in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing this active substance

1. Procedure followed for the re-evaluation process

This review report has been established as a result of the re-evaluation of acephate, made in the context of the work programme for review of existing active substances provided for in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, with a view to the possible inclusion of this substance in Annex I to the Directive.

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92(1) laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1972/99(2), has laid down the detailed rules on the procedure according to which the re-evaluation has to be carried out. Acephate is one of the 90 existing active substances covered by this Regulation.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92, United Phosphorus Ltd. on 26 July 1993, K & N EFTHYMIADIS SA on 19 July 1993, Cequisa on 23 July 1993, SANC on 23 July 1993, Tomen France SA on 22 July 1993, Iberotam on 26 July 1993, Industrias Quimicas del Valles on 28 July 1993, Pilar Iberica SL Juan Amich Gali on 23 July 1993, Helm AG on 23 July 1993, Industrias Afrasa on 27 July 1993, B.V. Luxan Registration Department on 21 July 1993 and B& S Buy & Sell GmbH on 28 April 1995 notified to the Commission of their wish to secure the inclusion of the active substance acephate in Annex I to the Directive.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92, the Commission, by its Regulation (EEC) No 933/94(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2230/95(4), designated Italy as rapporteur Member State to carry out the assessment of acephate

1 OJ No L 366, 15.12.1992, p.10. 2 OJ No L 244, 16.09.1999, p.41. 3 OJ No L 107, 28.04.1994, p.8. 4 OJ No L 225, 22.09.1995, p.1. - 2 -

on the basis of the dossiers submitted by the notifiers. In the same Regulation, the Commission specified furthermore the deadline for the notifiers with regard to the submission to the rapporteur Member States of the dossiers required under Article 6(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92, as well as for other parties with regard to further technical and scientific information; for acephate this deadline was 30 April 1995.

Tomen France S.A., Sinon EU Corporation, M/s Cequisa and B & S Buy and Sell GmbH submitted each a dossier to the rapporteur Member State. Tomen France S.A. was the main data submitter, with a dossier which did not contain substantial data gaps, taking into account the supported uses. Sinon EU Corporation, M/s Cequisa and B & S Buy and Sell GmbH did not submit complete dossiers.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92, Italy submitted on 30 September 1996 to the Commission the report of its examination, hereafter referred to as the draft assessment report, including, as required, a recommendation concerning the possible inclusion of acephate in Annex I to the Directive. Moreover, in accordance with the same provisions, the Commission and the Member States received also the summary dossier on acephate from Tomen France S.A., on 24 October 1996.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92, the Commission forwarded for consultation the draft assessment report to all the Member States as well as to Tomen France S.A. being the main data submitter, on 30 August 1999, 8 September 1999.

The Commission organised an intensive consultation of technical experts from a certain number of Member States, to review the draft assessment report and the comments received thereon (peer review), in particular on each of the following disciplines:

- identity and physical /chemical properties ; - fate and behaviour in the environment ; - ecotoxicology ; - mammalian toxicology ; - residues and analytical methods ; - regulatory questions.

The meetings for this consultation were organised on behalf of the Commission by the Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land und Forstwirtschaft (BBA) in Braunschweig, Germany, from November 1999 to July 2000.

The report of the peer review (i.e. full report) was circulated, for further consultation, to Member States and the main data submitter on 15 June 2001 for comments and further clarification.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 6(4) of Directive 91/414/EEC concerning consultation in the light of a possible unfavourable decision for the active substance the Commission organised a tripartite meeting with the main data submitter and the rapporteur Member State for this active substance on 18 June 2002.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92, the dossier, the draft assessment report, the peer review report (i.e. full report) and the comments and - 3 -

clarifications on the remaining issues, received after the peer review were referred to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health , and specialised working groups of this Committee, for final examination, with participation of experts from the 15 Member States. This final examination took place from February 2001 to June 2002, and was finalised in the meeting of the Standing Committee on 18 October 2002.

The present review report contains the conclusions of this final examination; given the importance of the draft assessment report, the peer review report (i.e. full report) and the comments and clarifications submitted after the peer review as basic information for the final examination process, these documents are considered respectively as background documents A, B and C to this review report and are part of it.

2. Purposes of this review report

This review report including the background documents has been developed and finalised in 5 support of Decision 03/219/EC concerning the non-inclusion (at this stage) of acephate in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 7(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92, Member States will keep available or make available this review report for consultation by any interested parties or will make it available to them on their specific request. Moreover the Commission will send a copy of this review report (not including the background documents) to all operators having notified for this active substance under Article 4(1) of this Regulation.

3. Overall conclusion in the context of Directive 91/414/EEC

The overall conclusion of this evaluation, based on the information available and the proposed conditions of use, is that:

- the information available is insufficient to satisfy the requirements set out in Annex II and Annex III Directive 91/414/EEC in particular with regard to acute consumer exposure and non-target organisms

- concerns were identified with regard to

S acute consumer exposure S non-target organisms, in particular non-target arthropods, birds and mammals, as well as aquatic organisms

In conclusion from the assessments made on the basis of the submitted information, no plant protection products containing the active substance concerned is expected to satisfy in general the requirements laid down in Article 5 (1) (a) and (b) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC.

5 OJ N° L82, 29.3.03, p. 40. Article i

Persistence and residual toxicity of some insecticides against Phenacoccussolenopsis on cotton (Gossypiumspp)

Article in Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 79(3):203-206 · March 2009 with 57 Reads

Cite this publication

Ashok Dhawan

20.29Punjab Agricultural University

Sushil Saini

44.42Independent Researcher

Kamaldeep Singh

30.92Alliance University

AnandAneja

Abstract

The persistence and residual toxicity of profenophos, thiodicarb, buprofezin, quinalphos, chlorantraniliprole, spirotetremate, acephate, carbaryl and chlorpyriphos at recommended concentrations in field on cotton (Gossypiumspp) against first instar and adult female of mealy bug Phenacoccussolenopsis Tinsley. The mortality data for the crawlers were taken up to 24 hr, whereas for the adult females, the mortality data were recorded up to 72 hr within different exposure periods of 1,3,7,10 and 14 days after application of the insecticides. Based on the index of persistence toxicity, the order of effectiveness for the crawlers of P. solenopsis were profenophos (637.1) >thiodicarb (587.9) >buprofezin (492.3) > quinalphos (407.9) >chlorantraniliprole (380.0) >spirotetramate (371.6) >acephate (345.7) >carbaryl (314.6) >chlorpyriphos (273.4). Similarly, for the adult female this order of effectiveness was profenophos (572.9) >buprofezin (483.1) >thiodicarb (430.0) > quinalphos (379.9) >chlorantraniliprole (371.6) >spirotetramate (361.3) >acephate (296.7) >carbaryl (260.0) >chlorpyriphos (252.3).

Sonoda S, Igaki C. Characterization of acephate resistance in the diamondback moth Plutellaxylostella. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology

Article in Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 98(1):121-127 · September 2010 with 32 Reads

DOI: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2010.05.010

Cite this publication

Shoji Sonoda

Chikako Igaki

Abstract

Decreased acetylcholinesterase (AChE) sensitivity and metabolic detoxification mediated by glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) were examined for their involvement in resistance to acephatein the diamondback moth, Plutellaxylostella. The resistant strain showed 47.5-fold higher acephate resistance than the susceptible strain had. However, the resistant strain was only 2.3-fold more resistant to prothiofos than the susceptible strain. The resistant strain included insects having the A298S and G324A mutations in AChE1, which are reportedly involved in prothiofos resistance in P. xylostella, showing reduced AChE sensitivity to inhibition by methamidophos, suggesting that decreased AChE1 sensitivity is one factor conferring acephate resistance. However, allele frequencies at both mutation sites in the resistant strain were low (only 26%). These results suggest that other factors such as GSTs are involved in acephate resistance. Expression of GST genes available in P. xylostella to date was examined using the resistant and susceptible strains, revealing no significant correlation between the expression and resistance levels.

Search ScienceDirect

Advanced

Outline

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Materials and methods

3. Results

4. Discussion

Acknowledgments

References

Figures (4)

Fig. 1. Frequencies of the A298S and G324A mutations in the SS and MR strains of…

Fig. 2. Inhibitory effect of methamidophos on crude AChE preparations from SS and MR…

Fig. 3. Amino acid sequence alignment of the delta GSTs from Plutellaxylostella (Pxd),… Fig. 4. Quantification of expression levels of GST genes from Plutellaxylostella by…

Elsevier

Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology

Volume 98, Issue 1, September 2010, Pages 121-127

Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology

Characterization of acephate resistance in the diamondback moth Plutellaxylostella

Author links open overlay panelShojiSonodaChikakoIgaki https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2010.05.010Get rights and content

Abstract

Decreased acetylcholinesterase (AChE) sensitivity and metabolic detoxification mediated by glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) were examined for their involvement in resistance to acephate in the diamondback moth, Plutellaxylostella. The resistant strain showed 47.5-fold higher acephate resistance than the susceptible strain had. However, the resistant strain was only 2.3-fold more resistant to prothiofos than the susceptible strain. The resistant strain included insects having the A298S and G324A mutations in AChE1, which are reportedly involved in prothiofos resistance in P. xylostella, showing reduced AChE sensitivity to inhibition by methamidophos, suggesting that decreased AChE1 sensitivity is one factor conferring acephate resistance. However, allele frequencies at both mutation sites in the resistant strain were low (only 26%). These results suggest that other factors such as GSTs are involved in acephate resistance. Expression of GST genes available in P. xylostella to date was examined using the resistant and susceptible strains, revealing no significant correlation between the expression and resistance levels.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322163075

Detection of insecticide resistance and mechanisms of resistance in ﬁeld populations of Chrysoperla zastrowi sillemi (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) collected from different geographica...

Article in Journal of Biological Control · January 2017 DOI: 10.18311/jbc/2017/16333

CITATIONS READS 0 166

5 authors, including:

Thiruvengadam Venkatesan Sushil K. Jalali ICAR-National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources

215 PUBLICATIONS 713 CITATIONS 306 PUBLICATIONS 1,379 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ramya Shanivarsanthe Leelesh University of Bedfordshire

19 PUBLICATIONS 67 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Insecticide resistance in brown plant hopper Nilaparvatha lugens View project

Taxonomic Mapping of semi-aquatic bugs from Sikkim-Himalayas View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thiruvengadam Venkatesan on 01 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Journal of Biological Control, 31(3): 61-68, 2017, DOI: 10.18311/jbc/2017/16333

Research Article

Detection of insecticide resistance and mechanisms of resistance in field populations of Chrysoperla zastrowi sillemi (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) collected from different geographical locations in India

T. VENKATESAN1*, S. HELEN MAHIBA2, S. K. JALALI1, S. L. RAMYA1 and M. PRATIBHA1 1ICAR-National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources, P.B. No. 2491, H.A. Farm Post, Hebbal, Banaglore - 560024, Karnataka, India 2Regional Seri cultural Research Station Central Silk Board, Veeranam Road, Allikuttai Post, Vaikkalapattarai, Salem - 636003, Tamil Nadu, India *Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT: The toxic effect of commonly used insecticides in cotton fields was studied on 9 populations of Chrysoperla zastrowi sillemi (Esben-Petersen), an important predator of sucking pests collected in India. The dose mortality bioassay against 3-days old larvae was determined using three insecticides viz., endosulfan, fenvalerate and acephate by topical bioassay method. Mechanism of resistance to the above mentioned insecticides were determined without and with three metabolic inhibitors (synergists), viz., piperonyl butoxide (PBO), S,S,S-tributyl-phosphorotrithioate (DEF) and diethyl maleate (DEM). Among the populations, resistant ratios (RR) of CZS-8 was significantly higher i.e. 50.36., 66.11 and 277.51-fold for endosulfan, fenvalerate and acephate, respectively compared to susceptible population (CZS-10). The CZS-8 was selected for synergism study it showed higher LC50 values and resistance ratio for all three insecticides. It showed 8.97-fold, 18.49-fold and 6.38-fold increase in synergism ratio for endosulfan indicating the resistance was strongly synergised by PBO, DEF and DEM. Similarly for fenvalerate, CZS-8 showed 8.69-fold and 3.63-fold significant increase in synergism ratio by DEF and DEM, respectively and for acephate, CZS-8 showed 54.82-fold, 150.87-fold and 113.52-fold significant increase in synergism ratio indicating that the resistance could be due to cytochrome p-450, esterase and glutathione s- transferase activity. The study indicated that the field population of C. z. sillemi developed resistance to different groups of insecticides. Among different geographical populations, CZS-8 collected from Sriganganagar, was recorded as most resistant.

KEY WORDS: Chrysoperla zastrowi sillemi, cytochrome p450, esterase, glutathione –S- transferase insecticide resistance

(Article chronicle: Received: 22-06-2017; Revised: 21-09-2017; Accepted: 30-09-2017

INTRODUCTION Miyata, 2005). However, resistance development is due to a combination of biological and ecological factors operating The Common green lacewing, Chrysoperla zastrowi in the field (Venkatesan et al., 2009; Pathan et al., 2010). sillemi (Esben-Petersen) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), is an Compatibility of insecticide with biocontrol agents is im- important biological control agent of sucking pests in dif- portant as their application against the insect pests directly ferent agroecosystems (Symondron et al., 2002; Venkatesan and indirectly determines the effectiveness of bioagents. et al., 2008; Henry et al., 2010). It has long been considered In nature, populations of predators and insect pests always as a promising candidate for pest management programs mutually co-exist often in a density-dependant association. worldwide due to its wide prey range and geographical dis- Any adaptation of the insect pests with insecticide sprays is tribution, voracious larval feeding capacity and commer- likely to be followed by the predator also to sustain them- cial availability (Medina et al., 2003; Pathan et al., 2010; selves in a given habitat. Sayyed et al., 2010). Parasitoids and predators are highly susceptible to insecticides than their host insects [Croft and In India, several chemical insecticides are used in- Brown, 1975), which make them difficult to establish in in- discriminately to control insect pests especially on cotton secticide sprayed field. Parasitoids and predators are known against sucking pests, which has led to resistance in many to develop resistance to insecticides in nature like their prey insect pests (Reddy and Rao, 1989; Kranthi et al., 2001). insects either by direct exposure or by consumption of prey In a study conducted from 2007 to 2009, monocrotophos insects treated with insecticides (Wu et al., 2004; Wu and 61 Detection of insecticide resistance and mechanisms of resistance in field populations ofChrysoperla zastrowi sillemi resistance was documented in field populations of C. zas- cotton fields in 9 cotton growing districts in eight states, trowi sillemi (Venkatesan et al., 2009). Chrysopid predators viz., Coimbatore (Tamil Nadu state) Anand (Gujarat state), have been found resistant to insecticides in USA (Grafton Delhi state, Sirsa (Haryana state), Sriganganagar & Udaipur and Hoy, 1985), Pakistan (Pathan et al., 2008; Sayyed et al., (Rajasthan state), Guntur (Andhra Pradesh state), Dhar- 2010), India (Venkatesan et al., 2009) & Canada (Pree et ward (Karnataka state) and Ludhiana (Punjab state). The al., 2009). In a study, significantly higher fitness attributes pesticide use pattern was recorded from each collection site viz., intrinsic rate, survival rate, doubling time and predation (Table 1). A laboratory population of C. z. sillemi originally rate has been reported in organophosphate and pyrethroid maintained for the past 11 years at ICAR-National Bureau resistant populations of C. carnea (Pathan et al., 2008) con- of Agricultural Insect Resources (NBAIR), Bangalore, In- trary to general belief of genetic trade-off in such attributes dia, without exposing to insecticides for 125 generations in insects. However, information about the resistance level was used in the study as susceptible population. for different groups of insecticides and the mechanism(s) of resistance is important for successful augmentative releases Laboratory rearing of the resistant strain especially in the IPM of insect pests. Chrysoperla zastrowi sillemi populations were main- Therefore, release of insecticide resistant predators would tained separately in the laboratory on UV exposed (15 watt improve their survival in sprayed situations for potential use for one h in UV hood) eggs of Corcyra cephalonica (Stain- in augmentative biological control or integrated pest man- ton). UV exposure of eggs was done in order to kill the em- agement strategies in many crops. Further, such predators bryo and facilitate the rearing of the Chrysoperla. Freshly can play an effective role in delaying the development of re- emerged adults were transferred to oviposition chambers sistance in pest populations and reduce the pest resurgence. (14 cm x 9 cm) covered with muslin cloth. Cotton swabs dipped in water and the other with 50% honey, proteinex Metabolic enzymes play a significant role in detoxifi- (Pfizer limited, Mumbai, India) (consisting of pre-digested cation of insecticides in insects (Motoyama, 1980). Mixed protein enriched with vitamins, carbohydrates and miner- function oxidase, glutathione-s-transferase and esterase are als), yeast and sucrose in the ratio of 1:1:1:1) and castor involved in many insects in insecticide resistance mecha- pollen grains was provided as adult feed and covered with nisms (Narahashi et al., 1995) due to their ability to de- perforated brown paper for egg laying. Eggs were collected toxify insecticides and other xenobiotics (Li et al., 2007). at two-day intervals and kept for hatching with C. cepha- Many synergists such as piperonyl butoxide (PBO), diethyl lonica eggs and the containers were covered with perforated maleate (DEM) and S,S,S-tributyl phosphoro trithioate brown paper. Freshly emerged larvae were kept individually (DEF) used at non-toxic doses are known to inhibit monox- in glass vials (4 x 2.5 cm) plugged with cotton and fed on ygenase, glutathione-s-transferase and esterase activities, Corcyra eggs. The rearing was done at 26±1ºC, 65±5% RH respectively (Casida, 1970; Scott, 1990). However, work at a photoperiod of 14L: 10D in a plant growth chamber. on insecticide resistance and mechanisms of resistance in chrysopid predators is very scanty and this is first kind of Insecticides such study in India. Therefore, in the present study, based Commercial formulations of insecticides have been on the initial screening to representatives of three major used for dosage mortality and synergism studies (Sayyed groups of insecticides, namely endosulfan (cyclodiene), et al., 2010; Ahmad and Hollingwoth, 2004). Furthermore, fenvalerate (synthetic pyrethroid) and acephate (organo- field resistance has been always reported for commercial phosphate), a resistant strain of C. z. sillemi (CZS-8) was formulation of insecticides. Hence, the following formulat- selected and effect of synergists (PBO, DEM & DEF), ed insecticides were used for bioassays and also for syner- known to inhibit important detoxification routes, was inves- gism studies: endosulfan 35 EC (Excel Crop Care Limited, tigated to know the mechanisms of resistance in the resist- Mumbai), fenvalerate 20 EC (Aimco pesticides Limited, ant population of C. z. sillemi. Thus the study focuses on Mumbai, India) and acephate 75% SP (Jai Radhe Sales, selection of an insecticide resistant predator C. z. sillemi Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India). All other chemicals were of which can be used as one of the important components in analytical grade and purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Bel- the pest management strategies especially under insecticide gium). stressed crop conditions. Dose mortality bioassays MATERIALS AND METHODS Based on the field recommended dosage of endosul- Chrysoperla zastrowi sillemi populations fan (0.07%) (2.0 ml/litre), fenvalerate (0.04%) (0.2 ml/litre) Nine populations of Chrysoperla z. sillemi (~100 lar- and acephate (0.05%) (0.67 g/litre) in India, the following vae/adults) were collected in 2008-09 from heavily sprayed concentrations were used for the bioassay studies: endosul-

62 VENKATESAN et al. fan (0,0625, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0, 16.0, 32.0, 64.0, ionised water (100-fold) [25]. Endosulfan @ 94.0 ml/liter, 74.0, 84.0, 94.0 ml/lit), fenvalerate (0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.6, 3.2, fenvalerate @ 61.2ml/liter and acephate @ 686.08 g/lit 6.4, 12.8, 25.6, 51.2, 61.2 ml/lit) and acephate (1.34, 2.68, were mixed with water and a series of dilutions was made. 5.36, 10.72, 21.44, 42.88, 85.76, 171.52, 343.04, 686.08 gm/lit). These were applied on 3-d-old larvae of C. z. sil- Data analysis lemi larvae in the weight range of 0.8 to 1.2 mg by using The results from all replicates for each insecticide were topical assays (Pathan et al., 2008). Each insecticide was pooled and dose mortality regressions were computed by tested with seven concentrations initially and as we did not Probit analysis [Finney, 1952), using SPSS 16.0 software. get 50% mortality, the number of concentrations were fur- Resistance ratio (RR) was calculated as LC50 of the field ther increased to 13, 10, 10 for endosulfan, acephate and strain/LC50 of the susceptible strain. Synergism ratios and fenvalerate, respectively. Each concentration was replicated their confidence limits were calculated using the formula thrice to determine the LC50 value. The treated larvae were and statistics of dose ratios [Robertson and Preisler, 1992]. provided with Corcyra eggs and were reared in a growth chamber at a temperature and RH as mentioned earlier. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Untreated (control) larvae were treated with distilled water Toxicity Bioassays alone. At least 30 larvae were used for each concentration and in control. The mortality was recorded after 48 h and Among the 9 field and one laboratory populations the larvae were considered dead if they did not move when of C. z. sillemi tested, Sriganganagar population (CZS-8) recorded maximum LC for endosulfan (252.82 ml/lit.) prodded. 50 followed by the population from Delhi (CZS-5), Anand Synergism studies (CZS-4), Udaipur (CZS-9), Ludhiana (CZS-7) and Dhar- CZS-8 population of C. Z. sillemi, which had highest wad (CZS-2) and these were significantly different from all other populations (Table 2). The resistance ratio (RR) was LC50 and resistant factor for all three groups of insecticides was selected for synergism studies. For synergism assays, highest (50.36-fold) in Sriganganagar (CZS-8) followed by the synergist piperonyl butoxide (PBO; 0.5ul (0.5mg/100 Delhi (CZS-5) (26.02-fold), Anand (CZS-4) (21.46-fold) ml) (90% purity), diethyl maleate (DEM: 0.5ul (0.5mg/100 and Udaipur (CZS-9) population (15.4- fold). Non-overlap- ml) (97% purity) and S,S,S-tributyl phosphorotrithioate ping test of significance indicated that between the popu- (DEF; 0.5ul (0.5mg/100 ml) (98% purity) were dissolved lations, there was significant difference the populations, individually in a mixture of N,N,-dimethylformamide and however, all the resistant populations, viz., CZS-1 to CZS- tween-80 (3:1 by weight) and subsequently diluted with de- 9 were significantly different from susceptible population (P≤0.01). Table 1. Insecticide usage at sampling sites of Chrysoperla zastrowi sillemi on cotton 2007-2009 cropping seasons Sl. Collection site Code Collection Details of insecticides used and no. of sprays Latitude Longitude No. (District &State-wise) No. period (year prior to collection) 1 Coimbatore CZS-1 April 2008 Triazophos, endosulfan, quinalphos, acephate 75% SP, 11 º 00’N 77º 00’E (Tamil Nadu) fenitrothion 3 sprays/month) 2 Dharwad CZS-2 Sep-2009 Imidaclopid 17.8 SL, thiomethaxam 70 WS, oxydemeton 15 º 27’N 75º 05’E (Karnataka) methyl 25 EC, dimethoate 30 EC & endosulfan, 35 EC (3-5 sprays/month) 3 Guntur CZS-3 Dec.2008 Endosulfan,triazophos, profenphos, acephate 75 % SP, 16 º 18’N 80º 29’E (Andhra Pradesh) indoxocarb (4-5 times/month) 4 Anand CZS-4 Nov. 2008 Fenvalerate 20 EC, endosulfan 35 EC, profenphos, spi- 22 º 32’N 73º 00’E (Gujarat) nosad 48 SC, acephate 75 % SP (3 sprays/month) 5 Delhi CZS-5 Oct. 2008 Acephate 75 % WP, oxydemeton methyl 25 EC , 28 º 38’N 77º 12’E dimethoate 30 EC (3 sprays/month) 6 Sirsa CZS-6 Oct. 2008 Acephate, triazophos, spinosad, indoxocarb, fenvalerate 29 º 53’N 75º 020’E (Haryana) (4 sprays/month) 7 Ludhiana CZS-7 May 2009 Acephate, triazophos, spinosad, indoxocarb, fenvalerate 30º 55’N 75º 54’E (Punjab) (4 sprays/month) 8 SriGanganagar CZS-8 Oct. 2008 oxydemeton methyl 25 EC , dimethoate 30 EC, acephate 29º 49’N 73º 50’E (Rajasthan) 75% SP, phosphamidon 85 WSC/ha (3-4 sprays/month) 9 Udaipur CZS-9 Feb. 2009 Acephate 75 % WP, oxydemeton methyl 25 EC, 27º 42’N 75º 33’E (Rajasthan) dimethoate 30 EC, phosphamidon 85 WSC/ha (3-4 sprays/month)

63 Detection of insecticide resistance and mechanisms of resistance in field populations ofChrysoperla zastrowi sillemi

Table 2. Toxicity of endosulfan to field collected and lab reared (susceptible) Chrysoperla zastrowi sillemi

χ2 Strain n Slope + SE LC50 95 % FL Probability RR (g/lit or ml/lit) p CZS-1 210 0.615+ 0.449 21.21 b 14.18-32.23 5.4 0.75 4.2 CZS-2 215 1.35+ 0.805 69.12 a 39.22-436.45 1.518 0.997 13.76 CZS-3 230 1.95+ 1.09 54.36 a 31.46-78.93 1.71 0.998 10.82 CZS-4 211 3.34+ 1.76 107.75 a 84.51-1222.67 1.29 1.000 21.46 CZS-5 212 3.85+2.04 130.60 a 87.46-1262.86 6.76 0.818 26.02 CZS-6 240 1.72+1.09 36.89 b 22.0-64.96 0.625 0.996 7.34 CZS-7 218 2.451+1.35 70.41 a 54.31-106.51 6.91 0.621 14.02 CZS-8 225 0.982+0.586 252.82 a 87.46-3235.14 1.55 0.997 50.36 CZS-9 220 1.28+0.79 77.31 a 50.45-166.90 6.68 0.824 15.4 CZS-10@ 240 0.792+0.617 5.02 c 3.49-7.07 1.033 0.984 n = Number of larvae used in bioassay, including controls.

RR= Resistance Ratio, calculated as LC50 of field collected (or resistance) strain /LC50 of susceptible @= lab reared susceptible population Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different (P<0.01; non-overlapping of 95% FL) Abbreviations: LC= Lethal Concentration expressed as gm/larva; FL= Fiducial limits; SE= Standard Error; RR= Resistance Ratio *= P ≥0.05 indicates s significant fit between the observed and expressed regression lines in a probit analysis.

In the test of significance by non-overlapping method, CZS-6 (17.94-fold) (Table 3). for fenvalerate, CZS-8 recorded high resistance (81.98 ml/ litre) which was on par with Delhi, Ludhiana, Anand and Resistance to acephate was highest in Sriganganagar Dharwad populations and were significantly different from population (CZS-8) (535.60 g/litre) which was significantly at par with CZS-9, CZS-6, CZS-3 and CZS-1 and were sig- remaining field populations. LC50 of all the field populations were significantly different from susceptible popula- nificantly superior to rest of the populations (Table 4). The tion (P≤0.01). Resistance ratio (RR) for fenvalerate ranged study showed that C. z. sillemi had cross resistance to dif- from 9.12 to 66.11-fold in the 9 populations. The highest ferent groups of insecticides, viz., endosulfan, fenvalerate RR was recorded in CZS-8 (66.11-fold) followed by CZS-5 and acephate. (38.89-fold), CZS-9 (25.91-fold), CZS-4 (21.64-fold) and

Table 3. Toxicity of fenvalerate to field collected and lab reared (susceptible) Chrysoperla zastrowi sillemi

χ2 Strain n Slope + SE LC50 95% FL Probability RR g/lit or ml/lit P* CZS-1 240 0.272+.214 11.32 b 7.02-19.21 3.36 0.971 9.12 CZS-2 225 0.640+0.529 17.52 a 8.08-57.84 1.39 0.966 14.12 CZS-3 211 1.19+0.933 14.93 b 8.92-22.48 1.23 1.000 12.04 CZS-4 223 0.66+0.517 26.84 a 16.93-58.12 1.59 0.991 21.64 CZS-5 210 2.35+1.48 48.23 a 36.46-99.20 0.127 0.988 38.89 CZS-6 215 0.455+0.359 22.25 b 13.57-44.77 5.37 0.865 17.94 CZS-7 210 0.620+0.448 24.26 a 12.73-54.70 3.26 0.860 19.56 CZS-8 215 1.112+0.704 81.98 a 48.72-758.39 0.847 0.932 66.11 CZS-9 230 2.004+1.26 32.14 b 18.4-46.07 1.48 0.993 25.91 CZS-10@ 212 0333+0.2 1.24 c 0.48-2.762 2.23 0.973 n = Number of larvae used in bioassay, including controls.

64 VENKATESAN et al.

Table 4. Toxicity of acephate to field collected and lab reared (susceptible) Chrysoperla zastrowi sillemi

χ2 Strain n Slope + SE LC50 95 % FL Probability RR g/lit or ml/lit p CZS-1 223 2.61+1.09 384.02 a 260.95-1565.43 0.958 1.000 198.97 CZS-2 210 0.792+0.617 5.02 c 3.49-7.07 1.033 0.984 2.60 CZS-3 230 2.47+0.952 501.63 a 326.93-1114.73 8.09 0.778 259.91 CZS-4 215 7.71+5.6 5.30 c 3.52-7.92 0.026 1.00 2.74 CZS-5 230 1.201+1.01 12.66 b 9.26-16.05 1.86 0.967 6.55 CZS-6 210 2.43+1.06 255.04 a 171.12-564.53 2.5 0.996 132.14 CZS-7 215 0.455+0.359 22.25 b 13.57-44.77 5.37 0.865 11.52 CZS-8 210 2.61+0.98 535.60 a 362.98-1041.18 1.84 0.985 277.51 CZS-9 218 1.93+0.782 317.88 a 192.49-585.41 .2.8 0.946 164.70 CZS-10@ 212 1.04+0.59 1.93 c 0.163-3.604 0.457 1.00 n = Number of larvae used in bioassay, including controls.

In India, insecticides are the most common means of of the field collected populations of C. z. sillemi showed controlling the pests by farmers and acephate, fenvaler- high resistance to acephate, fenvalerate and endosulfan in ate and endosulfan are the most widely used insecticides this study. This shows clearly that C. z. sillemi, which is the against sucking pests on cotton (Radika and Subbaratnam, dominant predator found in cotton has developed resistance 2006; Dhawan et al., 2009). Armes et al. (1994) reported to different groups of insecticides along with insect pests that use of increasing number of insecticide brands, spu- in India. The enhanced resistance in Sriganganagar popula- rious insecticide use, lack of proper recommendations are tion (CZS-8) of C. z. sillemi correlates well with the greater the some of the reasons for the pest management problems use of insecticides in that region, particularly on cotton, in India. As a result insect pests developed resistance to where on average of 8-22 rounds of sprays of insecticides different groups of insecticides which forces the farmers were used against a complex of insect pests [Kranthi et al., to go for increased number of insecticides to combat the 2001]. The development of insecticide resistance in C. z. pests. Kranthi et al. (2001) reported that many insect pests sillemi is primarily a result of the selection pressure exerted have developed resistance to these insecticides on cotton. on sprayed populations increasing the frequency of resistant Since the introduction of Bt cotton in India, frequency of individuals which perhaps would have altered the genetic insecticides applied against bollworms has come down make-up of the organisms to survive and withstand higher drastically, however, sucking pests like aphids, whiteflies, doses of insecticides. Venkatesan et al. [2009] reported that thrips, mealybugs and leafhoppers are a serious bottleneck out of the 9 field populations of C. z. sillemi, Sriganganagar for successful cultivation of cotton and insecticides are in- (Rajasthan, India) population exhibited very high resistance creasingly applied to combat such pests. However, studies to monocrotophos as compared to laboratory population. on development of insecticide resistance in natural enemies The study further supports our findings that the predator are very scanty. In this connection, insecticide resistant C. from Sriganganagar (CZS-8) developed resistance not only z. sillemi would be useful for the effective suppression of to monocrotophos but also to endosulfan, fenvalerate and sucking pests as they can survive and multiply in sprayed acephate with RR increased to 50.36-fold, 66.11-fold and situation. 277.51-fold, respectively, compared to susceptible. Sayyed et al. (2010) reported RRs of 47, 86, 137, 76 and 110 for Field strains of H. armigera exhibited widespread deltamethrin, alphamethrin, lamdacyhalothrin, chlorpyrifos resistance to synthetic pyrethroid (cypermethrin) with and profenofos for resistant C. carnea as compared to lab 23–8022-fold resistances. Resistance to endosulfan (23-57- population in Pakistan, which was in conformity with our fold) and chlorpyriphos (4-82-fold) was low to high in H. study. Natural tolerance to pyrethroid in C. carnea has been armigera was observed. Besides, Spodoptera litura, Earias reported [Plapp and Bull, 1978). Further, Croft and Brown vitella and Bemisia tabaci from cotton filed developed mod- [1975] reported that natural enemies were more tolerant erate to high level of resistance to pyrethroid, organophos- than their prey or host (67 of 92 cases) and predators were phate and cyclodiene in India (Dhawan et al., 2009). Some more tolerant than their prey (63 of 77 cases). Among the

65 Detection of insecticide resistance and mechanisms of resistance in field populations ofChrysoperla zastrowi sillemi natural enemies, Amblyseius chilenensis was the first preda- toxicity of endosulfan, 0.855-fold for fenvalerate and 54.32- tory mite found resistant to chemical pesticides (Kranthi fold for acephate. DEF caused an 18.49-fold increase in et al., 2002). Similarly, insecticide resistance in different toxicity of endosulfan in CZS-8 population. The synergism geographical populations of Chrysoperla carnea in Paki- of DEF on fenvalerate in CZS-8 population enhanced the stan was earlier reported [Pathan et al., 2008; Sayyed et al., toxicity by 8.69-fold and DEF showed obvious synergism. 2010; Venkatesan et al., 2009). Hence it may correct that On acephate in the same strain, the synergism increased to chrysopid predators in India and Pakistan is being increas- 8.69-fold. The synergism of DEM on endosulfan enhanced ingly developed resistance to insecticides especially from the toxicity by 6.38-fold; 3.63-fold for endosulfan, fenva- the cotton which could be due to heavy insecticidal sprays lerate, respectively and 113.52-fold for acephate. Syner- used to control the sucking pests especially for the newly gism was found to be very low when the effect of PBO was introduced cotton mealybug Phenococus solenopsis. tested on resistance for fenvalerate in CZS-8. However, a synergistic effect could be detected in those populations Synergism studies when treated with DEF with endosulfan, fenvalerate and The population CZS-8 was selected for synergism acephate. DEF produced a very high synergistic effect on acephate (SR ratio: 150.87) followed by endosulfan (SR studies based on their higher LC50 and RR. PBO had different effects on the toxicity of endosulfan, fenvalerate and ratio: 18.49) and fenvalerate (SR ratio: 8.69). This shows acephate (Table 5) to insecticide resistant (CZS-8) and sus- that DEF enhanced synergism in acephate, fenvalerate and ceptible populations. PBO caused an 8.97-fold increase in endosulfan. Table 5. Toxicity of endosulfan, fenvalerate and acephate with and without synergists to insecticide resistant and susceptible strains of Chrysoperla zastrowi sillemi

Population Treatment Slope ±SE LC50 (95% CL) SR Lab Endosulfan 0.792+0.617 5.02 22-64.96 ---- + PBO 0.239±0.220 3.202 1.23-6.64 1.57 + DEF 0.268±0.232 4.85 1.22-11.16 1.03 + DEM 0.268±0.243 2.35 0.32-5.56 2.1 CZS-8 Endosulfan 0.982+0.586 252.82 87.46-3.23 --- + PBO 1.26+0.875 28.180 19.89-42.02 8.97 a + DEF 1.146 + 0.997 13.67 9.99-19.13 18.49 a + DEM 0.502+ 0.298 39.62 25.06-63.33 6.38 a Lab Fenvalerate 0.333+0.2 1.24 0.48-2.762 --- + PBO 0.204±0.182 1.041 0.26-5.296 1.19 + DEF 1.088±0.281 1.152 0.106-2.88 1.07 + DEM 0.254±0.233 1.23 0.01-4.86 1.00 CZS-8 Fenvalerate 1.112+0.704 81.98 48.72-758.39 ---- + PBO 4.504+2.61 95.85 ---- 0.855 + DEF 0.342+ 0.302 9.43 5.52-17.6 8.69 a + DEM 0.782+0.559 22.55 15.28-33.39 3.63 a Lab Acephate 1.04+0.59 1.93 0.163-3.604 --- + PBO 0.198±0.181 1.101 0.006-4.818 1.75 + DEF 0.239±0.191 1.554 0.64-2.9 1.24 + DEM 0.214±0.153 1.492 0.026-27.05 1.29 CZS-8 Acephate 2.61+0.98 535.60 362.98-1041.18 --- + PBO 0.839+0.806 9.86 6.92-13.94 54.32 a + DEF 0.954+ 0.588 3.55 2.54-4.93 150.87 a + DEM 0.502+0.298 39.62 25.06-63.33 113.52 a

Synergism Ratio (SR)- LC50 of insecticide alone/LC50 of insecticide + synergist. Abbreviations: LC= Lethal Concentration expressed as gm/larva; FL= Fiducial limits; SE= Standard Error a There is significant synergism based on on-overlapping of the 95% CL’s of the LC50 values between insecticide only and insecticide after synergists treatment.

66 VENKATESAN et al.

Pyrethroid resistance has been attributed to reduced Detoxification enzymes are similar in most of the neural sensitivity, enhanced metabolism and reduced pen- insects including pests and natural enemies and the high etration ratio in many insects [Oppenoorth, 1985; Zerba et esterase activity in lacewing larvae contributed to natural al., 1987). Atkinson et al. (1991) reported that permethrin tolerance to pyrethroids (Dhawan et al., 2009). Bozsik et and cypermethrin resistance in a highly pyrethroid resist- al. (2002) reported that C. carnea was tolerant to paraoxon ant strain of Blattella germanica was partially suppressed (organophosphate group) due to higher activity of acetyl with PBO and DEF, thus suggesting the involvement of en- cholinesterase (AChE). Mixed-function oxidases (MFO) hanced metabolism as well as target site insensitivity in the and hydrolysing esterases may be involved in detoxifica- mechanism of resistance. Picollo et al. [2000] reported that tion of carbaryl resistant strain of C. carnea larvae. Fur- enhanced metabolism and synergism by enzyme inhibitor ther, Grafton & Hoy (1985) found that C. carnea possesses was involved in pyrethroid resistance in Pediculus capitis. naturally high esterase enzyme levels that provide them The activation by midgut esterases from the tobacco horn- natural resistance for pyrethroids. Further, monoxygenase- worm, Manduca sexta (L.) was inhibited by DEF (Kranthi mediated resistance to pyrethroids was found in C. carnea et al., 2002). Sayyed et al. (2010) demonstrated that PBO (Pree et al., 1989) which are in conformity with our study. reduced the LC50 for deltamethrin (8 fold), alphamethrin Insecticide resistant selected C. carnea may tolerate insec- (3-fold) and lambdacyhalothrin (1.6-fold) in deltamethrin ticide pressure in the field conditions (Sayyed et al., 2010). resistant strain of C. carnea which is in conformity with The study revealed the selection of insecticide resistant C. our present study. z. sillemi which can be used in the IPM programs. Sayyed et al. (2010) opined that release of insecticide resistant C. In the current study, in case of resistance to acephate, carnea will survive for the field dosage of pesticides and PBO did decrease the resistance in CZS-8 population. This also inherit all genes involved in insecticide resistance to shows that the PBO block esterase activity which perhaps subsequent generations. plays an important role in detoxification of acephate. Simi- larly, PBO had also been reported to inhibit resistance re- The study clearly showed that the field populations of lated esterases in some insect species (Wing et al., 1998; Chrysoperla zastrowi sillemi from cotton developed resist- Gunning et al., 1998; Gunning et al., 1999). DEF played ance for insecticides belonging to pyrethroids, organophos- a role in detoxification of endosulfan, fenvalerate and acephate and cyclodiene. Among the resistant populations, phate in all the populations by increasing synergism ratio in CZS-8 had been found to have greater RRs to different the present investigation. This suggests that DEF could in- insecticides, hence may be considered for the field evalu- hibit monoxygenase, esterase and GST activities which are ation. This is the first kind of such study in India. Mass in accordance with earlier studies that it is not a completely production and release of such resistant predator would im- specific inhibitor of esterase that it can also inhibit mon- prove their survival in sprayed situations for potential use oxygenase at high concentration (Young et al., 2005; Valles in augmentative biological control or integrated pest man- et al., 1997). Similarly, DEM also suppressed the toxicity agement strategies in not only on cotton but also on other of endosulfan, fenvalerate and acephate by increasing the crops. Further, such predators can play an effective role in synergism which indicates the activity of monoxygenase, suppressing the insecticide resistant pest populations and esterase and GST. The combined evidence of in vitro and resurgence of secondary pests. synergism bioassays indicate that the insecticide resistance in C. z. sillemi could be due to either enhanced esterase and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS or monooxygenase and GST activities. The authors are also grateful to the Director, ICAR- NBAIR, Bangalore, India for providing necessary facilities Though synergism bioassays and in vitro enzyme as- for conducting the study. says indicated that metabolic detoxification was an important resistance mechanism, the fact that full suppression REFERENCES of resistance was never achieved in any of the populations suggests that metabolic detoxification was probably one of Ahmad M, Hollingwoth R. 2004. Synergism of insecticides the many mechanisms conferring insecticide resistance. provides evidence of metabolic mechanisms of resis- Sayyed et al. (2010) reported that resistant natural enemies tance in the obliquebanded leafroller Choritoneura could be an alternative option to use them in concurrence rosaceana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Pest MAnag Sci. with insecticides. They found that C. carnea developed 60: 465–473. Crossref PMid:15154513 cross resistance to pyrethroid and organophosphate compounds which is in accordance with our study. Armes NJ, Banerjee SK, DeSouza KR, Jadhav DR, King ABS, Kranthi KR, Regupathy A, Surulivelu T, Rao

67 Detection of insecticide resistance and mechanisms of resistance in field populations ofChrysoperla zastrowi sillemi

NV. 1994. Insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armi- (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pestic Biochem Physiol. 63: gera in India: recent developments. pp. 437–442. 50–62. Crossref In Brighton Crop Protection Conference-Pests and Diseases-1994. The British Crop Protection Council. Henry CS, Brooks SJ, Johnson JB, Venkatesan T, Duelli Farham, UK. P. 2010. The most important lacewing species in Indian agricultural crops, Chrysoperla sillemi (Esben- Atkinson TH, Wadleigh RW, Koehler PG, Patterson RS. Petersen), is a subspecies of Chrysoperla zastrowi 1991. Pyrethroid resistance and synergism in a (Esben-Petersen) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). J Nat field strain of the German cockroach (Dictyoptera: His. 44: 2543–2555. Crossref Blattellidae). J Econ Entomol. 84: 1247–1250. Crossref PMid:1842795 Kranthi KR, Jadhav DR, Wanjari R, Ali S, Russel DA. 2001. Carbamate and organophosphate resistance in Bozsik A, Francis F, Gaspar C, Haubruge E. 2002. Effect of cotton pests in India, 1995 to 1999. Bull Entomol Res. some insecticides on acetyl cholinesterase from bene- 91: 37–46. PMid:11228586 ficial insects: Coccinella septempunctata, Chrysoperla carnea and Forficula auricularia Mededelingen Kranthi, KR, Jadhav DR, Kranthi S, Wanjari RR, Ali SS, Faculteit Landbouwkundige en Toegepaste Biologische Russell DA. 2002. Insecticide resistance in five major Wetenchappen, Universiteit Gent. 67: 671–677. insect pests of cotton in India. Crop Prot. 21: 6: 449– 460. Crossref Casida J. 1970. Mixed function oxidase involvement in the biochemistry of insecticide synergists J. Agric. Food LI XC, Schuler MA, Berenbaum MR. 2007. Molecular Chem. 18: 753–772. mechanisms of metabolic resistance to synthetic and natural xenobiotics. Annu Rev Entomol. 52: 231–253. Croft BA, Brown AWA. 1975. Responses of arthropod nat- Crossref PMid:16925478 ural enemies to insecticides. Annu Rev Entomol. 10: 285–335. Crossref PMid:234711 Medina P, Budia PF, Del Estal P, Vi-uela V. 2003. Effect of three modern insecticides, pyriproxyfen, spinosad Croft BA, Briozzo J, Carbonell JW. 1976. Resistance to and tebufenozide, on survival and reproduction of organophosphorous insecticides in a predaceous mite, Chrysoperla carnea adults. Ann Appl Biol. 142: 55. Amblyseius chilenensis (Acarna: Phytoseidae). Econ Crossref Entomol. 69: 563– Crossref Motoyama N. 1980. Glutathione-S-transferases, their role Dhawan AK, Singh S, Kumar S. 2009. Integrated Pest in the metabolism of organophosphorous insecticides. Management (IPM) helps to reduce pesticide load in Rev Biochem Toxicol. 2: 49–69. cotton. J Agric Sci Tech. 11: 275–282 Narahashi T, Carter DB, Frey J, Ginsburg K, Hamilton Finney DJ. 1952. Probit Analysis. 2nd edition. Cambridge BJ, Nagata K, Roy ML, Song J, Tatebayashi H. 1995. University. Press. 250 pp. Sodium Channels and GABAA receptor-channel complex as targets of environmental toxicants. Toxicol Grafton-Cardwell EE, Hoy A. 1985. Intraspecific variability Lett. 82/83: 239–245. Crossref in response to pesticides in the common green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Oppenoorth FJ. 1985. Biochemistry and genetics of insec- Chrysopidae). Hilgardia 53: 1–31. Crossref ticide resistance. pp. 731–773, In: Kerkut GA, Gilbert CI (Eds.). Comprehensive insect physiology, biochem- Gunning RV, Moores GD, Devonshire AL. 1998. Inhibition istry and pharmacology, vol. 12. Pergamon, Oxford, of resistance-related esterases by piperonyl butoxide UK. in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) and Aphis gossypii (Hemiptera: Aphididae). pp. 215– Pathan AK, Sayyed AH, Aslam M, Razaq, M, Jilani G, 227 in: Jones, D.G. (Ed.) Piperonyl butoxide: The Saleem MA. 2008. Evidence of field-evolved resistance Insecticide Synergist, London, Academic Press. to organophosphates and pyrethroids in Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). J Econ Entomol. Gunning RV, Moores GD, Devonshire AL. 1999. Esterase 101: 1676–84. Crossref PMid:18950051 inhibitors synergise the toxicity of pyrethroids in Australian Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) Pathan AK, Sayyed, AH, Aslam M, Liu, TX, Razaq M, Gillani, WA. 2010. Resistance to pyrethroids and

68 VENKATESAN et al.

organophosphates increased fitness and preda- Van Pottelberge S, Van Leeuwen T, Nauen R, Tirry L. tion potential of Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: 2009. Resistance mechanisms to mitochondrial elec- Chrysopidae). J Econ Entomol. 103: 823–834. tron transport inhibitors in a field collected strain of Crossref PMid:20568629 Tetranychus urticae Loch (Acari: Tetranychidae). Bull Ent Res. 99: 23–31. Crossref PMid:18590597 Picollo MI, Vassena CV, Mougabure C, Bernetti M, Zerba EN. 2000. Resistance to insecticides and effect of Venkatesan T, Poorani, J, Jalali, S.K, Srinivasamurthy, synergists on permethrin toxicity in Pediculus capitis K, Ashok Kumar, K, Lalitha Y, Rajeshwari R. 2008. (Anoplura: Pediculidae) from Buenos Aires. J Med Confirmation of the occurrence of Chrysoperla zas- Entomol. 37: 721–725. Crossref PMid:11004784 trowi arabica Henry et al. (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) in India. J Biol Control 22: 143–147. Plapp FWJ, Bull DL. 1978. Toxicity and selectivity of some insecticides to Chrysoperla carnea, a predator of the Venkatesan T, Jalali, SK, Murthy KS, Rabindra RJ, Lalitha tobacco budworm. Environ Entomol. 7: 431–434. Y. 2009. Occurrence of insecticide resistance in field Crossref populations of Chrysoperla zastrowi arabica Henry et al. (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) in India. Indian J Agric Pree DJ, Archibald DE, Morrison RK. 1989. Resistance Sci. 79: 910–912. to insecticides in the common green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) Wing KD, Schnee ME, Sacher M, Connair M. 1998. A in southern Ontorio. J Econ Entomol. 82: 29–54. novel oxadiazine insecticide is bioactivated in lepi- Crossref dopteran larvae. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol. 37: 91–103. Crossref Radika P, Subbaratnam GV. 2006. Insecticide resistance management in cotton- Indian Scenario. A review. Wu G, Jiang SB, Miyata T. 2004. Seasonal changes of meth- Agric Rev. 27: 157–169. amidophos susceptible and biochemical properties in Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae) Reddy AS, Rao NV. 1989. Cotton whitefly review. Indian J and its parasitoid Cotesisa plutellae (Hymenoptera: Plant Prot. 17: 171–179. Braconidae). J Econ Entomol. 97: 1689–1698. Crossref PMid:15568361 Robertson JL, Preisler HK. 1992. Pesticide Bioassays with Arthropods. 1st Edn., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, Wu G, Miyata T. 2005. Susceptibilities to methamidophos ISBN-10: 0849364639, pp. 35–48. and enzymatic characteristics in 18 species of pest insects and their natural enemies to crucifer vegetable Scott JG. 1990. Investigating mechanisms of insecticide crops. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 82: 79–93. Crossref resistance methods, strategies and pitfalls. pp. 39–57 In: Roush RT, Tabashnik BE (Eds.). Pesticide resis- Yang RSH. 1976. Enzyme conjucation and insecticide tance in Arthropods, New York, Chapman & Hall. metabolism. pp. 177–181. In: Wilkinson CF (Ed.). Crossref PMid:10107655 Biochemistry and Physiology of Insecticides. Plenum, New York. Crossref Sayyed AH, Pathan AK, Faheem U. 2010. Cross-resistance, genetics and stability of resistance to deltamethrin Young SJ, Gunning RV, Moores GD. 2005. The effect of in a population of Chrysoperla carnea from Multan, piperonyl butoxide on pyrthroid-resistance-associ- Pakistan. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 98: 325–332. ated esterases in Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) Crossref (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pest Manag Sci. 61: 397– 401. Crossref PMid:15605351 Symondron WUC, Sunderland KD, Greenstone MH. 2002. Can generalist predator be effective biocontrol Zerba EN, De Licastro S, Wood E, Picollo MI. 1987. agents? Ann Rev Entomol. 47: 561–594. Crossref Insecticide mechanism of action, pp.103–106. In: PMid:11729085 Brenner R, Stoka A (Eds.) Chagas disease vectors. Vol. 3. CRC, Boca Raton, FL. Valles SM, Koehler, PG, Brenner RJ. 1997. Antagonism of fipronil toxicity by piperonyl butoxide and S,S,S- tributyl phophoro trithioate in the German cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blatellidae). J Econ Entomol. 90: 1254– 1258. Crossref

View publication stats

US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs

Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Acephate

When EPA concluded the organophosphate (OP) cumulative risk assessment in July 2006, all tolerance reassessment and reregistration eligibility decisions for individual OP pesticides were considered complete. OP Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs), therefore, are considered completed REDs. OP tolerance reassessment decisions (TREDs) also are considered completed.

Combined PDF document consists of the following:

• Finalization of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) and Interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for the Organophosphate Pesticides, and Completion of the Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration Eligibility Process for the Organophosphate Pesticides (July 31, 2006)

• Acephate IRED UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

DATE: July 31, 2006

SUBJECT: Finalization of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) and Interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for the Organophosphate Pesticides, and Completion of the Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration Eligibility Process for the Organophosphate Pesticides

FROM: Debra Edwards, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Office of Pesticide Programs

TO: Jim Jones, Director Office of Pesticide Programs

As you know, EPA has completed its assessment of the cumulative risks from the organophosphate (OP) class of pesticides as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. In addition, the individual OPs have also been subject to review through the individual- chemical review process. The Agency’s review of individual OPs has resulted in the issuance of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) for 22 OPs, interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for 8 OPs, and a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for one OP, malathion.1 These 31 OPs are listed in Appendix A.

EPA has concluded, after completing its assessment of the cumulative risks associated with exposures to all of the OPs, that:

(1) the pesticides covered by the IREDs that were pending the results of the OP cumulative assessment (listed in Attachment A) are indeed eligible for reregistration; and

1 Malathion is included in the OP cumulative assessment. However, the Agency has issued a RED for malathion, rather than an IRED, because the decision was signed on the same day as the completion of the OP cumulative assessment.

Page 1 of 3 (2) the pesticide tolerances covered by the IREDs and TREDs that were pending the results of the OP cumulative assessment (listed in Attachment A) meet the safety standard under Section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA.

Thus, with regard to the OPs, EPA has fulfilled its obligations as to FFDCA tolerance reassessment and FIFRA reregistration, other than product-specific reregistration.

The Special Review and Reregistration Division will be issuing data call-in notices for confirmatory data on two OPs, methidathion and phorate, for the reasons described in detail in the OP cumulative assessment. The specific studies that will be required are:

− 28-day repeated-dose toxicity study with methidathion oxon; and − Drinking water monitoring study for phorate, phorate sulfoxide, and phorate sulfone in both source water (at the intake) and treated water for five community water systems in Palm Beach County, Florida and two near Lake Okechobee, Florida.

The cumulative risk assessment and supporting documents are available on the Agency’s website at www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative and in the docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0618).

Page 2 of 3 Attachment A: Organophosphates included in the OP Cumulative Assessment

Chemical Decision Document Status Acephate IRED IRED completed 9/2001 Azinphos-methyl (AZM) IRED IRED completed 10/2001 Bensulide IRED IRED completed 9/2000 Cadusafos TRED TRED completed 9/2000 Chlorethoxyphos TRED TRED completed 9/2000 Chlorpyrifos IRED IRED completed 9/2001 Coumaphos TRED TRED completed 2/2000 DDVP (Dichlorvos) IRED IRED completed 6/2006 Diazinon IRED IRED completed 7/2002 Dicrotophos IRED IRED completed 4/2002 Dimethoate IRED IRED completed 6/2006 Disulfoton IRED IRED completed 3/2002 IRED completed 9/2001 Ethoprop IRED IRED addendum completed 2/2006 Fenitrothion TRED TRED completed 10/2000 Malathion RED RED completed 8/2006 Methamidophos IRED IRED completed 4/2002 Methidathion IRED IRED completed 4/2002 Methyl Parathion IRED IRED completed 5/2003 Naled IRED IRED completed 1/2002 Oxydemeton-methyl IRED IRED completed 8/2002 Phorate IRED IRED completed 3/2001 Phosalone TRED TRED completed 1/2001 Phosmet IRED IRED completed 10/2001 Phostebupirim TRED TRED completed 12/2000 Pirimiphos-methyl IRED IRED completed 6/2001 Profenofos IRED IRED completed 9/2000 Propetamphos IRED IRED completed 12/2000 Terbufos IRED IRED completed 9/2001 Tetrachlorvinphos TRED TRED completed 12/2002 Tribufos IRED IRED completed 12/2000 Trichlorfon TRED TRED completed 9/2001

Page 3 of 3 United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA 738-R-01-013 Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances September 2001 Agency (7508C) Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Acephate

United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA 738-F-01-013 Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances September 2001 Agency (7508C)

Acephate Facts

Acephate residues in food and drinking water do not pose risk concerns, and by reducing exposure The OP Pilot Public Participation Process in homes and through residential lawns, acephate fits The organophosphates are a group of into its own “risk cup.” EPA made this related pesticides that affect the functioning of the determination after the registrants agreed to drop nervous system. They are among EPA’s highest indoor residential uses and certain turf uses. With priority for review under the Food Quality other mitigation measures, acephate’s worker and Protection Act. EPA is encouraging the public to ecological risks also will be below levels of concern participate in the review of the OP pesticides. for reregistration. Through a six-phased pilot public participation process, the Agency is releasing for review and EPA’s next step under the Food Quality comment its preliminary and revised scientific risk Protection Act (FQPA) is to consider risks from assessments for individual OPs. (Please contact the OP Docket, telephone 703-305-5805, or see cumulative exposure to all the OP pesticides, which EPA’s web site, www.epa.gov/pesticides/op .) share a common mechanism of toxicity. The interim EPA is exchanging information with decision on acephate cannot be considered final until stakeholders and the public about the OPs, their the cumulative risk has been considered. Further uses, and risks through Technical Briefings, risk mitigation may be warranted at that time. stakeholder meetings, and other fora. USDA is coordinating input from growers and other OP pesticide users. EPA is reviewing the OP pesticides to Based on current information from determine whether they meet current health and interested stakeholders and the public, EPA is safety standards. Older OPs need decisions about making interim risk management decisions for individual OP pesticides, and will make final their eligibility for reregistration under FIFRA. OPs decisions after the cumulative risk from all OPs with residues in food, drinking water, and other non has been considered. occupational exposures also must be reassessed to make sure they meet the new FQPA safety standard.

• Annual domestic use is approximately 4 to 5 million pounds of active ingredient per year.

Health Effects

Risks

• EPA found risks are of concern for homeowners and children entering homes and lawn areas treated with acephate (excluding golf courses and spot or mound treatments for ant control).

2 Risk Mitigation

Dietary Risk

No mitigation is necessary at this time for any dietary exposure to acephate. The acute and chronic dietary risks from acephate do not exceed the Agency’s level of concern.

Occupational Risk

In order to mitigate occupational risks, the following risk mitigation measures are necessary:

Residential Risk

In order to mitigate residential postapplication risk, the following risk mitigation measures are necessary:

3 Ecological Risk

The Agency has determined that the following mitigation measures are needed to address ecological risk concerns:

In addition, the measures to reduce occupational and residential risk will also reduce environmental loading and the potential impact to non-target organisms.

Next Steps

4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

CERTIFIED MAIL

Dear Registrants:

This is to inform you that the Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) has completed its review of the available data and public comments received related to the preliminary and revised risk assessments for the organophosphate pesticide acephate. The public comment period on the revised risk assessment phase of the reregistration process is closed. Based on comments received during the public comment period and additional data received from the registrants, the Agency revised the human health and environmental effects risk assessments and made them available to the public on February 22, 2000. Additionally, the Agency held a Technical Briefing on February 2, 2000, where the results of the revised human health and environmental effects risk assessments were presented to the general public. This Technical Briefing concluded Phase 4 of the OP Public Participation Pilot Process developed by the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), and initiated Phase 5 of that process. During Phase 5, all interested parties were invited to participate and provide comments and suggestions on ways the Agency might mitigate the estimated risks presented in the revised risk assessments. This public participation and comment period commenced on February 22, 2000, and closed on April 24, 2000.

Based on its review, EPA has identified risk mitigation measures that the Agency believes are necessary to address the human health and environmental risks associated with the current use of acephate. The EPA is now publishing its interim decision on the reregistration eligibility of and risk management decision for the current uses of acephate and associated human health and environmental risks. The reregistration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions for acephate will be finalized once the cumulative assessment for all of the organophosphate pesticides is complete. The enclosed “Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Acephate” was approved on September 28, 2001, and contains the Agency’s decision on the individual chemical acephate.

A Notice of Availability for this Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (interim RED) is being published in the Federal Register. To obtain a copy of the interim RED document, please contact the OPP Public Regulatory Docket (7502C), US EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (703) 305-5805. Electronic copies of the interim RED and all supporting documents are available on the Internet. See http:www.epa.gov/pesticides/op.

The interim RED is based on the updated technical information found in the acephate public docket. The docket includes background information and comments on the Agency’s preliminary risk assessments; the Agency’s February 3, 2000, revised risk assessment for acephate; addenda to the occupational and residential risk assessments (September 15, 2000 and February 13, 2001); a revised surface water assessment (March 8, 2000); and a document summarizing the Agency’s Response to Comments. The Response to Comments document addresses corrections to the preliminary risk assessments submitted by chemical registrants and responds to comments submitted by the general public and stakeholders during the comment period on the risk assessment. The docket also includes comments on the revised risk assessment, and any risk mitigation proposals submitted during Phase 5. For acephate, a proposal was submitted by Valent U.S.A. Corporation (Valent), a technical registrant. All other technical registrants have agreed to the mitigation measures proposed. Comments on mitigation or mitigation suggestions were submitted by growers, agricultural extension agents, environmental organizations, university scientists, and various other organizations.

This document and the process used to develop it are the result of a pilot process to facilitate greater public involvement and participation in the reregistration and/or tolerance reassessment decisions for these pesticides. As part of the Agency’s effort to involve the public in the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), the Agency is undertaking a special effort to maintain open public dockets on the organophosphate pesticides and to engage the public in the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes for these chemicals. This open process follows the guidance developed by TRAC, a large multi- stakeholder advisory body that advised the Agency on implementing the new provisions of the FQPA. The reregistration and tolerance reassessment reviews for the organophosphate pesticides are following this new process.

Please note that the acephate risk assessment and the attached interim RED concern only this particular organophosphate. This interim RED presents the Agency’s conclusions on the dietary and residential risks posed by exposure to acephate alone. The Agency has also concluded its assessment of the ecological and worker risks associated with the use of acephate. Because the FQPA directs the Agency to consider available information on the basis of cumulative risk from substances sharing a common mechanism of toxicity, such as the toxicity expressed by the organophosphates through a common biochemical interaction with cholinesterase enzyme, the Agency will evaluate the cumulative risk posed by the entire organophosphate class of chemicals after considering the risks for the individual organophosphates. The Agency is working towards completion of a methodology to assess cumulative risk and the individual risk assessments for each organophosphate are likely to be necessary elements of any cumulative assessment. The Agency has decided to move forward with individual assessments and to identify mitigation measures necessary to address those human health and environmental risks associated with the current uses of acephate. The Agency will issue the final tolerance reassessment decision for acephate and finalize decisions on reregistration eligibility once the cumulative risks for all of the organophophates are considered. This document contains a generic and/or a product-specific Data Call-In(s) (DCI) that outline(s) further data requirements for this chemical. Note that a complete DCI, with all pertinent instructions, is being sent to registrants under a separate cover. Additionally, for product-specific DCIs, the first set of required responses is due 90 days from the receipt of the DCI letter. The second set of required responses is due eight months from the date of the DCI.

Notwithstanding the consideration of the cumulative risk from the OPs, the Agency has determined that acephate is eligible for reregistration provided that all the conditions identified in this document are satisfied, including implementation of the risk mitigation measures outlined in Section IV of the document. The Agency believes that certain current uses of acephate pose unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment, and that such effects can be mitigated with the risk mitigation measures identified in this interim RED. Accordingly, the Agency recommends that registrants implement these risk mitigation measures immediately. Section V of this interim RED describes labeling amendments for end-use products and data requirements necessary to implement these mitigation measures. Instructions for registrants on submitting revised labeling and the time frame established to do so can be found in Section VI of this document.

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

If you have questions on this document or the label changes necessary for reregistration, please contact the Chemical Review Manager, Kimberly Nesci at (703) 308-8059. For questions about product reregistration and/or the Product DCI that accompanies this document, please contact Bonnie Adler at (703) 308-8523.

Sincerely,

Lois A. Rossi, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division

Attachment Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Acephate

Case No. 0042 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACEPHATE TEAM ...... i

Executive Summary ...... v

I. Introduction ...... 1

II. Chemical Overview ...... 3 A. Regulatory History ...... 3 B. Chemical Identification ...... 3 C. Use Profile ...... 4 D. Estimated Usage of Pesticide ...... 5

III. Summary of Acephate Risk Assessment ...... 7 A. Human Health Risk Assessment ...... 8 1. Dietary Risk from Food ...... 8 a. Toxicity ...... 8 b. FQPA Safety Factor ...... 8 c. Population Adjusted Dose (PAD) ...... 9 d. Exposure Assumptions ...... 9 e. Food Risk Characterization ...... 9 2. Dietary Risk from Drinking Water ...... 10 a. Surface Water ...... 10 b. Ground Water ...... 11 c. Drinking Water Levels of Comparison (DWLOCs) ...... 11 3. Residential Risk ...... 12 a. Toxicity ...... 12 b. Exposure ...... 14 c. Residential Handler Risk Summary ...... 14 1) Residential Applicator Risk ...... 14 2) Postapplication Residential Risk ...... 16 4. Aggregate Risk ...... 18 5. Occupational Risk ...... 18 a. Toxicity ...... 18 b. Exposure ...... 19 c. Occupational & Residential Handler Risk Summary ...... 20 1) Agricultural Handler Risk ...... 22 2) Pest Control Operator and Turf Use Risk ...... 27 3) Postapplication Occupational Risk ...... 29 B. Environmental Risk Assessment ...... 30 1. Environmental Fate and Transport ...... 31 a. Degradation and Mobility ...... 31 b. Field Dissipation ...... 31 c. Bioaccumulation ...... 31 2. Risk to Terrestrial Organisms ...... 31 a. Birds ...... 31 1) Acute and Subacute Toxicity ...... 31 2) Chronic Toxicity ...... 32 3) Avian Exposure and Risk Characterization ...... 32 b. Mammals ...... 33 1) Acute and Chronic Toxicity ...... 33 2) Mammalian Exposure and Risk Characterization ...... 33 c. Insects ...... 34 1) Acute Toxicity ...... 34 2) Non-Target Insect Exposure and Risk Characterization ...34 3. Risk to Aquatic Organisms and Ecosystems ...... 34 a. Freshwater Organism Toxicity ...... 34 1) Fish Toxicity ...... 34 2) Freshwater Amphibian Toxicity ...... 34 3) Freshwater Invertebrate Toxicity ...... 35 b. Estuarine and Marine Organism Toxicity ...... 35 1) Estuarine and Marine Fish Toxicity ...... 35 2) Estuarine and Marine Invertebrate Toxicity ...... 35 c. Aquatic Exposure and Risk Characterization ...... 35 4. Risk to Endangered Species ...... 36

IV. Interim Risk Management and Reregistration Decision ...... 37 A. Determination of Interim Reregistration Eligibility ...... 37 B. Summary of Phase 5 Comments and Responses ...... 40 C. FQPA Assessment ...... 40 1. “Risk Cup” Determination ...... 40 2. Tolerance Summary ...... 41 3. Codex Harmonization ...... 44 4. Analytical Method ...... 45 5. Endocrine Disruptor Effects ...... 45 D. Regulatory Rationale ...... 46 1. Human Health Risk Mitigation ...... 46 a. Dietary Risk Mitigation ...... 46 b. Residential Risk Mitigation ...... 47 1) Residential Handler Risk ...... 47 2) Residential Postapplication Risk ...... 47 c. Aggregate Risk Mitigation ...... 49 d. Occupational Risk Mitigation ...... 49 2. Environmental Risk Mitigation ...... 54 3. Labeling ...... 55 a. Endangered Species Statement ...... 55 b. Spray Drift Management ...... 55 V. What Registrants Need to Do ...... 58 A. Manufacturing Use Products ...... 58 1. Additional Generic Data Requirements ...... 58 2. Labeling for Manufacturing Use Products ...... 60 B. End-Use Products ...... 60 1. Additional Product-Specific Data Requirements ...... 60 2. Labeling for End-Use Products ...... 61 C. Existing Stocks ...... 61 D. Labeling Changes Summary Table ...... 61

VI. Related Documents and How to Access Them ...... 87

VII. Appendices ...... 88 APPENDIX A: Use Patterns Eligible for Reregistration ...... 89 APPENDIX B. Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the Reregistration of Acephate ...... 102 APPENDIX C: Technical Support Documents ...... 112 APPENDIX D: Citations Considered to be Part of the Database Supporting the Acephate Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (Bibliography) ...... 114 APPENDIX E. Generic Data Call-In ...... 153 APPENDIX F. Product Specific Data Call-In ...... 157 APPENDIX G. EPA’S Batching of Acephate Product for Meeting Acute Toxicity Data Requirements for Reregistration ...... 165 APPENDIX H. List of Registrants Sent This Data Call-In ...... 169 APPENDIX I. List of Available Related Documents and Electronically Available Forms ...... 171 ACEPHATE TEAM

Office of Pesticide Programs:

Health Effects Risk Assessment Jeffrey L. Dawson Reregistration Branch I Felecia A. Fort Reregistration Branch I Susan Hanley Reregistration Branch I Catherine Bodurow Joseph Reregistration Branch I Nancy McCarroll Toxicology Branch

Environmental Fate Risk Assessment

Michael Davy Environmental Risk Branch II Stephanie Syslo Environmental Risk Branch II

Use and Usage Analysis

William Gross Herbicide & Insecticide Branch Alan Halvorson Economic Analysis Branch

Registration Support

Marilyn Mautz Insecticide & Rodenticide Branch

Risk Management

Monica Alvarez Special Review Branch Daniel Helfgott Special Review Branch Kimberly Nesci Lowe Special Review Branch

i GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AE Acid Equivalent a.i. Active Ingredient AGDCI Agricultural Data Call-In ai Active Ingredient aPAD Acute Population Adjusted Dose AR Anticipated Residue ARC Anticipated Residue Contribution BCF Bioconcentration Factor CAS Chemical Abstracts Service CI Cation CNS Central Nervous System cPAD Chronic Population Adjusted Dose CSF Confidential Statement of Formula CFR Code of Federal Regulations CSFII USDA Continuing Surveys for Food Intake by Individuals DCI Data Call-In DEEM Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model DFR Dislodgeable Foliar Residue DRES Dietary Risk Evaluation System DWEL Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) The DWEL represents a medium specific (i.e., drinking water) lifetime exposure at which adverse, noncarcinogenic health effects are not anticipated to occur. DWLOC Drinking Water Level of Comparison. EC Emulsifiable Concentrate Formulation EEC Estimated Environmental Concentration. The estimated pesticide concentration in an environment, such as a terrestrial ecosystem. EP End-Use Product EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FDA Food and Drug Administration FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FFDCA Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act FQPA Food Quality Protection Act FOB Functional Observation Battery G Granular Formulation GENEEC Tier I Surface Water Computer Model GLC Gas Liquid Chromatography GLN Guideline Number GM Geometric Mean GRAS Generally Recognized as Safe as Designated by FDA HA Health Advisory (HA). The HA values are used as informal guidance to municipalities and other organizations when emergency spills or contamination situations occur. HAFT Highest Average Field Trial HDT Highest Dose Tested IR Index Reservoir

LC50 Median Lethal Concentration. A statistically derived concentration of a substance that can be expected to cause death in 50% of test animals. It is usually expressed as the weight of substance per weight or volume of water, air or feed, e.g., mg/l, mg/kg or ppm.

LD50 Median Lethal Dose. A statistically derived single dose that can be expected to cause death in 50% of the test animals when administered by the route indicated (oral, dermal, inhalation). It is expressed as a weight of substance per unit weight of animal, e.g., mg/kg.

ii LEL Lowest Effect Level LOC Level of Concern LOD Limit of Detection LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level MATC Maximum Acceptable Toxicant Concentration MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal. The MCLG is used by the Agency to regulate contaminants in drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act. mg/kg/day Milligram Per Kilogram Per Day mg/L Milligrams Per Liter MOE Margin of Exposure MP Manufacturing-Use Product MPI Maximum Permissible Intake MRID Master Record Identification (number). EPA's system of recording and tracking studies submitted. NA Not Applicable N/A Not Applicable NAWQA USGS National Water Quality Assessment NOEC No Observable Effect Concentration NOEL No Observed Effect Level NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NR Not Required OP Organophosphate OPP EPA Office of Pesticide Programs OPPTS EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Pa Pascal, the pressure exerted by a force of one newton acting on an area of one square meter. PAD Population Adjusted Dose PADI Provisional Acceptable Daily Intake PAG Pesticide Assessment Guideline PAM Pesticide Analytical Method PCA Percent Crop Area PCO Pest Control Operator PDP USDA Pesticide Data Program PHED Pesticide Handler's Exposure Data PHI Preharvest Interval ppb Parts Per Billion PPE Personal Protective Equipment ppm Parts Per Million PRN Pesticide Registration Notice PRZM/ EXAMS Tier II Surface Water Computer Model

Q1* The Carcinogenic Potential of a Compound, Quantified by the EPA's Cancer Risk Model RAC Raw Agriculture Commodity RBC Red Blood Cell RED Reregistration Eligibility Decision REI Restricted Entry Interval RfD Reference Dose RQ Risk Quotient RS Registration Standard RUP Restricted Use Pesticide SAP Science Advisory Panel SCI-GROW Tier I Ground Water Computer Model SF Safety Factor SLC Single Layer Clothing

iii SLN Special Local Need (Registrations Under Section 24(c) of FIFRA) TC Toxic Concentration. The concentration at which a substance produces a toxic effect. TD Toxic Dose. The dose at which a substance produces a toxic effect. TEP Typical End-Use Product TGAI Technical Grade Active Ingredient TLC Thin Layer Chromatography TMRC Theoretical Maximum Residue Contribution torr A unit of pressure needed to support a column of mercury 1 mm high under standard conditions. TRR Total Radioactive Residue UF Uncertainty Factor µg/g Micrograms Per Gram µg/L Micrograms Per Liter USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGS United States Geological Survey UV Ultraviolet WHO World Health Organization WP Wettable Powder WPS Worker Protection Standard

iv Executive Summary

EPA has completed its review of public comments on the revised risk assessments and is issuing its risk management decisions for acephate. The decisions outlined in this document do not include the final tolerance reassessment decision for acephate; however, some tolerance actions will be undertaken prior to completion of the final tolerance reassessment. The Agency now recommends expressing the acephate tolerances in terms of acephate per se under 40 CFR part 180.108. Residues of methamidophos resulting from the metabolism of acephate are more appropriately placed under the tolerance expression for methamidophos in 40 CFR part 180.315(c). In addition, the Agency recommends lowering the tolerance level for cottonseed, as suggested by the data. The final tolerance reassessment decision for this chemical will be issued once the cumulative assessment for all of the organophosphates is complete. The Agency may need to pursue further risk management measures for acephate once the cumulative risks from organophosphates are considered. Additionally, since acephate degrades to another, registered organophosphate pesticide, methamidophos, further risk management measures for acephate may be necessary once the methamidophos assessment itself is completed.

The revised risk assessments are based on EPA’s review of the all data available on the currently registered uses of acephate, including new information received during the reregistration process. The Agency invited stakeholders to provide proposals, ideas or suggestions on appropriate mitigation measures before the Agency issued its risk mitigation decision on acephate. After considering the risks from this chemical and discussing measures to address them with stakeholders and the registrants, EPA made its risk management decision on acephate. The technical registrants have to agree to the risk management measures.

Acephate is an organophosphate insecticide currently registered for use on a variety of field, fruit, and vegetable crops; in food handling establishments; on ornamental plants both in greenhouses and outdoors (including lawns, turf, and cut flowers); and in and around the home. Acephate was first registered in 1973 for ornamental uses, and in 1974 for food uses (agricultural crops). Use data from 1988 to 1997 indicate that approximately 4 to 5 million pounds of active ingredient (ai) are used domestically each year.

Acephate is registered for the control of cockroaches and fleas, which are public health pests. To ensure the public health issues associated with acephate are adequately considered as called for in FIFRA, the Agency intends to consult further with public health authorities before taking final Agency action to amend registrations of acephate.

Overall Risk Summary

EPA has concerns about risk to humans resulting from the currently registered uses of acephate. Specifically, the Agency is concerned about risks to workers who mix, load, and/or apply acephate to agricultural sites, golf courses and home lawns, in and around residential, commercial, institutional and industrial buildings, and recreational areas. In addition, the

v Agency has concerns for children exposed to acephate residues and methamidophos residues on home lawns resulting from the application of acephate.

Acute and chronic exposure to acephate residues on food does not result in risks of concern. Similarly, acute and chronic exposure to acephate concentrations in drinking water, as estimated using screening models developed by the Agency, are not of concern.

However, since residential postapplication exposures to turf alone yield high risks to children, aggregate risk combining food, drinking water, and all residential postapplication exposure is of concern to the Agency.

Postapplication occupational, residential, and recreational risks consider exposures to acephate and its degradate methamidophos. In some instances, methamidophos residues resulting from acephate applications drive the postapplication risks presented in this document.

Methamidophos is also a registered organophosphate insecticide, and is used in the U.S. on cotton, potatoes, and tomatoes. The Agency is evaluating the human health and ecological risks posed by the organophosphate methamidophos separately. However, acephate uses will contribute to the aggregate methamidophos risk cup when all exposure to methamidophos residues is considered in the methamidophos interim RED. Further mitigation of acephate uses may be necessary to reduce risks from methamidophos residues that result from acephate applications. This potential further mitigation will be discussed at the time the methamidophos interim RED is released. The relationship between these two chemicals is of particular importance in the case of drinking water risks. Based on tier I modeling data, the Agency believes that methamidophos residues in drinking water that result from acephate application alone may result in risks of concern.

In the environmental risk assessment, the EPA identified acute and chronic risks to birds, and risks to mammals and acute risk to honey bees and other beneficial insects. Acute risk to freshater aquatic invertebrates is also of concern.

EPA has considered comments and mitigation ideas from interested parties when deciding how best to mitigate risks of concern posed by the uses of acephate. The Agency has decided on a number of label amendments to address the worker, residential, and ecological concerns. Results of the risk assessments, and the necessary label amendments to mitigate those risks, are presented in this interim RED.

Dietary Risk

No mitigation is necessary at this time for any dietary exposure to acephate. The acute and chronic dietary risks from acephate residues on food do not exceed the Agency’s level of concern. In addition, although the maximum estimated environmental concentrations of acephate from surface water sources exceed the acute DWLOC by 2 ppb (6%), the Agency considers such a marginal exceedance not of concern.

vi However, the Agency reserves the right to require further acephate mitigation to address risks from methamidophos residues resulting from acephate uses. Any additional mitigation measures will be addressed when the methamidophos interim RED is completed.

Occupational Risk

Occupational exposure to acephate is of concern to the Agency, and it has been determined that a number of mitigation measures are necessary at this time. For agricultural and turf/Pest Control Operator (PCO) uses of acephate, several mixer/loader/applicator risk scenarios currently exceed the Agency’s level of concern. In addition, there are postapplication risks from the use of acephate in cut flowers. EPA believes these risks can be reduced to an acceptable level with the following measures:

• Formulate all soluble powder formulations into water soluble bags, except for soluble powders sold for fire ant, harvester ant, or hopper box seed treatment uses. • Limit the 1 lb ai/A cotton aerial application rate to cotton grown in California and Arizona; reduce the maximum aerial application rate for cotton to 0.75 ai/A for all other areas of the United States. • Delete aerial application to turf. • Require enclosed cockpits for all other aerial applications. • Reduce maximum sod farm application rates (non-granular formulations) to 3 lb ai/A. • Reduce maximum golf course turf application rates (also non-granular formulations) to 4 lb ai/A. • Reduce maximum application rates for greenhouse floral and foliage plant crops, and outdoor floral and ground covers to 1 lb ai per 100 gallons water (not to exceed 0.75 lb ai/A for cut flowers and 1.0 lb ai/A for other ornamentals). • Delete the use of low pressure handwand to trees, shrubs, and outdoor floral, and for the control of wasps. • Delete the application of acephate via low-pressure handwand for perimeter treatment by PCOs. • Delete the use of granular formulations to be applied by belly grinder, shaker can, or by hand to tress, shrubs, and 12" pots. • Add personal protective equipment to end use product labels for workers who mix and load, and/or apply acephate, as discussed in detail in Sections IV and V of this document. • Require mechanical flagging for aerial applications.

Residential Risk

Risks to residential handlers of acephate are not of concern to the Agency; therefore no mitigation is needed at this time. However, residential postapplication risk is of concern to children entering treated lawns, and from treated homes. In order to mitigate residential postapplication risk, the Agency has determined that the following risk mitigation measures are necessary:

vii • Delete residential indoor uses. • Delete all turfgrass uses (except golf course, sod farm, and spot or mound treatment for ant control).

Ecological Risk

Ecological risks are also of concern to the Agency. Acephate and its degradate methamidophos are highly toxic to honey bees and beneficial predatory insects on an acute contact basis. Acute and chronic risks to birds and chronic risk to mammals are also high. The Agency has determined that the following mitigation measures are needed to address ecological risk concerns:

• Establish minimum spray intervals for all agricultural crops of 3 days for application rates up to 0.5 lb ai/A and of 7 days for application rates greater than 0.5 lb ai/A. • Reduce seasonal maximum use for cotton from 6 to 4 lb ai/A. • Reduce aerial cotton use rates. • Delete the aerial application to turf. • Delete granular formulations for residential turf uses, and use on ornamental trees and shrubs and in 12 inch pots. • Reduce turf application rates for sod and golf courses. • Require labeling to protect honeybees. • Require labeling to reduce the potential for spray drift.

Conclusions

The Agency is issuing this interim Reregistration Eligibility Document (RED) for acephate, as announced in a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register. This interim RED document includes guidance and time frames for complying with any necessary label changes for products containing acephate. Note that the Agency has shortened the time period to comply with the risk mitigation measures outlined in this document so that the risks identified herein are mitigated as quickly as possible and that there is no comment period for this document. As part of the process discussed by the TRAC, the Agency’s risk assessments for acephate have already been subject to numerous public comment periods in order to open up the process to interested parties, and a further comment period for acephate was deemed unnecessary. With the use deletions and the addition of label restrictions and amendments detailed in this document, the Agency has determined that, until the cumulative risk from all of the organophosphates has been considered, most of the currently registered uses of acephate may continue. Neither the tolerance reassessment nor the reregistration eligibility decision for acephate can be considered final, however, until the cumulative risk for all organophosphate pesticides is considered. The methamidophos interim reregistration eligibility decision and the organophosphate cumulative assessment may result in further risk mitigation measures for acephate.

viii I. Introduction

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was amended in 1988 to accelerate the reregistration of products containing active ingredients originally registered prior to November 1, 1984. The amended Act calls for the development and submission of data to support the reregistration of an active ingredient, as well as a review of all submitted data by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or “the Agency”). Reregistration involves a thorough review of the scientific database supporting a pesticide’s registration. The purpose of the Agency’s review is to reassess the potential hazards arising from the currently registered uses of the pesticide; to determine if there is a need for additional data on health and environmental effects; and to determine whether the pesticide meets the “no unreasonable adverse effects” criteria of FIFRA.

On August 3, 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) was signed into law. This Act amends FIFRA to require reassessment of all existing tolerances. The Agency had decided that, for those chemicals that have tolerances and are undergoing reregistration, the tolerance reassessment will be initiated through this reregistration process. It also requires that by 2006, EPA must review all tolerances in effect as of August 2, 1996 (the day before FQPA was enacted). FQPA also amends the FFDCA to require a safety finding in tolerance reassessment based on several factors, including an assessment of cumulative effects of chemicals with a common mechanism of toxicity. Acephate belongs to a group of pesticides called organophosphates that share a common mechanism of toxicity. They all affect the nervous system by inhibiting the release of the cholinesterase enzyme. Although FQPA significantly affects the Agency’s reregistration process, it does not amend any of the existing reregistration deadlines. Therefore, the Agency is continuing its reregistration program while it resolves the remaining issues associated with the implementation of FQPA.

This document presents the Agency’s revised human health and ecological risk assessments; its progress toward tolerance reassessment; and the interim decision on the reregistration eligibility of acephate. It is intended to be only the first phase in the reregistration process for acephate. The Agency will eventually proceed with its assessment of the cumulative risk of the OP pesticides and issue a final reregistration eligibility decision for acephate.

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

• Applying the FQPA 10-Fold Safety Factor • Whether and How to Use "Monte Carlo" Analyses in Dietary Exposure Assessments • How to Interpret "No Detectable Residues" in Dietary Exposure Assessments

1 • Refining Dietary (Food) Exposure Estimates • Refining Dietary (Drinking Water) Exposure Estimates • Assessing Residential Exposure • Aggregating Exposure from all Non-Occupational Sources • How to Conduct a Cumulative Risk Assessment for Organophosphate or Other Pesticides with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity • Selection of Appropriate Toxicity Endpoints for Risk Assessments of Organophosphates • Whether and How to Use Data Derived from Human Studies

The process developed by the TRAC calls for EPA to provide one or more documents for public comment on each of the policy issues described above. Each of these issues is evolving and in a different stage of refinement. Some issue papers have already been published for comment in the Federal Register and others will be published shortly.

In addition to the policy issues that resulted from the TRAC process, the Agency issued a Pesticide Registration Notice (PR 2000-9) on September 29, 2000, that presents EPA’s approach for managing risks from organophosphate pesticides to occupational users. The Worker PR Notice describes the Agency’s baseline approach to managing risks to handlers and workers who may be exposed to organophosphate pesticides, and the Agency expects that other types of chemicals will be handled similarly. Generally, basic protective measures such as closed mixing and loading systems, enclosed cab equipment, or protective clothing, as well as increased reentry intervals, will be required for most uses where current risk assessments indicate a risk and such protective measures are feasible. The policy also states that the Agency will assess each pesticide individually, and based upon the risk assessment, determine the need for specific measures tailored to the potential risks of the chemical. The measures included in this document are consistent with the Worker Pesticide Registration Notice.

This interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision document consists of six sections. Section I contains the regulatory framework for reregistration/tolerance reassessment and descriptions of the process developed by TRAC for public comment on science policy issues for the organophosphate pesticides and the worker risk management PR notice. Section II provides a profile of the use and usage of the chemical. Section III gives an overview of the revised human health and environmental effects risk assessments resulting from public comments and other information. Section IV presents the Agency's interim decision on reregistration eligibility and risk management decisions. Section V summarizes the label changes necessary to implement the risk mitigation measures outlined in Section IV. Section VI provides information on how to access related documents. Finally, the Appendices list Data Call-In (DCI) information. The revised risk assessments and related addenda are not included in this document, but are available on the Agency's web page: “www.epa.gov/pesticides/op,” and in the Public Docket.

2 II. Chemical Overview

A. Regulatory History

Acephate was first registered in the United States in 1973 as an insecticide on ornamentals. The first food uses (agricultural crops) for acephate were registered in 1974. A Registration Standard was issued for acephate in 1987 that imposed several interim measures to reduce dietary, occupational, and domestic exposure from the registered uses of acephate. During the review of acephate in preparation for this document, the technical registrants agreed to drop forestry and rangeland/pastureland uses. This agreement was captured in the acephate Use Closure memo dated December 23, 1997. These uses were removed from all acephate labels by 1999.

B. Chemical Identification

! Chemical Structure:

O O

H3C P H S N CH3 OCH3

! Common Name: Acephate

! Chemical Name: O, S-Dimethyl acetylphosphoramidothioate

! Chemical family: Organophosphate

! Case number: 0042

! CAS registry number: 30560-19-1

! OPP chemical code: 103301

! Empirical formula: C4H10NO3PS

! Molecular weight: 183.16 g/mol

! Vapor Pressure: 1.7 x 10-6 mm Hg at 24 oC

! Trade and other names: Orthene®

! Technical registrants: Valent U.S.A. Corporation Micro-Flo Company LLC United Phosphorous Ltd. Drexel Chemical Corporation

3 Acephate technical is a colorless to white solid with a melting point of 81-91° C. Acephate is highly soluble in water (79 g/100 ml), acetone (151 g/100 ml), and ethanol (>100 g/100 ml), and is soluble in methanol (57.5 g/100 ml), ethyl acetate (35.0 g/100 ml), benzene (16.0 g/100 ml), and hexane (<0.1g/100 ml) at 25° C. Acephate degrades to another, registered organophosphate chemical, methamidophos.

C. Use Profile

The following information is based on the currently registered uses of acephate that were originally being supported for reregistration. Appendix A presents a summary of eligible uses and revised use conditions.

Type of Pesticide: Insecticide

Summary of Use Sites:

Food: Acephate is used on beans (green and lima), Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, celery, cotton, cottonseed, cranberries, head lettuce, macadamia nuts, peanuts, peppermint, peppers (bell and non-bell), soybeans (Special Local Need registrations in Mississippi and Texas only), and spearmint.

Other Agricultural Sites: Acephate is also used as seed treatment on cotton and peanuts (seed for planting), on non-bearing crops such as citrus, and on tobacco.

Residential: Acephate is used in and around residential buildings, homes, apartments, and in pantries for the control of roaches, wasps, fire ants, and crickets, among other pests. It is also used on home lawns, trees, shrubs and ornamentals.

Public Health: Acephate is used in and around residential, industrial, institutional and commercial buildings, including restaurants, food handling establishments, warehouses, stores, hotels, manufacturing plants, and ships for the control of roaches and fire ants.

Other Nonfood: Acephate is used on sod, golf course turf, field borders, fence rows, roadsides, ditch banks, borrow pits, wasteland, and greenhouse and horticultural nursery floral and foliage plants.

Target Pests: Armyworms, aphids, beetles, bollworms, borers, budworms, cankerworms, crickets, cutworms, fire ants, fleas, grasshoppers, leafhoppers, loopers, mealybugs, mites, moths, roaches, spiders, thrips, wasps, weevils, whiteflies, etc.

Formulation Types Registered: Wettable Powder, Soluble Powder, Soluble

4 Extruded Pellets, Granular, Liquid

Method and Rates of Application:

Equipment - Granular acephate can be applied by belly grinder, hand, tractor-drawn spreader, push-type spreader, and shaker can. Liquid acephate (formulated from soluble powders or soluble extruded pellets) may be applied by aircraft, airblast sprayer, backpack sprayer, chemigation, hydraulic sprayers, groundboom spray, handgun, high- pressure sprayer, hopper box (seed treatment), low-pressure handwand, seed slurry treatment, sprinkler can, transplanting in water (tobacco), or by an aerosol generator (greenhouses).

Residential applications can be made by aerosol can, backpack sprayer, hose-end sprayer, and low-pressure handwand. Residential granular applications can be made by shaker can or by hand. Residential soluble powder applications may be made by sprinkler can or compressed air sprayers.

Method and Rate - Acephate is used for seed, in-furrow, foliar spray, and soil mound (drench and dry methods for use against fire ants) treatments; and float bed, plant bed and transplant (tobacco) treatments. Acephate is also used indoors as spot, crack and crevice, and bait treatments. Rates vary according to method of application and pest. The highest registered maximum one time application rate is 5 lbs ai/A on commercial/residential turf. The highest seasonal application rate is 6 lb ai/A/year (1 lb ai/A at 6 applications per season) for cotton

Timing - For foliar applications, when eggs or insects first appear or when infestation becomes a problem. Multiple applications are allowed to maintain pest control.

Use Classification: Acephate products are not restricted use pesticides.

D. Estimated Usage of Pesticide

This section summarizes the best estimates of available pesticide usage information for acephate from 1988 to 1997. A full listing of all uses of acephate, with the corresponding use and usage data for each site, has been completed and is in the “Quantitative Usage Analysis for Acephate” document available in the public docket. The data, reported on an aggregate and site basis, reflect annual fluctuations in use patterns as well as the variability in using data from various information sources. Approximately 4 to 5 million pounds of acephate are used annually, according to Agency and registrant estimates.

5 Table 1. Acephate Estimated Usage for Representative Sites Pounds Active Maximum Weighted Average Crop Ingredient Applied Percent Crop Percent Crop (000) (Wt. Avg.)1 Treated Treated Almonds 0.3 0.3% 0.1% Apples 2 1.1% 0.2% Apricots 6 23% 11% Citrus, other not available 1.6% 0.4% Cranberries 9 51% 34% Grapefruit 2 5% 1% Grapes 0.4 0.3% 0.1% Oranges 3 1.3% 0.2% Walnuts not available 0.06% 0.03% Beans, Dry 40 5% 2% Beans, Lima 37 54% 41% Beans, Snap, Fresh 28 39% 29% Beans, Snap, Processing 57 47% 35% Brussels Sprouts 0.1 not available Carrots/Radishes 3 3% 1% Cauliflower 7 21% 11% Celery 23 68% 49% Lettuce, Head 110 63% 47% Lettuce, Other 11 28% 18% Mint 55 42% 31% Onions, Dry 0.2 0.4% 0.2% Peanuts 51 10% 5% Peppers, Bell 33 48% 24% Potatoes 1.0 0.13% 0.10% Soybeans 23 0.2% 0.1% Alfalfa 3 0.06% 0.02% Cotton 880 13% 9% Lots/Farmsteads/etc. 3 0.05% 0.02% Pasture 17 0.06% 0.03% Summer Fallow 19 0.06% 0.03% Tobacco 800 82% 61% Woodland 6 0.04% 0.02% Horticulture Nurseries 288 23% 17% Institutional Turf 28 0.6% <0.3% Golf Courses 139 10% <7%

6 Pounds Active Maximum Weighted Average Crop Ingredient Applied Percent Crop Percent Crop (000) (Wt. Avg.)1 Treated Treated Landscapes by Landscape Maintenance 25 0.14% 0.06% Contractors Lawn/Turf by Lawn Care Operators 121 0.3% 0.2% Office/Retail Indoor by Commercial Pesticide 99 not available Applicators Pest Sites by Pest Control Operators 76 not available Residential Indoor by Commercial Pesticide 31 not available Applicators Residential Outdoor by Consumers <740 not available Roadway Rights-of-Way 16 0.4% <0.3% Turf Farms 41 14% <11% Indoor by Commercial Pesticide Applicators 12 not available 1 Weighted Average is based on data for 1988-1997; the most recent years and more reliable data are weighted more heavily.

III. Summary of Acephate Risk Assessment

The following is a summary of EPA’s revised human health and ecological risk findings and conclusions for the organophosphate pesticide acephate. These findings and conclusions are fully presented in the February 3, 2000 “Human Health Risk Assessment: Acephate,” and two addenda to the revised occupational and residential risk assessment dated September 15, 2000, and February 13, 2001. The summary presented in this document also includes information from the August “EFED Acephate RED Chapter,” dated August 25, 1999, and from an amendment to the estimated environmental concentrations of acephate in surface water titled “Revised Surface Water EECs (Incorporating the Index Reservoir and Percent Crop Area) for the HED Risk Assessment for Acephate,” dated March 8, 2000.

Acephate degrades to another, registered organophosphate chemical, methamidophos. Methamidophos residues may occur in food and water as a result of the uses of acephate; however, risks from methamidophos residues from all sources will be addressed in the methamidophos interim RED. As a result, further mitigation to acephate uses may be necessary after the methamidophos interim RED is complete.

These risk assessments for acephate were presented at a February 2, 2000, Technical Briefing, that was followed by an opportunity for public comment on risk management. The risk assessments presented here form the basis of the Agency’s risk management decision for acephate only; the Agency must complete a cumulative assessment of the risks of all the organophosphate pesticides before any final decisions can be made.

7 A. Human Health Risk Assessment

EPA issued its preliminary risk assessments for acephate on January 8, 1999 (Phase 3 of the TRAC process). In response to comments and studies submitted during Phase 3, the risk assessments were updated and refined. In addition, any new Agency policies were incorporated, as appropriate.

1. Dietary Risk from Food

a. Toxicity

The Agency has reviewed all toxicity studies and has determined that the toxicity database is essentially complete. The only toxicity data gap is a metabolism study in the rat (Guideline No. 85-1). Confirmatory data are being required and are included in Section V of this document. Further details on the toxicity of acephate can be found in the February 3, 2000, Human Health Risk Assessment and its supporting documents. In addition, on April 19, 2001, Valent Chemical Corporation submitted a toxicology study titled “A Single Oral Dose Study With Acephate Technical in Humans.” This human study is currently in review. A brief overview of the studies used for the dietary risk assessment is outlined in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Summary of Toxicological Endpoints and Other Factors Used in the Human Dietary Risk Assessment of Acephate FQPA Dose Uncertainty PAD Assessment Endpoint Study Safety (mg/kg/day) Factor1 (mg/kg/day) Factor NOAEL = 0.5 Brain and plasma Acute Neurotoxicity Acute Dietary cholinesterase Range Finding - Rat 100 1X 0.005 LOAEL = 2.5 inhibition (MRID 44203302)2 NOAEL = 0.12 Brain Chronic 90-Day Feeding - Rat cholinesterase 100 1X 0.0012 Dietary (MRID 40504819)3 LOAEL = 0.15 inhibition 1Uncertainty factor of 100 is the result of a 10x for interspecies and a 10x factor for intraspecies variability. 2 In this range finding study, cholinesterase inhibition was observed after a single oral dose; therefore, the selection of this study for the purpose of acute dietary risk is justified. 3 The 90-Day feeding study used to establish the chronic RfD was a special cholinesterase (ChE) study specifically designed to examine ChE effects at low doses of acephate. The values in this study were lower than that found in chronic studies, and because cholinesterase inhibition does not increase with time.

b. FQPA Safety Factor

The FQPA safety factor is intended to provide up to an additional 10-fold safety factor (10X) to safeguard against potential special sensitivity in infants and children to specific pesticide residues in food or to compensate for an incomplete database. The Agency reduced the FQPA safety factor to 1X after evaluating the hazard and exposure data for acephate. The toxicity database includes an acceptable two-generation reproduction study in rats and acceptable prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. These studies show no

8 increased sensitivity to fetuses as compared to maternal animals following acute in utero exposure in the developmental rat and rabbit studies and no increased sensitivity to pups as compared to adults in a multi-generation reproduction study in rats. There was no evidence of abnormalities in the development of the fetal nervous system in the pre/post natal studies. Adequate actual data, surrogate date, and modeling outputs are available to satisfactorily assess dietary and residential exposure and to provide a screening level drinking water exposure assessment. The assumptions and models used in the assessments do not underestimate the potential risk for infants and children. Therefore, the additional 10X factor as required by FQPA was reduced to 1X.

c. Population Adjusted Dose (PAD)

The PAD is a term that characterizes the dietary risk of a chemical, and reflects the Reference Dose (RfD), either acute or chronic, that has been adjusted to account for the additional FQPA safety factor (i.e., RfD/FQPA safety factor). In the case of acephate, the FQPA safety factor is 1; therefore, the RfD is the same as the PAD. A risk estimate that is less than 100% of the acute or chronic PAD is not of concern to the Agency.

d. Exposure Assumptions

Revised acute and chronic dietary risk analyses for acephate were conducted with the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM™). DEEM incorporates consumption data generated in USDA’s Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), 1989-92. Residues used for the exposure analyses are highly refined and include anticipated residues generated from field trials, USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) and FDA monitoring data, adjustments for the percent crop treated, washing and cooking factors, and a probabilistic (“Monte Carlo”) acute analysis.

e. Food Risk Characterization

A dietary risk estimate that is less than 100% of the acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose (PAD; the dose at which an individual could be exposed to on any given day and no adverse health effects would result) is not of concern to the Agency. The dietary risk from acephate residues on food does not exceed the Agency’s level of concern.

The percent acute PAD values for the most exposed population subgroups, children 1 to 6 years old and children 7 to 12 years old, are 33 and 31, respectively, at the 99.9th percentile of exposure. The percent chronic PAD values for the most exposed population subgroups, children 1 to 6 years old and infants (less than 1 year old), are 17 and 15, respectively.

Refinements to the dietary analyses can be made using additional monitoring data for the acute and chronic dietary analyses, cooking and processing studies, and market basket survey data. Refinements will be considered when the cumulative assessment for all of the organophosphates is conducted.

9 Risks from residues of methamidophos in food resulting from acephate uses are being considered and will be discussed further in the methamidophos interim RED.

2. Dietary Risk from Drinking Water

Drinking water exposure to pesticides can occur through residues in ground water and surface water. EPA considers both acute (one day) and chronic (lifetime) drinking water risks and uses either modeling or actual monitoring data, if available, to characterize those risks. Modeling is considered to be an unrefined assessment and provides a conservative estimate of risk. In the case of acephate, the monitoring data for ground and surface water that were available were limited; therefore, modeling was used to estimate drinking water risks.

The PRZM-EXAMS model, including the recent Index Reservoir and Percent Crop Area modifications, was used to estimate surface water concentrations, and the SCI-GROW model was used to estimate groundwater concentrations. All of these are considered to be screening models, with the PRZM-EXAMS model being somewhat more refined than SCI-GROW.

Acephate is very soluble and mobile. It is not persistent under aerobic conditions; therefore, it is unlikely to leach to ground water.

Methamidophos residues may be present in surface and groundwater as a result of acpehate uses since methamidophos is a degradate of acephate. Risk from residues of methamidophos in water that may resulting from acephate uses is being considered by the Agency and will be discussed further in the methamidophos interim RED.

a. Surface Water

Estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of acephate in surface water were generated using the Tier II PRZM-EXAMS screening model. This model uses available environmental fate data to generate upper-bound concentrations of pesticide in surface water. In general, it is based on more refined, less conservative assumptions than the Tier I GENEEC screening model.

Surface water EECs were determined for the use of acephate on cotton and tobacco, crops that represent the maximum yearly total applications (six aerial applications at 1 lb ai/A/application on cotton and three aerial applications at 1.33 lbs ai/A/application on tobacco). Turf is the exception, in that the application rate can be up to 5 lbs ai/A; however, the PRZM EXAMS model used for acephate does not include a turf scenario and cannot be used to predict EECs from turf use.

Based on modeling, surface water EECs are not likely to exceed 36 ppb for peak (acute) exposure and 7.2 ppb for mean (chronic) exposure. See Tables 3 and 4 for a summary of the surface water EEC values.

10 b. Ground Water

Estimated environmental concentrations of acephate in groundwater were generated using the Tier I screening model, SCI-GROW. Groundwater EECs were determined for the use of acephate on cotton, and are not likely to exceed 0.02 ppb for acute or chronic exposures. See Tables 3 and 4 for a summary of the groundwater EEC values.

c. Drinking Water Levels of Comparison (DWLOCs)

To determine the maximum allowable contribution of water-containing pesticide residues permitted in the diet, EPA determines how much exposure to residues in water can safely occur. This level is called the “drinking water level of comparison”(DWLOC). The DWLOC is the maximum concentration in drinking water that, when considered together with dietary exposure (and, if appropriate, residential uses), does not exceed the agency’s level of concern (the “risk cup,” or the PAD) for each population subgroup that the Agency considers. DWLOCs are then compared to the EECs to determine whether modeled or monitoring levels of pesticide in drinking water are of concern.

The results of the Agency’s drinking water analyses are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Details of these analyses are found in the February 3, 2000, HED Human Health Risk Assessment and in the March 8, 2000, Revised Surface Water EECs for the HED Risk Assessment for Acephate.

Table 3. Summary of DWLOC Values for Acute Risk Allowable Surface Food Ground Water Population Acute PAD Water Water (ppb) DWLOC Exposure (ppb) Subgroup (mg/kg/day) Exposure (PRZM- (ppb) (mg/kg/day) (SCI-GROW) (mg/kg/day) EXAMS) U.S. Population 0.005 0.001111 0.003889 0.02 36 136 Children 1-6 yrs. 0.005 0.001631 0.003369 0.02 36 34

For acute risk, the potential drinking water exposure to acephate alone from either ground or surface water is not of concern for any population subgroup (Table 4). Although the acute DWLOC is exceeded for one population, children (1 to 6 years old), the Agency has determined that a 6% exceedance (2 ppb) for acute drinking water from the uses of acephate is not of concern. The PRZM-EXAMS model that is used to estimate EECs is a Tier II model and a screening-level assessment. The results of the model are expected to be higher than the EECs actually found in drinking water; in other words, EECs are likely an overestimate of residues.

Table 4. Summary of DWLOC Calculations for Chronic Risk Food Allowable Ground Surface Water Population Chronic PAD DWLOC Exposure Water Exposure Water (ppb) Subgroup (mg/kg/day) (ppb) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (ppb) (PRZM-EXAMS) U.S. Population 0.0012 0.000089 0.001111 0.02 7.2 38 Children 1-6 yrs. 0.0012 0.000209 0.000991 0.02 7.2 10 Infants (<1 year) 0.0012 0.000185 0.001015 0.02 7.2 10

11 For chronic risk, potential exposure to drinking water derived from either groundwater or surface water is not of concern for any population subgroup (Table 3).

3. Residential Risk

Residents and homeowners can be exposed to acephate by treating their own lawns and ornamental trees, shrubs and flowers with acephate products for pest control. The Agency considers that these residential applicators mix, load, and apply pesticides to areas around the home. Adults or children can also be exposed to acephate through contact with treated areas indoors, treated lawns or other turf areas (i.e., golf courses), or treated ornamental plants.

In addition, because acephate degrades to methamidophos, another organophosphate pesticide, people can be exposed to methamidophos as a result of the application of acephate to lawns or indoors. To consider risks from the exposure to methamidophos resulting from acephate application, the toxicity of methamidophos considered.

Risk for all of these potentially exposed populations is measured by a Margin of Exposure (MOE). An MOE determines how close individuals come to a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), whether using the pesticide or coming into contact with pesticide residues after application. Generally, MOEs greater than 100 do not exceed the Agency’s risk concern.

a. Toxicity

The toxicity of acephate and its degradate, methamidophos, is integral to assessing the residential risk. All risk calculations are based on the most current toxicity information available for acephate and its degradate, including 21-day dermal and 4-week inhalation toxicity studies on acephate that were submitted to the Agency in May 2000. The toxicological endpoints, and other factors used in the residential risk assessment for acephate, are listed below.

Please note that the toxicological endpoints and other factors shown in Table 5a are the same as those used in the occupational risk assessment, as discussed in the Occupational Risk section of this document, Section III.A.5.a.

12 Table 5a. Summary of Acephate and Methamidophos Toxicological Endpoints and Other Factors Used in the Human Occupational and Residential Risk Assessments for Acephate Assessment Dose Endpoint Study Acephate Dermal - Short NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day Brain cholinesterase 21-Day Dermal - Rat and Intermediate- inhibition1 MRID 45134301 Term LOAEL > 50 mg/kg/day MRID 44541101 Inhalation - Any NOAEL = 0.001064 mg/L Brain cholinesterase 4-Week Inhalation - Rat Duration (0.28 mg/kg/day) inhibition MRID 45134302

LOAEL = 0.003123 mg/L Oral - Acute NOAEL = 0.5 mg/kg/day Brain and plasma Acute Neurotoxicity Range cholinesterase Finding - Rat LOAEL = 2.5 mg/kg/day inhibition MRID 44203302 Methamidophos Dermal - Any NOAEL = 0.75 mg/kg/day Plasma, red blood 21-Day Dermal Toxicity - Rat Duration cell, and brain MRID 44525301 LOAEL = 11.2 mg/kg/day cholinesterase inhibition Inhalation - Any NOAEL = 0.001 mg/L (0.27 Plasma, red blood 90-Day Inhalation - Rat Duration mg/kg/day) cell, and brain MRID 41402401 cholinesterase LOAEL = 0.005 mg/L inhibition Oral - Acute NOAEL = 0.3 mg/kg/day Brain cholinesterase Acute Neurotoxicity inhibition MRID 43025001; 43345801 LOAEL = 0.7 mg/kg/day 1Slight brain cholinesterase inhibition seen at 60 mg/kg/day dose in MRID 44541101

Acephate has low acute dermal and inhalation toxicity. It is non-irritating to skin, minimally irritating to the eyes and is not a skin sensitizer. It is classified under Category III for acute oral toxicity. Table 5b summarizes the acute toxicity of the active ingredient.

Table 5b. Acute Toxicity Profile for Residential and Occupational Exposure to Acephate Route of Exposure Category Basis Toxicity Category

Oral Acute oral LD50 = 1.4 g/kg - male rat; 1.0 g/kg - female rat III (MRID 00029686)

Dermal Acute dermal LD50 >10 g/kg - male rabbit (MRID 00055602) IV

Inhalation Acute inhalation LC50 >61.7 mg/L (MRID 00015307) IV Eye Irritation Non-irritant - rabbit (MRID 00014686) IV Dermal Irritation PIS = 0.1 - rabbit (intact and abraded skin) (MRID 00015305) IV Dermal Sensitizer Negative -guinea pig (MRID 00119085) -

13 b. Exposure

A chemical-specific monitoring study on residential handler (homeowner) exposure (MRID 40504827) was submitted to the Agency in support of the reregistration of acephate and was used in the residential risk assessment. Analyses were also performed using the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED), Version 1.1 (August 1998). Standard assumptions about average body weight, work day, daily areas treated, volume of pesticide used, etc., were used to calculate risk estimates. The quality of the data and exposure factors represents the best sources of data currently available to the Agency for completing these kinds of assessments; the application rates are derived directly from acephate labels. The exposure factors (e.g., body weight, amount treated per day, protection factors, etc.) are all standard values that have been used by the Agency over several years, and the PHED unit exposure values are the best available estimates of exposure. Some PHED unit exposure values are high quality while others represent low quality, but are the best available data. The quality of the data used for each scenario assessed is discussed in the February 3, 2000, Acephate Human Health Risk Assessment available in the public docket.

Anticipated use patterns and application methods, range of application rates, and daily amount treated were derived from current labeling on acephate end products. Application rates specified on acephate labels for residential uses range up to 5 pounds of active ingredient per acre on residential turf.

Residential pesticide applicators of acephate, such as homeowners who treat turf and ornamentals, are likely to be exposed on a short-term basis only. For the residential exposure scenarios, the Agency assumes that no personal protective equipment is used.

The Agency also considered exposure to adults or children entering or playing on treated lawns or entering homes after application of acephate products (postapplication exposure). These activities result in potential short-term dermal acephate and methamidophos postapplication exposures. Because the degradate, methamidophos, is expected to be present following the application of acephate, the residential and postapplication assessment addresses both potential acephate and methamidophos exposures.

A submitted turf transferable residue (TTR) study was used to better define the amount of acephate and methamidophos residues on acephate-treated turf. In addition, data submitted by the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force (ORETF) on hose end sprayers was used in this assessment.

c. Residential Handler Risk Summary

1) Residential Applicator Risk

The Agency does not believe the addition of personal protective equipment to residential handlers (as used for assessing occupational handler risk) is an appropriate approach for

14 homeowner handler exposure assessments. Homeowners often lack access to PPE and also do not possess expertise in the proper use of PPE. As a result, homeowner handler assessments are completed using a single scenario based on the use of short-sleeved shirts and short pants (i.e., common homeowner attire during the pesticide application season). In addition, only short-term exposures were assessed, as the Agency does not believe homeowners who apply acephate will be exposed for more than a few consecutive days. The homeowner handler exposure scenarios that were assessed are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. Homeowner Uses and Risk Concerns (combined dermal & inhalation MOEs) Crop/ Rate Amount Short-Term Scenario Use Site lb ai/A or /gallon Used MOE Ornamentals, Trees, 0.023 170 (1) Mixing/loading/applying using a Flowers, Fire Ants 2 gallons low pressure handwand Turf 0.035 110 Roses, Turf 0.0076 520 Ornamentals, Trees, 0.023 7300 (2) Mixing/loading/applying using a Flowers, Fire Ants 2 gallons backpack sprayer Turf 0.035 4800 Roses, Turf 0.0076 22000 1.9 0.5 266 1.9 0.25 532 Ornamentals, Trees, 1.9 0.1 1329 Flowers, Roses, Fire Ants 1 (3) Mixing/loading/applying using a Turf 3.9 0.5 130 hose-end sprayer 3.9 0.25 259 3.9 0.1 648 Chemical Specific Exposure Monitoring Study 0.012 50 gal. 120 MRID 40504827 Ornamentals, Trees, 0.023 960 (4) Mixing/loading/applying using a Flowers, Fire Ant 5 gal sprinkler can Turf 0.035 630 Roses, Turf 0.0076 2900 (5) Loading/applying soluble powder Fire Ant 0.0069 7 mounds 140 using a hand tool or shaker can 0.5 Ornamentals 14 (6) Loading/applying granules by lb ai/1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. shaker cup 0.1125 ft. Roses 61 lb ai/1000 sq. ft. Crack & Crevice; (7) Applying using an aerosol can 0.0022 2 cans 1226.5 Ornamentals 1Please note that all of the use rates given in this row do not apply to all sites listed.

15 One homeowner exposure scenario, the application of granules by shaker cup (Scenario 6), has calculated risks of concern to the Agency. The MOEs of concern are driven by dermal exposure. However, the Agency believes that the MOEs presented here overestimate the risk from this residential exposure scenario. The risk estimate numbers were based on the assumption that an individual homeowner could treat 1000 square feet with the granular formulation by shaker cup. This is a conservative assumption based on the presence of other cost-effective options available to homeowners treating areas that large (i.e., hose-end sprayers). For example, if a homeowner wanted to treat a 1000 square foot flower bed with acephate, he or she would likely use a hose end sprayer over granule shaker cup.

In addition, one five pound canister of acephate granules packaged in a shaker can would only treat 150 square feet of ornamentals (667 square feet of roses). The MOE for a homeowner using an entire container is 94. To treat 1000 square feet of ornamentals would require over 6 five pound canisters. In addition, the directions for use on a container this size indicate that it is not a single use product. Therefore, risks from the use of acephate granules in shaker cups is not of concern to the Agency.

Risk estimates indicate that, when short-term dermal and inhalation exposures are combined, the Agency has no risk concerns for the remaining residential handler scenarios.

2) Postapplication Residential Risk

Acephate can be used within residences for crack and crevise treatment; on home lawns, trees, shrubs and flowers, golf course turf; and on other turf areas where exposure to adults and children may occur. Exposure to acephate and its degradate methamidophos may result from entering the treated area, performing yard work (e.g., pruning, cutting and weeding), playing or performing other recreational activities (e.g., golfing) on the treated areas. Acephate and methamidophos exposures may also occur from contact (i.e., pruning, cutting and weeding) with treated ornamentals, flowers, trees, and shrubs. However, it is anticipated that these exposures would not be as significant as turfgrass exposures because of lower contact rates and the frequency and duration of potential contacts.

Both toddler and adult postapplication dermal and incidental oral risks from exposure to residential turf treated with acephate were considered. Additionally, the Agency assessed risks to adults and children exposed indoors to treated residential buildings and to golfers from exposure to treated golf course turf. The Agency does not anticipate potential inhalation exposures because of the low volatility of acephate; therefore, these exposures were not assessed.

Data from a turf transferable residue (TTR) study (MRID 44806401) submitted by the registrant were used to define available residue on recreational turf and home lawns. The maximum application rate for turf/sod farm was 5 pounds active ingredient per acre for recreational turf and home lawns; however, an application rate of 3.5 pounds of active ingredient per acre was used in the TTR study, and is reflected here. Postapplication residential and

16 recreational exposures were calculated on the day of treatment, in accordance with current Agency policy.

a) Indoor Residential Postapplication Risk

Indoor residential postapplication risks are of concern to the Agency. The MOEs for aggregate indoor residential exposure to acephate residues range from 2.8 to 9.0 for children. Additionally, risks to adults are of concern due to dermal exposure. Risks are driven by residues of acephate, not the degradate methamidophos. See Table 7 below for further information on all risk estimates given for both acephate and methamidophos residues.

These risk estimates apply to acephate use in homes. The assumptions reflect conditions and use patterns associated with residential use. Thus, these risk estimates cannot be reliably used to determine whether the Agency has risk concerns for postapplication exposure to acephate in other industrial, institutional, and commercial buildings; for example, restaurants, warehouses, stores, hospitals, hotels, manufacturing plants and ships.

Table 7: Residential Postapplication Risk Estimates from Acephate Application Indoors Acephate Acephate MOEs Methamidophos MOEs Exposure Application Rate Hand-to- Hand-to- Scenario Dermal Aggregate Dermal Aggregate (lb ai/A) Mouth Mouth 0.5% Solution 24 14.4 9.0 94.9 2277.3 91.1 Toddlers on 0.75% Solution 16 9.6 6.0 63.3 1518.2 60.7 Carpets 1.0% Solution 12 7.2 4.5 47.4 1138.7 45.5 0.5% Solution 24 7.2 5.5 94.9 1138.7 87.6 Toddlers on Hard 0.75% Solution 16 4.8 3.7 63.3 759.1 58.4 Surfaces 1.0% Solution 12 3.6 2.8 47.4 569.3 43.8 0.5% Solution 40.3 159.1 Adults on Carpets 0.75% Solution 26.9 Not applicable 106.1 Not applicable or Hard Surfaces 1.0% Solution 20.2 79.5

b) Residential Lawn Postapplication Risk

Residential lawn postapplication risks are of concern to the Agency. As shown in Table 8, the MOE is 7.4 when combining the following four components of toddler exposure: hand-to mouth; object-to-mouth; soil ingestion; and dermal exposure. Based on the available data, this risk is driven by parent acephate residues and not the degradate methamidophos.

These risks were assessed at an application rate of 3.5 lb ai/A since that is the rate used in the turf transferable residue (TTR) chemical-specific study used to determine risk. The current registered maximum application rate for residential turf is 5 lb ai/A. Thus, MOE values underestimate the risk from current labels.

17 Table 8: Residential Postapplication Risk Estimates from Acephate Application to Lawns Scenario Individual Application Rate MOE (acephate) MOE (methamidophos) Dermal Adult 507 2020 Dermal Child 303 1207 Hand-to-Mouth Child 9.6 1522 3.5 lb ai/A Object-to-Mouth Child 38 6088 Soil Child 385 454 Combined Child 7.4 260

c) Recreational Postapplication Risk (Golf Courses)

Recreational postapplication risks from the use of acephate are not of concern to the Agency; MOEs from acephate residues are 3600 for child golfers and 6100 for adult golfers. MOEs from methamidophos residues resulting from acephate application are 14,000 for child golfers and 2400 for adult golfers.

4. Aggregate Risk

An aggregate risk assessment looks at the combined risk from dietary exposure (food and drinking water routes), and in some cases residential exposure (dermal exposure, inhalation exposure for homeowner applicators, and incidental oral exposure for toddlers). Dietary risks from exposure to acephate through food and drinking water are not of concern, as discussed above. However, since risks to children from postapplication exposure to acephate itself exceeds the risk cup (MOE = 7.4), aggregate risks are of concern.

5. Occupational Risk

Occupational workers can be exposed to a pesticide through mixing, loading, and/or applying a pesticide, or re-entering treated sites. Occupational handlers of acephate include: individual farmers or other growers who mix, load, and/or apply pesticides, commercial, professional, or custom agricultural applicators, commercial pest control operators and lawncare and turf management professionals. As for the residential risks, occupational risk is measured by a Margin of Exposure (MOE). An MOE determines how close the occupational or residential exposure comes to a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). For acephate and methamidophos, MOEs greater than 100 do not exceed the Agency’s risk concern.

a. Toxicity

The toxicity of acephate is integral to assessing the occupational risk. As for the residential risk assessment, all risk calculations are based on the most current toxicity information available for acephate, including 21-day dermal and 4-week inhalation toxicity studies submitted to the Agency in May 2000. The toxicological endpoints, and other factors

18 used in the occupational risk assessments for acephate are listed in Tables 5a and 5b in the Residential Risk Summary of this document, Section III.A.3.a.

b. Exposure

A chemical-specific exposure monitoring study on pest control operator (PCO) exposure (MRID 40504823) was submitted to the Agency in support of the reregistration of acephate, and was used in the occupational risk assessment.

For other exposure scenarios, the analyses for both short- and intermediate term exposures were performed using the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED), Version 1.1 (August 1998). Standard assumptions about average body weight, work day, daily areas treated, volume of pesticide used, etc., were used to calculate risk estimates. The quality of the data and exposure factors represents the best sources of data currently available to the Agency for completing these kinds of assessments; the application rates are derived directly from acephate labels. The exposure factors (e.g., body weight, amount treated per day, protection factors, etc.) are all standard values that have been used by the Agency over several years, and the PHED unit exposure values are the best available estimates of exposure. Some PHED unit exposure values are high quality while others represent low quality, but are the best available data. The quality of the data used for each scenario assessed is discussed in the February 3, 2000, Acephate Human Health Assessment document available in the public docket.

Anticipated use patterns and application methods, range of application rates, and daily amount treated were derived from current labeling. Application rates specified on acephate labels range depending on crop from 0.5 to 1.33 pounds of active ingredient per acre in agricultural settings, and from 0.035 pounds of active ingredient per gallon (2 gallons used per day) to 5 pounds of active ingredient per acre per application on commercial turf. The Agency typically uses acres treated per day values that are thought to represent 8 hours of application work for specific types of application equipment. New standard values for acreage treated in a day have been incorporated in this assessment, according to the Agency’s Exposure Scientific Advisory Committee (ExpoSAC) interim policy 009 of June 23, 2000. In occupational exposure assessments, the Agency now assumes that 1,200 acres are treated during aerial application to major crops, such as cotton, and that 200 acres are treated by groundboom application to major crops. Acreage assumptions for other crops remain at 350 for aerial application and 80 for groundboom application.

Occupational handler exposure assessments are conducted by the Agency using different levels of personal protection. The Agency typically evaluates all exposures with baseline protection and then adds additional protective measures to obtain an appropriate MOE (i.e., going from minimal to maximum levels of protection). The lowest suite of PPE is baseline PPE. If required (i.e., MOEs are less than 100), increasing levels of risk mitigation (PPE) are applied. If MOEs are still less than 100, engineering controls (EC) are applied. In some cases, EPA will conduct an assessment using PPE or ECs taken from a current label. The levels of protection that formed the basis for calculations of exposure from acephate activities include:

19 • Baseline: Long-sleeved shirt and long pants, shoes and socks. • Minimum PPE: Baseline, chemical resistant gloves and a respirator with a protection factor (PF) of 5 (a dust mist filtering respirator). • Maximum PPE: Baseline, an additional layer of clothing (e.g. coveralls), chemical- resistant gloves and a respirator with a protection factor of 10 (a respirator with organic vapor protection). • Engineering controls: Engineering controls such as a closed cab tractor for application scenarios, or a closed mixing/loading system such as a farm closed mechanical transfer system for liquids or a packaged based system (e.g., Lock n Load for granulars or water soluble packaging for wettable powders). Some engineering controls are not feasible for certain scenarios. Some formulation types qualify as engineering controls for the purpose of controlling exposure during mixing/loading, such as water soluble packets.

For the purpose of this risk assessment, the Agency has determined that the frequency and duration of acephate uses by occupational handlers result in short-term (1 to 7 days) and intermediate-term (one week to several months) exposures.

Finally, postapplication exposure to workers through entry into agricultural fields treated with acephate was also considered. These activities result in potential short-term and intermediate-term dermal acephate and methamidophos postapplication exposures. Because methamidophos is anticipated to be present following the application of acephate, the occupational, residential and postapplication assessments address both potential acephate and methamidophos exposures.

Four dislodgeable foliar residue (DFR) studies submitted by the registrant address the dissipation of acephate and methamidophos in fields/greenhouses of succulent beans, cauliflower, greenhouse roses, and tobacco. These studies were used to evaluate potential postapplication worker risks. A submitted turf transferable residue (TTR) study was used to better define the amount of acephate and methamidophos residues on acephate-treated turf.

The revised occupational risk assessment (September 15, 2000) also includes information from the Agriculture Re-Entry Task Force (ARTF) on transfer coefficients. This information has been summarized by the ExpoSAC in interim Policy 3.1.

c. Occupational & Residential Handler Risk Summary

The Agency identified several major occupational handler exposure scenarios associated with the use of acephate. Numerous combined dermal and inhalation MOEs for occupational mixer/loader scenarios are less than 100 when assessed considering baseline personal protective equipment (PPE) and, therefore, are of concern to the Agency at that level of protection. However, most of these risks can be mitigated with additional levels of protection, as described below. In addition, pasture uses of acephate have previously been deleted and no registered

20 liquid acephate formulations for agricultural uses exist (Scenario 3); therefore, the results of these assessments are not presented here.

Only three occupational risk areas remain of concern at the highest level of mitigation available or feasible: risks to agricultural handlers who mix and load soluble powder for aerial applications to 1200 acres; risks to Pest Control Operators (PCOs) who mix, load and apply more than 5 gallons of formulated product per day; and risks to handlers who mix, load and apply granules using a belly grinder, a shaker can, or by hand (except for ant mound treatment).

The Agency could not quantitatively assess risk to occupational workers for the following scenarios due to the lack of acephate-specific or PHED exposure data for these methods of application:

• Scenario 9 Tobacco Transplanting Water “Applicator” (handlers transplanting treated tobacco plants); • Scenario 10 Slurry Seed Treatment “Applicator” (handlers planting treated seed); • Scenario 11 Hopper Box Seed Treatment “Applicator” (handlers planting treated seed); • Scenario 16 Aerosol Generator Mixer/Loader/Applicator; • Scenario 17 PCO Injector Crack and Crevice Use Mixer/Loader/Applicator; and • Scenario 20 Tree Injection Mixer/Loader/Applicator.

Nonetheless, the Agency has qualitatively considered whether exposure is likely and attempted to describe the level of risk from these scenarios.

In Scenario 9, acephate is added to the aqueous medium that is used to start tobacco plants prior to transplanting. Two major work functions are associated with this use including preparation of the starting solution (i.e., mixing chemical with water), assessed as Scenario 1f, and workers transplanting the immature tobacco plants. Transplanting may involve exposures to people who drive a transplanting rig through fields and also to individuals involved with placing plants into the transplanting mechanism. However, based on the Agency’s understanding of the operation, it is not likely that significant exposures will occur since the formulated product is injected directly into the soil with the tobacco seedling. Plants are not handled after they are placed into the ground. Additionally, no formulated product is visible after transplanting. Therefore, this applicator scenario is not of concern to the Agency.

In Scenarios 10 and 11, acephate is used to treat cotton and peanut seed during the manufacturing/storage process or added directly to seed hoppers on application equipment during planting by growers. The Agency did not assess exposures during the actual placement of seeds into prepared soil (i.e., the tractor driver during planting). In order to consider this exposure quantitatively, the Agency would select the direct application of granules as a likely surrogate (Scenario 12). The results for that scenario indicate that, at a rate approximately 5 times higher than used for the seed treatment, baseline clothing results in acceptable risk. As

21 such, the Agency does not have a risk concern for the application of treated seeds at baseline levels of PPE.

For Scenario 16, the Aerosol Generator mixer/loader/applicator, there are three exposure elements that should be considered. The first component is loading the concentrated end-use product into the aerosol generator (this does not apply if the end product is being marketed in an aerosol can). The second is the initiation and monitoring of the production of aerosol in the area being treated. The last element involves venting the treated area for re-entry purposes. The mixing/loading component for greenhouse foggers would typically be addressed using the standard unit exposure values for mixing/loading liquids. Several scenarios for liquid formulations have already been completed for acephate in which a range of acephate throughput was considered. It is likely that the amount of chemical active ingredient to be used in a fogging event likely approximates the chemical throughput estimated for one of the already defined mixing/loading scenarios (5 lb ai; Scenario 3b) with acceptable MOEs at baseline PPE. As such, this exposure element can be estimated with the existing risk calculations, and is not of concern to the Agency. In addition, the Agency did calculate post-application worker risks for cut flowers and floriculture in the acephate risk assessment. These calculations can serve as the basis for any consideration of dermal exposure related to monitoring ongoing fogging events and for venting. Inhalation exposure is the only remaining element for these activities that has not been quantitatively assessed. In order to complete a quantitative assessment, more detailed information on fogging uses of acephate needs to be provided (e.g., target application concentrations, routine venting procedures, etc.).

For the PCO injector use, Scenario 17, the Agency has a potential concern for applicators using this product because it contains 96 percent active ingredient and as part of the normal use of the product, PCOs prepare the bait in an open system. Designated containers are provided with the product for this purpose and the label requires the use of gloves. As such, it is likely that exposures would be small.

For Scenario 20, Tree Injection, there are many different types of devices that can be used for this application. These range from relatively low exposure devices such as direct injection syringes that also serve as the end-use product package to higher exposure application devices such as a hypo-hatchet or other similar devices. The Agency does not have exposure data that can be used quantitatively in risk assessments for these types of devices. Qualitatively, the Agency believes that there is a potential for exposure and risk because most application methods require concentrated product and are not in closed systems.

1) Agricultural Handler Risk

The occupational handler exposure scenarios that were assessed are summarized in the Table 9, and exposure scenarios that present risks of concern are explained further below.

22 At baseline PPE, the following handler scenarios are acceptable:

• Scenario 2 mixing and loading dry flowable formulations for slurry seed treatment (assessed as a surrogate for a new, soluble extruded pellet formulation) • Scenario 4, 12 mixing, loading, and applying granules for drop type application to cotton; • Scenario 6 applying to agricultural crops via groundboom; • Scenario 7 applying to non-bearing citrus, trees and shrubs, or outdoor floral via airblast sprayer; • Scenario 8 applying to tobacco, or trees, shrubs, or outdoor floral via handgun; • Scenario 13a mixing, loading, and applying soluble powder by low pressure handwand to control fire ants; • Scenario 18 mixing, loading, and applying soluble powder to ant mounds by hand tool or shaker can; • Scenario 19 mixing, loading, and applying soluble powder to ant mounds by sprinkler can; and • Scenario 24 mixing, loading and applying granules to ant mounds by hand.

Risks from the following handler scenarios can be mitigated by employing minimum PPE (baseline clothing plus chemical-resistant gloves and a PF 5 respirator):

• Scenario 1d mixing and loading soluble powder for airblast application to non-bearing citrus, trees and shrubs, and outdoor floral; • Scenario 1e mixing and loading soluble powder for handgun application to tobacco, trees and shrubs, and outdoor floral; • Scenario 1f mixing and loading soluble powder for use in tobacco transplant water; • Scenario 1h mixing and loading soluble powder for use in a hopper box to treat cotton seed or peanut seed; • Scenario 13a mixing, loading, and applying soluble powder by low pressure handwand to trees, shrubs, and outdoor floral (0.5 lb ai/A rate) and to control wasps; • Scenario 14 mixing, loading, and applying soluble powder by backpack sprayer to trees, shrubs, and outdoor floral and to control wasps and fire ants;

• Scenario 15 mixing, loading, and applying soluble powder by high pressure handwand to trees, shrubs, and outdoor floral; and • Scenario 25 flagging for aerial applications to agricultural crops and pastures.

Risks from the following handler scenarios can be mitigated by employing maximum PPE (double layer of clothing plus chemical resistant gloves and a PF 10 respirator):

23 • Scenario 1b mixing and loading soluble powder for chemigation application to cranberries; • Scenario 13a mixing, loading, and applying soluble powder by low pressure handwand to trees, shrubs, and outdoor floral (1.0 lb ai/A rate); and • Scenario 25 flagging for aerial applications to turf.

Risks from the following handler scenarios can be mitigated by employing engineering controls:

• Scenario 1a mixing and loading soluble powder for aerial application to agricultural crops (350 acre/day); • Scenario 1c mixing and loading soluble powder for groundboom application to agricultural crops or turf; • Scenario 1g mixing and loading soluble powder for slurry seed treatment of cotton seed; and • Scenario 5 applying to agricultural crops aerially.

Risks from the following scenarios are still of concern when assuming engineering controls are employed:

• Scenario 1a mixing and loading soluble powder for aerial application to agricultural crops (1200 acres treated per day) (driven by inhalation exposure); • Scenario 1a mixing and loading soluble powder for aerial application to turf at the 5 lb ai/A use rate; and • Scenarios 22, 23, and 24 mixing, loading, and applying granules to trees and shrubs and 12" pots for ornamental plants.

Table 9. Agricultural Handler Risk Assessment Short-Term and Intermediate-Term Acres Crop/ Use Rate MOEs Scenario Treated Use Site (lb ai/A) Min Max Eng. /Day Baseline1 PPE2 PPE3 Control4 Mixer/Loader Exposure Scenarios 0.5 1200 0.51 3.4 6.5 91 Agricultural 1 1200 0.26 1.7 3.2 46 (1a) Soluble Powder for crops Aerial Application 1 350 0.88 5.9 11 160 Turf 5 350 0.18 1.2 2.2 31 (1b) Soluble Powder for Cranberries 1 30 10 68 130 1800 Chemigation (1c) Soluble Powder for 0.5 200 3.1 21 39 550 Agricultural crops Groundboom 1 200 1.5 10 19 270

24 Short-Term and Intermediate-Term Acres Crop/ Use Rate MOEs Scenario Treated Use Site (lb ai/A) Min Max Eng. /Day Baseline1 PPE2 PPE3 Control4 Turf 5 80 0.77 5.1 10 140 Non-bearing 0.5 40 15 100 200 2700 citrus (1d) Soluble Trees and shrubs 1 10 31 210 390 5500 Powder/Airblast (/100 gal) Outdoor Floral 0.5 10 62 410 780 11000 (/100 gal) Tobacco (/80 gal; 1 6 51 340 650 9100 13 gal/A) Trees, shrubs, (1e) Soluble outdoor floral 1 1000 gal 31 210 390 5500 Powder/Handgun (/100 gal) Trees, shrubs, outdoor floral 0.5 1000 gal 62 410 780 11000 (/100 gal) (1f) Soluble Tobacco 0.75 20 21 140 260 3700 Powder/Transplanting (1g) Soluble Powder for Cotton Seed (/100 200,000 lb 0.04 3.8 26 49 690 Slurry Seed Treatment lb seed) seed (1h) Soluble Powder for Cotton Seed & 0.1875 80 21 140 260 3700 Hopper Box Peanut Seed (2) Dry Flowable Slurry Cotton Seed (/100 200,000 lb 0.04 220 470 720 11000 Seed Treatment lb seed) seed (4) Granule/Drop Type Cotton 1 80 140 650 1300 7000 Spreader Applicator Exposure Scenarios 0.5 1200 na na na 340 (5) Aerial Agricultural crops 1 1200 na na na 170 0.5 200 240 860 1400 2700 Agricultural crops (6) Groundboom 1 200 120 430 720 1400 Pasture 0.125 80 2300 8300 14000 26000 Non-bearing 0.5 40 150 440 580 1800 citrus Trees and Shrubs 1000 (7) Airblast 1 300 870 1200 3500 (/100gal) gallons Outdoor Floral 1000 0.5 600 1700 2300 7000 (/100 gal) gallons Tobacco (8) Handgun 1 6 acres 570 1500 2600 NF (/80gal; 13 gal/A)

25 Short-Term and Intermediate-Term Acres Crop/ Use Rate MOEs Scenario Treated Use Site (lb ai/A) Min Max Eng. /Day Baseline1 PPE2 PPE3 Control4 Tree, shrubs, 1 1000 gal 340 900 1600 NF Outdoor floral (/100gal) 0.5 1000 gal 690 1800 3100 NF (12) Granule/Drop Type Cotton 1 80 200 870 1700 7000 Spreader Mixer/Loader/Applicator Exposure Scenarios Trees, shrubs, 1 1000 gal 16 73 140 NF outdoor floral 0.5 1000 gal 32 150 270 NF (13a) Soluble Powder/Low (/100 gal) Pressure Handwand Fire Ant 0.047 5 gal 330 1600 2900 NF (lb ai/5 gal) Wasps (lb ai/gal) 0.075 5 gal 41 200 360 NF Tree, shrubs, 1 40 gal na 980 1600 NF outdoor floral 0.5 40 gal na 2000 3300 NF (14) Backpack Sprayer (/100gal) Wasps (lb ai/gal) 0.75 5 gal na 260 440 NF Ant (lb ai /5 gal) 0.047 5 gallons na 21000 35000 NF Tree, shrubs, (15) High Pressure 1 1000 gal na 520 940 NF outdoor floral Handwand (/100gal) 0.5 1000 gal na 1000 1900 NF (18) Hand Tool/Shaker Fire Ants (lb 0.00694 10 mounds 660 1400 na NF Can ai/mound) (19) Soluble Powder Fire Ants (0.0029 0.047 2 gallons 18000 95000 130,000 NF Sprinkler Can lb ai/mound) (22) Granules - Belly Trees/shrubs 87,000 sq. 0.1125 17 31 53 NF Grinder (1000 sq. ft.) ft. Trees/shrubs 10,000 sq. (23) Granules - Shaker Can 0.1125 17 35 63 NF (1000 sq. ft.) ft. 12-inch pot (lb 0.00099 1000 pots 19 40 72 NF ai/pot) (24) Granules - By Hand Trees, shrubs 10000 sq. 0.1125 17 35 63 NF (1000 sq. ft.) ft. Fire Ant 0.008 10 mounds 240 500 890 NF Flagger Exposure Scenarios 0.5 1200 79 240 340 4000 Agricultural crops (25) Flagging Aerial Spray 1 1200 40 120 170 2000 Turf 5 350 27 82 120 1400 1 Baseline: long-sleeved shirt, long pants, socks and shoes 2 Minimum PPE: baseline clothing plus chemical-resistant gloves and a PF 5 respirator

26 3 Maximum PPE: baseline clothing plus an additional layer of clothing such as coveralls, chemical-resistant gloves, and a PF 10 respirator 4 Engineering controls: Closed cab tractor for application scenarios, or a closed mixing/loading system such as a farm closed mechanical transfer system for liquids or soluble packets NF = Not feasible

2) Pest Control Operator and Turf Use Risk

Turf and pest control operator (PCO) uses assessed are listed in Table 10. As before, this table shows the risk estimates with increasing levels of protection.

For professional turf uses, almost all of the scenarios with risks of concern at baseline can be mitigated with additional levels of protection. However, risks to PCOs applying 40 gallons of formulated product in a day remain of concern at the highest level of protection. The Agency also considered PHED data when assessing risks to PCO (see Scenario 13a) rather than relying solely on an available chemical-specific study (see Scenario 13b). The Agency feels that PHED data are more appropriate in this instance because the operations of PCOs are so highly variable. A single study fails to represent such variability in exposure.

At baseline PPE, the following handler scenarios are acceptable:

• Scenario 6 applying to golf courses by groundboom; • Scenario 8 applying to turf by handgun; and • Scenario 13 PCOs mixing, loading, and applying 0.25 or 1 gallon of product formulated from a soluble powder by low pressure handwand.

Risks from the following handler scenarios can be mitigated by employing minimum PPE (baseline clothing plus chemical-resistant gloves and a PF 5 respirator):

• Scenario 3c mixing and loading liquid formulations for groundboom application to golf courses or turf; • Scenarios 4 &12 mixing, loading, and applying granules for drop-type spreader application to sod and golf courses; • Scenario 6 applying to turf by groundboom; • Scenario 13 PCOs mixing, loading, and applying 4 or 5 gallons of product formulated from a soluble powder by low pressure handwand; • Scenario 14 PCOs mixing, loading, and applying 40 gallons of formulated product by backpack sprayer; and • Scenario 21 mixing, loading, and applying granules to turf using a push-type spreader.

Risks from the following handler scenario can be mitigated by employing maximum PPE (double layer of clothing plus chemical resistant gloves and a PF 10 respirator):

• Scenario 1e mixing and loading soluble powder for handgun application to turf.

27 Risks from the following handler scenarios can be mitigated with engineering controls:

• Scenario 1c mixing and loading soluble powder for groundboom application to golf courses; and • Scenario 5 applying to turf aerially.

Table 10. Turf and Pest Control Operator (PCO) Handler Risk Assessment Short- and Intermediate-term MOEs Crop/ Rate (lb Scenario Acres Min Max Eng. Use Site ai/A) Baseline1 PPE2 PPE3 Controls4 Mixer/Loader Exposure Scenarios (1c) Soluble Powder for Golf Course 5 40 1.5 10 19 270 Groundboom (1e) Soluble Powder/Handgun Turf 5 5 12 82 160 2200 Golf Course 5 40 5.6 270 530 750 (3c) Liquid/Groundboom Turf 5 80 3 130 270 370 (4) Granules/Drop-Type Sod 5 80 28 130 259 2800 Spreader Golf Course 5 40 56 260 520 2800 Applicator Exposure Scenarios (5) Aerial Turf 5 350 na na na 120 Turf 5 80 60 220 360 690 (6) Groundboom Golf Course 5 40 120 430 720 1400 (8) Handgun Turf 5 5 140 360 620 NF (12) Granules/Drop-Type Sod 5 80 39 180 340 2800 Spreader Golf Course 5 40 78 350 680 2800 Mixer/Loader/Applicator Exposure Scenarios 0.25 gal 709.9 3343.2 6194.8

(13a) Soluble Powders/Low 1 gal 177.5 835.8 1548.7 PCO Pressure Handwand 0.088 4 gal 44.4 208.9 387.2 NF (lb ai/gal) (PHED Data) 5 gal 35.5 167.2 309.7 40 gal 4.4 20.9 38.7 0.25 gal 242.6 1227.7 2211.2

(13b) Wettable Powder/Low 1 gal 60.6 306.9 552.8 PCO Pressure Handwand 0.08745 4 gal 15.2 76.7 138.2 NF (lb ai/gal) (MRID 40404823) 5 gal 12.1 61.4 110.6 40 gal 1.5 7.7 13.8 (14) Backpack Sprayer PCO 0.088 40 gal na 280 470 NF (21) Granules/Push-Type Turf 5 5 35 91 170 NF Spreader 1 Baseline: long-sleeved shirt, long pants, socks and shoes

28 2 Minimum PPE: baseline clothing plus chemical-resistant gloves and a PF 5 respirator 3 Maximum PPE: baseline clothing plus an additional layer of clothing such as coveralls, chemical-resistant gloves, and a PF 10 respirator 4 Engineering controls: Closed cab tractor for application scenarios, or a closed mixing/loading system such as a farm closed mechanical transfer system for liquids or soluble packets NF = Not feasible

3) Postapplication Occupational Risk

The postapplication occupational risk assessment considered exposure scenarios to workers entering treated sites in agriculture and exposure scenarios that can occur as a result of turf management activities. Workers may be exposed to acephate and its degradate methamidophos on a short-term or intermediate-term basis upon entering treated areas. All of the postapplication risk calculations for handlers completed in this assessment are included in the revised occupational and residential risk assessment dated September 15, 2000.

The Agency has incorporated dislodgeable residue data submitted by the registrant and new transfer coefficients to calculate restricted-entry intervals (REIs). These transfer coefficients were derived from Agency data and transfer coefficient studies submitted by the Agricultural Re-entry Task Force (ARTF) and summarized by OPP’s Health Effects Division into an interim policy document (Policy 3.1) developed in August 2000.

In general, postapplication risk to workers from most agricultural uses of acephate is not of concern at the current 24 hour REI (Table 11). However, risk to workers exposed to treated cut flowers are of concern at the currently labeled REI of 24 hours. Risks are driven by the acephate degradate, methamidophos. MOEs are greater than 100 at day 2 after application for low exposure activities, at day 5 for medium exposure activities, and at day 9 for high exposure activities, such as harvesting. The current REI of 24 hours is of concern for workers who perform postapplication activities on cut flowers.

Table 11: Occupational Postapplication Risk from Acephate Application. Days After Treatment at Which the MOE is > 100 Exposure Activities Acephate Methamidophos Low Medium High Low Medium High Berry, Low 0 na na 0 na na Bunch/Bundle 0 0 0 0 0 0 Field Row Crop, Low/Medium 0 0 0 0 0 1 Cut Flowers 0 2 4 2 5 9 Non-Bearing Fruit Trees 0 na na 0 na na Turf/Sod 0 na 1 0 0 na Vegetable, "fruiting" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vegetable, "head and stem Brassica" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vegetable, "leafy" 0 0 0 0 0 1

29 B. Environmental Risk Assessment

A summary of the Agency’s environmental risk assessment is presented below. For detailed discussions of all aspects of the environmental risk assessment, see the August 25, 1999, Environmental Fate and Effects Division RED Chapter for Acephate, available in the acephate public docket, and subsequent addenda. In response to comments submitted during Phases 3 and 5, the risk assessment was updated and refined.

In the Exposure and Risk Characterization sections of this chapter of the IRED, Risk Quotients (RQs) are given for several groups of species that may be affected by the use of acephate. RQs are calculated by dividing EECs by acute and chronic ecotoxicity values. Maximum EECs are used to assess acute risk, and typical EECs are used to assess chronic risk. RQs are then compared to OPP’s levels of concern (LOCs) to analyze potential to cause adverse effects on nontarget organisms.

30 1. Environmental Fate and Transport

a. Degradation and Mobility

Aerobic soil metabolism is the main degradation process for acephate. Observed half- lives are less than 2 days under expected use conditions, producing the intermediate degradate methamidophos. Methamidophos is itself rapidly metabolized by soil microorganisms to carbon dioxide and microbial biomass (half-lives of < 10 days). Acephate is stable against hydrolysis except at high pH's (half-life at pH 9 of 18 days) and does not photodegrade. Acephate is not persistent in anaerobic clay sediment with a half-life of 6.6 days. The major degradates under anaerobic conditions are carbon dioxide and methane. No other significant amounts of anaerobic degradates have been found in laboratory tests.

Acephate is very soluble and very mobile under laboratory experimental conditions. Because acephate is not persistent under aerobic conditions, acephate is not expected to leach to groundwater. If any acephate were to reach ground water, it would not be expected to persist, due to its short anaerobic half-life. It appears that acephate and methamidophos are likely to be very mobile in soils.

b. Field Dissipation

Acephate and its degradate methamidophos are not expected to persist in the field. Field studies conducted in Mississippi (tobacco on silt loam soil), California (bell peppers on silt loam soil), Florida (cauliflower on sand soil) and Iowa (soybeans on loam soil) found half-lives of 2 days or less with no detections of parent or the degradate methamidophos below a depth of 50 cm. Based on the vapor pressure of acephate, the Agency does not expect that volatilization from soil or water is a route of dissipation for either acephate or methamidophos.

c. Bioaccumulation

Bioaccumulation of acephate residues is not of concern to the Agency. Laboratory studies showed that bioaccumulation of acephate in bluegill sunfish was insignificant.

2. Risk to Terrestrial Organisms

a. Birds

1) Acute and Subacute Toxicity

Avian studies indicate that acephate is moderately acutely toxic to birds (Oral LD50 ranges from 51-500 mg/kg) and ranges from practically non-toxic to moderately toxic to birds on a subacute basis (Oral LD50 ranges from 501 to 1000 ppm).

31 Avian studies indicate that methamidophos, a degradate of acephate, is highly to very highly toxic to birds on an acute basis (Oral LD50 ranges from <10 to 50 mg/kg) and is slightly toxic to very highly toxic to birds on a subacute basis (Oral LD50 ranges from <50 to 500 ppm).

2) Chronic Toxicity

Avian reproduction studies indicate that when parents are fed between 5 and 80 ppm technical grade acephate, the survival of embryos and chicks are adversely affected. Effects seen in a study on northern bobwhite quail at 80 ppm include reduced body weight, number of eggs laid, eggs set, viable embryos, number of embryos alive at 3 weeks, number of normal hatchlings, and 14-day old survivors. Effects seen in a study on mallard ducks at 20 ppm include a reduced number of viable embryos and live 3 week embryos.

An avian reproduction study with technical grade methamidophos indicate that when northern bobwhite quail parents are fed 5 ppm, a reduction in egg thickness is seen. An avian reproduction study using methamidophos on mallard ducks showed no effect at greater than 15 ppm.

3) Avian Exposure and Risk Characterization

Laboratory and exposure data indicate that there is little acute risk to birds from acephate itself (see Table 12 for calculated RQs). However, because acephate rapidly degrades to methamidophos in the environment and the degradate is highly toxic to birds, methamidophos may be responsible for the high acute risk to birds noted in reported incidents and field studies. The presented RQs are based on oral toxicity, and do not consider the highly toxic acute effects to birds from dermal and inhalation exposure.

Laboratory data indicate that the use of acephate may pose a high chronic risk to birds, both from acephate and its degradate, methamidophos. These data have shown that chronic exposure to acephate may decrease the viability of embryos and chicks, and chronic exposure to methamidophos may cause eggshell thinning. Further, literature data suggest that chronic exposure to acephate may disrupt the migratory patterns of adult birds.

The Agency expects that chronic risks to birds may be greater from the broadcast use of granular acephate formulations than from liquid formulations of acephate. Birds may be exposed to granular formulations by ingesting granules when foraging for food or grit, by walking on exposed granules, or by drinking water contaminated with acephate granules that degrade to methamidophos in the environment.

Field studies have shown that adverse effects from acephate occur one to two days after application of acephate; this delay can be interpreted as toxicity due to the degradate, methamidophos. Field studies and incidents indicate that the use of acephate may have a detrimental effect on birds, especially song birds.

32 Two incidents have been reported concerning an adverse impact to birds from acephate. Both incidents involved the death of birds following exposure to acephate from homeowner use.

Table 12. Avian Risk Quotients for Acephate and Methamidophos Acute Chemical and Acute High Chronic Risk Acute RQs Restricted Use Chronic RQs Formulation Risk LOC LOC LOC Non-Granular Acephate <0.1 to 0.4 <1 to 35.5 Granular Acephate 0.04 to 4.91 0.5 0.2 not calculated 1 Methamidophos 0.14 to 8.19 1 to 40

b. Mammals

1) Acute and Chronic Toxicity

Mammalian toxicity studies reviewed by the Agency indicate that acephate is characterized as moderately toxic to small mammals on an acute oral basis. However, for the degradate, toxicity studies indicate that methamidophos is highly toxic to small mammals on an acute oral and dermal basis.

2) Mammalian Exposure and Risk Characterization

Mammals are comparatively less sensitive to organophosphate pesticides than birds; however, field studies on acephate do show mortality and depressed cholinesterase levels. Again, because acephate degrades so quickly to methamidophos in the environment, it is likely that methamidophos causes the mortality seen from acephate applications. RQs are presented in Table 13 below. Field studies indicate that the use of acephate may have a detrimental effect on mammals, especially small animals.

Laboratory data indicate that acephate and its degradate may pose chronic risk to mammals by affecting the reproductive capacity of mammals (i.e., by reducing the viability of pups and body weight); however, there are no field data to corroborate this.

The Agency expects that chronic risks to mammals may be greater from the broadcast use of granular acephate formulations than from liquid formulations of acephate. Mammals may be exposed to granular formulations by ingesting granules when foraging for food, by walking on exposed granules, or by drinking water contaminated with acephate granules that degrade to methamidophos in the environment.

Table 13. Mammalian Risk Quotients for Acephate and Methamidophos Chemical and Acute High Acute Restricted Chronic Risk Acute RQs Chronic RQs Formulation Risk LOC Use LOC LOC Non-Granular Acephate <0.1 to 1.48 0.14 to 3.54 Granular Acephate 0.01 to 2.16 0.5 0.2 not calculated 1 Methamidophos 0.1 to 21.8 0.3 to 12.2

33 c. Insects

1) Acute Toxicity

Analysis of the results of honey bee acute contact studies indicate that acephate is highly toxic to bees and beneficial insects on an acute contact basis. One study indicated an LD50 of 1.2 ug/honey bee. Further studies indicated that acephate is highly toxic to bees from two hours to 96 hours after foliar application at rates of 1 lb/A and from 2 hours to 24 hours at 0.5 lb ai/A rate.

EPA also reviewed a study that tried to determine a toxicity ratio of selectivity of acephate by comparing the sensitivity of beneficial predator insects to that of the pest tobacco budworm. The ratio is calculated using the LC50 values for the pest divided by the LC50 values for the beneficial insect and a ratio greater than 1 represents that acephate is more toxic to the predator than to the pest. Green lacewing had a calculated ratio of 6.4 and the ratio for the parasitic wasp was 10.0. Acephate is more toxic to the beneficial predator than the pest.

An acute contact toxicity study for methamidophos, a degradate of acephate, on bees indicates that methamidophos is highly toxic to bees on an acute contact basis. The LD50 was 1.37 ug/bee.

2) Non-Target Insect Exposure and Risk Characterization

Acephate is highly toxic to honeybees and other beneficial insects. Honey bees and other beneficial insects will be exposed to acephate from use on vegetables, cotton, peanut, soybean, and ornamental plants. In addition, there are reported incidents of toxicity to bees resulting from acephate application. Based on this information, the Agency has a risk concern for beneficial and non-target insects from the use of acephate.

3. Risk to Aquatic Organisms and Ecosystems

a. Freshwater Organism Toxicity

1) Fish Toxicity

Acephate is considered practically nontoxic to slightly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis (LD50 ranges from 50 to >100 ppm). Methamidophos, a degradate of acephate, is considered slightly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis (LD50 ranges from 10 to 100 ppm). There are currently no chronic toxicity data available on fish.

2) Freshwater Amphibian Toxicity

Available data indicate that acephate is practically nontoxic to amphibians; therefore, the Agency has no risks of concern.

34 3) Freshwater Invertebrate Toxicity

Acephate is considered practically non-toxic to moderately toxic to aquatic invertebrates on an acute basis (LC50/EC50 ranges from 1.0 to greater than 100 ppm). Methamidophos, a degradate of acephate, is considered very highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates on an acute basis

(EC50 are less than 0.1 ppm, methamidophos is categorized as. The guideline (72-2) is fulfilled (MRID 00041311, 00014110, 00014305).

Chronically, acephate affects daphnid reproduction with a NOAEC of 0.150 ppm, a LOAEC of 0.375 ppm, and an MATC of 0.237 ppm. Acephate caused reduction in the numbers of young at 0.375 ppm.

b. Estuarine and Marine Organism Toxicity

1) Estuarine and Marine Fish Toxicity

Acephate is considered practically non-toxic to slightly toxic to estuarine and marine fish

(LC50 ranges from 10 ppm to greater than 100 ppm). Methamidophos is considered moderately toxic to estuarine/marine fish on an acute basis (LC50 ranges from 1 ppm to 10 ppm).

2) Estuarine and Marine Invertebrate Toxicity Acephate is considered practically non-toxic to moderately toxic to estuarine/marine vertebrates on an acute basis (LC50/EC50 ranges from 1.0 ppm to greater than100 ppm). Methamidophos is considered moderately toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute basis (LC50 /EC50 ranges from less than 0.1 ppm to 10 ppm).

Acephate effects mysid shrimp mortality with a NOAEC of 0.58 ppm, a LOAEC of 1.4 ppm, and an MATC of 0.90 ppm.

c. Aquatic Exposure and Risk Characterization

RQs calculated for acephate alone do not indicate high acute risks to fish and invertebrates; however, under certain environmental conditions (for example, high exposures in combination with elevated temperatures), there may be a concern for exposure to acephate because of its degradation to methamidophos. Although the degradate is only slightly toxic to freshwater fish, freshwater aquatic invertebrates are very sensitive. Furthermore, freshwater invertebrates appear to be more sensitive to methamidophos than estuarine or marine species (See Table 14). However, no incidents have been reported, and no field studies were conducted. Risks to freshwater and estuarine fish are expected to be minimal, based on available toxicity data.

The Agency believes that acute risks to aquatic ecosystems from the use of acephate and its degradate methamidophos will be minimal. Laboratory studies indicate that acephate itself

35 does not pose a high acute risk to aquatic ecosystems. However, as for aquatic organisms above, under certain environmental conditions, the use of acephate may result in risks to bivalves, invertebrates, and, indirectly, to fish. In addition, laboratory studies have shown the degradate methamidophos to be toxic to daphnids and blue shrimp. Other freshwater and estuarine invertebrate species tested in the laboratory do not appear to be as sensitive.

Chronic risks to aquatic ecosystems from the use of acephate and its degradate methamidophos are not of concern to the Agency. Information available on aquatic invertebrates show minimal chronic risk. No data are available on chronic risks to freshwater or estuarine fish; however, it is expected that effects on fish would be less than aquatic invertebrates. Data on chronic effects of methamidophos are not available. Although data on chronic effects of methamidophos are not available, chronic risk is not of concern because both acephate and methamidophos degrade rapidly in the environment.

Acephate is used in areas where runoff from agricultural fields could flow into estuaries. It is possible that acephate residues and methamidophos residues resulting from the use of acephate may be diluted to insignificant amounts by the time they reached any estuaries; in addition, acephate and/or methamidophos may degrade en route. However, the lack of information on dilution volumes and on the persistence of acephate residues in aquatic environments makes any conclusion uncertain. Areas where there could be a risk to marine and estuarine areas are the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, southern Florida, the Delmarva peninsula, and the North and South Carolina coasts. High amounts of rainfall in these areas exacerbate the risk to local estuarine habitats.

Table 14. Acute Aquatic Organism Risk Quotients for Acephate (Aerial and Ground Application) and Methamidophos Acute Acute High Chronic Organism Acute RQs Restricted Chronic RQs Risk LOC LOC Use LOC Acephate Freshwater Fish <0.05 No available data Freshwater Invertebrate <0.05 to 0.06 0.07 to 0.22 0.5 0.1 1 Estuarine/Marine Fish <0.05 No available data Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate <0.05 0.02 to 0.10 Methamidophos Freshwater Fish <0.05 Freshwater Invertebrate 0.31 to 1.04 0.5 0.1 No available data 1 Estuarine/Marine Fish <0.05 Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate <0.05

4. Risk to Endangered Species

Endangered species LOCs except for fish (estuarine and freshwater) and estuarine invertebrates are exceeded for all uses of acephate. In addition, LOCs are exceeded for

36 endangered species of mammals, amphibians, birds, reptiles, insects, and freshwater invertebrates for the degradate methamidophos formed from all uses of acephate. The Agency’s acute endangered species LOC for birds and mammals is 0.1; for aquatic animals is 0.05

The Agency consulted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or the Service) on the corn use of acephate as part of the corn cluster analysis in 1983, the forest use in the forest cluster analysis in 1984, the rangeland/pastureland uses in the cluster analysis in 1984 and on several agricultural uses of acephate in the "reinitiation" of the cluster assessments in 1988. The resulting 1989 opinion found jeopardy to three bird species. The Service proposed Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) to avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of these species. In addition, the Service had Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) to reduce incidental take of two amphibians, five aquatic invertebrates and 19 fish species. There was also a formal consultation on the acephate product, Orthene 75S and its use on macadamia nut trees. The Service determined that the only species likely to be jeopardized by this use was the Hawaiian hoary bat. They provided several RPAs to remove the jeopardy determination. These consultations and the findings expressed in the Opinions, however, are based on old labels, uses, and application methods, less refined risk assessment procedures, and an older approach to consultation that is currently being revised through interagency collaboration.

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

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

IV. Interim Risk Management and Reregistration Decision

A. Determination of Interim Reregistration Eligibility

Section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA calls for the Agency to determine whether products containing an a.i. are eligible for reregistration after submission of the relevant data. The Agency has previously identified and required the submission of the generic data (i.e., data

37 specific to an a.i.) to support reregistration of products containing acephate as the active ingredient.

The Agency has completed its assessment of the occupational and ecological risks associated with the use of pesticides containing the a.i. acephate, as well as an acephate-specific dietary risk assessment that has not considered the cumulative effects of organophosphates as a class. Based on a review of these data and public comments on the Agency’s assessments for the active ingredient acephate, EPA has sufficient information on the human health and ecological effects of acephate to make interim decisions as part of the tolerance reassessment process under FFDCA and reregistration under FIFRA, as amended by FQPA. The Agency has determined that acephate products are eligible for reregistration provided that: (i) any current data gaps and additional data needs are addressed; (ii) the risk mitigation measures outlined in this document are adopted, and label amendments are made to reflect these measures; and (iii) the consideration of cumulative risk for the organophosphates supports a final reregistration eligibility decision. The Agency has also not fully considered risks associated with exposure to methamidophos, a degradate of acephate, resulting from acephate use. Methamidophos is a registered OP pesticide that is currently undergoing reregistration. Once the methamidophos IRED is complete, the Agency will determine whether the methamidophos exposure resulting from acephate use poses risk concerns.

Label changes are described in Section V. Appendix A lists the uses deemed eligible for reregistration by the Agency. Appendix B identifies the generic data requirements that the Agency reviewed as part of its interim determination of reregistration eligibility of acephate, and lists the submitted studies that the Agency found acceptable.

Although the Agency has not yet considered the cumulative risk for all of the organophosphates, the Agency is issuing this interim assessment now in order to identify risk reduction measures that are necessary to support the continued use of acephate. Based on its current evaluation of acephate alone, the Agency has determined that acephate products, unless labeled and used as specified in this document, would present risks inconsistent with FIFRA. Accordingly, should a registrant fail to implement any of the risk mitigation measures identified in this document, the Agency may take regulatory action to address the risk concerns from use of acephate.

In addition, further mitigation of acephate uses may be necessary to reduce risks from methamidophos residues that result from acephate applications. This potential further mitigation will be discussed at the time the methamidophos interim RED is released.

At the time that a cumulative assessment is conducted, the Agency will address any outstanding risk concerns. For acephate, if all changes outlined in this document are incorporated into the labels, then all current risks will be mitigated. However, because this is an interim RED, the Agency may take any necessary further actions to finalize the reregistration eligibility decision for acephate after assessing the cumulative risk of the organophosphate class and after assessing risks from methamidophos residues resulting from the application of

38 acephate. Such an incremental approach to the reregistration process is consistent with the Agency’s goal of improving the transparency of the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes. By evaluating each organophosphate in turn and identifying appropriate risk reduction measures, the Agency is addressing the risks from the organophosphates in as timely a manner as possible.

Because the Agency has not yet considered cumulative risk for all of the organophosphates, this reregistration eligibility decision does not fully satisfy the reassessment of the existing acephate food residue tolerances as called for by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). When the Agency has completed the cumulative assessment, acephate tolerances will be reassessed in that light. At that time, the Agency will reassess acephate along with the other organophosphate pesticides to complete the FQPA requirements and make a final reregistration eligibility determination. By publishing this interim decision on reregistration eligibility and requesting mitigation measures now for the individual chemical acephate, the Agency is not deferring or postponing FQPA requirements; rather, EPA is taking steps to assure that uses which exceed FIFRA’s unreasonable risk standard do not remain on the label indefinitely, pending completion of assessment required under the FQPA. This decision does not preclude the Agency from making further FQPA determinations or tolerance-related rulemakings that may be required on this pesticide or any other in the future.

If the Agency determines, before finalization of the RED, that any of the determinations described in this interim RED are no longer appropriate, the Agency will pursue appropriate action, including but not limited to, reconsideration of any portion of this interim RED.

Acephate is registered for the control of cockroaches and fleas, which may cause or transmit diseases that are of public health concern. Therefore, any final Agency action to cancel or delete such acephate uses from product labeling may involve consultation with the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under FIFRA section 4(n)(2). To facilitate the decision-making process on the residential indoor and outdoor uses of acephate and to commence the consultation process, the Agency contacted HHS’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and requested CDC input on the use of acephate to control public health pests, notably cockroaches in day care facilities, parks, and schools. On August 15, 2001, the CDC notified the Agency that they would be unable to provide advice on the role of acephate use to control these public health pests.

To ensure the public health issues associated with acephate are adequately considered as called for in FIFRA, the Agency intends to consult further with public health authorities before taking final Agency action to amend registrations of acephate. Under FIFRA section 6(f), the Agency provides a notice and comment opportunity for the public before finalizing a decision to cancel a registration or specific use of a pesticide. During this period, the Agency will consult with CDC and possibly other authorities, such as USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, who has recently indicated to the Agency that they were interested in providing information on public health pest considerations in cases like acephate.

39 B. Summary of Phase 5 Comments and Responses

When making its interim reregistration decision, the Agency took into account all comments received during Phase 5 of the OP Pilot Process for Acephate. These comments in their entirety are available in the docket. A brief summary of the comments and the Agency response is noted here.

Numerous letters (over 100) were received commenting on the acephate risk assessments during Phase 5 of the public process. These comments can be grouped into several categories, as described below.

Many comments were received on the benefits of acephate, primarily from nurseries and greenhouses and cotton growers. Comments noted that acephate is an economical, broad spectrum insecticide that is an important rotation tool in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs in greenhouses and nurseries, and that the current 24 hour REI is necessary for the use of acephate in cut flowers and non-bearing fruit trees. Cotton growers also noted that the 0.75 to 1.0 lb ai/A rate is necessary to control specific pests on cotton due to resistance development to other pesticides that are currently available.

Comments on the Ecological Risk Assessment discussed the drift deposition value of 15% that is used to determine EECs; the amount of acephate that degrades to methamidophos; regional variability in environmental conditions; cotton, tobacco, and turf use and usage estimates.

Comments on the dietary risk assessments discussed the refinement of the acute assessment and assumptions regarding food handling establishments, including percentages of establishments that are treated, the percentage of food in establishments that is exposed to residues and the levels of residues expected, and the average percentage of meals eaten at food handling establishments.

These comments have been addressed and the assessments refined as deemed appropriate by the Agency. Please see the response to comments documents available in the public docket for specifics on how the comments were addressed and the Agency’s position on these issues.

C. FQPA Assessment

1. “Risk Cup” Determination

As part of the FQPA tolerance reassessment process, EPA assessed the risks associated with this organophosphate. The assessment was for this individual organophosphate, and does not attempt to fully reassess these tolerances as required under FQPA. FQPA requires the Agency to evaluate food tolerances on the basis of cumulative risk from substances sharing a common mechanism of toxicity, such as the toxicity expressed by the organophosphates through a common biochemical interaction with the cholinesterase enzyme. The Agency will evaluate

40 the cumulative risk posed by the entire class of organophosphates once the methodology is developed and the policy concerning cumulative assessments is resolved.

EPA has determined that risk from exposure to acephate is within its own “risk cup.” In other words, if acephate did not share a common mechanism of toxicity with other chemicals, EPA would be able to conclude today that the tolerances for acephate meet the FQPA safety standards. In reaching this determination, EPA has considered the available information on the special sensitivity of infants and children, as well as the chronic and acute food exposure. An aggregate assessment was conducted for exposures through food, residential uses, and drinking water. Results of this aggregate assessment indicate that the human health risks from these combined exposures are considered to be within acceptable levels; that is, combined risks from all exposures to acephate “fit” within the individual risk cup. Therefore, the acephate tolerances remain in effect until a full reassessment of the cumulative risk from all organophosphates is completed.

2. Tolerance Summary

In the individual assessment, tolerances for residues of acephate in/on plant and animal commodities [40 CFR §180.108 (a) and (b)] and in processed food [40 CFR §185.100] and feed commodities [40 CFR §186.100] are presently expressed in terms of the combined residues of acephate and its degradate methamidophos (number in parentheses in Table15). Following evaluation of plant and animal metabolism studies, the Agency has determined that the residues that warrant regulation in plant, processed food and feed commodities are those that are currently regulated.

The Agency will propose that all acephate tolerances be expressed in terms of only acephate per se under 40 CFR §180.108. Residues of methamidophos resulting from acephate applications are more appropriately placed under the tolerance regulations for methamidophos as a pesticide [40 CFR §180.315 (c)]. This change is needed to achieve compatibility with CODEX in terms of residue definition.

Adequate field trial data are available to reassess the established tolerances for residues of acephate for the following commodities: beans (succulent and dry form); Brussels sprouts; cauliflower; celery; cottonseed; cranberries; lettuce (head); peanuts; peppers, and soybean; and for macadamia nuts, which is a regional registration. In addition, adequate poultry feeding data are available to reassess the established tolerances for residues of acephate in eggs and the fat, meat and meat by-products of poultry. Ruminant feeding data for acephate residues in milk and the fat, meat and meat by-products of cattle, goats, hogs, and horses are adequate, but the reassessment of these tolerances will be made when the requested residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated and maximum dietary burden is recalculated.

Based on available data, EPA will propose that the tolerance for cottonseed be lowered from 2 to 0.5 ppm and that the tolerance for mint hay be raised from 15 to 27 ppm. Tolerances

41 for grass (pasture and range) and grass hay should be revoked since this uses are no longer supported by the registrant. A tolerance for peanut hulls is no longer necessary since this commodity is not considered a significant livestock feed item according to Table 1 in OPPTS Guideline Number 860.1000, and was revoked in November 1997 (62 FR 66020). No changes in the established tolerances are needed for any other established tolerance for plant and animal commodities. The Agency has received residue data for acephate in/on cotton gin byproducts, and tolerances will be proposed once these data are evaluated.

Sufficient data are also available to reassess established tolerances in/on all food items resulting from the use of acephate as spot and crack and crevice treatment in food handling establishments; thus, no changes are recommended for this tolerance. Available cottonseed and soybean processing data, indicate that reductions of the cottonseed hulls and cottonseed meal tolerances are needed; from 4 to 1 ppm for cottonseed hulls and from 8 to 1 ppm for cottonseed meal. Finally, the Agency will propose that the tolerance for soybean meal be revoked, based on reevaluation of available soybean processing data. The data indicated that no concentrations of residues was observed; thus, acephate residues in soybean meal are not expected to exceed the RAC tolerance.

Table 15. Tolerance Summary for Acephate. Current Tolerance Comment/ Tolerance, Reassessment Commodity [Correct Commodity Definition] ppm (ppm)1 (ppm)2 Tolerances Listed Under 40 CFR §180.108 (a) Beans (succulent and dry 3.0 (1) 3.0 Available data support the tolerance form) Brussels sprouts 3.0 (0.5) 3.0 Available data support the tolerance Reassessment will be made when submitted Cattle, fat 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated. Reassessment will be made when submitted Cattle, meat 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated. Reassessment will be made when submitted Cattle, mbyp 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated. Reassessment will be made when submitted Goats, fat 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated. Reassessment will be made when submitted Goats, meat 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated. Reassessment will be made when submitted Goats, mbyp 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated.

42 Current Tolerance Comment/ Tolerance, Reassessment Commodity [Correct Commodity Definition] ppm (ppm)1 (ppm)2 Reassessment will be made when submitted Hogs, fat 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated. Reassessment will be made when submitted Hogs, meat 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated. Reassessment will be made when submitted Hogs, mbyp 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated. Reassessment will be made when submitted Horses, fat 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated. Reassessment will be made when submitted Horses, meat 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated. Reassessment will be made when submitted Horses, mbyp 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated. Reassessment will be made when submitted Milk 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated. Reassessment will be made when submitted Sheep, fat 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated. Reassessment will be made when submitted Sheep, meat 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated. Reassessment will be made when submitted Sheep, mbyp 0.1 to be determined residue data for cotton gin byproducts (a major livestock feed item) have been evaluated. Cauliflower 2.0 (0.5) 2.0 Available data support the tolerance Celery 10 (1) 10 Available data support the tolerance Cottonseed 2.0 0.5 Available data support lowering the tolerance Cranberries 0.5 (0.1) 0.5 Available data support the tolerance Eggs 0.1 0.1 Available data support the tolerance Grass (pasture and range) 15 Revoke This use is not supported by the registrant Grass hay 15 Revoke This use is not supported by the registrant Lettuce (head) 10 (1) 10 Available data support the tolerance Tolerance may be lowered following receipt of additional information pertaining to residues Mint hay 15 (1) 27 exceeding tolerance in/on samples from trials conducted before the update. Peanuts 0.2 0.2 Available data support the tolerance. Peppers 4.0 (1) 4.0 Available data support the tolerance Poultry, fat 0.1 0.1 Available data support the tolerance Poultry, meat 0.1 0.1 Available data support the tolerance

43 Current Tolerance Comment/ Tolerance, Reassessment Commodity [Correct Commodity Definition] ppm (ppm)1 (ppm)2 Poultry, mbyp 0.1 0.1 Available data support the tolerance Soybeans 1.0 1.0 Available data support the tolerance Tolerance To Be Proposed Under 40 CFR §180.108 (a) The registrant has submitted data for cotton gin Cotton, gin byproducts None To be determined byproducts; the Agency will propose tolerance once the data are reviewed Tolerances Listed Under 40 CFR §180.108 (b) Macadamia nuts 0.05 0.05 Available data support the tolerance Tolerances Listed Under 40 CFR §185.100 Food items in food- handling establishments as a result of spot and/or 0.02 0.02 Available data support the tolerance crack and crevice treatments Tolerances Listed Under 40 CFR §186.100 After reevaluation of available cottonseed Cottonseed hulls 4 1.0 processing data, adjustments may be required. Residues are not expected to exceed the 8 1.0 Cottonseed meal reassessed cottonseed RAC tolerance Reevaluation of available soybean processing data indicated that no concentrations of residues was observed. Acephate residues are not Soybean meal 4 Revoke expected to exceed the RAC tolerance; therefore, no tolerance is needed for the processed commmodity. 1 Number in parentheses represents the current tolerance expression for methamidophos residues resulting from acephate applications. 2 The term “reassessed” here is not meant to imply that the tolerance has been reassessed as required by FQPA, since this tolerance may be reassessed only upon consideration of cumulative risk for all of the organophosphates, as required by this law. Rather, it provides a tolerance level for this single chemical, if no cumulative assessment is required, that is supported by all of the submitted residue data.

The Agency will commence proceedings to revoke any necessary tolerances; modify the existing tolerances; and correct commodity definitions. The establishment of a new tolerance or raising tolerances will be deferred, pending the outcome of the cumulative assessment.

3. Codex Harmonization

The Codex Alimentarius Commission has established several maximum residue limits (MRLs) for residues of acephate in/on various plant and animal commodities. The Codex MRLs are expressed in terms of acephate per se. Harmonization of expression/definition between Codex MRLs and U.S. tolerances will be achieved when the residue definition of the U.S. tolerances is changed from combined residues of acephate and the metabolite methamidophos to acephate per se. A numerical comparison of the Codex MRLs and the corresponding reassessed U.S. tolerances is presented in Table 16. Recommendations for compatibility are based on conclusions following reassessment of U.S. tolerances (see Table 15).

44 Table 16. Applicable Codex MRLs and Applicable U.S. Tolerances for Acephate. Codex Reassessed U.S. Recommendation And MRL 1 Commodity, As Defined Tolerance, ppm Comments (mg/kg) Brussels sprouts 5 3.0 Cattle fat 0.1 TBD Cattle meat 0.1 TBD Cauliflower 5 2.0 Cotton seed 2 0.5 Eggs 0.1 0.1 Compatibility exists Lettuce, Head 5 10.0 Milks 0.1 TBD Pig fat 0.1 TBD Pig meat 0.1 TBD Poultry fats 0.1 0.1 Compatibility exists Poultry meat 0.1 0.1 Compatibility exists Soya bean (dry) 0.5 1.0 1 TBD = To be determined; residue data remain outstanding.

Table 12 indicates that U.S. tolerances and the Codex MRLs for acephate are compatible for poultry fats, poultry meat, and eggs. The U.S. tolerance values for animal tissues (except poultry fat, poultry meat, and eggs), and milk have not been reassessed at this time because of outstanding data. Incompatibility of the U.S. tolerances and Codex MRLs remains for Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, cottonseed, lettuce (head), and soya bean (dry) presumably because of differences in agricultural practices in the U.S. upon which the residue data were developed.

4. Analytical Method

Adequate methods are available for data collection and tolerance enforcement for plant and animal commodities. For tolerance enforcement, the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II lists two GLC methods (designated as Methods I and II) with thermionic detection for the determination of acephate (LOD = 0.01 ppm) and methamidophos (LOD = 0.04 ppm) residues in/on plant and animal commodities. PAM Volume II also lists a TLC method (designated as Method A) as a confirmatory method. Adequate radiovalidation data for the enforcement method using samples from the plant and animal metabolism studies have been submitted and evaluated. The enforcement method or modifications of the enforcement method were used for data collection purposes.

5. Endocrine Disruptor Effects

EPA is required under the FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active and other ingredients) "may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate."

45 Following the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there were scientific bases for including, as part of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC’s recommendation that the Program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

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

D. Regulatory Rationale

The following is a summary of the rationale for managing risks associated with the current uses of acephate. The Agency has discussed these measures with the technical registrants and in all cases the registrants have agreed to the measures presented here. Where labeling revisions are warranted, specific language is set forth in the summary tables of Section V of this document.

1. Human Health Risk Mitigation

a. Dietary Risk Mitigation

The acute and chronic dietary risks from acephate residues on food are below the Agency’s level of concern at the 99.9th percentile of exposure with 33% of the aPAD and 17% of the cPAD used. The most highly exposed population subgroup is children 1 to 6.

The Agency is setting a Pre-Harvest Interval (PHI) of 1 day for lima bean to be consistant with the restricted entry interval (REI) for this use. No other changes to current PHIs are necessary.

Although the maximum estimated environmental concentrations of acephate from surface water sources barely exceeds the acute DWLOC for one population, children 1 to 6 years old, the Agency believes that the slight exceedance (6%) is likely to be an overestimate of acephate residues and is not of concern. The Agency believes the modeled estimates for exposure to acephate residues in surface water sources of drinking water overestimate the dietary risk for several reasons. First, the PRZM-EXAMS exposure model used to generate the EEC values for surface water, including the Index Reservoir and PCA modifications, is a Tier II model screening tool. Secondly, the environmental fate properties for acephate indicate that parent acephate residues in surface waters are unlikely to reach consumers because of the rapid aerobic dissipation in the environment. Third, the percent exceedance is minimal when considering the precision of the models used. The Agency is highly confident that surface water risks are not of concern nor is confirmatory data required at this time.

46 In addition, maximum estimated environmental concentrations of acephate from groundwater sources do not exceed the acute DWLOCs, and average estimated environmental concentrations of acephate from both groundwater and surface water sources do not exceed chronic DWLOCs.

Based on the above, risk mitigation is not currently required to address dietary risk. However, measures discussed below for the purpose of addressing occupational risks; i.e., the reduction in use rates for several crops, dropping aerial applications to turf, etc. (see Section IV.D.1.d.), will also serve to reduce risks from exposure to acephate in drinking water.

As discussed throughout this document, acephate degrades to another registered organophosphate pesticide, methamidophos. Methamidophos residues in food and water resulting from the use of acephate will be considered in the methamidophos interim RED. The Agency reserves the right to require further acephate mitigation measures to address risks from methamidophos residues resulting from acephate use. Any additional mitigation measures will be addressed when the methamidophos interim RED is completed.

b. Residential Risk Mitigation

1) Residential Handler Risk

Residential handler risks were considered for homeowners who mix, load, and apply acephate to home lawns and ornamental plants, such as roses. Handler risks were below the Agency’s level of concern; thus, no risk mitigation is needed at this time.

2) Residential Postapplication Risk

Postapplication risks to adults and children entering treated areas either indoors or outdoors (on treated lawns only), are of concern. To address those concerns, certain risk mitigation measures and label changes are necessary. These mitigation measures make it possible for EPA to conclude that acephate products are eligible for reregistration. The mitigation measures are as follows:

• Delete residential indoor uses. • Delete all turfgrass uses (except golf course, sod farm, and spot or mound treatment for fire ant or harvester ant control).

Mitigation for Indoor Residential Postapplication Risk

Based on the indoor residential postapplication risk assessment for children and adults in homes, indoor residential risk is of concern. To mitigate risk to children and adults entering treated areas in homes, the indoor uses of acephate in residences must be removed from the label and product registrations must be cancelled. The technical registrants have notified us in writing of their intent to submit requests for volutary cancellation of this use.

47 The Agency does not believe it is necessary to drop other indoor uses (i.e., within industrial, institutional, and commercial buildings, including restaurants, warehouses, stores, hospitals, hotels, manufacturing plants and ships). This is because the assumptions used to assess indoor residential risk are specific to homes (e.g., time inside the building). The Agency believes that risk to people entering industrial, institutional, and commercial buildings following acephate treatments is significantly less. Therefore, no further risk mitigation is necessary at this time for nonresidential uses.

Mitigation for Residential Lawn Postapplication Risk

The Agency is concerned about potential exposure to children on lawns treated with acephate and believes, in the context of this reregistration decision, changes to current product labels are necessary. The Agency’s assessment showed significant residential post-application risks of concern for toddlers who are in contact with acephate-treated turf. As previously described, the assessment, combining dermal and various oral exposures, showed an aggregate MOE of 7.

While acknowledging that there are uncertainties in the hazard assessment in this case that may inflate what the risk to children might be, the existing acephate data support the Agency’s conclusion that there is a risk of concern to children. Some uncertainties in the contribution of hand-to-mouth exposures to total exposure appear to make the estimate less reliable than the Agency would prefer. To explore these uncertainties the Agency conducted a review of the exposure assessment. A sensitivity analysis of the post-application risk assessment revealed that of the four types of exposure occurring to children crawling or playing on lawns, the hand-to-mouth part of the exposure assessment was the greatest contributor (see August 1, 2001, from HED titled "Acephate - Sensitivity Analysis for Turf Risk Assessment"). By varying the values of key input variables, most of which depend on relatively well established, peer- reviewed empirical observations of toddler behavior, the Agency found that the aggregate MOEs ranged from 7 to 224. Results at the upper end of the range were only attainable, however, when assuming the input variables were all at the lowest ranges. When considering central tendency inputs, the Agency still finds MOE values less than 100. Thus, even though the state-of-the-art of such assessments is still relatively basic, the sensitivity analysis shows that there is little doubt that young children are likely to be exposed at levels showing risks of concern.

Thus, after considering the uncertainties associated with the toddler risk assessment, the Agency is still concerned about the MOE estimate. Other factors, most notably the persistence of acephate on lawns, corroborate the risk concern and lead the Agency to conclude that any restrictions less than dropping the use patterns would make it difficult to make safety and reregistration eligibility findings. With more data on the ability of acephate residues to transfer from treated lawns to the hands or objects, the Agency may reach a different conclusion and find it unnecessary to take far-reaching actions on the results from this assessment. Absent that information, and mindful of the assessment’s uncertainties, the Agency finds it prudent to reduce exposure to the maximum extent possible in line with the Agency’s goal of reducing pesticide exposure to children.

48 The Agency discussed the potential risk concerns with the technical registrants and was able to reach consensus on the single most practical step to reduce exposure to children. The registrants have agreed to drop all formulations used on residential turf. The net effect is that all turfgrass uses will be dropped, except golf course, sod farm, and fire ant or harvester ant (mound treatment) uses. The technical registrants have notified us in writing of their intent to submit requests for volutary cancellation of this use.

In addition, the Agency is establishing a PHI of 3 days for sod farm turfgrass so that any remaining residues in newly established lawns do not pose residential risks. After 3 days, the Agency does not believe residues are high enough to pose a risk concern for children or adults.

Mitigation for Recreational Postapplication Risk

Recreational postapplication risks to child golfers or adult golfers from the use of acephate are not of concern to the Agency; therefore, no mitigation is necessary at this time.

c. Aggregate Risk Mitigation

Following the deletion of certain key residential uses to mitigate residential risk, aggregate risk from acephate is not of concern to the Agency. Therefore, no further risk mitigation measures are necessary to address aggregate risk.

d. Occupational Risk Mitigation

Several occupational handler scenarios are not of concern at baseline levels of PPE; therefore, no risk mitigation is necessary at this time in order for these uses to remain eligible for reregistration. These scenarios are described in Section III.A.5. of this document.

In addition, pasture uses of acephate have previously been deleted; therefore, no mitigation is necessary. Although the consumer market includes liquid formulations, the Agency assumes that professional applicators do not use these products. These products are not suited for the types and sizes of applications that would be necessary for commercial and agricultural applicators. However, other occupational scenarios are of concern, and explained below in the Agricultural Handler Risk, PCO/Turf Risk, and Postapplication Occupational Risk sections.

Mitigation for Agricultural Handler Risk

For agricultural uses of acephate, the following bulleted risk mitigation measures and label changes are necessary in order to reduce mixer/loader and applicator risk in order for acephate products to be eligible for reregistration. These mitigation measures are explained in more detail below.

• Formulate all soluble powder formulations into water soluble bags, except for soluble powders sold for fire ant, harvester ant, or hopper box seed treatment uses.

49 • Limit the 1 lb ai/A aerial application rate to cotton grown in California and Arizona; reduce the maximum aerial application rate for cotton to 0.75 ai/A for all other areas of the United States. • Delete aerial applications to turf. • Require enclosed cockpits for all other aerial applications. • Reduce maximum sod farm application rates (non-granular formulations) to 3 lb ai/A. • Reduce maximum golf course turf application rates (also non-granular formulations) to 4 lb ai/A. • Reduce maximum application rates for greenhouse floral and foliage plant crops, and outdoor floral and ground covers to 1 lb ai per 100 gallons water (not to exceed 0.75 lb ai/A for cut flowers and 1.0 lb ai/A for other ornamentals). • Delete the use of low pressure handwand to apply acephate to trees, shrubs, and outdoor floral, and for the control of wasps. • Delete the use of granular formulations to be applied by belly grinder, shaker can, or by hand to tress, shrubs, and 12" pots. • Add personal protective equipment to the end use product labels for workers who mix and load, and/or apply acephate, as discussed in detail in Section V of this document. • Require mechanical flagging for aerial applications.

The use of water soluble packaging, or other equivalent engineering control, is required for soluble powder formulations of acephate. This risk mitigation measure reduces mixer loader risks below the Agency’s level of concern for all uses of the soluble powder formulations of acephate (Scenario 1a - 1h), except for use at the 1 lb ai/A rate on 1200 acre field crops (i.e., cotton). The MOEs of concern for the soluble powder are driven by inhalation exposure (inhalation MOEs are about half the dermal MOEs). The reduction in sod farm and ornamental use rates discussed above also decreases mixer loader and applicator risks to levels not of concern.

Equivalent engineering control methods can include the formulation of acephate into a soluble pellet formulation. Valent, one of the technical registrants of acephate, markets a patented 97% ai soluble pellet formulation that is less dusty than the standard soluble powder formulation and appears to act as an engineering control. The soluble pellet is specifically formulated to require less handling than the soluble powder and to minimize dust exposure. The patent for this formulation supports these claims. In addition, Valent is currently conducting confirmatory exposures studies to demonstrate the reduced risk from the soluble pellet formulation.

MOE calculated for the 1 lb ai/A rate and at the 0.75 lb ai/A rate for use of acephate in cotton considering engineering controls are 46 and 69, respectively, and driven by inhalation exposure. Both of these rates are above the Agency’s level of concern. However, the assumptions used to calculate these MOEs; specifically, the use of 1200 acres per day continuously in conjunction with the maximum rates misrepresents how acephate is used in actual practice. The Agency understands that the maximum rate is not frequently used by cotton growers (only 25% of the total treated cotton acres), and the opportunity for continuous exposure to the maximum rate applied to 1200 acres per day is unlikely. Therefore, the Agency feels that these numbers are highly conservative and current use practices considering the 1 lb ai/A and 0.75 lb ai/A rate would often, in practice, not result in risks of concern.

50 In addition, acephate use on cotton at the 1 lb ai/A rate in California and Arizona and at the 0.75 ai/A rate in other parts of the country to control tarnished plant bug, stink bug, and flea beetle populations in late season cotton is supported by benefits information received from growers and extension agents. The Agency agrees that the 0.5 lb ai/A rate is not sufficient to control these pests. Following the discovery of Bt cotton and the advent of the Boll Weevil Eradication Program, the number of insecticides used on cotton to control bollworm and boll weevil have diminished considerably, and the number of applications per season have decreased from as many as 12 to as few as 2 or 3. Because of the decrease in the number of applications, and the number of different insecticides used that incidentally controlled tarnished plant bugs, stink bugs and flea hoppers, these insects have been left unchecked. For example, prior to the Bt cotton and the BWE program, stink bug infestations were spotty at best; however, since they have been left unchecked they are usually found throughout the field. The brown stink bug is especially difficult to control due to resistance.

Handlers applying acephate aerially require the use of engineering controls (enclosed cockpit) to mitigate risk. The registrants have agreed to delete aerial application to turf.

The technical registrants have agreed to drop the use of acephate low pressure handwand to trees, shrubs, and outdoor floral, and to control wasps in order to mitigate risks to handlers mixing, loading, and applying acephate by that method.

Baseline clothing plus gloves must be worn to mitigate risks to workers applying acephate by backpack sprayer to trees, shrubs, and outdoor floral; for use against wasps; for use against fire ants; and to mitigate risks to workers applying acephate by high pressure handwand.

The Agency believes that risks are acceptable at baseline PPE for mixing and loading product for use in an aerosol generator and initiating the production of aerosol, or initiating a total release aerosol can is acceptable at baseline PPE.

In order to mitigate risks to handlers applying acephate using a tree injection system, the Agency is requiring baseline PPE plus chemical resistant gloves. In addition, the Agency finds it necessary to require that these products be packaged in low exposure application devices that also serve as end use product packing and act as a closed system. Additionally, the Agency recognizes benefits to the environment from the tree injection system. By targeting the treated tree individually, the method of application appears to place less chemical into the environment. It also may pose less risk to handlers since the amount of chemical handled is less than conventional methods of application to trees.

To mitigate risks to workers mixing, loading, and applying acephate granular formulations by belly grinder, shaker can, and by hand, the registrants have agreed to delete this formulation for all uses except for use against fire ants by shaker can and by hand (both of these scenarios are adequately addressed by baseline PPE because of the low volume of product handled).

To mitigate exposure and risks to workers planting tobacco seedlings while simultaneously applying a transplant water solution of acephate by injection into the soil using a mechanical transplant system, the following label language is required:

51 "Transplant-water applications should be made using mechanical transplant equipment only. Using such equipment, the insecticide/water mixture is mechanically applied directly into the soil along with the transplanted plants."

Mitigation for Pest Control Operator/Turf Use Risk

For turf and PCO uses of acephate, the following bulleted risk mitigation measures and label changes are necessary in order for acephate products to remain eligible for reregistration. These mitigation measures are explained in more detail below.

• Delete aerial applications to turf. • Delete the application of acephate via low-pressure handwand for perimeter treatment by PCOs. • Reduce maximum application rates for sod farm applications (non-granular formulations) to 3 lb ai/A. • Reduce maximum application rates for golf course turf application (non-granular formulations) to 4 lb ai/A. • Add personal protective equipment to the end product labels for workers who mix and load, and/or apply acephate, as discussed below and in detail in Section V of this document.

The use of water soluble packaging, or equivalent engineering controls, is required for soluble powder formulations of acephate. This risk mitigation measure reduces mixer loader risks for all turf and PCO uses of the soluble powder formulations of acephate. The reduction in sod farm and golf course use rates mentioned above also decreases mixer loader and applicator risks.

To mitigate risks from the mixing, loading, and applying of granules by drop-type spreader to sod and golf courses, the technical registrants have agreed to require the use of minimum PPE. MOEs are 130 and 260, respectively, at this level of PPE. Aerial application to turf will be deleted because of risks to mixer/loaders supporting aerial applications. This action will have minimal impact on the sod and turf sector because aerial application to sod and turf is uncommon.

Risks to handlers applying acephate formulated into a liquid by groundboom to sod is mitigated by the reduction in application rates from 5 lb ai/A to 3 lb ai/A. This rate reduction results in an MOE of 84 at baseline PPE, driven by inhalation exposure. This MOE is slightly above the Agency’s level of concern. However, the Agency believes that, in the interest of clarity, baseline PPE is acceptable. Since sod and golf course uses are likely to be on the same end product label, and golf course use requires only baseline PPE, to have conflicting PPE on the label could result in confusion to the user. In addition, the Agency understands that sod farms and golf courses typically treat their own acreage. Since this assessment is based on an intermediate term endpoint (7 to 30 days), the fact that applicators treating their own farms will likely not treat 80 acres a day for more than a couple consecutive days. This means that the calculated MOEs are likely conservative.

52 In order to mitigate risks to handlers applying granular acephate to turf with a push-type spreader at 5 lb ai/A, the Agency is requiring minimum PPE. At this rate, the calculated MOE is 91 (driven by dermal exposure). This number is calculated assuming that 5 acres of turf are treated per day. The Agency understands that granules are usually only applied as a spot treatment for specific pests; therefore, it is unlikely that applicators will treat 5 acres a day for more than a few consecutive days. In addition, this assessment is based on an intermediate term endpoint that relies on a 21-day dermal exposure study during which no toxicological effect was seen. Therefore, the Agency has no risks of concern if minimum PPE is employed for this application method and use.

To mitigate risks to PCOs mixing, loading, and applying acephate by low pressure handwand, the technical registrants have agreed to prohibit the use of a low pressure handwand method of application for perimeter treatment, since this use is the only PCO use that could result in the application of 40 gallons of formulated product in one day. To do this, the statement “Do not apply using low pressure handwand equipment” will appear on appropriate product labels associated with the perimeter treatment use. In addition, to mitigate risks from PCOs mixing, loading and applying acephate by low pressure handwand to trees, shrubs, and outdoor floral and for control of wasps, these uses are being cancelled for application in low pressure handwand equipment.

To mitigate risks from PCOs mixing, loading and applying acephate by low pressure handwand in the 4 and 5 gallon per day scenarios, the Agency is requiring minimum PPE. MOEs at this level of PPE are 209 and 167, respectively.

Risks to PCOs mixing, loading, and applying acephate by backpack sprayer are being mitigated by requiring baseline clothing plus gloves. In addition, the Agency believes the extruded pellet formulation will mitigate mixer/loader exposure to a level not of concern.

In order to mitigate risks to PCOs using acephate as a crack and crevice treatment or as an injection treatment, the Agency is requiring the use of baseline PPE and chemical resistant gloves while preparing and applying the product. The Agency believes that since designated containers are provided with the product for the purpose of mixing and loading, and the label requires the use of gloves, exposures will not be of concern.

Mitigation for Postapplication Occupational Risk

To mitigation postapplication occupational risk from acephate, the following bulleted risk mitigation measure and label changes are necessary in order for acephate products to remain eligible for reregistration. These mitigation measures are explained in more detail below.

• Reduce maximum application rates for greenhouse floral and foliage plant crops, and outdoor floral and ground covers to 1 lb ai per 100 gallons water not to exceed 0.75 lb ai/A for cut flowers and 1.0 lb ai/A for other ornamentals. • All crops will require a 24 hour REI Based on the risk assessment, there are calculated postapplication occupational risks above the Agency’s level of concern for workers entering and working in areas treated with acephate for cut flower use at the current REI of 24 hours. The cut flower MOEs for residues of

53 methamidophos resulting from acephate application at the current 24 hour REI are 97 (low exposure tasks); 61 (medium exposure tasks); and 35 (high exposure tasks). Low exposure tasks are irrigating, scouting, thinning, or weeding immature or low foliage plants. Medium exposure tasks are irrigating or scouting mature or high foliage plants. High exposure tasks are hand harvesting, pruning, thinning, and pinching. MOEs are greater than 100 at REIs of 2 days, 5 days, and 9 days, respectively.

To mitigate the postapplication risk to people working in cut flowers after treatment with acephate, maximum application rates for greenhouse floral and foliage plant crops, and outdoor floral and ground covers should be reduced to 1 lb ai per 100 gallons water not to exceed 0.75 lb ai/A for cut flowers (and 1.0 lb ai/A for other ornamentals). Considering this rate reduction, MOEs for high exposure tasks are 149 (acephate residues) and 99 (methamidophos residues) at the current 24 hour REI. These are not of concern.

The Agency believes that some of the assumptions used to determine MOEs for postapplication activities are conservative, and represent a worst-case exposure scenario. For example, gloves were not considered when the numbers were calculated because gloves are not required for reentry activities under the WPS; however, workers reentering to perform high exposure tasks such as pruning and thinning will likely wear gloves because of the nature of these activities. Based on this uncertainty and the rate reduction agreed to by the registrants, the Agency feels that the calculated REIs are conservative and that actual postapplication occupational risks are even less. A 24 hour REI will apply for all crops.

2. Environmental Risk Mitigation

For all outdoor uses of acephate, the following measures will reduce environmental risks from the uses of acephate. These measures make it possible for the Agency to conclude that acephate products remain eligible for reregistration.

• Establish minimum spray intervals for all agricultural crops of 3 days for application rates up to 0.5 lb ai/A and of 7 days for application rates greater than 0.5 lb ai/A. • Reduce seasonal maximum use for cotton from 6 to 4 lb ai/A • Reduce aerial cotton use rates • Delete granular formulations for residential turf uses, and use on ornamental trees and shrubs and in 12 inch pots. • Reduce turf application rates for sod and golf courses. • Require labeling to protect honeybees. • Require labeling to reduce the potential for spray drift.

Granular formulations are of increased risk to birds, and the reduction in the amount of granular formulation available to birds in the environment helps to mitigate the risk to birds. The remaining granular turf application is a spot treatment application; therefore, the lack of a broadcast granular on residential turf will help to reduce exposure to granular formulations.

The rate reductions discussed here also help to reduce the amount of product available in the environment for ecological exposure. However, these mitigation measures do not address all of the Agency's ecological risk concerns.

54 3. Labeling

Other use and safety information need to be placed on the labeling of all end-use products containing acephate, in addition to the mitigation measures listed above and other existing label requirements. For the specific labeling statements, refer to Section V of this document.

The Agency reserves the right to require additional label amendment to mitigate risks from methamidophos residues resulting from acephate applications. Any further amendments will be discussed in the methamidophos interim RED.

a. Endangered Species Statement

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

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

b. Spray Drift Management

The Agency is in the process of developing more appropriate label statements for spray, and dust drift control to ensure that public health, and the environment is protected from unreasonable adverse effects. In August 2001, EPA published draft guidance for label statements in a pesticide registration (PR) notice (“Draft PR Notice 2001-X” http://www.epa.gov/ PR_Notices/#2001). A Federal Register notice was published on August 22, 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr) announcing the availability of this draft guidance for a 90-day public comment period. After receipt, and review of the comments, the Agency will publish final guidance in a PR notice for registrants to use when labeling their products.

55 Until EPA decides upon, and publishes the final label guidance for spray, and dust drift, registrants (and applicants) may choose to use the statements proposed in the draft PR notice. Registrants should refer to, and read the draft PR notice to obtain a full understanding of the proposed guidance, and its intended applicability, exemptions for certain products, and the Agency's willingness to consider other versions of the statements.

For purposes of complying with the deadlines for label submission outlined in this document, registrants (and applicants) may elect to adopt the appropriate sections of the proposed language below, or a version that is equally protective, for their end-use product labeling.

For products applied outdoors as liquids (except mosquito adulticides):

“Do not allow spray to drift from the application site and contact people, structures people occupy at any time and the associated property, parks and recreation areas, nontarget crops, aquatic and wetland areas, woodlands, pastures, rangelands, or animals.”

“For ground boom applications, apply with nozzle height no more than 4 feet above the ground or crop canopy, and when wind speed is 10 mph or less at the application site as measured by an anemometer. Use _____ (registrant to fill in blank with spray quality, e.g. fine or medium) or coarser spray according to ASAE 572 definition for standard nozzles or VMD for spinning atomizer nozzles.”

“For orchard and vineyard airblast applications, do not direct spray above trees and vines, and turn off outward pointing nozzles at row ends and outer rows. Apply only when wind speed is 3 -10 mph at the application site as measured by an anemometer outside of the orchard or vineyard on the upwind side.”

“For aerial applications, the boom width must not exceed 75% of the wingspan or 90% of the rotary blade. Use upwind swath displacement, and apply only when wind speed is 3 - 10 mph as measured by an anemometer. Use _____ (registrant to fill in blank with spray quality, e.g. fine or medium) or coarser spray according to ASAE 572 definition for standard nozzles or VMD for spinning atomizer nozzles. If application includes a no-spray zone, do not release spray at a height greater than 10 feet above the ground or the crop canopy.”

For overhead chemigation: “Apply only when wind speed is 10 mph or less.”

On all product labels: “The applicator also must use all other measures necessary to control drift.”

56 For products applied as dusts–all affected products, except home and garden products:

“Do not allow dust to drift from the application site, and contact people, structures people occupy at any time and the associated property, parks and recreation areas, nontarget crops, aquatic and wetland areas, woodlands, pastures, rangelands, or animals.

“For ground rig applications, apply product no more than 4 feet above the ground or the crop canopy, and only when wind speed is 10 mph or less at the application site as measured by an anemometer.”

“For orchard and vineyard ground applications, do not direct dust above trees and vines, and shut off application at row ends, and toward outer rows. Apply only when wind speed is 3 - 10 mph at the application site as measured by an anemometer outside of the orchard or vineyard on the upwind side.”

“For aerial applications, use upwind swath displacement, and apply only when wind speed is 3 - 10 mph as measured by an anemometer. If application includes a no-spray zone, do not release dust at a height greater than 10 feet above the ground or the crop canopy.”

On all product labels:

“The applicator also must use all other measures necessary to control drift.”

For hand-applied products, including home and garden products, to be applied as sprays or dusts:

“Do not allow spray or dust to drift from the application site, and contact people, structures people occupy at any time, and the associated property, parks and recreation areas, nontarget crops, aquatic and wetland areas, woodlands, pastures, rangelands, or animals. Apply only when wind speed is not more than 10 mph. For sprays, apply largest size droplets possible.”

Alternatively, registrants may elect to use the following language, which is the current Agency policy on drift labeling:

For products that are applied outdoors in liquid sprays (except mosquito adulticides), regardless of application method, the following must be added to the labels:

“Do not allow this product to drift.”

The Agency recognizes that the above option does not address other application types. Registrants may therefore wish to adapt some variation of the old, and proposed new language for their particular products, depending on their application methods.

57 V. What Registrants Need to Do

In order to be eligible for reregistration, registrants need to implement the risk mitigation measures outlined in Section IV and V, which include, among other things, submission of the following:

For products containing acephate, registrants need to submit the following items for each product within eight months of the date of the PDCI:

(1) an application for reregistration (EPA Form 8570-1, filled in, with a description on the application, such as, "Responding to Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision” document); (2) five copies of the draft label incorporating all label amendments outlined in Table 17 of this document; (3) responses to the generic and/or product specific Data Call-Ins (DCIs) as instructed in the enclosed DCIs; (4) two copies of the Confidential Statement of Formula (CSF); and (5) a certification with respect to data compensation requirements.

Note that the first set of required responses for the product-specific DCI is due 90 days from the receipt of the DCI. The second set of required responses is due eight months from the date of the DCI. For questions about product reregistration and/or the product-specific DCI, please contact Bonnie Adler at (703) 308-8523.

For the generic DCI, the following items are due:

(1) DCI response form, due 90 days from the receipt of the DCI; (2) Registrant response form, due 90 days from the receipt of the DCI; and (3) the actual generic data in response to the DCI.

A. Manufacturing Use Products

1. Additional Generic Data Requirements

The generic data base supporting the reregistration of acephate for the above eligible uses has been reviewed and determined to be substantially complete. The following data gaps remain:

Product Chemistry Data

830.7050 UV/Visible Absorption

58 Toxicology Data

870.7485 (85-1) Rat Metabolism

The only toxicology data gap currently is the metabolism study with rats. The existing studies, MRIDs 00014994 and 00014219 provide information on the metabolism of acephate by the rat, but do not satisfy the guideline requirements.

Occupational Data

875.1100 Dermal Exposure Outdoor 875.2400 (133-3) Dermal Passive Dosimetry Exposure

An exposure study to determine the effects of the acephate extruded pellet formulation to mixer/loaders is required. MRID 45597001 has been submitted to fulfill this data requirement. This study is in review.

875.1700 Product Use Information

Information on fogging/aerosol generator uses of acephate needs to be provided (e.g., target application concentrations, routine venting procedures, etc.).

Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects Data

835.2120 (161-1) Aqueous Hydrolysis

The data requirement is partially fulfilled (pH 5 and 7); data remain outstanding for the aqueous hydrolysis of acephate at pH 9.

835.4300 (162-4) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism

The data requirement for aerobic aquatic metabolism is not fulfilled.

835.1240 (163-1) Leaching and Adsorption/Desorption

The data requirement for mobility of unaged and aged acephate is not satisfied.

850.4100 to 850.4250 (122-1 and 123-1) Non-Target Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence; Vegetative Vigor

The guideline is not fulfilled.

59 Residue Chemistry Data

835.1850 (165-1) Confined Rotational Crop

Preliminary data were submitted pertaining to confined rotational crops (MRID 40504816). A new study was submitted to fill this data requirement (MRID 40874101), and this study is in review.

860.1300 (171-4) Nature of the Residue - Plants and Livestock

The registration requirements for plant metabolism are partially fulfilled. To upgrade the metabolism studies, information must be submitted providing the dates of analysis of samples (bean, lettuce, and cotton) and indicating that the metabolite profile in cotton did not change over the intervals during which samples were stored.

The registration requirements for animal metabolism are partially fulfilled. The submitted poultry metabolism study is upgradable. Data must be submitted demonstrating that the metabolic profile of radioactive residues in poultry muscle did not change over the duration of the study.

Current DCIs

Also, a Data Call-In Notice (DCI) was recently sent to registrants of organophosphate pesticides currently registered under FIFRA (August 6, 1999 64FR42945-42947, August 18 64FR44922-44923). DCI requirements included acute, subchronic, and developmental neurotoxicity studies; due dates are 9/2001. Registrant responses are under review.

2. Labeling for Manufacturing Use Products

To remain in compliance with FIFRA, manufacturing use product (MUP) labeling should be revised to comply with all current EPA regulations, PR Notices and applicable policies. The MP labeling should bear the labeling contained in Table 17 at the end of this section.

B. End-Use Products

1. Additional Product-Specific Data Requirements

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

A product-specific data call-in, outlining specific data requirements, accompanies this interim RED.

60 2. Labeling for End-Use Products

Labeling changes are necessary to implement the mitigation measures outlined in Section IV above. Specific language to incorporate these changes is specified in the Table 17 at the end of this section.

C. Existing Stocks

Registrants may generally distribute and sell products bearing old labels/labeling for 26 months from the date of the issuance of this Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision document. Persons other than the registrant may generally distribute or sell such products for 50 months from the date of the issuance of this interim RED. However, existing stocks time frames will be established case-by-case, depending on the number of products involved, the number of label changes, and other factors. Refer to “Existing Stocks of Pesticide Products; Statement of Policy”; Federal Register, Volume 56, No. 123, June 26, 1991.

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

D. Labeling Changes Summary Table

In order to be eligible for reregistration, amend all product labels to incorporate the risk mitigation measures outlined in Section IV. The following table describes how language on the labels should be amended.

61 Table 17: Summary of Risk Mitigation Labeling Changes for Acephate Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label Manufacturing Use Products One of these statements “Only for formulation into an insecticide for the following use(s)” [fill blank only with Directions for Use may be added to a label those uses that are being supported by MP registrant]. to allow reformulation of the product for a “This product may be used to formulate products for specific use(s) not listed on the Directions for Use specific use or all MP label if the formulator, user group, or grower has complied with U.S. EPA additional uses submission requirements regarding support of such use(s).” supported by a formulator or user group “This product may be used to formulate products for any additional use(s) not listed on the MP label if the formulator, user group, or grower has complied with U.S. EPA submission requirements regarding support of such use(s).” Environmental Hazards “Environmental Hazards” Precautionary Statements Required by Statements the IRED and Agency "Do not discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams, ponds, estuaries, Label Policies oceans, or other waters unless in accordance with the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) permit and the permitting authority has been notified in writing prior to discharge. Do not discharge effluent containing this product to sewer systems without previously notifying the local sewage treatment plant authority. For guidance contact your Water Board or Regional Office of the EPA."

62 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label End Use Products Intended for Occupational Use (WPS Uses only on the Label or WPS Uses and Non-WPS Uses on the Label) Handler PPE Note the following information when preparing labeling for all end use products: Handler PPE requirements (all Statements formulations) For sole-active-ingredient end-use products that contain acephate, the product label must be revised to adopt the handler personal protective equipment (PPE)/engineering control requirements set forth in this section. Any conflicting PPE requirements on the current label must be removed.

For multiple-active-ingredient end-use products that contain acephate, the handler PPE/engineering control requirements set forth in this section must be compared with the requirements on the current label, and the more protective language must be retained. For guidance on which requirements are considered to be more protective, see PR Notice 93-7.

PPE that is established on the basis of Acute Toxicity testing with the end-use products must be compared with the active ingredient PPE specified below in this document. The more protective PPE must be placed in the product labeling. For example, the Handler PPE in this RED does not require protective eyewear which may be required by the Acute Toxicity testing for the end-use product. For guidance on which PPE is considered more protective, see PR Notice 93-7.

63 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label PPE Requirements “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)” Precautionary Established by the Statements: IRED for Wettable “Some materials that are chemical-resistant to this product are” (registrant inserts Immediately Powder Formulations correct chemical-resistant material). “If you want more options, follow the following/below not packaged in Water instructions for category” [registrant inserts A,B,C,D,E,F,G,or H] “on an EPA Hazards to Humans Soluble Packaging (only chemical-resistance category selection chart.” and Domestic products applied dry to Animals ant mounds or hopper “Mixers loaders, applicators and other handlers must wear: boxes or applied as pastes for crack and - long-sleeved shirt and long pants crevice treatments are - socks and shoes eligible for - chemical resistant gloves for all mixers and loaders and for applicators applying as a reregistration without paste for crack and crevice treatments.” water soluble packaging). “In addition, mixers and loaders supporting hopper box seed treatments must wear:

- A NIOSH-approved dust mist filtering respirator with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C or a NIOSH-approved respirator with any N, R, P, or HE filter.”

Note to Registrant: If the product contains oil or bears instructions that will allow application with an oil-containing material, the “N” filter designation must be dropped from the above respirator statement.

64 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label PPE Requirements “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)” Precautionary Established by the Statements: IRED for Wettable “Some materials that are chemical-resistant to this product are” (registrant inserts Immediately Powder Formulations correct chemical-resistant material). “If you want more options, follow the following/below Packaged in Water instructions for category [registrant inserts A,B,C,D,E,F,G,or H] on an EPA chemical- Hazards to Humans Soluble Bags. resistance category selection chart.” and Domestic (All products with uses Animals other than those listed “Mixers loaders, applicators and other handlers must wear: above must be packaged in water soluble - long-sleeved shirt and long pants packaging to be eligible - socks and shoes for reregistration). - chemical resistant gloves for all mixers and loaders and for applicators using hand held application equipment”

“In addition, applicators using low pressure hand wand application equipment must wear:

- A NIOSH-approved dust mist filtering respirator with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C or a NIOSH-approved respirator with any N, R, P, or HE filter.”

“See engineering controls for additional requirements”

65 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label PPE Requirements “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)” Precautionary Established by the Statements: IRED for Soluble Pellet “Some materials that are chemical-resistant to this product are” (registrant inserts Immediately Formulations (Soluble correct chemical-resistant material). “If you want more options, follow the following/below Pellet Formulations instructions for category [registrant inserts A,B,C,D,E,F,G,or H] on an EPA chemical- Hazards to Humans must be as described in resistance category selection chart.” and Domestic the acephate IRED) Animals “Mixers loaders, applicators and other handlers must wear:

- long-sleeved shirt and long pants - socks and shoes - chemical resistant gloves for all mixers and loaders and for applicators using hand held application equipment”

“In addition, all mixers and loaders and all applicators using low pressure hand wand application equipment must wear:

- A NIOSH-approved dust mist filtering respirator with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C* or a NIOSH-approved respirator with any N, R, P, or HE filter.”

“See engineering controls for additional requirements.”

66 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label PPE Requirements “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)” Precautionary Established by the Statements: IRED for Granular “Some materials that are chemical-resistant to this product are” (registrant inserts Immediately Formulations correct chemical-resistant material). “If you want more options, follow the following/below instructions for category” [registrant inserts A,B,C,D,E,F,G,or H] “on an EPA Hazards to Humans chemical-resistance category selection chart.” and Domestic Animals “Loaders, applicators and other handlers must wear:

- long-sleeved shirt and long pants, - shoes plus socks - chemical resistant gloves”

“In addition, mixers, loader and applicators supporting or making broadcast applications to turf must wear:

- A NIOSH-approved dust mist filtering respirator with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C or a NIOSH-approved respirator with any N, R, P, or HE filter.”

67 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label PPE Requirements “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)” Established by the IRED for products “Some materials that are chemical-resistant to this product are” (registrant inserts Precautionary applied as a total release correct chemical-resistant material). “If you want more options, follow the Statements: aerosol or by aerosol instructions for category” [registrant inserts A,B,C,D,E,F,G,or H] “on an EPA Immediately generator. chemical-resistance category selection chart.” following/below Hazards to Humans “Mixers, loaders, applicators and other handlers must wear: and Domestic Animals - long-sleeved shirt and long pants, - shoes plus socks, - chemical resistant gloves.” PPE Requirements “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)” Established by the IRED for products “Some materials that are chemical-resistant to this product are” (registrant inserts Precautionary applied in a tree correct chemical-resistant material). “If you want more options, follow the Statements: injection system instructions for category” [registrant inserts A,B,C,D,E,F,G,or H] “on an EPA Immediately chemical-resistance category selection chart.” following/below Hazards to Humans “Handlers must wear: and Domestic Animals - long-sleeved shirt and long pants, - shoes plus socks - chemical resistant gloves” User Safety “Follow manufacturer's instructions for cleaning/maintaining PPE. If no such Precautionary Requirements instructions for washables exist, use detergent and hot water. Keep and wash PPE Statements: separately from other laundry.” Immediately following the PPE requirements

68 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label Engineering Controls “Engineering Controls” Precautionary for the wettable powder Statements: formulations packaged “Water-soluble packets when used correctly qualify as a closed mixing/loading system Immediately in water soluble bags under the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides [40 CFR following PPE and that meet the 170.240(d)(4)]. Mixers and loaders using water-soluble packets must : User Safety specifications of the -- wear the personal protective equipment required above for mixers/ loaders, and Requirements. WPS -- be provided and must have immediately available for use in an emergency, such as a broken package, spill, or equipment breakdown the following PPE: coveralls, chemical- resistant footwear and a NIOSH-approved dust mist filtering respirator with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C or a NIOSH-approved respirator with any N, R, P, or HE filter.”

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

“The use of human flaggers is prohibited.”

Engineering Controls "Pilots must use an enclosed cockpit in a manner that meets the requirements listed in Precautionary for Soluble Pellet the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides [40 CFR Statements: formulations 170.240(d)(6)].” Immediately following PPE and “The use of human flaggers is prohibited.” User Safety Requirements.

69 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label Engineering Controls “When handlers use closed systems or enclosed cabs, in a manner that meets the Precautionary for Granular requirements listed in the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides Statements: Formiulations (40 CFR 170.240(d)(4-6), the handler PPE requirements may be reduced or modified as Immediately specified in the WPS.” following PPE and User Safety Requirements. User Safety “User Safety Recommendations” Precautionary Recommendations Statements: “Users should wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco, or Immediately using the toilet.” following Engineering Controls “Users should remove clothing/PPE immediately if pesticide gets inside. Then wash thoroughly and put on clean clothing.” Must be placed in a box “Users should remove PPE immediately after handling this product. Wash the outside of gloves before removing. As soon as possible, wash thoroughly and change into clean clothing.”

70 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label Environmental Hazards “Environmental Hazards” Precautionary Statements: “For terrestrial uses, do not apply directly to water, or to areas where surface water is Immediately present or to intertidal areas below the mean high water mark. Do not contaminate following the User water when cleaning equipment or disposing of equipment washwaters.” Safety Recommendations

“Exposed treated seed may be hazardous to birds and other wildlife. Dispose of all excess treated seed and seed packaging by burial away from bodies of water.” (Use this statement only for products applied as seed treatments)

“This product is highly toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment on blooming crops or weeds. Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to blooming crops or weeds while bees are actively visiting the treatment area.”

"This pesticide is toxic to birds"

71 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label Restricted-Entry “Do not enter or allow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted entry Directions for Use, Interval interval (REI) of 24 hours.” Agricultural Use Requirements Box Early-Entry Personal “PPE required for early entry to treated areas that is permitted under the Worker Directions for Use, Protective Equipment Protection Standard and that involves contact with anything that has been treated, such Agricultural Use (PPE) established by the as plants, soil, or water, is: Requirements Box RED. - coveralls - chemical-resistant gloves made of any waterproof material - shoes plus socks”

Entry Restrictions for “Do not enter or allow others to enter until sprays have dried” Directions for Use in products applied as the Non-Agricultural sprays that have Non- Use Requirements WPS uses on the label Box. Entry Restrictions for “Do not enter or allow others to enter until dusts have settled” Directions for Use in granular products that the Non-Agricultural have Non-WPS uses on Use Requirements the label Box. General Application “Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either Restrictions directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the area during Place in the Direction application.” for Use directly above the Agricultural Use Box.

72 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label Other Application Application Rate Restrictions (Registrants must revise labels to reflect the Restrictions (products following): applied as sprays) Aerial Applications on Cotton: Limit 1 lb a.i/A to cotton grown in California and Arizona. Limit 0.75 a.i/A for all other areas of the United States.

Prohibit Aerial Applications to Turf: Remove instructions for aerial application to turf and add the following statement: “Aerial applications to turf are prohibited.”

Maximum Application Rates for Sod and Golf Course Turf: Limit 3 lbs ai/A for Sod Farms. Limit 4 lbs ai/A for Golf Course.

Maximum Application Rates for specified Greenhouse and Outdoor ornamental: Limit 1 lb ai/A per 100 gallons of water (not to exceed 0.75 lbs ai/A for cut flowers and 1.0 lbs ai/A for all other ornamentals). Directions for Use

Application and Preharvest Interval Restrictions (Registrants revised labels to reflect the following):

Application Intervals for all agricultural crops: Establish spray intervals of 3 days for applications rates up to 0.5 lb ai/A and 7 days for application rates greater than 0.5 lb ai/A.

Pre-harvest Interval for Sod Farms: Establish a 3 day pre-harvest interval (PHI) for harvesting sod.

73 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label Other Application Use Deletions: (Registrants revised label to remove or prohibit use on the Directions for Use Restrictions (products following): applied as sprays) continued Indoor Residential Sites: Delete all instructions for indoor residential applications. For use at commercial, institutional, and industrial sites only. Add a label statment prohibiting the deleted use, such as "Not for indoor residential use."

Remove Specified Turf Sites: Remove all instructions for use on turf grass (except for golf course, sod farm and spot or mound treatment for fire ant and harvester ant control). Add a label statment prohibiting the deleted use, such as "Use limited to sod farms and golf courses, except when applying by mound or spot treatment for fire ant and harvester ant control."

Equipment Restrictions:

Aerial Applications: Remove instructions for aerial application to turf and add the following statement: “Aerial applications to turf are prohibited.”

Low Pressure Handwand:

General Use Instructions: “Do not apply using low pressure handwand equipment”

Pest Control Operator Use Instructions: “The use of low pressure handwand equipment for perimeter or wasp treatments is prohibited.”

74 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label Other Application Equipment Restrictions: Directions for Use Restrictions (granular products) “Applications to trees, shrubs and potted plants by hand or hand-held application equipment is prohibited.”

75 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label Spray Drift “Do not allow spray to drift from the application site and contact people, structures Directions for Use Restrictions/Drift people occupy at any time and the associated property, parks and recreation areas, Language (All products nontarget crops, aquatic and wetland areas, woodlands, pastures, rangelands, or as sprays) animals.”

“For ground boom applications, apply with nozzle height no more than 4 feet above the ground or crop canopy and when wind speed is 10 mph or less at the application site as measured by an anemometer. Use (registrant to fill in blank with spray quality, e.g. fine or medium) or coarser spray according to ASAE 572 definition for standard nozzles or VMD for spinning atomizer nozzles.”

“For airblast applications, direct spray above foliage and turn off outward pointing nozzles at row ends and outer rows. Apply only when wind speed is 3 –10 mph at the application site as measured by an anemometer outside of the treated area on the upwind side.”

“For aerial applications, the boom width must not exceed 75% of the wingspan or 90% of the rotary blade. Use upwind swath displacement and apply only when wind speed is 3 -- 10 mph as measured by an anemometer. Use _____ (registrant to fill in blank with spray quality, e.g. fine or medium) or coarser spray according to ASAE 572 definition for standard nozzles or VMD for spinning atomizer nozzles. If application includes a no-spray zone, do not release spray at a height greater than 10 feet above the ground or the crop canopy.”

“For overhead chemigation, apply only when wind speed is 10 mph or less.”

“The applicator also must use all other measures necessary to control drift.”

76 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label End Use Products Intended for Occupational Use (Non-WPS Uses Only on the Label) Handler PPE Note the following information when preparing labeling for all end use products: Handler PPE requirements (all formulations) For sole-active-ingredient end-use products that contain acephate, the product label must be revised to adopt the handler personal protective equipment (PPE)/engineering control requirements set forth in this section. Any conflicting PPE requirements on the current label must be removed.

77 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label PPE Requirements “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)” Precautionary Established by the Statements: IRED for Wettable “Mixers loaders, applicators and other handlers must wear: Immediately Powder Formulations following/below not in Water Soluble Hazards to Humans Packaging (only - long-sleeved shirt and long pants and Domestic products applied dry to - socks and shoes Animals ant mounds or applied - chemical resistant gloves for all mixers and loaders and for applicators applying as a as pastes for crack and paste for crack and crevice treatments.” crevice treatments are eligible for reregistration without water soluble packaging).

78 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label PPE Requirements “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)” Precautionary Established by the Statements: IRED for Wettable “Mixers loaders, applicators and other handlers must wear: Immediately Powder Formulations following/below Packaged in Water Hazards to Humans Soluble Bags. - long-sleeved shirt and long pants and Domestic (All products with uses - socks and shoes Animals other than those listed - chemical resistant gloves for all mixers and loaders and for applicators using hand above must be packaged held application equipment” in water soluble packaging to be eligible “In addition, applicators using low pressure hand wand application equipment must for reregistration ). wear:

- A NIOSH-approved dust mist filtering respirator with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C or a NIOSH-approved respirator with any N, R, P, or HE filter.”

79 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label PPE Requirements “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)” Precautionary Established by the Statements: IRED for Soluble Pellet “Mixers loaders, applicators and other handlers must wear: Immediately Formulations (Soluble following/below Pellet Formulations Hazards to Humans must be as described in - long-sleeved shirt and long pants and Domestic the acephate IRED) - socks and shoes Animals - chemical resistant gloves for all mixers and loaders and for applicators using hand held application equipment”

“In addition, all mixers and loaders and all applicators using low pressure hand wand application equipment must wear:

- A NIOSH-approved dust mist filtering respirator with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C or a NIOSH-approved respirator with any N, R, P, or HE filter.”

80 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label PPE Requirements “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)” Precautionary Established by the Statements: IRED for Granular “Loaders, applicators and other handlers must wear: Immediately Formulations following/below Hazards to Humans - long-sleeved shirt and long pants, and Domestic - shoes plus socks Animals - chemical resistant gloves”

“In addition, mixers, loader and applicators supporting or making broadcast applications to turf must wear:

- A NIOSH-approved dust mist filtering respirator with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C or a NIOSH-approved respirator with any N, R, P, or HE filter.”

PPE Requirements “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)” Established by the Precautionary Statements: IRED for products “Handlers must wear: applied in a tree Immediately injection system following/below - long-sleeved shirt and long pants, Hazards to Humans - shoes plus socks and Domestic Animals - chemical resistant gloves”

User Safety “Follow manufacturer's instructions for cleaning/maintaining PPE. If no such Precautionary Requirements instructions for washables exist, use detergent and hot water. Keep and wash PPE Statements: separately from other laundry.” Immediately following the PPE requirements

81 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label Engineering Controls “Engineering Controls” Precautionary for the wettable powder Statements: formulations packaged “Water-soluble packets when used correctly qualify as a closed mixing/loading system Immediately in water soluble bags. under the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides [40 CFR following PPE and 170.240(d)(4)]. Mixers and loaders using water-soluble packets must : User Safety Requirements. -- wear the personal protective equipment required above for mixers/ loaders, and -- be provided and must have immediately available for use in an emergency, such as a broken package, spill, or equipment breakdown the following PPE: coveralls, chemical- resistant footwear and a NIOSH-approved dust mist filtering respirator with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C or a NIOSH-approved respirator with any N, R, P, or HE filter.”

82 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label Engineering Controls “Engineering Controls Precautionary for Granular Statements: Formiulations “When mixers and loaders use a closed system designed by the manufacturer to Immediately enclose the pesticide to prevent it from contacting handlers or other people AND the following PPE and system is functioning properly and is used and maintained in accordance with the User Safety manufacturer’s written operating instructions, the handlers may choose to not wear the Requirements. respirator specified in the PPE section of this label as long as the specified respirator is immediately available for use in an emergency, such as a broken package, spill, or equipment breakdown.

“When applicators use an enclosed cab that has a nonporous barrier that totally surrounds the occupants and prevents contact with pesticides outside the cab, the handlers may choose to not wear the chemical resistant gloves or the respirator specified in the PPE section of this label as long as the specified gloves and respirator are immediately available for use in an emergency, such as a broken package, spill, or equipment breakdown.

User Safety “User Safety Recommendations” Precautionary Recommendations Statements: Hazards “Users should wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco, or to Humans and using the toilet.” Domestic Animals (immediately following “Users should remove clothing/PPE immediately if pesticide gets inside. Then wash Engineering thoroughly and put on clean clothing.” Controls)

“Users should remove PPE immediately after handling this product. Wash the outside Must be placed in a of gloves before removing. As soon as possible, wash thoroughly and change into clean box clothing.”

83 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label Environmental Hazards “Environmental Hazards” Precautionary Statements “Do not discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams, ponds, estuaries, oceans, or other waters unless in accordance with the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) permit and the permitting authority has been notified in writing prior to discharge. Do not discharge effluent containing this product to sewer systems without previously notifying the local sewage treatment plant authority. For guidance contact your State Water Board or Regional Office of the EPA.”(Use statement unless exempted by PR Notice 95-01)

“Do not apply directly to water, or to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas below the mean high water mark. Do not contaminate water when cleaning equipment or disposing of equipment washwaters.”

“Exposed treated seed may be hazardous to birds and other wildlife. Dispose of all excess treated seed and seed packaging by burial away from bodies of water.”

“This product and its degradate are highly toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment on blooming crops or weeds. Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to blooming crops or weeds while bees are actively visiting the treatment area.”

"This pesticide is toxic to birds" Entry Restrictions for “Do not enter or allow others to enter until sprays have dried” products applied as Directions for Use sprays. Entry Restrictions for “Do not enter or allow others to enter until dusts have settled” granular or dust Directions for Use products.

84 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label General Application “Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either Restrictions directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the area during Directions for Use application.” Other Application Application Rate Restrictions (Registrants must revise labels to reflect the Restrictions following):

Maximum Application Rates for Golf Course Turf: Limit 4 lbs ai/A for Golf Course.

Maximum Application Rates for Outdoor ornamentals: Limit 1 lb ai/A per 100 gallons of water (not to exceed 1.0 lbs ai/A).

Use Deletions: (Registrants must revise label to remove or prohibit the following):

Indoor Residential Sites: Delete all instructions for indoor residential applications and add the following statement: “Do not apply to indoor residential sites. For use in indoors at non-food areas of commercial, institutional, and industrial sites only” Directions for Use Turf Sites: Remove all instructions for use on turf grass (except for golf course turf, and spot or mound treatment for ant control).

Equipment Restrictions (sprays):

“The use of low pressure hand-wand equipment for perimeter or wasp treatments is prohibited”

Equipment Restrictions (granulars):

“Applications to trees, shrubs and potted plants by hand or hand-held application equipment is prohibited.”

85 Description Risk Mitigation Labeling Placement on Label Spray Drift “Do not allow spray to drift from the application site and contact people, structures Directions for Use Restrictions/Drift people occupy at any time and the associated property, parks and recreation areas, Language (All products nontarget crops, aquatic and wetland areas, woodlands, pastures, rangelands, or applied as sprays) animals.”

“The applicator also must use all other measures necessary to control drift.” End Use Products Intended for Use by Residential Consumers Only Environmental Hazards “Environmental Hazards” Precautionary Statements "Do not apply directly to water. Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters or rinsate." Entry Restrictions “Do not allow people or pets to enter treated area until sprays have dried or dusts have Directions for Use settled.” General Application “Do not apply this product in a way that will contact people or pets” Directions for Use Restrictions Other Application Remove Home Lawns Uses: Remove all instructions for use on home lawns (except Directions for Use Restrictions/Risk for spot or mound treatment for ant control). Mitigation Instructions in the Labeling Required section appearing in quotations represent the exact language that must appear on the label. Instructions in the Labeling Required section not in quotes represents actions that the registrant must take to amend their labels or product registrations.

86 VI. Related Documents and How to Access Them

This interim Reregistration Eligibility Document is supported by documents that are presently maintained in the OPP docket. The OPP docket is located in Room 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. It is open Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays from 8:30 am to 4 pm.

The docket initially contained preliminary risk assessments and related documents as of January 8, 1999. Sixty days later the first public comment period closed. The EPA then considered comments, revised the risk assessment, and added the formal “Response to Comments” document and the revised risk assessment to the docket on February 22, 2000 .

All documents, in hard copy form, may be viewed in the OPP docket room or downloaded or viewed via the Internet at the following site: "http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op."

87 VII. Appendices

88 APPENDIX A: Use Patterns Eligible for Reregistration

Site Maximum Application: Minimum Application Timing Preharvest Spray Formulation Interval Use Limitations Application Type Interval No. Per Seasonal (days) Application Single Rate (days) Equipment Season Rate FOOD/FEED USE PATTERNS Beans (Including Lima Beans and Other Dry and Succulent Beans) Soluble (Sol.) Powder 14 (snap Packaged in Initial application should be beans) Postemergence Water Soluble Not 2.0 lb made when eggs or insects first ai/A per appear using a minimum of 20 Foliar Packaging 1.0 lb ai/A specified 7 crop 1 (lima (ground) or 2 (aerial) gal of Ground/aerial (WSP) (NS) cycle beans water/A. The feeding of treated succulent) vines to livestock is prohibited. Soluble (Sol.) Pellets Brussels Sprouts and Cauliflower Initial application should be made when eggs or insects first Sol. Powder Postemergence 2.0 lb appear using a minimum of 25 (WSP) ai/A per (ground) or 5 (aerial) gal of Foliar 1.0 lb ai/A NS 14 7 crop water/A. The feeding of treated Ground/aerial Sol. Pellets cycle trimmings or the grazing of livestock in treated areas is prohibited. Cauliflower (See "Brussels Sprouts and Cauliflower") Celery Initial application should be made when eggs or insects first Sol. Powder Postemergence 2.0 lb appear using a minimum of 50 (WSP) ai/A per (ground) or 5 (aerial) gal of Foliar 1.0 lb ai/A NS 21 7 crop water/A. All celery must be Ground/aerial Sol. Pellets cycle trimmed (tops removed) before shipment. The use of treated tops for food/feed is prohibited. Cotton1 Use prohibited in AZ, CA, and the Black Lands of TX. The 3 oz/A Preplant 3 oz/A Not product should be applied or evenly to cottonseed in a Seed hopper box Sol. Powder or 1 applicable NA or 0.2 lb hopper/planter box as a dry treatment or 0.2 lb ai/A (NA) ai/A powder. The processing of treated seed for oil or use for food/feed is prohibited.

1Total seasonal application rate for cotton is 4 lb ai/A. This includes all methods of application.

89 Site Maximum Application: Minimum Application Timing Preharvest Spray Formulation Interval Use Limitations Application Type Interval No. Per Seasonal (days) Application Single Rate (days) Equipment Season Rate Cotton (continued)

Seed treatment may be made in Sol. Powder a slurry tank or in sufficient 6.4 water for thorough coverage Preplant (WSP) 6.4 oz/100 lb 1 oz/100 lb NA NA with approved fungicides. The seed Slurry seed treatment seed processing of treated seed for oil Sol. Pellets or use for food/feed is prohibited. Granular At-planting Liquid formulations should be In-furrow (with soil Sol. Powder 1.0 lb applied with flat fan nozzles 1.0 lb ai/A 1 NA NA incorporation) (WSP) ai/A using a minimum of 3 gal of Ground water/A. Sol. Pellets Use limited to all areas of TX Sol. Powder except the Black Lands. Postemergence Application should be made (WSP) 4.0 lb Sidedress treatment 1.0 lb ai/A NS 21 7 beginning at the fourth or fifth ai/A Ground node stage, and should cease Sol. Pellets after peak bloom (90 days after planting). Initial application should be made when eggs or insects first Sol. Powder Postemergence 0.75 lb ai/A appear using a minimum of 1, or (WSP) (1.0 lb ai/A 4.0 lb 3-5 (AZ, CA) gal of water/A. Foliar NS 21 7 limited to ai/A The feeding of treated forage or Aerial Sol. Pellets CA and AZ) gin trash to livestock and the grazing of animals on treated areas are prohibited. Initial application should be made when eggs or insects first Sol. Powder Postemergence 1.0 lb ai/A appear using a minimum of 10 (WSP) 4.0 lb gal of water/A. The feeding of Foliar NS 21 7 ai/A treated forage or gin trash to Ground Sol. Pellets livestock and the grazing of animals on treated areas are prohibited.

90 Site Maximum Application: Minimum Application Timing Preharvest Spray Formulation Interval Use Limitations Application Type Interval No. Per Seasonal (days) Application Single Rate (days) Equipment Season Rate Cranberries Application should be made using sufficient water to achieve thorough coverage (ground) or Postemergence Sol. Powder in a minimum of 2 gal of water/A (aerial). Application Foliar (WSP) 1.0 lb 1.0 lb ai/A 1 90 NA should not be made from start of ai/A Ground bloom until all berries have set. (chemigation)/aerial Sol. Pellets When applied via irrigation system, only sprinkler type irrigation equipment can be used. Use limited to MA, NJ, WA, and WI. Application should be made using sufficient water to achieve thorough coverage Postemergence Sol. Powder (ground) or in a minimum of 2 Foliar (WSP) 1.0 lb gal of water/A (aerial). 1.0 lb ai/A 1 75 NA Ground ai/A Application should not be made (sprinkler)/aerial Sol. Pellets from start of bloom until all berries have set. When applied via irrigation system, only sprinkler type of irrigation may be used. Food-Handling Establishments (Including Food And Non-Food Areas Where Food And Food Products Are Held, Processed, Prepared, or Served) Application to food areas is limited to spot and/or crack and Crack and crevice crevice treatment. (pin-stream spray) Sol. Powder Contamination of food or food- Spot (coarse, low (WSP) 1% (by processing surfaces should be weight to NS NS N/A NS avoided. Spray or mist should pressure spray) weight) not come in contact with food, Paint brush (localized Sol. Pellets feedstuffs, or water supplies. areas) Use in feed-processing areas of feed-handling establishments is prohibited.

91 Site Maximum Application: Minimum Application Timing Preharvest Spray Formulation Interval Use Limitations Application Type Interval No. Per Seasonal (days) Application Single Rate (days) Equipment Season Rate Lettuce (Crisphead Types) Application should be made using a minimum of 10 (ground) or 5 (aerial) gal of water/A. Applications may be made in spring, summer, and early fall in all areas; winter applications may be made in AZ, CA, FL, Sol. Powder and TX; and late fall Postemergence applications may be made in (WSP) 2.0 lb Foliar 1.0 lb ai/A NS 21 7 AZ. In the desert areas of AZ ai/A Ground/aerial and CA, application should not Sol. Pellets be made after first head begins to form in crops which germinate from mid-September through November. The feeding of trimmings to livestock, and the grazing of animals on treated areas are prohibited. Lupines (Sweet Grain) Use limited to WA. Application should be made using a Sol. Powder minimum of 20 (ground) or 2 Postemergence 2.0 lb (aerial) gal of water/A. The (WSP) ai/A per Foliar 1.0 lb ai/A NS 14 7 grazing of animals on treated crop Ground/aerial areas, and the feeding of treated Sol. Pellets cycle forage or hay to livestock are prohibited.

Mint (See "Peppermint and Spearmint")

92 Site Maximum Application: Minimum Application Timing Preharvest Spray Formulation Interval Use Limitations Application Type Interval No. Per Seasonal (days) Application Single Rate (days) Equipment Season Rate Peanuts2 3 oz 75% ai product/ 100 lb seed [SLNs AL940001 and Use limited to AL, FL, GA, and Sol. Powder GA960002] VA. The product should be Preplant (WSP) same as applied evenly to peanut seed in Seed hopper box 1 single NA NA a hopper/planter box as a dry 3 oz 75% ai treatment rate powder. The processing of Sol. Pellets product/ treated seed for oil or use for A food/feed is prohibited. [SLNs FL940002, GA940001, and VA930005] Sol. Powder Use limited to NC, NM, TX, At-planting (WSP) same as and VA. The feeding of treated In-furrow 1.0 lb ai/A 1 single NA NA forage or hay to livestock, and Ground rate the grazing of animals on Sol. Pellets treated areas are prohibited.

Initial application should be Sol. Powder made when eggs or insects first Postemergence (WSP) 4 lb ai/A 14 appear using a minimum of 10 Foliar 1.0 lb ai/A NS per crop 7 (ground) or 5 (aerial) gal of (of digging) Ground/aerial cycle water/A. The feeding of treated Sol. Pellets forage or hay to livestock, and the grazing of animals on treated areas are prohibited. Peppermint and Spearmint Initial application should be made when eggs or insects first Sol. Powder Postemergence 2.0 lb appear using a minimum of 20 (WSP) ai/A per (ground) or 5 (aerial) gal of Foliar 1.0 lb ai/A 2 14 7 crop water/A. The grazing of Ground/aerial Sol. Pellets cycle animals on treated areas and the feeding of spent mint hay to animals are prohibited.

2Total seasonal application rate for peanuts is 4.0 lb ai/A. This includes all methods of application.

93 Site Maximum Application: Minimum Application Timing Preharvest Spray Formulation Interval Use Limitations Application Type Interval No. Per Seasonal (days) Application Single Rate (days) Equipment Season Rate Peppers (Bell) Initial application should be Sol. Powder 2.0 lb Postemergence made when eggs or insects first (WSP) ai/A per Foliar 1.0 lb ai/A NS 7 7 appear using a minimum of 25 crop (ground), 3 (aerial), or 5 (aerial Ground/aerial cycle Sol. Pellets in CA) gal of water/A. Peppers (Non-Bell) Use limited to Midwestern and Sol. Powder Postemergence Eastern states and to PR. (WSP) 1.0 lb Application should made be Foliar 0.5 lb ai/A NS 7 7 ai/A using a minimum of 40 gal of Ground Sol. Pellets water/A.

Peppers (Unspecified Type)3 Use limited to full-season peppers (e.g., varieties that At-planting require 130-150 days to reach In-furrow (with soil 2.0 lb maturity) grown in AZ and NM. Granular 1.0 lb ai/A NS NS 7 incorporation) ai/A Foliar application should not be Ground made following in-furrow application.

Use limited to full-season Postemergence peppers (e.g., varieties that Sidedress treatment require 130-150 days to reach 2.0 lb (with Granular 1.0 lb ai/A NS 88 7 maturity) grown in AZ and NM. ai/A soil incorporation) Foliar application should not be Ground made following sidedress application. Soybeans Use limited to MS & TX. Sol. Powder Applications should be made Foliar 1.5 lb using a minimum of 10 (ground) (WSP) ai/A per Postemergence 1.0 lb ai/A NS 14 7 or 5 (aerial) gal of water/A. The crop Ground/aerial grazing or cutting of vines for Sol. Pellets cycle hay or forage is prohibited.

Spearmint (See "Peppermint")

3Total seasonal application rate for peppers (unspecified type) is 2.0 lb ai/A. This includes all methods of application.

94 Site Maximum Application: Minimum Application Timing Preharvest Spray Formulation Interval Use Limitations Application Type Interval No. Per Seasonal (days) Application Single Rate (days) Equipment Season Rate Tobacco4 Sol. Powder Foliar 4.0 lb (WSP) 0.75 lb ai/A ai/A per Use prohibited in CA [59639-89 Floatbed/greenhouse NS NS 7 crop only]. Ground Sol. Pellets cycle Sol. Powder Foliar 4.0 lb (WSP) ai/A per Use prohibited in CA [59639-89 Plant bed 0.75 lb ai/A NS NS 7 crop only]. Ground Sol. Pellets cycle Sol. Powder Use prohibited in CA [59639-89 (WSP) 0.75 lb only]. Application should be 0.75 lb ai/A 1 NS NA ai/A using a minimum of 100 gal of Transplant water Sol. Pellets water/A. Ground Sol. Powder Use limited to TN. Application (WSP) 1.5 lb 1.5 lb ai/A 1 NS NA should be using a minimum of ai/A 200 gal of water/A. Sol. Pellets Use prohibited in CA [59639-89 Sol. Powder 4.0 lb Postemergence only]. Application should be (WSP) ai/A per Foliar 0.75 lb ai/A NS 3 7 made using a minimum of 10 crop (ground) or 3 (aerial) gal of Ground/aerial cycle Sol. Pellets water/A. 2 tsp Sol. powder/ Use prohibited in CA [59639-89 Sol. Powder mound [dry method] only]. For dry method, product should be applied evenly over 13 Mound treatment Sol. Powder or the mound as a dry powder; for 1 mounds/ 3N A (WSP) 0.75 oz/5 gal drench method, finished spray Ground A of water; 1 should be applied until the gal finished Sol. Pellets mound is wet and to an area 4 ft spray/mound in diameter around the mound. - drench method]

4Total seasonal application rate for tobacco is 4 lb ai/A. This includes all methods of application.

95 Site Maximum Application: Minimum Application Timing Spray Formulation Use Limitations Application Type No. Per Seasonal Interval Single Rate Application Equipment Season Rate (Days) NONFOOD/NONFEED USE PATTERNS Bermudagrass (Seed Crop) Use limited to Bermudagrass grown for seed in AZ & CA. Application Sol. Powder Not should be made using a minimum of Foliar (WSP) 20 (ground) or 5 (aerial) gal of 1 lb ai/A specified NS 7 days Ground/aerial water/A. The feeding of treated (NS) Sol. Pellets commodity to livestock and the grazing of animal on treated areas are prohibited. Carrots (Seed Crop) Use limited to carrots grown for seed in OR, ID and WA. Application should be made in 10 gal of water/A. Fall or early spring Sol. Powder Not for use on fields producing prebloom (WSP) carrots for food. No portion of the 1 lb ai/A 2 2 lb ai/A 7 days Foliar treated field, including seed, seed Ground/aerial Sol. Pellets screenings, and carrot waste may be used for human or animal feed. The grazing of livestock animals on treated areas is prohibited. Citrus Fruits (Non-Bearing) Initial spray application should be made to individual juvenile or non- Sol. Powder bearing trees when eggs or insects (WSP) first appear using a minimum of 100 Foliar 1.0 lb ai/A NS NS 7 days gal of water/A by ground equipment. The grazing of livestock on treated Sol. Pellets areas and the harvesting of citrus fruits for one year after treatment are prohibited. Use limited to FL. Application should be made to individual Sol. Powder juvenile or non-bearing trees using a (WSP) minimum of 100 gal of water/A by Ground 4.0 lb ai/A NS NS 7 days ground equipment. The grazing of Sol. Pellets livestock on treated areas and the harvesting of citrus fruits for one year after treatment are prohibited. 0.75 oz 75% ai product/5 gal Finished spray should be applied Sol. Powder of water until the mound is wet and to an area Mound treatment (WSP) 4 ft in diameter around the mound. [1 gal of NS NS NS The grazing of livestock on treated Ground finished area and the harvesting of citrus Sol. Pellets spray/mound fruits for one year after treatment are drench prohibited. method]

96 Site Maximum Application: Minimum Application Timing Spray Formulation Use Limitations Application Type No. Per Seasonal Interval Single Rate Application Equipment Season Rate (Days) Coffee (Non-Bearing) 2 tsp dry Sol. powder (75% Use limited to non-bearing coffee ai)/ mound (<2 years old) grown in PR. For dry Sol. Powder [dry method] method, product should be applied evenly over the mound as a dry Mound treatment Sol. Powder powder; for drench method, finished 0.75 oz 75% ai NS NS NS Ground (WSP) product/5 gal spray should be applied until the water mound is wet and to an area 4 ft in Sol. Pellets [1 gal finished diameter around the mound. The spray/mound grazing of livestock on treated area drench is prohibited. method] Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial Areas (Indoor Non-Food Areas) Contamination of food or food- Crack and crevice processing surfaces should be (pin-stream spray) Sol. Powder avoided. Spray or mist should not 1.0% (by Spot (coarse, low (WSP) come in contact with food, weight to NS NS NS feedstuffs, or water supplies. Use in pressure spray) weight) Paint brush (localized Sol. Pellets feed-processing areas of feed- handling establishments is areas) prohibited. Domestic Dwellings (Outdoor) Initial application should be made Spot Sol. Powder when pests first appear. Not for use 1.2 oz 75% ai Soil band/foundation (WSP) on residential turf. Do not apply by product/gal of NS NS NS low pressure handwand to treat trees, Paint brush (surfaces) water Ground Sol. Pellets shrubs, outdoor flora, for wasp control, or as a perimeter treatment. Greenhouses At The EPCOT Center (Lake Buena Vista, FL) Sol. Powder Use limited to crops grown in greenhouses at the EPCOT Center Foliar (WSP) 0.75 lb ai /100 NS NS NS (Lake Buena Vista, FL). Treated gal Ground crop commodities must be destroyed Sol. Pellets following harvest and not consumed. Non-Crop Areas (Field Borders, Fencerows, Roadsides, Ditchbanks, and Borrow Pits) Early to mid-season Sol. Powder Application should be made using a application (WSP) minimum of 10 (ground), 1 (aerial), 0.25 lb ai/A NS NS NS or 5 (aerial in CA) gal of water/A. Foliar The grazing or feeding of vegetation Ground/aerial Sol. Pellets cut from treated areas is prohibited.

97 Site Maximum Application: Minimum Application Timing Spray Formulation Use Limitations Application Type No. Per Seasonal Interval Single Rate Application Equipment Season Rate (Days) Noncrop Areas (Wasteland) Application should be made using a minimum of 10 (ground), 0.5 (aerial), or 5 (aerial in CA) gal of water/A. The grazing or feeding of Sol. Powder vegetation cut from treated areas; (WSP) application when lactating dairy Foliar 0.125 lb cattle are present; and the grazing or 0.125 lb ai/A 1 NS Ground/aerial Sol. Pellets ai/A feeding of grass or grass hay to dairy animals are prohibited. Meat animals should be removed from treated areas at least 1 day before slaughter if they were present at application or grazed treated areas within 21 days of application. Finished spray should be applied until the mound is wet and to an area 4.5 oz 75% ai 4 ft in diameter around the mound. Sol. Powder product/5 gal Application should not be made of water when lactating dairy cattle are present. The grazing or feeding of Mound Treatment Sol. Powder 13 [1 gal of 1 NS treated grass hay to dairy animals is (WSP) mounds/A Ground finished prohibited. Meat animals should be spray/mound removed from treated areas at least 1 Sol. Pellets drench day before slaughter if they were method] present at application or grazed treated areas within 21 days of application. Noncrop Areas (Unspecified) For dry method, product should be applied evenly over the mound as a 2 tsp Sol. dry powder; for drench method, powder finished spray should be applied /mound until the mound is wet and to an area Sol. Powder [dry method] 2 tsp 4 ft in diameter around the mound. product/ Application should not be made Mound treatment Sol. Powder mound when lactating dairy cattle are 0.75 oz 75% ai 1 NS Ground (WSP) product/5 gal [dry present. The grazing or feeding of water[1 gal of method] treated grass hay to dairy animals is Sol. Pellets finished prohibited. Meat animals should be spray/mound removed from treated areas at least 1 drench day before slaughter if they were method] present at application or grazed treated areas within 21 days of application.

98 Site Maximum Application: Minimum Application Timing Spray Formulation Use Limitations Application Type No. Per Seasonal Interval Single Rate Application Equipment Season Rate (Days) Onions (Seed Crop; Research Purposes Only) Use limited to onions grown for seed (research purposes only) in CA. Sol. Powder Applications should be made in 50 Foliar (WSP) gal/A of water using ground 1.0 lb ai/A NS NS 7 days equipment. Applications should not Ground be made when plants are in full Sol. Pellets bloom. Onions harvested from treated fields can not be used for food/feed. Turf (Sod Farm and Golf Course Use Only) and Other Ornamental Ground Covers Initial application should be made 3.0 lb ai/A when insects or damage first appear (Sod farm trt using a minimum of 1 gal of with liquid water/1,000 sq. ft for liquid Sol. Powder formulation) formulation. The grazing of (WSP) livestock on treated area and the Foliar/Broadcast 4.0 lb ai/A 7-14 days, NS NS feeding of treated grass to livestock Ground Sol. Pellets (Golf course as needed are prohibited. trt with liquid formulation) Granular Three (3) day Pre-Harvest Interval (PHI) for harvesting of sod. 5 lb ai/A (Granular) Do not apply aerially. Ornamental Lawns, Turfs, and Other Ornamental Ground Covers 2 tsp Sol. Sol. Powder powder/mound (WSP) [dry method] For dry method [59639-26 only], 2 tsp product should be applied evenly product/ Mound treatment Sol. Powder 1.0 oz over the mound as a dry powder; for NS mound NS drench method, finished spray Ground product/5 gal [dry should be applied until the mound is Sol. Pellets water; 1 gal finished method] wet and to an area 4 ft in diameter spray/mound around the mound. Granular [drench method] Ornamental Plants Initial application should be made Sol. Powder 0.5 lb ai/A when insects first appear. Foliar (WSP) or NS NS 14 Ground 1.0 lb ai/100 Do not apply by low pressure Sol. Pellets gal of water handwand.

99 Site Maximum Application: Minimum Application Timing Spray Formulation Use Limitations Application Type No. Per Seasonal Interval Single Rate Application Equipment Season Rate (Days) Ornamental Plants (Container-Grown Nursery Stock) Sol. Powder Thorough drench application of Foliar/broadcast (WSP) liquid formulation should be made NS NS NS by mid-September for greenhouse Ground 0.75 lb ai/100 stock and by mid-October for Sol. Pellets gal of water outdoor stock. Ornamental Plants (Greenhouse) 1 lb/100 gal Sol. Powder water (0.75 lb Foliar (WSP) ai/A cut Initial application should be made NS NS 5 Ground flowers; 1.0 lb when eggs or insects first appear. Sol. Pellets ai/A other ornamentals) Ornamental Trees and Shrubs (Except Flowering Crabapple) Sol. Powder Initial application should be made Foliar (WSP) 1.0 lb ai/100 when insects or damage first appear. NS NS 14 Ground gal of water Do not apply by low pressure Sol. Pellets handwand. Ornamental Trees and Shrubs (Flowering Crabapple) Sol. Powder 0.75 lb Initial application should be made as Foliar 0.25 lb ai/100 (WSP), 3 ai/300 gal 28 days insects appear. Do not apply by low Ground gal of water Sol. Pellets of water pressure handwand. Ornamental Trees and Shrubs (Crepe Myrtle) Sol. Powder Application should be made as a Banded 4 tbs product/1 (WSP), NS NS NS paint-on slurry to the trunk in a band Paint brush tbs water Sol. Pellets 6-12 inches above the ground. Ornamental Trees and Shrubs (Douglas Fir) Sol. Powder Application should be made no more Foliar (WSP) than 2 weeks prior to bud burst using 0.5 lb/A 1 0.5 lb ai/A NA a minimum of 100 (ground) or 2 Ground/aerial (aerial) gal of water/A. Do not apply Sol. Pellets by low pressure handwand. Ornamental Trees and Shrubs (Southern Pine Seed Orchards) Use limited to Southern pine seed orchards grown in FL, GA, NC, VA, and TX. Initial application should Sol. Powder be made when female flowers are in Foliar (WSP) twig bud stage using a min. of 100 Ground/aerial 4.0 lb ai/A 2 8.0 lb ai/A 2 weeks (ground) or 10 (aerial) gal of water/A. The grazing of livestock Sol. Pellets on treated areas and the harvesting of treated cover crops are prohibited. Do not apply by low pressure handwand.

100 Site Maximum Application: Minimum Application Timing Spray Formulation Use Limitations Application Type No. Per Seasonal Interval Single Rate Application Equipment Season Rate (Days) Potatoes (Greenhouse Grown Pre-Nuclear) Sol. Powder Use limited to greenhouse-grown Foliar (WSP) 0.75 lb ai/100 pre-nuclear potatoes in PA. Initial NS NS NS Ground gal application should be made when Sol. Pellets insects first appear. Radishes (Seed Crop) Use limited to radishes grown for seed in WA. Application should made be made using a minimum of Sol. Powder Postemergence 10 (ground) or 5 (aerial) gal of (WSP) water/A. Application before or Broadcast/foliar 1.0 lb ai/A NS NS 7 during peak bloom period is not Ground/aerial Sol. Pellets recommended. The feeding of treated crop to livestock, and the grazing of animals on treated areas are prohibited.

101 APPENDIX B. Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the Reregistration of Acephate

GUIDE TO APPENDIX B

Appendix B contains listing of data requirements which support the reregistration for active ingredients within the case acephate covered by this RED. It contains generic data requirements that apply acephate in all products, including data requirements for which a "typical formulation" is the test substance.

The data table is organized in the following formats:

1. Data Requirement (Column 1). The data requirements are listed by Guideline Number. The Guideline Numbers accompanying each test refer to the test protocols set in the Pesticide Assessment Guidance available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (703) 487-4650.

2. Use Pattern (Column 2). This column indicates the use patterns for which the data requirements apply. The following letter designations are used for the given use patterns.

A . Terrestrial Food H. Greenhouse Food B. Terrestrial Feed I. Greenhouse Non-Food C. Terrestrial Non-Food J. Forestry D. Aquatic Food K. Residential E. Aquatic Non-Food Outdoor L. Indoor Food F. Aquatic Non-Food Industrial M. Indoor Non-Food G. Aquatic Non-Food Residential N. Indoor Medical O. Indoor Residential

3. Bibliographic Citation (Column 3). If the Agency has acceptable data in its files, this column list the identify number of each study. This normally is the Master Record Identification (MIRD) number, but may be a "GS" number if no MRID number has been assigned. Refer to the Bibliography appendix for a complete citation of the study.

102 APPENDIX B: Acephate (Case 0042) - Data Supporting Guideline Requirements for the Reregistration of Acephate

REQUIREMENT CITATION(S)

New Guideline Old Guideline Use Pattern Number Number Study Title MRID Number PRODUCT CHEMISTRY 830.1550 61-1 Product Identity and Composition All 43645001, 44005101 830.1600 61-2A Starting Materials and Manufacturing Process All 43645001, 44005101 830.1620 830.1650 830.1670 61-2B Formation of Impurities All 43645001, 44005101 830.1700 62-1 Preliminary Analysis All 43645002, 44005102 830.1750 62-2 Certification of Limits All 43645002, 44005102 830.1800 62-3 Analytical Method All 43645002, 44005102 830.6302 63-2 Color All 43645003, 44005103 830.6303 63-3 Physical State All 43645003, 44005103 830.6304 63-4 Odor All 44005103 830.7050 None UV/Visible Absorption All Data Gap

830.7200 63-5 Melting Point All 43645003, 44005103 830.7220 63-6 Boiling Point All Not Applicable 830.7300 63-7 Density All 43645003, 44005103 830.7840 63-8 Solubility All 43645003, 40390601 830.7860 830.7950 63-9 Vapor Pressure All 43645003, 40645901 830.7370 63-10 Dissociation Constant in Water All 40390601

103 REQUIREMENT CITATION(S)

New Guideline Old Guideline Use Pattern Number Number Study Title MRID Number 830.7550 63-11 Partition Coefficient (Octanol/Water) All 40322801 830.7560 830.7570 830.7000 63-12 pH All 43645003, 44005103 830.6313 63-13 Stability All 43645003, 44005103 830.6314 63-14 Oxidizing/Reducing Action All 40390601 830.6315 63-15 Flammability All Not Applicable 830.6316 63-16 Explodability All 40390601 830.6317 63-17 Storage Stability All 40390601 830.7100 63-18 Viscosity All Not Applicable 830.6319 63-19 Miscibility All Not Applicable 830.6320 63-20 Corrosion Characteristics All 40390601 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS 850.2100 71-1 Avian Acute Oral Toxicity Test All 43939301, 00015962, 00014701, 00014700, 00093911

For degradate methamidophos: 00014094, 00014095, 00041313, 00016000, 00093914, 00109717, 00109718, 00144428 850.2200 71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity All 00015956, 00015957, 00093911

For degradate methamidophos: 00093904, 00014304, 00014064, 00041658, 00146286

104 REQUIREMENT CITATION(S)

New Guideline Old Guideline Use Pattern Number Number Study Title MRID Number 850.2300 71-4 Avian Reproduction ABCDJK 00029692, 00029691

For degradate methamidophos: 00014113, 00014114 850.1075 72-1 Fish Acute Toxicity - Freshwater All 40098001, 40094602, 00014705, 00014709, 00014708, 00014706, 00014707, 00014710

For degradate methamidophos: 00041312, 00014063, 05000836, 00144429, 00144432 850.1010 72-2 Invertebrate Toxicity All GS0042021, 00014565, 40094602, 00014861, 40098001, 00093943, 00014712

For degradate methamidophos: 00041311, 00014110, 00014305 850.1075 72-3a Estuarine/Marine Toxicity - Fish Acute ABCDJK 40228401

For degradate methamidophos: 00144431 850.1025 72-3b and Estuarine/Marine Toxicity - Invertebrate Acute ABCDJK 40098001, 00014711, 00014713 850.1035 72-3c 850.1045 For degradate methamidophos: 850.1055 00144430 850.1300 72-4 Invertebrate Chronic Toxicity ABCDJK 44466601, 00066341, 40228401 850.1350

105 REQUIREMENT CITATION(S)

New Guideline Old Guideline Use Pattern Number Number Study Title MRID Number 850.4100 122-1 and Non-Target Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor CJ Data Gap 850.4150 123-1 850.4200 850.4225 850.4230 850.4250 850.4400 123-2 Aquatic Plant Growth CJ Not Applicable 850.3020 141-1 Nontarget Insect Acute Contact Toxicity (Honey Bee) ABCDJK 00014714, 44038201, 05004012

For degradate methamidophos: 00036935 850.3030 141-2 Nontarget Insect Acute Residue Toxicity ABCDJK 00014715, 05000837, 00014714 TOXICOLOGY 870.1100 81-1 Acute Oral - Rat All 00014675, 00029686 870.1200 81-2 Acute Dermal - Rabbit All 00055602 870.1300 81-3 Acute Inhalation - Rat All 00015307 870.2400 81-4 Primary Eye Irritation - Rabbit All 00014686 870.2500 81-5 Primary Dermal Irritation - Rabbit All 00015305 870.2600 81-6 Dermal Sensitization All 00119085 870.6100 81-7 Delayed Neurotoxicity All 00154884 870.6200 81-8 Acute Neurotoxicity All 44203301, 44203302, 44203303 870.3100 82-1 90-Day Feeding All 40504819 870.3150 870.3200 82-2 21-Day Dermal Toxicity - Rat All 45134301 870.3250 82-3 Subchronic Dermal Toxicity - 90 Day All Not Applicable

106 REQUIREMENT CITATION(S)

New Guideline Old Guideline Use Pattern Number Number Study Title MRID Number 870.3465 82-4 Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity - 28 Day All 45134302 82-7 Subchronic Neurotoxicity - rats All 44203304 870.4100 83-1A Chronic Feeding Toxicity - Rodent All 00084017, 00101623 870.4100 83-1B Chronic Feeding Toxicity - Non-Rodent (dog) All 41812001 870.4200 83-2A Oncogenicity - Rat All 00084017, 00101623 870.4200 83-2B Oncogenicity - Mouse All 00105197, 00077209, 00105198, 00129156 870.3700 83-3A Developmental Toxicity-Rat All 41081602 870.3700 83-3B Developmental Toxicity - Rabbit All 00069684, 00069683 870.3800 83-4 2-Generation Reproduction - Rat All 40323401, 40605701 870.4300 83-5 Combined Chronic Toxicity/ All 00084017 Carcinogenicity 870.6300 83-6 Developmental Neurotoxicity All Data Gap (1999 DCI) 870.5140 84-2 Mutagenicity studies All 00119080, 00028625, 00132948, 870.5375 00132947, 000132949, 00132950, 870.5550 00137738, 40209101, 00132953, 00119081, 00132955, 00132954 00139949, 00028625 870.7485 85-1 General Metabolism All Data Gap 85-2 Dermal Absorption All 00154886 OCCUPATIONAL/RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE 875.1700 90-1-SS Product Use Information All Data Gap 875.2100 132-1A Foliar Residue Dissipation ABCDJ 44806401, 44763901, 44763902, 44763903, 44763904 875.2200 132-1B Soil Residue Dissipation ABCDJ Waived

107 REQUIREMENT CITATION(S)

New Guideline Old Guideline Use Pattern Number Number Study Title MRID Number 875.2400, 133-3 Dermal Passive Dosimetry Exposure ABCDJ Data Gap 875.1100 Dermal Exposure Outdoor 875.2500 133-4 Inhalation Passive Dosimetry Exposure ABCDJ Waived 840.1100 201-1 Droplet Size Spectrum ABCDJ 40323301, 40323302, 41023503 835.4200 202-1 Drift Field Evaluation 41023504 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE 835.2120 161-1 Hydrolysis of Parent and Degradates ABCDHIJK 41081604; Data Gap (for test at pH of 9) 835.2240 161-2 Photodegradation - Water ABCD 41081603 835.2410 161-3 Photodegradation - Soil ABJ 00015202, 40504810 835.2370 161-4 Photodegradation - Air AB Not Applicable 835.4100 162-1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism ABCHIJK 00014991 835.4400 162-3 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism DJ 43971601 835.4300 162-4 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism D Data Gap 835.1240 163-1 Leaching/Adsorption/Desorption ABCDHIJK Data Gap 835-1410 163-2 Volatility-Lab - Not Applicable 835-8100 163-3 Volatility-Soil - Not Applicable 835.6100 164-1 Terrestrial Field Dissipation ABCK 40504812, 40504813, 40504814, 41327601, 41327603, 41327604, 41327605, None 165-4 Bioaccumulation in Fish ABCDJ 00015243 RESIDUE CHEMISTRY 835.1850 165-1 Confined Rotational Crop ABD Data Gap 860.1300 171-4A Nature of Residue - Plants ABDHKL Data Gap

108 REQUIREMENT CITATION(S)

New Guideline Old Guideline Use Pattern Number Number Study Title MRID Number 860.1300 171-4B Nature of Residue - Livestock ABDHKL Data Gap

860.1340 171-4C Residue Analytical Method - Plants ABDHKL 00014579, 00014659, 00014729, 00014983, 43971606, 43971607, 44037802, 44037804 860.1340 171-4D Residue Analytical Method - Animals ABDHKL 00014579, 00014659, 00014729, 00014983, 43971608, 43971609, 44037804 860.1380 171-4E Storage Stability ABDHKL 00014984, 00015179, 40504802, 40874102, 40874103, 41081601, 41137902, 44025201, 41327601, 44251701, 44251702 860.1460 174-4I Food Handling Establishments L 00014654, 00014655, 00014656, 00014657, 00014568 860.1480 171-4J Magnitude of Residues - Meat, Milk, Poultry, Eggs ABDHKL Milk and the Fat, Meat, and Meat Byproducts of Cattle, 00015183, 00015225, 00015226, Goats, Hogs, Horses, and Sheep 40504806 Eggs and the Fat, Meat, and Meat Byproducts of Poultry 00015230, 00015245 860.1500 171-4K Crop Field Trials - Celery ABDHKL 00014768, 00014769, 00014770, 00014771, 00014772, 00014773, 00015323, 00015324, 00015325, 00015326, 00015327, 00015328, 00015329, 00109353 860.1500 171-4K Crop Field Trials - Lettuce (head) ABDHKL 00014971, 00015042, 00015190, 00015191, 00015192, 00015193, 00015194, 00015293, 00015294 860.150 171-4 Crop Field Trials - Brassica (Cole) Vegetables Grou ABDHKL 00115240

109 REQUIREMENT CITATION(S)

New Guideline Old Guideline Use Pattern Number Number Study Title MRID Number 860.1500 171-4K Crop Field Trials - Beans, Succulent and Dry ABDHKL 00014540, 00014774, 00014775, 00014776, 00014777, 00014778, 00014780, 00014781, 00014783, 00014791, 00072783, 40504805 860.1500 171-4K Crop Field Trials - Soybean Seed and Aspirated Grain ABDHKL 00014532, 00014533, 00014534, Fractions 00015049, 00015050, 00015060, 40504805 860.1500 171-4K Crop Field Trials - Beans, Forage and Hay ABDHKL 00014541, 00014778, 00014780, 00014787, 00014791 860.1500 171-4K Crop Field Trials - Peppers ABDHKL 00014760, 00014762, 00014763, 00014764, 00014765 860.1500 171-4K Crop Field Trials - Macadamia Nuts ABDHKL 00138156 860.1500 171-4K Crop Field Trials -Cotton, Seed and Gin Byproducts ABDHKL 00014852, 00014853, 00014854, 00014855, 00015038, 00015199, 00015206, 42450501 860.1500 171-4K Crop Field Trials - Cranberries ABDHKL 00115589 860.1500 171-4K Crop Field Trials -Mint Hay, Spearmint and Peppermint ABDHKL 00029683, 00029684, 00029685, 40504803, 43971610 860.1500 171-4K Crop Field Trials - Peanuts, Nutmeat and Hay ABDHKL 00093722, 00093724, 44025201, 44025202 860.1500 171-4K Crop Field Trials - Tobacco ABDHKL 00015122, 00015125, 00109354, 40504809 860.1520 171-4L Processed Foods (Cottonseed) ABDHL 00015038, 00015196, 00015198, 00015199, 00015206 860.1520 171-4L Processed Foods (Mint) ABDHL 00029684, 00029685, 40504803 860.1520 171-4L Processed Foods (Peanuts) ABDHL 43971611

110 REQUIREMENT CITATION(S)

New Guideline Old Guideline Use Pattern Number Number Study Title MRID Number 860.1520 171-4L Processed Foods (Soybeans) ABDHL 00014532, 00014533, 00014534, 00015050, 40504805, 41137903, 44777002

111 APPENDIX C: Technical Support Documents

Additional documentation in support of this IRED is maintained in the OPP docket, located in Room 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. It is open Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, from 8:30 am to 4 pm.

All documents, in hard copy form, may be viewed in the OPP docket room or downloaded or viewed via the Internet at the following site:

www.epa.gov/pesticides/op

These documents include:

SRRD Documents:

• Agency Response to Phase 5 Comments on Acephate. October 18, 2001 • SRRD Response to Public Comments on the Preliminary Human Health and Ecological Risk Assesssments. February 18, 2000 • Acephate Use Closure Memo. December 23, 1997

HED Documents:

• Acephate: Sensitivity Analysis for Turf Risk Assessment. August 1, 2001 • Acephate: Addenda to Previous Occupational and Residential Risk Assessment Completed on September 15, 2000, and on January 20, 2000. February 13, 2001 • Acephate: Addendum to Revised Occupational and Non-Occupational Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. September 15, 2000 • Acephate: Support for the Toxicology Endpoint Selection - for Dermal and Inhalation Risk Assessments; Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee (HIARC). August 30, 2000 • Acephate: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment. HED Chapter for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document. February 3, 2000 • Acephate: Revised Occupational and Non-Occupational Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. January 20, 2000. • Acephate: Revised Occupational and Non-Occupational Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. December 15, 1999. • Acephate. Sensitivity Analysis. November 23, 1999

112 • Acephate: Revised Product and Residue Chemistry Chapters for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision. October 5, 1999 • Acephate: Revised Occupational and Non-Occupational Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. September 30, 1999. • Acephate. Revised Dietary Exposure Analysis for the HED Revised Human Health Risk Assessment. September 28, 1999 • Acephate. Response to Comments to the Draft Acephate HED Risk Assessment and Disciplinary Chapters for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document. Dated September 22, 1999 • Review of Acephate Incident Reports. September 8, 1999 • Acephate. Acute Anticipated Residues Assessment for the HED RED. August 18, 1999 • Acephate: Revisions of the Toxicology Chapter for the RED. June 9, 1999

EFED Documents:

• Response to SRRD's Questions Concerning Phase 5 Public Comments on Acephate. August 8, 2000 • Revised Surface Water EECs (Incorporating the Index Reservoir and Percent Crop Area) for the HED Risk Assessment for Acephate. March 8, 2000 • Addendum to Acephate DP Barcode: D254706. Missing text from response to comments document and acceptability of a batch equilibrium study. September 7, 1999 • EFED Response to Comments submitted to the Acephate Docket during the 60-Day Comment Period on the EFED Acephate RED Chapter. August 25, 1999 • Revised EFED Acephate RED Chapter. August 25, 1999

113 APPENDIX D: Citations Considered to be Part of the Database Supporting the Acephate Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (Bibliography)

GUIDE TO APPENDIX D

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

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

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

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

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

b. Document date. The date of the study is taken directly from the document. When the date is followed by a question mark, the bibliographer has deduced the date from the evidence contained in the document. When the date appears as (1999), the Agency was unable to determine or estimate the date of the document.

114 c. Title. In some cases, it has been necessary for the Agency bibliographers to create or enhance a document title. Any such editorial insertions are contained between square brackets. d. Trailing parentheses. For studies submitted to the Agency in the past, the trailing parentheses include (in addition to any self-explanatory text) the following elements describing the earliest known submission:

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

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

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

(4) Volume Identification (Accession Numbers). The final element in the trailing parentheses identifies the EPA accession number of the volume in which the original submission of the study appears. The six-digit accession number follows the symbol "CDL," which stands for "Company Data Library." This accession number is in turn followed by an alphabetic suffix which shows the relative position of the study within the volume.

115 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00014064 Jackson, G.L. (1968) Report to Chevron Chemical Company, Ortho Division: Quail Toxicity of Monitor (RE 9006): IBT No. J6483. (Unpublished study received Mar 5, 1970 under 0F0956; prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093265-X)

00014094 Fletcher, D. (1971) Report to Chevron Chemical Company, Ortho Division: Acute Oral Toxicity Study with Monitor Technical in Bobwhite Quail: IBT No. J261. (Unpublished study received Mar 22,1972 under 0F0956; prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL: 092118-C)

00014095 Fletcher, D. (1971) Report to Chevron Chemical Company, Ortho Division: Acute Oral Toxicity Study with Monitor Technical in Mallard Ducks: IBT No. J262. (Unpublished study received Mar 22,1972 under 0F0956; prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL: 092118-D)

00014110 Wheeler, R.E. (1978) 48 Hour Acute Static Toxicity of Monitor (SX887) to 1st Stage Nymph Water Fleas (~Daphnia magna~Straus). (Unpublished study received Sep 15, 1978 under 239-2404; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:235153-A)

00014113 Fink, R. (1977) Final Report: One-Generation Reproduction Study-Mallard Duck: Project No. 149-104; Report No. 54030. (Unpublished study received Apr 9, 1979 under 239-2404; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. in cooperation with Glencoe Mills Inc. and Washington College for Mobay Chemical Corp., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:238015-B)

00014114 Beavers, J.B.; Fink, R. (1978) One-Generation Reproduction Study--Bobwhite Quail--Technical Monitor: Final Reports: Report No. 66155. (Unpublished study received Apr 9, 1979 under 239-2404; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. in cooperation with Glencoe Mills, Inc. and Washington College for Mobay Chemical Corp., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:238015-C)

00014219 Warnock, R.E. (1973) Metabolism of Orthene to Ortho 9006 Detected in Rats. (Unpublished study received February17, 1977 under 6F 1680; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:098473-C)

00014304 Lamb, D.W.; Burke, M.A. (1977) Dietary Toxicity of Monitor¼(R): Technical to Bobwhite Quail and Mallard Ducks: Report No. 51596. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1978 under 3125-280; submitted by Mobay Chemical Corp., Agricultural Div., Kansas City, Mo.; CDL:238096-B)

116 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00014305 Nelson, D.L.; Burke, M.A. (1977) Acute Toxicity of ¼(R):Monitor Technical to~Daphnia magna~: Report No. 54045. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1978 under 3125-280; submitted by Mobay Chemical Corp., Agricultural Div., Kansas City, Mo.; CDL: 238096-C)

00014532 Rich, G.J.; Leary, J.B. (1975) Residue Data Sheet: Soybeans: Test No. T-3074. (Unpublished study including test nos. T-3075 and T-3197, received Sep 10, 1975 under 239-2418; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:195034-B)

00014533 Post, H.A.; Leary, J.B. (1975) Residue Data Sheet: Soybeans: Test No. T-3076. (Unpublished study received Sep 10, 1975 under 239-2418; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:195034-C)

00014534 Moherek, E.A.; Leary, J.B. (1975) Residue Data Sheet: Soybeans: Test No. T-3166. (Unpublished study received Sep 10, 1975 under 239-2418; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:195034-D)

00014540 Sakamoto, S.S.; Slagowski, J.L. (1976) Residue Data Sheet: Beans: Test No. T-3682. (Unpublished study including test nos. T-3683 and T-3756, received Jun 7, 1977 under 239 2418; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:232596-H)

00014541 Ross, B.L.; Slagowski, J.L. (1976) Residue Data Sheet: Snapbeans: Test No. T-3743. (Unpublished study including test nos. T-3744, T-3780, T-3781..., received Jun 7, 1977 under 239-2418; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:232596-J)

00014547 Rabeni, C.F. (1978) The impact of Orthene, a Spruce Budworm Insecticide, on Stream Fishes. (Unpublished study received 24, 1978 under 239-2418; prepared by Univ. of Maine, Cooperative Fishery Research Unit in cooperation with Entomology Dept. for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:236520-A)

00014555 Tucker, B.V. (1974) Characterization of 14C in Tissues and Milk from Goats Fed S-Methyl 14C-Orthene or S-Methyl-14C-Ortho 9006. (Unpublished study including test no. T-3201, received Nov 10, 1976 under 239-2418; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:095572-K)

00014565 Wheeler, R.E. (1978) 48 Hour Acute Static Toxicity of (SX911) to 1st Stage Nymph Water Fleas (~Daphnia magna~Straus). (Unpublished study received Sep 13, 1978 under 239-2418; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:235203-A)

117 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00014579 Chevron Chemical Company (1974) Orthene and the Metabolite Ortho 9006 Residue Analysis by Thermionic Gas Chromatography. Method RM-12A-4 dated Apr 25, 1974. (Unpublished study received Sep 21, 1976 under 239-2418; CDL:095287-E)

00014637 Bocsor, J.G.; O'Connor, T.F. (1975) Environmental Impact Study of Aerially Applied Orthene on a Forest and Aquatic Ecosystem: Impact on Aquatic Ecosystem: LOTEL Report 174. (Unpublished study received Jun 30, 1975 under 239-2443; prepared by State Univ.of New York--Oswego, Lake Ontario Environmental Laboratory, submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:225768-C)

00014639 Bart, J.; Streckewald, T.; Peakall, D. (1975) Environmental Impact Study of Aerially Applied Orthene on a Forest and Aquatic Ecosystem: Impact on Birds: LOTEL Report 174. (Unpublished study received Jun 30, 1975 under 239-2443; prepared by State Univ. of New York--Oswego, Lake Ontario Environmental Laboratory, submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:225768-E)

00014654 Chevron Chemical Company (1979) Orthene (Acephate) Insecticide: Residue Analyses of Human Food Exposed in Food Handling Establishments Spot-Treated with Acephate Insecticide. Summary of studies 238179-C through 238179-F. (Unpublished study received Apr 17, 1979 under 239-2464; CDL:238179-B)

00014655 Bledsoe, M.E.; Cooper, D.; Witherspoon, B., Jr.; et al. (1979) [Orthene (Acephate) Insecticide: Food Residue Evaluations of a Food Service Establishment (McDonalds Restaurants and Winn Dixie Foods) - Spot Application]. (Unpublished study including test nos. T-4658, T-4670, T-4659, received Apr 17, 1979 under 239-2464; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:238179-C)

00014656 Bledsoe, M.E.; Cooper, D.; Slagowski, J.L. (1979) [Orthene (Acephate) Insecticide: Food Residue Evaluations of a Manufacturing Establishment (Pet Bakery and Sophie Mae Candy Corp.) - Spot Application]. (Unpublished study including test nos. T-4660 and T-4661, received Apr 17, 1979 under 239-2464; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:238179-D)

00014657 Bledsoe, M.E.; Slagowski, J.L. (1979) [Orthene (Acephate) Insecticide: Food Residue Evaluations of a Processing Establishment (Creamery, Univ. of Georgia)--Spot Application]. (Unpublished study including test no. T-4663, received Apr 17, 1979 under 239-2464; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:238179-E)

118 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00014658 Bledsoe, M.E.; Wright, C.; Slagowski, J.L. (1979) [Orthene (Acephate) Insecticide: Food Residue Evaluations of a Processing Establishment (Creamery, N.C.S.U.)--Spot Application]. (Unpublished study including test no. T-4662, received Apr 17, 1979 under 239-2464; prepared in cooperation with North Carolina State Univ., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:238179-F)

00014659 Elliott, E.J.; Leary, J.B. (1978) Residue Analysis of Acephate and Methamidophos in Crops, Soil, Water and Milk. Method RM-12A-5 dated Jan 25, 1978. (Unpublished study received Apr 17, 1979 under 239-2464; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:238179-G)

00014675 Cavalli, R.D. (1970) Acute Oral Toxicity of Ortho RE 12,420: SOCO 127/III:39. (Unpublished study received June 21, 1972 under 239-EX-61; Submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223505-F)

00014686 Narcisse, J.K.; Cavalli, R.D. (1971) Eye Irritation Potential of Orthene Technical, Orthene 75S (CC-2153) and Orthene 75S (CC-2152): SOCAL 273/VI:107 (Unpublished study received June 21, 1972 under 239-EX-61; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223505-Q)

00014700 Mastalski, K.; Jenkins, D.H. (1970) Report to Chevron Chemical Company, Ortho Division: Acute Oral Toxicity Study with RE 12,420 Technical in Mallard Ducks: IBT No. J9110. (Unpublished study received Jun 21, 1972 under 239-EX-61; prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223505-AE)

00014701 Mastalski, K.; Jenkins, D.H. (1970) Report to Chevron Chemical Company, Ortho Division: Acute Oral Toxicity Study with RE 12,420 Technical in Ringneck Pheasants: IBT No. J9110. (Unpublished study received Jun 21, 1972 under 239-EX-61; prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223505-AF)

00014705 Hutchinson, C. (1970) Bioassay Report: Acute Toxicity of RE-12420 to Three Species of Freshwater Fish. (Unpublished study received Jun 21, 1972 under 239-EX-61; prepared by Bionomics, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL: 223505-AJ)

00014706 Thompson, J.P. (1971) Fish Toxicity: Bluegill (~Lepomis macro~chirus~). (Unpublished study received Jun 21, 1972 under 239-EX-61; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223505-AK)

119 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00014707 Thompson, J.P. (1971) Fish Toxicity: Large Mouth Black Bass (~Micropterus salmoides~). (Unpublished study received Jun 21, 1972 under 239-EX-61; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223505-AL)

00014708 Thompson, J.P. (1971) Fish Toxicity: Channel Catfish (~Ictiobus~ ~cyprinellus~). (Unpublished study received Jun 21, 1972 under 239-EX-61; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223505-AM)

00014709 Thompson, J.P.; Huntoon, R.B. (1971) Fish Toxicity: Mosquito Fish (~Gambusia affinis~). (Unpublished study received Jun 21,1972 under 239-EX-61; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223505-AN)

00014710 Thompson, J.P.; Huntoon, R.B. (1971) Fish Toxicity: Goldfish (~Carassius auratus~). (Unpublished study received Jun 21, 1972 under 239-EX-61; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223505-AO)

00014711 Sleight, B.H., III (19??) Bioassay Report: Acute Toxicity of Orthene¼(R): (SX-257) to the Brown Shrimp (~Penaeus aztecus~). (Unpublished study received Jun 21, 1972 under 239-EX-61; prepared by Bionomics, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223505-AP)

00014712 Sleight, B.H., III (1971) Bioassay Report: Acute Toxicity of Orthene 75S (CC2152 from SX 357, SX360) to Crayfish (~Procambo~ ~rus clarki~). (Unpublished study received Jun 21, 1972 under 239-EX-61; prepared by Bionomics, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223505-AQ)

00014713 Sleight, B.H., III (1970) Bioassay Report: Acute Toxicity of RE-12420 to Atlantic Oyster Embryo (~Crassostrea virginica~). (Unpublished study received Jun 21, 1972 under 239-EX-61; prepared by Bionomics, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223505-AR)

00014714 Atkins, E.L.; Greywood, E.A.; Macdonald, R.L. (1971) Effect of Pesticides on Apiculture: Project No. 1499. (Unpublished received Jun 21, 1972 under 239-EX-61; prepared by Univ. of California--Riverside, Dept. of Entomology, Div. of Economic Entomology, submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223505-AS)

00014715 Sakamoto, S.S.; Johansen, C.A. (1971) Toxicity of Orthene to Honey Bees (~Apis mellifera~); Alfalfa Leaf Cutter Bees (~Megachile rotundata~); Alkali Bees (~Nomia melanderi~); Bumble Bees (~Bombus auricomus~). (Unpublished study received Jun 21,

120 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

1972 under 239-EX-61; prepared in cooperation with Washington State Univ., Entomology Dept., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223505-AT)

00014729 Chevron Chemical Company (1972) Orthene--and the Metabolite--Ortho 9006 Residue Analysis by Thermionic Gas Chromatography. Method RM-12A dated Sep 12, 1972. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1973 under 3F1375; CDL:093665-C)

00014760 Ansolabehere, M.J.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Bell Pepper: Test No. T-2467. (Unpublished study including test no. T-2484, received Dec 13, 1974 under 5F1578; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:094328-B)

00014762 Winner, W.M.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Sweet Peppers: Test No. T-2471. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under 5F1578; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:094328-D)

00014763 Adair, H.M.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Bell Pepper: Test No. T-2473. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under 5F1578; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:094328-E)

00014764 Winner, W.M.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Bell Peppers: Test No. T-2485. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under CDL:094328-F)

00014765 Libby, J.; Leary, J.B. (1972) Residue Data Sheet: Peppers: Test No. T-2370. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under CDL:094328-G)

00014768 Moherek, E.A.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Celery: Test No. T-2372. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under CDL:094328-J)

00014769 Ansolabehere, M.J.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Celery: Test No. T-2426. (Unpublished study including test no. 2428, received Dec 13, 1974 under 5F1578; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:094328-K)

00014770 Sakamoto, S.S.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Celery: Test No. T-2427. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under CDL:094328-L)

00014771 Moherek, E.A.; Leary, J.B. (1974) Residue Data Sheet: Celery: Test No. T-2431. (Unpublished study including test nos. T-2429 and T-2430, received Dec 13, 1974 under 5F1578; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:094328-M)

121 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00014772 Winner, W.M.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Celery: Test No. T-2433. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under 5F1578; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:094328-N)

00014773 Ansolabehere, M.J.; Leary, J.B. (1974) Residue Data Sheet: Celery: Test No. T-2811. (Unpublished study including test no. T-3050, received Dec 13, 1974 under 5F1578; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:094328-O)

00014774 Ansolabehere, M.J.; Dewey, M.L. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Lima Beans: Test No. T 2439. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under 5F1578; prepared in cooperation with Morse Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:094328-Q)

00014775 Winner, W.M.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Lima Beans: Test No. T-2443. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under CDL:094328-R)

00014776 Moherek, E.A.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Lima Beans: Test No. T-2445. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under 5F1578; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:094328-S)

00014777 Sakamoto, S.S.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Lima Beans: Test No. T-2481. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under 5F1578; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:094328-T)

00014778 Kensler, D.L., Jr.; Dewey, M.L. (1974) Residue Data Sheet: Lima Beans: Test No. T-2480. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under 5F1578; prepared in cooperation with Morse Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:094328-U)

00014780 Winner, W.M.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Green Snap Beans: Test No. T-2444. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under 5F1578; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:094328-W)

00014781 Moherek, E.A.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Pole Beans: Test No. T-2446. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under 5F1578; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:094328-X)

00014783 Moherek, E.A.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Green Snap Beans: Test No. T-2862. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, Calif.; CDL:094328-Z)

122 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00014787 Sakamoto, S.S.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Dry Beans: Test No. T-2830. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under 5F1578; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:094328-AD)

00014791 Ansolabehere, M.J.; Leary, J.B. (1974) Residue Data Sheet: Beans: Test No. T-2440. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1974 under 5F1578; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:094328-AH)

00014852 Rushing, K.W.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Cotton: Test No. T-2706. (Unpublished study including test nos. T-2707 and T-2708, received Mar 19, 1975 under 239-2434; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:222344-D)

00014853 Schaefer, R.E.; Leary, J.B. (1974) Residue Data Sheet: Cotton: Test No. T-3009. (Unpublished study received Mar 19, 1975 under 239-2434; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL: 222344-E)

00014854 Cummings, R.H.; Leary, J.B. (1974) Residue Data Sheet: Cotton: Test No. T-3007. (Unpublished study received Mar 19, 1975 under 239-2434; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL: 222344-G)

00014855 Rushing, K.W.; Leary, J.B. (1974) Residue Data Sheet: Cotton: Test No. T-3006. (Unpublished study received Mar 19, 1975 under 239-2434; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL: 222344-H)

00014861 Schoettger, R.A.; Mauck, W.L. (1976) Toxicity of Experimental Forest Insecticides to Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates. (Unpublished study received Mar 23, 1977 under 239-2443; prepared by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Fish-Pesticide Research Laboratory, submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL 228753-D)

00014971 Thompson, J.P.; Crossley, J. (1971) Residue Data Sheet: Lettuce: Test No. T-2051. (Unpublished study received Feb 23, 1972 under 2G1248; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:091774-D)

00014983 Chevron Chemical Company (1972) Analysis of Orthene Residues by Thin-Layer Chromatography. Method RM-12B dated Jan 21, 1972. (Unpublished study received Feb 23, 1972 under 2G1248; CDL: 091774-Q)

123 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00014984 Crossley, J. (1972) The Stability of Orthene Residues in Frozen Crops and Extracts. (Unpublished study received Feb 23, 1972 under 2G1248; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:091774-R)

00014989 Tucker, B.V. (1972) Plant Metabolism of S-Methyl-14C-Orthene. (Unpublished study received Feb 23, 1972 under 2G1248; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:091774-W)

00014990 Crossley, J. (1972) Uptake and Translocation of Orthene by Plants. (Unpublished study including test nos. T-2125 and T-2126, received Feb 23, 1972 under 2G1248; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:091774-X)

00014991 Tucker, B.V. (1972) Orthene Soil Metabolism--Laboratory Studies. (Unpublished study including supplement, received Feb 23, 1972 under 2G1248; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:091774-Z)

00014994 Lee, H. (1972) Metabolism of Orthene in Rats. (Unpublished study includingletter dated January 6, 1972 from C.F. Ott to J.N. Ospensen, received February23, 1972 under 2G1248; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:091774-AC)

00015038 Adair, H.M.; Leary, J.B. (1972) Residue Data Sheet: Cotton: Test No. T-2069. (Unpublished study including test nos. T-2070, T-2253, T-2254..., received Mar 27, 1973 under 3F1375; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093666-O)

00015042 Chevron Chemical Co. (1972) Residue Data Sheet:Lettuce: Test No. T-2260. Unpublished study. 59 p.

00015049 Adair, H.M.; Leary, J.B. (1972) Residue Data Sheet: Soybeans: Test No. T-2088. (Unpublished study including test nos. T-2249 and T-2250, received Mar 27, 1973 under 3F1375; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093667-G)

00015050 Adair, H.M.; Leary, J.B.; Schinski, W. (1972) Residue Data Sheet: Soybeans: Test No. T 2089. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1973 under 3F1375; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093667-H)

00015060 Adair, H.M.; Schinski, W.; Leary, J.B. (1972) Residue Data Sheet: Soybeans: Test No. T 2090. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1973 under 3F1375; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093667-W)

124 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00015122 Chevron Chemical Company (1973) Summary: Residue and Metabolism: Orthene (Acephate): Tobacco. Summary of studies 001571-B, 001578-G through 001578-I, 091774 X, 091774-Z, 091774-AA, 223490-D, 223490-E, 223490-G through 223490-I, 223490-R, 223490-T, 223490-U, 223490-W, 223490-X and 223490-AE. (Unpublished study received Jul 20, 1973 under 239-2419; CDL:001578-F)

00015125 Moherek, E.A.; Schinski, W. (1972) Residue Data Sheet: Flue-Cured Tobacco: Test No. T 2300. (Unpublished study including test no.T-2301, received Jul 20, 1973 under 239-2419; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:001578-I)

00015179 Leary, J.B. (1972) Orthene--Stability of Residues in Crops and Crop Extracts. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1973 under 3F1375; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093669-B)

00015183 Ladd, R. (1972) Report to Chevron Chemical Company, Ortho Division, Meat and Milk Residue Study with Orthene-Ortho 9006 (SX-434) in Dairy Cattle: IBT No. J2042. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1973 under 3F1375; prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond,Calif.; CDL:093669-H)

00015187 Tucker, B.V. (1974) Terminal Residues in Alfalfa and Radishes Treated with S-Methyl 14C-Orthene. (Unpublished study received on unknown date under 3F1375; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093676-B)

00015188 Tucker, B.V.; Pack, D.E. (1974) Analysis of Orthene Treated Field Crops for Bound Orthene or Ortho 9006 Residues. (Unpublished study received on unknown date under 3F1375; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093676-C)

00015190 Ansolabehere, M.J.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Crisp Head Lettuce: Test No. T 2546. (Unpublished study including test nos. T-2743, T-2745, T-2746..., received Oct 11, 1973 under 3F1375; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093676-I)

00015191 Sakamoto, S.S.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Crisphead Lettuce: Test No. T-2749. (Unpublished study including test nos. T-2750 and T-2794, received Oct 11, 1973 under 3F1375; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093676-J)

00015192 Sakamoto, S.S.; Leary, J.B. (1974) Residue Data Sheet: Crisphead Lettuce: Test No. T-2751. (Unpublished study including test nos. T-2760 and T-2889, received on unknown date under 3F1375; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL: 093676-K)

125 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00015193 Sakamoto, S.S.; Ansolabehere, M.J.; Leary, J.B. (1974) Residue Data Sheet: Crisphead Lettuce: Test No. T-2753. (Unpublished study including test no. T-2754, received on unknown date under CDL:093676-L)

00015194 Ansolabehere, M.J.; Leary, J.B. (1974) Residue Data Sheet: Crisphead Lettuce: Test No. T 2755. (Unpublished study including test nos. T-2756, T-2757, T-2758..., received on unknown date under 3F1375; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093676-M)

00015196 Ansolabehere, M.J.; Leary, J.B. (1973) Residue Data Sheet: Cotton: Test No. T-2256. (Unpublished study received Oct 11, 1973 under 3F1375; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093676-P)

00015198 Adair, H.M.; Kalens, K.J.; Leary, J.B. (1974) Residue Data Sheet: Cotton: Test No. T-2532. (Unpublished study received on unknown date under 3F1375; prepared in cooperation with Pattison's Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093676-R)

00015199 Slocum, J.B.; Kalens, K.J.; Leary, J.B. (1974) Residue Data Sheet: Cotton: Test No. T-2533. (Unpublished study including test no. T-2534, received on unknown date under 3F1375; prepared in cooperation with Pattison's Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093676-S)

00015202 Tucker, B.V. (1972) Stability of Orthene to Sunlight. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1973 under 239-EX-60; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223490-E)

00015203 Tucker, B.V. (1973) Total 14C Accountability of S-Methyl-14C-Orthene Applied to Bean Seedlings. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1973 under 239-EX-60; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223490-G)

00015206 Sakamoto, S.S.; Tucker, B.V.; Leary, J.B. (1972) Residue Data Sheet: Cotton: Test No. T 2071. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1973 under 239-EX-60; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223490-L)

00015210 Warnock, R.E. (1973) 14C-Orthene Residues in Soil and Uptake by Carrots--EPA Protocol. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1973 under 239-EX-60; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223490-T)

126 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00015222 Crossley, J.; Lee, H. (1972) The Fate of Orthene in Lactating Ruminants (Goats)--Final Report. (Unpublished study including letter dated Oct 18, 1971 from R. Barth to John Crossley, received Mar 27, 1973 under 239-EX-60; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223489-D)

00015225 Tucker, B.V. (1973) Meat and Milk Residue Study with Orthene and Ortho 9006 in Dairy Cattle. (Unpublished study received Mar Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223489-G)

00015226 Tucker, B.V. (1973) Orthene and Ortho 9006 30 Day Pig Feeding Test--Residue Analysis of Tissues. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1973 under 239-EX-60; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223489-H)

00015230 Pack, D.E. (1972) Orthene Residues--Quail Feeding Test. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1973 under 239-EX-60; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223489-L)

00015243 Sleight, B.H., III. (1972) Research Report: Exposure of Fish to 14C-Labeled Orthene: Accumulation, Distribution and Elimination of Residues. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1973 under 239-EX-60; prepared by Bionomics, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223489-AC)

00015245 Pack, D.E. (1972) Residue Data Sheet: Quail: Test No. T-2376. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1973 under 239-EX-60; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:223489-AE)

00015293 Heidreik, L.E. (1977) Residue Data Sheet: Lettuce: Test No. T-4018. (Unpublished study received Aug 27, 1979 under NJ 79/24; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:241003-A)

00015294 Chevron Chemical Company (1977) Residue Program Sheet: Lettuce: Test No. T-4159. (Unpublished study including test no. T-4160, received Aug 27, 1979 under NJ 79/24; CDL:241003-B)

00015305 Levy, J.E.; Wong, Z.A. (1979) The Skin Irritation Potential of Orthene Specialty Concentrate: SOCAL 1418/39:12 (Unpublished study received October 31,1979 under 239 EX-92; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:241253-E)

127 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00015307 Rittenhouse, J.R.; Wong, Z.A. (1979) The Acute Inhalation Toxicity of Orthene Specialty Concentrate: SOCAL 1420/36:104. (Unpublished study received October 31, 1979 under 239-EX- 92; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:241253-G)

00015323 Hendrick, L.E.; Slagowski, J.L. (1978) Residue Data Sheet: Celery: Test No. T-3935. (Unpublished study received Nov 13, 1979 under 239-2418; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:241337-C)

00015324 Sakamoto, S.S.; Slagowski, J.L. (1978) Residue Data Sheet: Celery: Test No. T-4203. (Unpublished study received Nov 13, 1979 under 239-2418; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:241337-D)

00015325 Hendrick, L.E.; Slagowski, J.L. (1977) Residue Data Sheet: Celery: Test No. T-4212. (Unpublished study received Nov 13, 1979 under 239-2418; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:241337-E)

00015326 Carter, E.A.; Slagowski, J.L. (1978) Residue Data Sheet: Celery: Test No. T-4321. (Unpublished study received Nov 13, 1979 under CDL:241337-F)

00015327 Sakamoto, S.S.; Soderquist, C.J. (1979) Residue Data Sheet: Celery: Test No. T-4462. (Unpublished study received Nov 13, 1979 under 239-2418; prepared in cooperation with California Analytical Laboratories, submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:241337-G)

00015328 Kirby, B.W.; Dewey, M.L. (1979) Residue Data Sheet: Celery: Test No. T-4494. (Unpublished study received Nov 13, 1979 under 239-2418; prepared in cooperation with Morse Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL: 241337-H)

00015329 Johnson, R.R.; Soderquist, C.J. (1979) Residue Data Sheet: Celery: Test No. T-4582. (Unpublished study received Nov 13, 1979 under 239-2418; prepared in cooperation with California Analytical Laboratories, submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:241337-I)

00015956 Fletcher, D. (1976) Report to Chevron Chemical Company: 8-Day Dietary LC:50¼ Study with Orthene Technical in Bobwhite Quail: IBT No. 8580-09326. (Unpublished study received Mar 23, 1977 under 239-2443; prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL: 228753-A)

128 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00015957 Fletcher, D. (1976) Report to Chevron Chemical Company: 8-Day Dietary LC:50¼ Study with Orthene Technical in Mallard Ducklings: IBT No. 8580-09327. (Unpublished study received Mar 23, 1977 under 239-2443; prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:228753-B)

00015962 Hudson, R.H. (1972) Orthene Data: Acute Oral: Mallards. (Internal Report Series in Pharmacology; unpublished study received Mar 27, 1973 under 3F1375; prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Wildlife Research Center, Section of Pesticide-Wildlife Ecology, Unit of Physiological and Pharmacological Studies, submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093671-F)

00016000 Shell Chemical Company (1975) Data Supporting the Use of Nudrin 1.8 Insecticide Solution for the Control of Insect Pests on Squash. Summary of studies 232410-T through 232410-V. (Unpublished study received Jun 29, 1976 under 201-347; CDL:232410-B)

00028625 Simmon, V.F. (1979) In vitro Microbiological and Unscheduled DNA Synthesis Studies of Eighteen Pesticides: Report No. EPA-600/1-79-041 (unpublished)

00029683 Berry, R.E.; Leary, J.B.; Byrne, H.D.; et al. (1977) Orthene 75 Soluble--Mint: Residue Chemistry Data: Summary. (Unpublished study received Feb 11, 1980 under 0E2323; prepared in cooperation with Oregon State Univ., Dept. of Entomology and others, submitted by Interregional Research Project No. 4, New Bruns-wick, N.J.; CDL:099240-A)

00029684 Elliott, E.J.; Leary, J.B. (1978) Residue Analysis of Acephate and Methamidophos in Crops, Soil, Water and Milk. Method RM-12A-5 dated Jan 25, 1978. (Unpublished study received Feb 11, 1980 under 0E2323; prepared by Chevron Chemical Co., submitted by Interregional Research Project No. 4, New Brunswick, N.J.; CDL:099240-B)

00029685 Interregional Research Project Number 4 (1979) Orthene 75 S: Insect Control in Mint: General Summary and Discussion of Data. Summary of study 099240-A. (Unpublished study received Feb 11, 1980 under 0E2323; CDL:099240-C)

00029686 Chevron Chemical Company (1979) Addendum: SOCAL 127. (Unpublished study received Jan 15, 1980 under 239-2447; CDL:241620-A)

00029691 Beavers, J.B., Fink, R.; Grimes, J.; et al. (1979) Final Report: One-Generation Reproduction Study--Mallard Duck: Project No. 162-107. Includes method dated Aug 28, 1978. (Unpublished study including letters dated Dec 11, 1978 from J.B. Beavers to Francis X. Kamienski; Jan 12, 1979 from F.X. Kamienski to J.B. Leary; Jan 15, 1979 from J.B. Beavers

129 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

to Francis X. Kamienski; Mar 1, 1979 from J.B. Beavers to Francis X. Kamienski, received Feb 21, 1980 under 239-2418; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL: 241824-C)

00029692 Beavers, J.B.; Fink, R.; Grimes, J.; et al. (1979) Final Report: One-Generation Reproduction Study--Bobwhite Quail: Project No. 162-106. Includes method dated Aug 28, 1978. (Unpublished study including letters dated Dec 11, 1978 from J.B. Beavers to Francis X. Kamienski; Jan 12, 1979 from F.X. Kamienski to J.B. Leary; Jan 15, 1979 from J.B. Beavers to Francis X. Kamienski; Mar 1, 1979 from J.B. Beavers to Francis X. Kamienski; Apr 2, 1979 from J.B. Beavers to F.X. Kamienski, received Feb 21, 1980 under 239-2418; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:241824-D)

00036935 Atkins, E.L.; Greywood, E.A.; Macdonald, R.L. (1975) Toxicity of Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemicals to Honey Bees: Laboratory Studies. By University of California, Dept. of Entomology. UC, Cooperative Extension. (Leaflet 2287; published study.)

00036955 Bledsoe, M.E. (1980) Amendment to Section D of the Acephate Food Additive Petition 9H5216. (Unpublished study received Jul 16, 1980 under 9H5216; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:242895-A)

00014063 Schoenig, G. (1968) Report to Chevron Chemical Company, Ortho Division: Four-Day Fish Toxicity Study on Monitor (RE-9006) 75% Technical SX-171: IBT No. A6482. (Unpublished study received Mar 5, 1970 under 0F0956; prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:093265-W)

00041310 Mobay Chemical Corporation (1979) Supplement to the Synopsis of the Effects of Monitor on Fish and Wildlife. Summary of studies 242410-B through 242410-E. (Unpublished study received Mar 19,1980 under 3125-280; CDL:242410-A)

00041311 Nelson, D.L.; Roney, D.J. (1979) Acute Toxicity of Monitor¼(R): Technical to~Daphnia magna~1: Report No. 67732. (Unpublished study received Mar 19, 1980 under 3125-280; submitted by Mobay Chemical Corp., Kansas City, Mo.; CDL:242410-B)

00041312 Nelson, D.L.; Roney, D.J. (1979) Acute Toxicity of Monitor¼(R): Technical to Bluegill and Rainbow Trout: Report No. 67739. (Unpublished study received Mar 19, 1980 under 3125-280; submitted by Mobay Chemical Corp., Kansas City, Mo.; CDL:242410-C)

130 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00041313 Nelson, D.L.; Burke, M.A.; Burnett, R.M. (1979) Acute Oral Toxicity of Monitor¼(R): Technical to Bobwhite Quail: Report No. 67993. (Unpublished study received Mar 19, 1980 under 3125-280; submitted by Mobay Chemical Corp., Kansas City, Mo.; CDL:242410-E)

00041658 Nelson, D.L.; Burke, M.A.; Burnett, R.M. (1979) Acute Dietary LC:50¼ of Monitor¼(R): Technical to Ducks: Report No. 67844. (Unpublished study received Mar 19, 1980 under 3125-280; submitted by Mobay Chemical Corp., Kansas City, Mo.; CDL:242410-D)

00055602 Rittenhouse, J.R. (1977) S-1131: The Acute Dermal Toxicity of Orthene Technical: SOCAL 1110/29:57. (Unpublished study received March 20, 1980 under 239-2471; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:242041-A)

00063467 Chevron Chemical Company (1980) Orthene (Acephate) Residue Tolerance Petition--Grass (Pasture and Range). (Compilation; unpublished study received Nov 25, 1980 under 239 2418; CDL:099759-A)

00066341 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory (1981) Acephate, Aldicarb, Carbophenothion, DEF, EPN, Ethoprop, Methyl Parathion, and Phorate: Their Acute and Chronic Toxicity, Bioconcentration Potential, and Persistence as Related to Marine Environments: EPA-600/4-81-023. (Unpublished study)

00069683 Rodwell, D.E.; Griggs, M.W.; Nemec, M.; et al. (1980) Pilot Teratology Study in Rabbits: IRDC No. 415-023. (Unpublished study received May 19, 1981 under 239-2471; prepared by International Research and Development Corp.,submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:245261-A)

00069684 Rodwell, D.E.; Janes, J.M.; Jessup, D.C.; et al. (1980) Teratology Study inRabbits: IRDC No. 415-024. (Unpublished study received May 19, 1981 under 239-2471; prepared by International Research and Development Corp.,submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL: 245262-A) 00072783 Chevron Chemical Company (1980) Residue Chemistry Data: [Orthene 755]. (Unpublished study received Dec 29, 1980 under 239-2418; CDL:244042-A)

00077209 Geil, R.G. (1981) Lifetime Oral Carcinogenicity Study in Mice: Histopathology Data: IRDC No. 415-006. Unpublished study received June 8, 1981 under 239-2418; prepared by International Research and Development Corp., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, CA; CDL:245374-A)

131 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00084017 Auletta, C.S.; Hogan, C.K.; Harabin, S et al. (1981) A Lifetime Oral Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Study with Technical RE-12420 in Rats: Project No. 78-2135. Final Report. (Unpublished study received August 6, 1981 under 239-2471; prepared by Bio/dynamics Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:245748-A; 245750; 245751-245755)

00093722 Chevron Chemical Company (1981) Orthene (Acephate): Peanuts. Includes methods RM 12A-5 dated Jan 25, 1978 and RM-12A-6A dated Aug 11, 1980. (Compilation; unpublished study received Jan 19, 1982 under 239-2418; CDL:070603-A)

00093724 Chevron Chemical Company (1981) Orthene 75 Soluble: Peanuts. Includes methods RM-12A-5 dated Jan 25, 1978 and RM-12A-6a dated Aug 11, 1980. (Compilation; unpublished study received Jan 19, 1982 under 239-2418; CDL:070604-A)

00093904 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.B.; Brown, R.; et al. (1979) Final Report: Eight-day Dietary LC50--Bobwhite Quail: Technical Monitor: Project No. 149-111. (Unpublished study received Jan 26, 1982 under 239-2404; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. and Washington College, submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:246656-A)

00093909 McEwen, L.C.; DeWeese, L.R. (1981) Summary of 1981 Field Studies of Acephate Effects on Rangeland Wildlife. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; unpublished study; CDL:246657-E)

00093911 Zinkl, J.G. (1977?) Brain and Plasma Cholinesterase Activity of Dark-eyed Juncos (1~Junco hyemalis~1) Given Acephate Orally and Fed Acephate-dosed Spruce Budworm Larvae. (Unpublished study received Jan 26, 1982 under 239-2471; submitted by Chevron Chem ical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:246657-H)

00093914 Zinkl, J.G.; Roberts, R.B.; Shea, P.J.; et al. (1981) Toxicity acephate and methamidophos to dark-eyed junkos. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 10:185-192. (1~In~unpublished submission received Jan 26, 1982 under 239-2471; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL: 246657-L)

00093943 Lyons, D.B.; Buckner, C.H.; McLeod, B.B.; et al. (1976) The Effects of Fenitrothion, Matacil¼(R): and Orthene¼(R): on Frog Larvae: Report CC-X-129. (Canada, Forestry Service, Chemical Control Research Institute; unpublished study; CDL:246666-B)

132 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00101623 Knezevich, A.; Hogan, G. (1982) Letter sent to M. Aufrere dated May 7, 1982: A lifetime oral toxicity/carcinogenicity study technical RE-12420 in rats: Ref.78-2135. (Unpublished study received May 18, 1982 under 239-2471; prepared by Bio/dynamics, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, CA;CDL:247508-A)

00105197 Spicer, E.; Geil, R.; Phillips, L. (1982) Lifetime Oral Carcinogenicity Study in Mice: Orthene Technical: 415- 006. (Unpublished study received June 22, 1982 under 239-2471; prepared by International Research and Development Corp., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, CA; CDL:247717-A)

00105198 Leary, J. (1981) Addendum to Orthene (SX-1032) Mouse Lifetime Feeding Study (IRDC Project No. 415-006): Diet Analyses: File No. 721.11/s-1338. (Unpublished study received June 22, 1982 under 239-2471; submitted byChevron Chemical Co., Richmond, CA; CDL:247718-A) 00109353 Chevron Chemical Co. (1982) Orthene 75 S Soluble Powder: Residue Chemistry Data. (Compilation; unpublished study received Jul 12, 1982 under 239-2418; CDL:247950-A)

00109354 Chevron Chemical Co. (1982) Orthene Tobacco Insect Spray: Residue Chemistry Data. (Compilation; unpublished study received Jun 23, 1982 under 239-2419; CDL:247951-A)

00109717 Fletcher, D. (1971) Report to Chevron Chemical Company, Ortho Division: Acute Oral Toxicity Study with Monitor Technical in Bobwhite Quail: IBT No. J261. (Unpublished study received Mar 22, 1972 under 239-2326; prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, CA; CDL:001565-C)

00109718 Fletcher, D. (1971) Report to Chevron Chemical Company, Ortho Division: Acute Oral Toxicity Study with Monitor Technical in Mallard Ducks: IBT No. J262. (Unpublished study received Mar 22, 1972 under 239-2326; prepared by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, CA; CDL:001565-D)

00115240 Chevron Chemical Co. (1978) Orthene (Acephate)--Broccoli, Brussels Sprouts, Cauliflower. (Compilation; unpublished study received Oct 7, 1982 under 7F1899; CDL:071165-A)

00115589 Chevron Chemical Co. (1981) The Results of Tests on the Amount of Acephate Residues Remaining in or on Cranberries, Including a Description of the Analytical Methods Used. (Compilation; unpublished study received Oct 13, 1982 under 239-2418; CDL: 071173-A)

133 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00119080 Bullock, C. (1977) The Potential of Technical and Analytical Grade Orthene to Mutate Histidine-deficient Strains Salmonella typhimurium: SOCAL 1186/32-29 (S-1202). (Unpublished study received December 6, 1982 under 239-2471; submitted by Rhone- Poulenc, Inc., Monmouth Junction, NJ; CDL:248969-A)

00119081 Eisenlord, G. (1982) Dominant Lethal Study of Acephate Technical: SOCAL 1718 (SX 1102). (Unpublished study received December 6, 1982 under 239-2471;submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, CA; CDL:248969-B)

00119085 Silveira, R. (1982) Modified Buehler Test for Skin Sensitization Potential of Chevron Acephate Technical: SOCAL 1840 (SX-1102). (Unpublished study received December 6, 1982 under 239-2471; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co. Richmond, CA; CDL:248969 F)

00129156 Glickman, A. (1983) Orthene Lifetime Study in Mice: Hepatocarcinoma inFemale Mice. (Unpublished study received June 27, 1983 under 239-2471;submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, CA; CDL:250666-B)

00129508 Palmer, A.; Barton, S.; Offer, J.; et al. (1983) Effect of Technical RE-12420on Reproductive Function of Multiple Generations in the Rat: HRC Report No.CHR 11/81957. (Unpublished study received July 13, 1983 under 239-2471; prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre, Eng., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Ca; CDL:250752-A; 250753)

00132947 Bullock, C. (1982) Salmonella/Mammalian Microsome Mutagenicity Test (Ames Test) with Eight Samples of Chevron Acephate Technical SX-257, SX-284, SX-357, SX-911, SX-941, SX-976, SX-978, SX-979: SOCAL 1189S (S-1248). (Unpublishedstudy received December 5, 1983 under 239-2471; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, CA; CDL:251894 A)

00132948 Bullock, C. (1982) Salmonella/Mammalian Microsome Mutagenicity Test (Ames Test) with Six Samples of Chevron Acephate Technical and Purified (SX-911, SX-941, SX-978, SX 984, SX-986, SX-988): SOCAL 1215 (S-1272). (Unpublished study received December 5, 1983 under 239-2471; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co. Richmond, CA; CDL:251894-B)

00132949 Mortelmans, K.; Riccio, E.; Shepherd, G. (1980) In vitro Detection of MitoticCrossing-Over, Mitotic Gene Conversion and Reverse Mutation with S. Cerevisiae D7 for Seven Pesticides: SRI Project No. LSU-7558-20; Contract No. 68-02-2947. Final Report. (Unpublished study

134 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

received December 5, 1983 under 239-2471; prepared by SRI International submitted by Chevron Chemical Co.,Richmond, CA; CDL:251894-C)

00132950 Jotz, M; Mitchell, A.; Bekeart, L.; et al. (1980) An Evaluation of MutagenicPotential of Acephate Employing the L5178Y TK +/- Mouse Lymphoma Assay: SRI Project No. LSU 7558-21; Contract No. 68-0202947. Final Report. Unpublished study received December 5, 1983 under 239-2471; prepared by SRI International submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, CA; CDL:251894-D)

00132953 Kirkhart, B. (1980) Micronucleus Test on Acephate: SRI Project No. LSU 7558-19; Contract No. 68-02-2947. (Unpublished)

00132954 Evans, E.; Mitchell, A.; Brereton, E.; et al. (1980) An Evaluation of theEffect of Acephate on Sister Chromatid Exchange Frequencies in Cultured Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells: SRI Project No. LSU-7558-18; Contract No. 68-02-2947. Final Report.

00132955 Mortelmans, K.; Riccio, E. (1981) Differential Toxicity Assays of Nineteen Pesticides Using Salmonella typhimurium Strains: SRI Project No.LSU-7558-26; received December 5, 1983 under 239-2471; prepared by SRI International, submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, CA; CDL:251894-I)

00137738 Kirby, P.; Rogers-Back, A.; Brauninger, R.; et al. (1982) Mouse Lymphoma Mutagenesis Assay with Chevron Acephate Technical (SX-762): Study No. T1753.702 (Unpublished study received December 6,1982 under 239-2471; prepared by Microbiological Assoc., submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, CA; CDL:252707-D)

00138156 Interregional Research Project No. 4 (1981) The Results of Tests on the Amount of Acephate Residues Remaining in or on Macadamia Nuts, Including a Description of the Analytical Method Used. (Compilation; unpublished study received Jan 13, 1984 under 239-2418; CDL:072288-A)

00141694 Rudolph, S.; Zinkl, J.; Anderson, D.; et al. (1984) Prey-capturing ability of American kestrels fed DDE and acephate or acephate alone. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 13:367-372.

00144428 Lamb, D.; Roney, D. (1972) Acute Oral Toxicity of Monitor to the Common Grackle: Report No. 31952. Unpublished study prepared by Chemagro Div. of Baychem Corp. 4 p.

135 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

00144429 Hermann (1980) Fish Toxicity: %to Methamidophos¿: Report No. FF106. Unpublished Mobay report no. 88500 prepared by Bayer AG. 4 p.

00144432 Lamb, D.; Roney, D. (1972) Acute Toxicity of Monitor 4 to Fish: Report No. 32312. Unpublished study prepared by Chemagro Div. of Baychem Corp. 4 p.

00146286 Schafer, E. (1984) Letter sent to J. Proctor dated May 14, 1984: Data sheets for acute toxicity and oral repellency tests Mobay chemicals¿. Prepared by US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Wildlife Research Center, Section of Bird Damage Control 10 p.

00154884 Beavers, J. (1985) Acute Delayed Neurotoxicity Study in Chickens with Chevron Acephate Technical: Final Report: Project No. 162-151. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd.

00154885 Silveira, R. (1984) Modified Buehler Test for Skin Sensitization Potentialof Chevron Acephate Technical (SX-1102) Revised Final Report: Study No. SOCAL 1840. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Environmental Health Center.

00154886 Carey, A. (1985) The Percutaneous Absorption of Acephate Technical (SX-1102) in Adult Male Rats: Study No. SOCAL 2155. Unpublished study preparedby Chevron Environmental Health Center.

00163173 Bart, J. (1979) Effects of Acephate and Sevin on forest birds. J.Wildl. Manage. 43(2):544-549.

05000837 Johansen, C.A. (1972) Toxicity of field-weathered insecticide residues to four kinds of bees. Environmental Entomology 1(3):393-394.

05004012 Plapp, F.W., Jr.; Bull, D.L. (1978) Toxicity and selectivity of some insecticides to~Chrysopa carnea'~, a predator of the tobacco budworm. Environmental Entomology 7(3):431-434.

40094602 Johnson, W.; Finley, M. (1980) Handbook of Acute Toxicity of Chemicals to Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates: Resource Publication 137. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 106 p.

136 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

40098001 Mayer, F.; Ellersieck, M. (1986) Manual of Acute Toxicity: Interpretation and Data Base for 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of Freshwater Animals. US Fish & Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 160. 579 p.

40209101 Moore, M.; Slagowski, J.; Leary, J.; et al. (1986) Evaluation of ChevronAcephate Technical in the Mouse Somatic Cell Mutation Assays... Addendum to above Report: Laboratory Project ID No. 2107-141, S-2558. Unpublishedcompilation prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. in cooperation with Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc.

40321802 Thornberry, N. (1987) Analysis and Certification of Product Ingredients: Orthene Technical: Laboratory Project ID: 8714314. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 109 p.

40322801 Pack, D. (1983) n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient of Acephate: Lab Project ID: MEF 0054/8711449. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 8 p.

40323301 Akesson, N. (1986) Droplet Size Spectrum Study: Orthene: Lab. Proj. ID. 8702437-A. Unpublished study prepared by Univ. of California, Davis. 33 p.

40323302 Akesson, N. (1986) Drift Field Evaluation: Orthene: Lab. Proj. ID:8702437-B. Unpublished study prepared by Univ. of California, Davis. 8 p.

40323401 Hoberman, A. (1987) Two-Generation (Two-Litter) Reproduction Study in Rats with Chevron Acephate Technical: Laboratory Project ID: Argus Research Laboratories : 303005: Chevron Chemical Co. Study: S-2497. Unpublished study prepared by Argus Research Laboratories Inc. in cooperation with Chevron Chemical Co. (Note: This is actually a 3-gen. study) 40390601 Thornberry, N. (1987) Physical and Chemical Characteristics: Orthene Technical: Lab. Proj. ID. 8714296. Unpublished compilation prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 21 p.

40504802 Lai, J. (1987) Storage Stability of Acephate in Frozen Crops, Milk, and Tissues: Interim Rept.: Proj. ID R12-1987SS. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 314 p.

40504803 Lai. J. (1987) Magnitude of the Residue in Mint: Orthene: Proj. ID R12T70297035. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 92 p.

137 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

40504804 Lai, J. (1987) Magnitude of the Residue in Grass: Orthene Tech.: Proj. ID R12T70397040. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 80 p.

40504805 Lai, J. (1987) Magnitude of the Residue in Beans: Orthene Tech.: R12T70177019. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 164 p.

40504806 Lai, J. (1987) 28-Day Milk and Meat Residue Study with Acephate Technical Plus Methamidophos Technical in a 5:1 Ratio in Dairy Cattle: Ortho Orthene: R1287MM7. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 270 p.

40504807 Lai, J. (1987) Residue Reduction - Mint: Orthene Tech.: Proj. ID R12T7029A. Unpublished study. 3 p.

40504808 Lai, J. (1987) Residue Reduction - Beans: Orthene Tech.: Proj. ID R12T7017A. Unpublished study. 6 p.

40504809 Lai, J. (1987) Magnitude of the Residue in Tobacco (Aerial Applications): Orthene Tech.: Proj. ID R12T70257026. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 64 p.

40504810 Chen, Y. (1987) Acephate Photodegradation on Soil: Proj. ID MEF-0050. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co., Research Center. 29 p.

40504812 Lai, J. (1987) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of Acephate (Mississippi Tobacco Field): Proj ID T7015FD. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 155 p.

40504813 Lai, J. (1987) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of Acephate (Iowa Soybean Field): Proj. ID T7016FD. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 189 p.

40504814 Lai, J. (1987) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of Acephate (California Bell Pepper Field): Proj. ID T7014FD. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 148 p.

40504816 Rose, A. (1988) Acephate Confined Accumulation on Rotational Crops: Lettuce and Wheat: Laboratory Project ID MEF-0019. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Company. 9 p.

138 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

40504817 Terrill, J. (1987) Sixteen-day Pilot Inhalation Study in Rats with Acephate Technical: Laboratory Project ID 2107-154. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc. 192 p.

40504818 Terrill, J. (1987) Four-Week Inhalation in Rats with Acephate Technical: Lab. Project ID 2107-155. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc.

40504819 Brorby, G.; Rosenberg, D. (1987) The Cholinesterase Inhibition Potentialof Acephate Technical (SX-1102) Following 4-, 9-, or 13-Week Dietary Administration in Male and Female Rats: Laboratory Project ID S-3068. Unpublished study prepared Chevron Environmental Health Center, Inc.

40504820 Brorby, G.; Rosenberg, D. (1986) The Cholinesterase Inhibition Potential of Acephate Technical (SX-1102) Following Dermal Administration in Male and Female Rats: Laboratory Project ID SOCAL 2210. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Health Center, Inc. 120 p.

40504821 Lai, J. (1987) Dislodgealbe Residues of Acephate and Its Metabolite Methamidophos on Cauliflower Leaves: Laboratory Project ID R-12T6878DR. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Company. 107 p.

40504823 Merricks, D. (1987) Potential Exposure to Acephate During and After Application of Orthene PCO Spray Concentrate by Commercial Pest Control Operators: Laboratory Project ID 2201. Unpublished study performed by Agrisearch Inc. 51 p.

40504827 Merricks, D. (1987) Potential Exposure of Acephate During Home Use of Orthene Systemic Insect Control: Laboratory Project ID 2204. Unpublished study performed by Agrisearch Inc. 41 p.

40548301 Lai, J. (1988) Orthene Fire Ant Bait Residue Data-Rangeland. Unpublished compilation prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 59 p.

40605701 Hoberman, A. (1988) Two-Generation (Two-Litter) Reproduction Study in Rats with Chevron Acephate Technical: Laboratory Project ID 303005 and S-2497 Unpublished study prepared by Argus Research Laboratories, Inc.

139 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

40645901 Reynolds, R. (1988) Vapor Pressure Study for Acephate (RE 12420) by the Gas Saturation Method: Laboratory Project ID: 8809195. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 15 p.

40645903 Terrill, J. (1988) Four-Week Satellite Inhalation Study in Rats with Acephate Technical: Study No. 2107-156. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton America, Inc.

40874101 Panthani, A. (1988) Acephate Confined Accumulation Studies on Rotational Crops: Lettuce and Wheat: Project ID: MEF-01019. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 48 p.

40874102 Lai, J. (1988) Storage Stability of Acephate in Frozen Cottonseed Macerates: Project ID: R12-T7023SS. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 49 p.

40874103 Lai, J. (1988) Storage Stability of Acephate in Frozen Celery Macerates: Project ID: R12 T7037SS. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 45 p.

41023501 Lai, J. (1987) Dislodgeable Residues of Acephate and Its Metabolites Methamidophos on Cauliflower Leaves: Project ID: R-12T6878DR. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 14 p.

41023503 Akesson, N. (1989) Droplet Size Spectrum Study: Orthene: Project ID: 8702437-A. Unpublished study prepared by University of California. 6 p.

41023504 Akesson, N. (1989) Drift Field Evaluation: Orthene: Project ID: 8702437-A. Unpublished study prepared by University of California. 11 p.

41081601 Lai, J. (1988) Storage Stability of Acephate in Frozen Macerated Grass and Mint Hay. Unpublished Study Prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 131 p.

41081602 Lochry, E. (1989) Oral Teratogenicity and Developmental Toxicity Study in Rats with Chevron Acephate Technical. Unpublished study prepard by Argus Research Labs, Inc.

41081603 Gaddamidi, V. (1988) Photolysis Studies of óCarbon 14|-Acephate in Water. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 45 p.

140 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

41081604 Gaddamidi, V.; Verrips, I. (1988) Hydrolysis of óCarbon 14|-Acephate. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 49 p.

41137902 Lai, J. (1989) Storage Stability of Acephate in Frozen Macerated Beans: Project ID R127017SS. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 78 p.

41137903 Lai, J. (1989) Effect of Processing on Acephate Residues in Soybean: Project ID R12T7199PR. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 175 p.

41327601 Lai, J. (1989) Storage Stability of Acephate in Frozen Soil: Lab Project Number: R12SOILLSS. Unpublished study prepared Chevron Chemical Co. 58 p.

41327603 Lai, J. (1989) Addendum to Terrestrial Field Dissipation of Acephate (California Bell Pepper Field): Lab Project Number: R/12T7014FDA. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 37 p.

41327604 Lai, J. (1987) Addendum to Terrestrial Field Dissipation of Acephate (Iowa Soybean Field): Lab Project Number: R12T7016FDA.Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 23 p. Co. 23 p.

41327605 Lai, J. (1989) Addendum to Terrestrial Field Dissipation of Acephate (Mississippi Tobacco Field): Lab Project Number: R12T7015FDA. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 35 p.

41812001 Dalgard, D. (1991) One-Year Oral Toxicity Study in Dogs with ChevronAcephate Technical: Lab Project Number: HWA 2107-165. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton Washington.

42450501 Lai, J. (1991) Magnitude of the Residues of Acephate in Cotton: Lab Project Number: TSR7736. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co., Agricultural Chemicals Division. 293 p.

43645001 Gaskins, M. (1995) Acephate Technical: Product Identity and Composition, Description of Manufacturing Process and Discussion of Impurities: Lab Project Numbers: 01-6666-003. Unpublished study prepared by Micro Flo Co. 49 p.

141 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

43645002 Gaskins, M. (1995) Acephate Technical: Certification of Ingredient Limits, Preliminary Analysis and Analytical Methods: Lab Project Numbers: MI-01-6666-003: GLP-01-14-03. Unpublished study prepared by Micro Flo Co. 47 p.

43645003 Geno, P. (1995) Acephate Technical Grade Active Ingredient: Physical and Chemical Characteristics: Final Report: Lab Project Numbers: 01-6666-003-2: GLP-01-14-01: GLP 01-14-05. Unpublished study prepared by Southwest Research Institute. 46 p.

43939301 Campbell, S.; Jaber, M.; Beavers, J. (1992) ORTHENE 15 Granular and ORTHENE 15 Granular Inert Premix: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study in the Northern Bobwhite: Lab Project Number: 263-127. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife Int'l. Ltd. 22 p.

43971601 Esser, T. (1996) Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of (S-(carbon 14)H3)-Acephate: Lab Project Number: 515W: V10988A: 5-128-2125. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, Inc. 178 p.

43971602 Baker, F.; Bautista, A.; Rose, J. (1996) A Metabolism Study with (S-(carbon 14)H3)- and (N-(carbon 14)(O)CH3)-Acephate in Lettuce: Lab Project Number: 471W: 4-194-0863: 94.225. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, Inc. 243 p.

43971603 Baker, F.; Bautista, A.; Rose, J. (1996) A Metabolism Study With (S-(carbon 14)H3)- and (N-(carbon 14)(O)CH3)-Acephate in Beans: Lab Project Number: 472W: 4-194-0864: 98895. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, Inc. 368 p.

43971604 Huhtanen, K.; Turck, P. (1996) Distribution and Metabolism of (carbon 14)Acephate in Lactating Goats: Lab Project Number: 94-0097: 6095-94-0097-EF-001: 6095-94-0097-EF 000. Unpublished study prepared by Department of Environmental and Metabolic Fate, Ricerca, Inc. 244 p.

43971605 Lee, D.; McCall, B.; O'Meara, H. (1996) Distribution and Metabolism of (carbon 14)Acephate in Laying Hens: Lab Project Number: 94-0098: 6096-94-0098-EF-001: 6096-94-0098-EF-000. Unpublished study prepared by Department of Environmental and Metabolic Fate, Ricerca, Inc. 248 p.

43971606 Lai, J. (1996) Validation of the Extraction Efficiency of RM-12A-9 to Remove Acephate and Methamidophos Residues From Beans: Lab Project Number: VP-11276: V-96-11276. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Technical Center. 47 p.

142 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

43971607 Lai, J. (1996) Validation of the Extraction Efficiency of RM-12A-9 to Remove Acephate and Methamidophos Residues From Lettuce: Lab Project Number: VP-11275: VP11275. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Technical Center. 50 p.

43971608 Lai, J. (1996) Validation of the Extraction Efficiency of RM-12A-9 to Remove Acephate and Methamidophos Residues From Milk and Liver: Lab Project Number: VP-11211: VP11211. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Technical Center. 54 p.

43971609 Lai, J. (1996) Validation of the Extraction Efficiency of RM-12A-9 to Remove Acephate and Methamidophos Residues From Eggs and Muscle: Lab Project Number: VP-11274: VP11274. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Technical Center. 60 p.

43971610 Lai, J. (1995) Magnitude of Residues of Acephate In/On Mint Hay Following Applications of ORTHENE 75 S: Lab Project Number: V10663: RM-12A-6: V-10663-D. Unpublished study prepared byValent Technical Center. 364 p.

43971611 Lai, J. (1995) Magnitude of Residues of Acephate In/On Peanuts and Peanut Processed Parts Following Applications of ORTHENE 75 S (Acephate): Lab Project Number: V10671: RM 12A-6: V-94-10671. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Technical Center. 242 p.

44005101 Ha, S. (1996) Product Identity and Disclosure of Ingredients for Acephate Technical, Description of Beginning Materials and Manufacturing Process for Acephate Technical, and Discussion of the Formation of Impurities: Lab Project Number: ACPT-96-61A: ACPT-96 61B: ACPT-96-61. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Technical Center. 122 p.

44005102 Ha, S. (1996) Analysis of Acephate Technical by Gas Chromatography, Liquid Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry, Certification of Ingredient Limits of Acephate Technical, and Determination of Acephate and Impurities in Acephate Technical: Lab Project Number: V-11285: VAM-07G-001: VAM-07F-001. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Technical Center. 228 p.

44005103 Ha, S. (1996) Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Acephate Technical: Lab Project Number: V-95-11285B: VL-027-00: VL-005-04. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Technical Center. 55 p.

44005101 Ha, S. (1996) Product Identity and Disclosure of Ingredients for Acephate Technical, Description of Beginning Materials and Manufacturing Process for Acephate Technical, and

143 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

Discussion of the Formation of Impurities: Lab Project Number: ACPT-96-61A: ACPT-96 61B: ACPT-96-61. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Technical Center. 122 p.

44005103 Ha, S. (1996) Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Acephate Technical: Lab Project Number: V-95-11285B: VL-027-00: VL-005-04. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Technical Center. 55 p.

44038201 Atkins, E.; Kellum, D.; Atkins, K. (1981) Reducing pesticide hazards to honey bees: Mortality prediction techniques and integrated management strategies: Revised: Leaflet 2883. Prepared by and Available from the University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences. 21 p.

44541101 Blaszcak, D. (1998) Acephate Technical: A 21-Day Dermal Toxicity Study in the Rat: Lab Project Number: 97-2547. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences. 351 p. {OPPTS 870.3200}

44763901 Lai, J. (1999) Determination of Dislodgeable Foliar Residues in Tobacco Treated with ORTHENETM 75 WSP; Unpublished study submitted by Valent U.S.A Corporation; Study Completion Date: 09/17/98; Report Date: 02/11/99

44763902 Lai, J. (1999) Determination of Dislodgeable Foliar Residues in Succulent Beans Treated with Acephate; Unpublished study submitted by Valent U.S.A. Corporation; Study Completion Date: 09/23/98; Report Date: 02/11/99

44763903 Lai, J. (1999) Determination of Dislodgeable Foliar Residues in Roses Treated with ORTHENETM Turf, Tree & Ornamental Spray (OTTO); Unpublished study submitted by Valent U.S.A. Corporation; Study Completion Date: 09/29/98; Report Date: 02/12/99.

44763904 Lai, J. (1999) Determination of Dislodgeable Foliar Residues in Cauliflower Treated with Acephate; Unpublished study submitted by Valent U.S.A. Corporation; Study Completion Date: 08/24/98; Report Date: 02/18/99

144 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

44806401 Lai, J. (1999) Determination of Turf Transferable Residues on Grass Treated with Acephate; Unpublished study submitted by Valent U.S.A. Corporation; Study Completion Date: 10/14/98; Report Date: 03/15/99

44845201 Christensen, B. (1999) Historical Occurrence of Acephate, Azinphos-methyl, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Malathion in Waters of the United States, 1990-1997: Lab Project Number: 006: 108946. Unpublished study prepared by En-fate, LLC. 2542 p.

44025201 Lai, J. (1994) Magnitude of the Residues of Acephate in/on Peanut Raw Agricultural Commodities Following Hopperbox, In-Furrow, and Foliar Applications of Orthene Insecticide: Lab Project Number: V10666: RM-12A-6: V 93 10666. Unpublished study prepared by Chemtrol Scientific Testing and Valent USA Corp. 230 p.

44025202 Lai, J. (1992) Magnitude of the Residues of Acephate in Peanuts: Lab Project Number: TSR7735: V-1019A: V-1019B. Unpublished study prepared by Chevron Chemical Co. 201 p.

44037801 Alam, F.; Burnett, T.; Jalal, M. (1996) Nature of the Residues: Metabolism of (i) (Carbonyl (carbon-14)) Acephate and (ii) (S-Methyl-(carbon-14)) Acephate in Cotton Plants: Lab Project Number: 94370: VP-10062. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs - California. 218 p.

44037802 Lai, J. (1996) Validation of the Extraction Efficiency of RM-12A-9 to Remove Acephate and Methamidophos Residues from Cotton: Lab Project Number: VP-11305: 9600327. Unpublished study prepared by Valent U.S.A Corp. 48 p.

44037803 Lee, D.; McCall, B.; O'Meara, H. (1996) Distribution and Metabolism of (carbon 14)Acephate in Laying Hens: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: 94-0098: 6096 94-0098-EF-001: 6-94-0098-EF-001-001. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 254 p.

44037804 Lai, J. (1996) Validation of the Extraction Efficiency of RM-12A-9 to Remove Acephate and Methamidophos Residues from Eggs and Muscle: Amended Report #1: Lab Project Number: VP-11274: 9600326: V-95-11274. Unpublished study prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corp. 62 p.

145 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

44203301 Nemec, M. (1994) A Range-Finding Acute Study of Orthene Technical in Rats: Lab Project Number: WIL-194012: 9400827: VP-10192. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research Labs., Inc.

44203302 Nemec, M. (1995) A Range-Finding Acute Study of Orthene Technical in Rats: Lab Project Number: WIL-194015: 9700023. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research Labs., Inc.

44203303 Nemec, M. (1996) An Acute Neurotoxicity Study of Orthene Technical in Rats: Lab Project Number: WIL-194013. Unpublished study prepared by WILResearch Labs., Inc.

44203304 Nemec, M. (1997) A Subchronic (13-Week) Neurotoxicity Study of Orthene Technical in Rats: Lab Project No. WIL-194014. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research Labs., Inc.

44251701 Lai, J. (1997) Storage Intervals an Conditions for Samples from Magnitude of the Residue Studies Conducted in Support of Current Acephate Raw Agricultural Commodity Tolerances: Lab Project Number: 96ORTSSI. Unpublished study prepared by Valent USA Corp. and Chevron Chemical Co. 38 p. {OPPTS 860.1380}.

44251702 Lai, J. (1997) Summary of Storage Stability of Acephate Residues in Frozen Crops: Lab Project Number: SSORT1996. Unpublished study prepared by Valent USA Corp. and Chevron Chemical Co. 296 p. {OPPTS 860.1500}.

44351801 Bentley, W.; O'Neal, S. (1997) Identification of the Pyrolysis Products of (S-Methyl-(carbon 14))Acephate Cigarette Smoke: Lab Project Number: 904: VP-10987: 1962. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL East, Inc. 145 p.

44466601 McCann, J. (1978) 21-Day Daphnia Life Cycle: Acephate: Lab Project Number: 397-3: ASTM DRAFT NO. 4: 2361. Unpublished study prepared by USEPA, Beltsville Lab. 7 p.

44777002 Lai, J. (1997) Magnitude of Residues of Acephate in/on Soybean and Soybean Processed Parts Following Foliar Applications of Orthene 75 S: Lab Project Number: 9700230: V11363: V-11363-AIL. Unpublished study prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corporation. 176 p.

45134301 Hoffman, G. (2000) Acephate Technical: A 21-Day Dermal Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: 99-2637: VP-21784. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences. 190 p. {OPPTS 870.3200}

146 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

45134302 Hoffman, G. (2000) A 4-Week Nose-Only Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rats with Acephate Technical: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 99-6124: VP 21522. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences. 398 p. {OPPTS 870.3465}

147 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

Citations Not Identified by a MRID Number

American Association of Poison Control Centers (1994) Interpretation of the AAPCC Toxic Exposure Surveillance System Data (unpublished). Washington, D.C.

American Association of Poison Control Centers (1988). Criteria and certification as a Regional Poison Center. Veterinary and Human Toxicology 30:385-387.

American Association of Poison Control Centers (1998) Pesticides Exposure Experience Data 1993 through 1996. American Association of Poison Control Centers, Washington, D.C.

American Association of Poison Control Centers (1998) AAPCC Audit of 1996 TESS Human Exposures to Pesticides for EPA (unpublished). Washington, D.C.

Ames R., et al (1987) Cholinesterase activity depression among California pesticide applicators: Results from the 1985 cholinesterase monitoring program. California Department of Health Services, Berkeley.

Ames R., et al (1989) Cholinesterase activity depression among California Agricultural Pesticide Applicators. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 15:143-150.

Aurelius, L. (1989) Testing for pesticide residues in Texas well water. Texas Department of Agriculture.

Bennett R., et al (1990) Effects of the Duration and Timing of Dietary Methyl Parathion Exposure on Bobwhite Reproduction. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:1473-1480.

Bennett R., et al (1990) Effects of Dietary Exposure to Methyl Parathion on Egg Laying and Incubation in mallards. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:501-507.

Bennett, R. and L. Ganio (1991) Overview of Methods for Evaluating Effects of Pesticides on Reproduction in Birds. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Environ. Res. Lab., Corvallis, OR. 106 p.

Bertem, P. and R.Chiles. Studies on the Inhalation Toxicity of Two Phosphoramidothioate Insecticides to Rodents and Quail. University of California, School of Public Health, Naval Biosciences Laboratory, Naval Supply Center, Oakland, California.

148 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

Brewer, L., et al (1987) The Effects of Methyl Parathion in Ducks and Duck Broods. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 7, pp.375-379, 1988.

Busby, D., et al (1990) Effects of Aerial Spraying of Fenitrothion on Breeding White-Throated Sparrows. J. Appl. Ecol. 27:743-755.

Cardozo, C. et al (1986-1999) Sampling for Pesticide Residues in California Well Water; Well Inventory Database. Environmental Hazards Assessment Program, California Department of Food and Agriculture, State Water Quality Control Board.

Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics (1997) Vital Statistics of the United States (for the years 1979-1992). Volume 2, Part A. Washington, D.C.

Clarke Jr., D. and B. Rattner (1987) OrtheneR Toxicity to Little Brown Bats (Myotis lucifugus): Acetochlorinesterase Inhibition, Coordination Loss, and Mortality. Environ. Toxicol. and Chem. 6: 705 708.

Dwinell, S. and S. Pickrell (1990) Impact of commonly used pesticides on the water table aquifer in Collier County, Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.

Felberg L, et al (1996) State of the Nation's Poison Center: 1994 American Association of Poison Control Centers Survey of US Poison Centers. Veterinary and Human Toxicology 38:214-219.

Fielder, L. (1986) Assessment of Chronic Toxicity of Selected Insecticides to Honeybees. Journal of Apicultural Research 26(2):115-122.

Fleming W., et al.(1995) Freshwater Mussel Die-off Attributed to Anticholinesterase Poisoning. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 14(5): 877-879.

Fulton, M.H. and G.I. Scott (1991) The Effects of Certain Intrinsic Variables on the Acute Toxicity of Selected Organophosphorous Insecticides to the Mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus. J. Environ. Sci. Health B26 (5&6): 459-478.

Gallo M.. and N. Lawryk (1991) Organic Phosphorus Pesticides. Chapter 16, pages 917-1123 in Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology edited by W. J. Hayes, Jr. and E.R. Laws, Jr. Academic Press, San Diego.

149 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

Geen, G., et al (1981) Fate and Toxicity of Acephate (OrtheneR) Added to a Coastal B.C. Stream. J. Environ. Sci. Health, B16(3): 253-271.

Geen, G., et al (1984) Effects of Acephate (Orthene) on Development and Survival of the Salamander,Ambystoma gracile, (Baird). Environ. Sci. Health, B19 (2): 157-170.

Geen, G., et al (1984) Acephate in Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri), Acute Toxicity, Uptake, and Elimination. J. Environ. Science and Health B19(2):131-155.

Haegele, M. and R. Tucker (1974) Effects of 15 Common Environmental Pollutants on Eggshell Thickness in Mallards and Coturnix. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 11:98-102.

Hussain, M.., et al (1985) Studies on the Toxicity, Metabolism, and Anticholinesterase Properties of Acephate and Methamidophos. J. Environ. Sci. Health, B20 (1):129-147.

Hussain, M.., et al (1984) Toxicity and Metabolism of Acepahte in Adult and Larval Insects. J. Environ. Sci. Health, B19(3), 355-377.

Juarez, L. and J. Sanchez (1989) Toxicity of the Organophosphorous Insecticide Methamidophos (O,S- Dimethyl Phosphoramidothioate) to Larvae of the Freshwater Prawn, Macrobachium rosenbergii (DeMan) and the Blue Shrimp, Penaeus stylirostris Stimpson. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 43:302-309.

Kline and Company (1990, 1994, 1996) Consumer Markets for Pesticides and Fertilizers [1989, 1993, 1995], Volume One: Business Analysis.

Kline and Company (1992, 1994, 1996) Professional Markets for Pesticides and Fertilizers Year 2: [1991, 1993, 1995].

Litovitz T., et al (1994) 1993 Annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System, American Journal of Emergency Medicine 12:546-584.

Litovitz T., et al (1995) 1994 Annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System, American Journal of Emergency Medicine 13:551-597.

Litovitz T., et al (1996) 1995 Annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System, American Journal of Emergency Medicine 14:487-537.

150 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

Litovitz T., et al (1997) 1996 Annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System, American Journal of Emergency Medicine 15:447-500.

Marak, J. (1987) Exploratory study on the extent of groundwater contamination from agricultural use of selected pesticides in Oklahoma. Study conducted 1986-1987. Final report April 1987. Plant Industry Division, Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture.

McEwen, L., et al (1980) Field Studies and Wildlife Hazards Related to New Range Grasshopper Control Chemicals and Other Materials. (USFWS Unpublished, Paxtuent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD). GS0042018.

Mineau, P. (1991) Cholinesterase-Inhibiting Insecticides: Their Impact on Wildlife and the Environment. Elsevier Science Publishers, New York, NY.

Moulton, C., et al (1995) Effects of Two Cholinesterase-Inhibiting Pesticides on Freshwater Mussels. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 15 (2):131-137.

O’Brien, R. (1976) Acetycholinesterase and Its Inhibition. In C.F. Wilkinson, ed., Insecticide Biochemistry and Physiology. Plenum, New York.

Rattner, B. and D. Hoffman (1984) Comparative toxicity of acephate in laboratory mice, white-footed mice, and meadow voles. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 13:483-491.

Rattner, B.and S. Michael (1985) Organophosphorous insecticide induced decrease in plasma luteinizing hormome concentration in white-footed mice. Toxiciology Letters, 24:65-69.

Smith, G. (1987) Pesticide Use and Toxicology in Relation to Wildlife: Organophosphorus and Carbamate Compounds, U.S. Dept. of Interior FWS Resource Publication 170. Page 71.

Stehn, R. and M. Richmond (1976) Feeding Response of Small Mammal Scavengers to Pesticide-Killed Arthropods; Am Midl Nat 95:253-256.

Stehn, R. and J. Stone (1979) Effects of Aerial Application of Orthene on Small Mammals; Lake Ontario Environmental Laboratory Report, Ticonderoga Project, p. 1-57; Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, Lake Ontario region.

151 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRID CITATION ______

Stoner, A., et al (1984) Acephate (Orthene): Effects on Honey Bee Queen, Brood and Worker Survival. American Bee Journal.

Veltri, J., et al (1987) Interpretation and uses of data collected in Poison Control Centers in the United States. Medical Toxicology 2:389-397.

Vyas, N., et al (1996) Regional Cholinerase Activity in White-Throated Sparrow Brain is Differentially Affected by Acephate. Biochem. Physiol. 113C(3): 381-386.

Vyas, N., et al (1995). Acephate Affects Migratory Orientation of the White-Throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia Albicollis). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 14(11): 1961-1965.

Wagner S. (1998) Report of the Investigation of the Death of (name withheld). Oregon State University, Environmental and Molecular Toxicology. Corvallis, Oregon.

Whitmore, R., et al (1992) National Home and Garden Pesticide Use Survey Final Report. Research Triangle Institute (RTI/5100/17-01F), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Zinkl, J. (1977) Brain Cholinesterase Activities in Wild Passerine Birds of Forests Sprayed With Cholinesterase Inhibiting Insecticides.

Zinkl, J. (1978) Brain Cholinesterase (ChE) Activities of Forest Birds and Squirrels Exposed to Orthene Applied at One-Half Pound per Acre. (Pre-publication)

Zinkl, J., et al (1987) Effects of Cholinesterase of Rainbow Trout Exposed to Acephate and Methamidophos. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 38:22-28.

152 APPENDIX E. Generic Data Call-In

See the following table for a list of generic data requirements. Note that a complete Data Call-In (DCI), with all pertinent instructions, is being sent to registrants under separate cover.

153 154 155 156 APPENDIX F. Product Specific Data Call-In

See attached table for a list of product-specific data requirements. Note that a complete Data Call-In (DCI), with all pertinent instructions, is being sent to registrants under separate cover.

157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 APPENDIX G. EPA’S Batching of Acephate Product for Meeting Acute Toxicity Data Requirements for Reregistration.

In an effort to reduce the time, resources and number of animals needed to fulfill the acute toxicity data requirements for reregistration of products containing acephate as the active ingredient, the Agency has batched products which can be considered similar for purposes of acute toxicity. Factors considered in the sorting process include each product’s active and inert ingredients (e.g., identity, percent composition and biological activity), type of formulation (e.g., emulsifiable concentrate, aerosol, wettable powder, granular), and labeling (e.g., signal word, use classification, precautionary labeling.). Note that the Agency is not describing batched products as "substantially similar" since some products within a batch may not be considered chemically similar or have identical use patterns.

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

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

In deciding how to meet the product specific data requirements, registrants must follow the directions given in the Data Call-In notice (DCI) and its attachments appended to the RED. The DCI notice contains two response forms which are to be completed and submitted to the Agency within 90 days of receipt. The first form, “Data Call-In Response” asks whether the registrant will meet the data requirements for each product. The second form, “Requirements Status and Registrant's Response” lists the product specific data required for each product, including the standard six acute toxicity tests. A registrant who wishes to participate in a batch must decide whether he/she will provide the data or depend on someone else to do so. If a registrant supplies the data to support a batch of products, he/she must select one of the following options: Developing Data (Option 1), Submitting an Existing Study (Option 4), Upgrading an Existing Study (Option 5) or Citing an Existing Study (Option 6). If a registrant depends on another's data, he/she must choose among: Cost Sharing (Option 2), Offers to Cost Share (Option 3) or Citing an Existing Study (Option 6). If a registrant does not want to participate in a batch, the choices are Options 1, 4, 5 or 6. However, a registrant should know that choosing not to participate in a batch does not preclude other registrants in the batch from citing his/her studies and offering to cost share (Option 3) those studies.

165 Fifty one (51) products were found which contain Acephate as the active ingredient. These products have been placed into seven batches and one “no batch” in accordance with the active and inert ingredients and type of formulation. EPA Reg. No. 239-2632 may cite Batch 4.

• Batch 2 may cite Batch 1 with the exception of eye and skin irritation data • Batch 5 may rely on Batch 4 data • Batches 6 and 7 may use the policy for granular pesticide products. However, due to the differences in inerts in Batch 6, products within Batch 6 may not share eye irritation data.

EPA Reg. No. Percent Active Ingredient Formulation Type Batch 1 1677-192 96.0 Solid 19713-410 99.2 Solid 19713-495 96.0 Solid 37979-1 97.0 Solid 51036-237 96.0 Solid 51036-246 98.0 Solid 59639-31 97.4 Solid 59639-41 98.9 Solid 59639-91 97.0 Solid 64014-1 98.0 Solid 70506-3 97.0 Solid Batch 2 51036-238 90.0 Solid 59639-33 90.0 Solid 59639-86 90.0 Solid 70506-2 90.0 Solid Batch 3 19713-408 80.0 Solid 34704-694 80.0 Solid 51036-262 80.0 Solid 59639-29 80.0 Solid 59639-85 80.0 Solid Batch 4 239-2406 75.0 Solid 19713-400 75.0 Solid 19713-497 75.0 Solid 51036-236 75.0 Solid 51036-252 75.0 Solid 59639-26 75.0 Solid

166 EPA Reg. No. Percent Active Ingredient Formulation Type Batch 4 59639-27 75.0 Solid 59639-28 75.0 Solid 59639-42 75.0 Solid 59639-89 75.0 Solid 70506-1 75.0 Solid Batch 5 59639-75 15.0 Solid 59639-87 15.0 Solid Batch 6 499-369 3.0 Liquid 499-380 3.0 Liquid Batch 7 192-210 1.5 Solid 192-211 1.5 Solid 239-2453 1.5 Solid 239-2472 1.5 Solid

No Batch EPA Reg. No. Percent Active Ingredient(s) Formulation Type 239-2436 Acephate - 15.6% Liquid 239-2440 Acephate - 0.25% Resmethrin - 0.10% Liquid 239-2461 9.4 Liquid 239-2476 Acephate - 0.25% Resmethrin - 0.10% Liquid Triforine - 0.10% 239-2594 Acephate - 4.0% Triforine - 3.25% Liquid Hexakis - 0.75% 239-2595 Acephate - 8.0% Hexakis - 0.50% Liquid 239-2632 50.0 Solid 499-230 1.0 Liquid 499-373 1.0 Liquid 499-421 12.0 Liquid 70228-1 75.0 Solid

167 168 APPENDIX H. List of Registrants Sent This Data Call-In

169 170 APPENDIX I. List of Available Related Documents and Electronically Available Forms

Pesticide Registration Forms are available at the following EPA internet site: http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/

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

Instructions

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

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

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

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

If you have any problems accessing these forms, please contact Nicole Williams at (703) 308-5551 or by e-mail at [email protected].

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

8570-1 Application for Pesticide http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-1.pdf Registration/Amendment 8570-4 Confidential Statement of Formula http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-4.pdf 8570-5 Notice of Supplemental Registration http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-5.pdf of Distribution of a Registered Pesticide Product 8570-17 Application for an Experimental Use http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-17.pdf Permit 8570-25 Application for/Notification of State http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-25.pdf Registration of a Pesticide To Meet a Special Local Need 8570-27 Formulator's Exemption Statement http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-27.pdf

171 8570-28 Certification of Compliance with http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-28.pdf Data Gap Procedures

8570-30 Pesticide Registration Maintenance http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-30.pdf Fee Filing 8570-32 Certification of Attempt to Enter into http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-32.pdf an Agreement with other Registrants for Development of Data 8570-34 Certification with Respect to http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr98-5.pdf Citations of Data (PR Notice 98-5) 8570-35 Data Matrix (PR Notice 98-5) http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr98-5.pdf 8570-36 Summary of the Physical/Chemical http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr98-1.pdf Properties (PR Notice 98-1) 8570-37 Self-Certification Statement for the http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr98-1.pdf Physical/Chemical Properties (PR Notice 98-1)

Pesticide Registration Kit www.epa.gov/pesticides/registrationkit/

Dear Registrant:

For your convenience, we have assembled an online registration kit which contains the following pertinent forms and information needed to register a pesticide product with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP):

1. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as Amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.

2. Pesticide Registration (PR) Notices a. 83-3 Label Improvement Program--Storage and Disposal Statements b. 84-1 Clarification of Label Improvement Program c. 86-5 Standard Format for Data Submitted under FIFRA d. 87-1 Label Improvement Program for Pesticides Applied through Irrigation Systems (Chemigation) e. 87-6 Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Products Policy Statement f. 90-1 Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Products; Revised Policy Statement g. 95-2 Notifications, Non-notifications, and Minor Formulation Amendments h. 98-1 Self Certification of Product Chemistry Data with Attachments (This document is in PDF format and requires the Acrobat reader.)

Other PR Notices can be found at http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices

172 3. Pesticide Product Registration Application Forms (These forms are in PDF format and will require the Acrobat reader).

a. EPA Form No. 8570-1, Application for Pesticide Registration/Amendment b. EPA Form No. 8570-4, Confidential Statement of Formula c. EPA Form No. 8570-27, Formulator's Exemption Statement d. EPA Form No. 8570-34, Certification with Respect to Citations of Data e. EPA Form No. 8570-35, Data Matrix

4. General Pesticide Information (Some of these forms are in PDF format and will require the Acrobat reader).

a. Registration Division Personnel Contact List B. Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) Contacts C. Antimicrobials Division Organizational Structure/Contact List d. 53 F.R. 15952, Pesticide Registration Procedures; Pesticide Data Requirements (PDF format) e. 40 CFR Part 156, Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices (PDF format) f. 40 CFR Part 158, Data Requirements for Registration (PDF format) g.. 50 F.R. 48833, Disclosure of Reviews of Pesticide Data (November 27, 1985)

Before submitting your application for registration, you may wish to consult some additional sources of information. These include:

1. The Office of Pesticide Programs' website.

2. The booklet "General Information on Applying for Registration of Pesticides in the United States", PB92-221811, available through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at the following address:

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161

The telephone number for NTIS is (703) 605-6000.

3. The National Pesticide Information Retrieval System (NPIRS) of Purdue University's Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems. This service does charge a fee for subscriptions and custom searches. You can contact NPIRS by telephone at (765) 494-6614 or through their website.

4. The National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN) can provide information on active ingredients, uses, toxicology, and chemistry of pesticides. You can contact NPTN by telephone at (800) 858-7378 or through their website: ace.orst.edu/info/nptn.

173 The Agency will return a notice of receipt of an application for registration or amended registration, experimental use permit, or amendment to a petition if the applicant or petitioner encloses with his submission a stamped, self-addressed postcard. The postcard must contain the following entries to be completed by OPP:

• Date of receipt; • EPA identifying number; and • Product Manager assignment.

Other identifying information may be included by the applicant to link the acknowledgment of receipt to the specific application submitted. EPA will stamp the date of receipt and provide the EPA identifying file symbol or petition number for the new submission. The identifying number should be used whenever you contact the Agency concerning an application for registration, experimental use permit, or tolerance petition.

To assist us in ensuring that all data you have submitted for the chemical are properly coded and assigned to your company, please include a list of all synonyms, common and trade names, company experimental codes, and other names which identify the chemical (including "blind" codes used when a sample was submitted for testing by commercial or academic facilities). Please provide a chemical abstract system (CAS) number if one has been assigned.

Documents Associated with this RED

The following documents are part of the Administrative Record for this RED document and may be included in the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs Public Docket. Copies of these documents are not available electronically, but may be obtained by contacting the person listed on the respective Chemical Status Sheet.

1. Health Effects Division and Environmental Fate and Effects Division Science Chapters, which include the complete risk assessments and supporting documents. 2. Detailed Label Usage Information System (LUIS) Report.

174 J. Agr. Sci. Tech. (2009) Vol. 11: 599-611

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Helps Reduce Pesticide Load in Cotton

∗ A. K. Dhawan1, S. Singh1, and S. Kumar2

ABSTRACT

The adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy by farmers of Bathinda cotton belt of Punjab, India resulted in reduction of insecticidal applications. There was 3- 4 times reduction in insecticidal applications in IPM villages (4.86-5.33) over the non-IPM villages (15.16-18.12). A general trend of reduced insecticidal applications of both conventional as well as new insecticides, in IPM villages as compared to non-IPM ones, was observed. However, the use of endosulfan was significantly more in IPM villages (1.07 and 0.85 applications) over non-IPM ones (0.49 and 0.32 applications) in 2002 and 2003, respectively. The use of the remaining insecticides was significantly less in IPM than in non-IPM villages. There was no application of non-recommended insecticides and mixtures in IPM villages while it was observed in non-IPM ones only. Further, farmers in IPM villages showed increased preference for relatively new insecticides (imidacloprid, acetamiprid, thiamethoxam, indoxacarb and spinosad) over the conventional group of chemicals. The adoption of IPM strategies resulted in significantly reduced pest incidence (32-75%), reduced plant protection and total input costs (17-34 and 15-21%, respectively) and an increase in net profit (54-88%) in addition to conservation of natural enemies (0.8- 1.0 natural enemies/ plant in IPM over 0.4-0.7/ plant in non-IPM villages).

Keywords: Bollworms, Cotton, IPM, Natural enemies, Sucking pests.

INTRODUCTION Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner), Spotted bollworms, Earias vittella (Fabricius) and E. Over the last two decades cotton crop has insulana (Boisduval), Pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella witnessed a diverse array of pest problems. (Saunders)], and The problem has arisen primarily because of sucking pests [Jassid, Amrasca biguttula the increasing trend on the part of the biguttula (Ishida), Whitefly, Bemisia tabaci Aphis gossypii growers to depend mainly on toxic (Gennadius) and Aphid, pesticides for pest management. This has Glover], the cotton bollworm (CBW) H. exerted a severe impact on the natural armigera has emerged as the most enemy fauna of cotton ecosystem and devastating pest of cotton during the last two disturbed the so called natural control. decades. During certain years when Further, this unwise and indiscriminate use environmental conditions become favorable for its population development like rains in of insecticides has resulted in development o of resistanceArchive in insects and resurgence of ofJuly and SID August, 25-30 C temperature and new pests (Mehrotra, 2000; Kranthi et al., high relative humidity, it emerges as a major 2002) besides environmental pollution and pest, deciding the fate of cotton yield. It has public health hazards. Among these different developed high levels of resistance to most pests viz. bollworms [Cotton bollworm, of the commonly used insecticides in the ______1 Department of Entomology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141004, Punjab, India. 2 Oilseeds Section, Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana- 141004, Punjab, India. ∗ Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected]

599

www.SID.ir ______Dhawan et al. country (Mehrotra, 2000). About 50-60 86.7 and 89.7 per cent samples of milk were percent loss of seed cotton is attributable to contaminated with DDT and HCH, bollworms complex and sucking pests respectively, out of which 43.4 and 77.8 (Dhawan, 2004). The management of these percent were above the MRL (Agnihotri, pests needs judicious use of insecticides 1999). Further, the increased use of a limited based on Economic Threshold Level (ETL). number of efficacious products year after At the global level, there is an increasing year leads to loss of the chemicals owing to concern about the ill effects of the increased resistance development in insect-pests. The use of toxic insecticidal chemicals. members of Insecticide Resistance Action According to WHO estimates, there are Committee (IRAC) warned the European more than 20,000 fatal poisoning cases due Union legislation against the use of a to occupational pesticide exposure that occur reduced number of pesticides as it leads to annually worldwide (Dhaliwal and Koul, development of resistant pests (IRAC, 2007). India is the largest consumer of 2008). pesticides in the South Asian countries and Thus, at present there is a need to explore third largest in the world (Dhaliwal et al., the possibility of developing new strategies 2006). Of the total pesticides used in the so that the sole dependence on conventional country, more than 60 percent is used in insecticides can be reduced and agriculture sector especially cotton crop sustainability of pest management be alone (Khauta and Gajaria, 1997). The maintained. The adoption of an Integrated consumption of technical grade pesticides is Pest Management (IPM) strategy provides a more than 800 g ha-1 in Punjab, Haryana, reliable answer to the question of sustainable Delhi and Pondicherry, much higher than in pest management. In rice, the adoption of the other states of the country (Agnihotri, IPM strategy resulted in 50-100% reduction 2000). This increased use of insecticides has in pesticide use and 6.2-42.1% increase in resulted in increasing cost of pest yield in IPM fields as compared to non-IPM management in addition to environmental fields during 1994-95 in major rice growing pollution and public health hazards. areas of India (Dhaliwal and Arora, 2006). Accoding to National Resource Defense Several strategies have been proposed for Council (NRDC) of USA, one out of every cotton pest management in India. However, 3,400 children between 1 and 5 years of age such strategies have been demonstrated to be could one day get cancer because of successful in localized conditions under pesticides they haphazardly ate as young scientific supervision and assured supply of children (NRDC, 1989). A recent study in inputs. Despite all the reports of successful cotton growing areas of India, focused on demonstration of IPM, successful spread of the chronic effects of pesticides on children, eco-friendly cotton pest management is still revealed that children have displayed lower far from reality at the farmer’s level. abilities in cognition, memory, stamina, Keeping this in mind, the Integrated Pest motor skills and concentration (Anonymous, Management (IPM) program was followed 2003). The increased pesticide use has also in cotton to reduce selection for resistance resulted in pesticideArchive residues in many food basedof on SIDrational use of insecticides, commodities. Surveys in India have restriction of treatments and alternation of indicated that many of the popular brands of chemicals with different modes of action soft drinks contained pesticides 34 times (Sawicki and Denholm, 1987). The impact higher than the European Economic of IPM strategy was evaluated by studying Community limit (Mathur et al., 2003). At the pattern of insecticide use, reduction in the India level, 55.1 percent samples of number of sprays, damage by insect-pests, vegetables were found to be contaminated abundance of natural enemies as well as with pesticides, 9.5 percent of these above economic gains by farmers. Maximum Residue Limit (MRL). Similarly,

600

www.SID.ir Integrated Pest Management in Cotton ______

Table 1. Economic Threshold Levels (ETLs) of major insect-pests of cotton. Insect-Pest Economic Threshold Level Jassid 2 nymphs per leaf or yellowing and curling of leaves along margins on 50% of plants. Whitefly 6 adults per leaf or appearance of honey dew on 50% of plants. Aphid Appearance of honey dew on 50% of plants. Bollworms 5% damage in freshly shed fruiting bodies. Repeat spray at 10 complex (Pink, day interval or 5 % damage in freshly shed fruiting bodies which spotted and so ever is earlier during boll formation period. cotton bollworm)

• Spray of right chemical at the right time and proper dose (Table 2). MATERIALS AND METHODS • Use of endosulfan as first spray. It is effective in early crop season as during this The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) part of the crop season resistance levels in strategy was devised (PAU, 2002) and Helicoverpa armigera are low to almost all evaluated in farmer’s fields of 10 villages at groups of insecticides. Furthermore it is Bathinda district of Punjab, India during relatively benign on beneficials (Kranthi et 2002 and 2003 crop seasons. Two villages al., 2000; PAU, 2002). Therefore, use of were selected as control ones during the two endosulfan is recommended in the early years. Cotton crop in these two villages was cropping stage against H. armigera and grown by farmers at their own level with no leaf hoppers. supervision or guidance on the part of • To avoid the use of insecticidal mixtures. university scientists. Cotton crop in both • Alteration of insecticidal sprays from IPM and non-IPM villages was sown in the different groups and modes of action. second fortnight of April. All the practices • To avoid use of synthetic pyrethroids for raising a good crop were followed (PAU, after mid September (PAU, 2002). 2002). The different IPM strategies • To avoid the use of acephate spray during included: September as it leads to resurgence of • Choice of pest tolerant varieties/hybrids whitefly (PAU, 2002). (tolerant to jassid/leaf hopper) (e.g. Ankur • Getting the pesticide from an authorized 651). dealer or source with the bill detailed with • Seed treatment with imidacloprid 70 WS batch number, date of manufacture and (5 g kg-1 seed) or thiamethoxam 70 WS (3 date of expiry of chemical. g kg-1 seed) in case of varieties susceptible In order to make the IPM programme to jassid/ leaf hopper attack. more successful, farmers in IPM villages • Timely sowing in either April or first were provided with facilities like: fortnight of May to escape bollworms Identification and introduction of insect- infestation.Archive ofpests andSID natural enemies to the farmers • No spray for the first 60 days after through literature viz. colored charts, sowing. posters, pamphlets, books, folders, and • Field survey by farmers twice a week to insect collection boxes having the wet and take the necessary control measures against dry insect specimens. any untimely pest attack. At village level by farmers’ meetings at • Spray decisions based on weekly intervals. Economic/Action Threshold Level (ETL) Field trials and demonstrations. (Table 1). At district level farmers’ training camps.

601

www.SID.ir ______Dhawan et al.

Table 2. Insecticides for the management of cotton insect-pests. Insecticide Dose per acre Brand I. For sucking pests management i) Jassid (a) Seed treatment at the time of sowing Imidacloprid 70 WS 5 g kg-1 seed Gaucho Thiomethoxam 70 WS 3 g kg-1 seed Cruiser (b) Spray Imidacloprid 200 SL 40 ml Imidacel Imidacloprid 17.8 SL 40 ml Confidor Acetamiprid 20 SP 20 g Pride/Rapid Thiomethoxam 25 WG 40 g Actara/Extra Super ii) Whitefly Triazophos 40 EC 600 ml Hostathion Ethion 50 EC 800 ml Fosmite/E-mite/Volthion II. For bollworms management i) Pink and spotted bollworms A. Synthetic pyrethroids Alphamethrin 10 EC 100 ml Alphagaurd/Fastac/Merit Alpha β-cyfluthrin 0.25 SC 300 ml Bulldock Cypermethrin 10 EC 200 ml Ripcord/Bilcyp/Bullet/Ustad/ Cypergaurd Cypermethrin 25 EC 80 ml Cymbush/Cyperkill/Hillcyper/ Colt/Basathrin/Agrocyper/ Cypergaurd Deltamethrin 2.8 EC 160 ml Decis/Rukrain/Decicare Fenvalerate 20 EC 100 ml Sumicidin/Fenval/Agrofen/ Fenlik/Triumphcrd/Milfen Fenpropathrin 10 EC 300 ml Mesthrin ii) Pink, spotted and younger larvae of cotton bollworm A. Organochlorine (Cyclodiene) Endosulfan 35 EC 1 litre Thiodan/Endocel B. Organophosphates Profenofos 50 EC 500 ml Curacron/Carina/Profex/Celcron Quinalphos 25 EC 800 ml Ekalux/Quingaurd Triazophos 40 EC 600 ml Hostathion Ethion 50 EC 800 ml Fosmite/E-mite/Volthion Monocrotophos 36 SL 500 ml Nuvacron/Monocil/Monolik C. Carbamates Carbaryl 50 WP 1 kg Sevin/Hexavin Thiodicarb 75 WP 250 g Larvin iii) Grown up larvae of cotton bollworm A. Organophosphates Acephate 75 SP 800 g Orthene/Asataf/Starthene Chlorpyriphos 20 EC 2 litres Coroban/Dursban/Durmet/ Chlorgaurd/Radar/Lethal/Force B. Naturalyte Spinosad 48 SC 60 ml Tracer C. Oxadiazine Indoxacarb 15 SC 200 ml Avaunt Indoxacarb 15 ArchiveEC 200 ml of Avaunt SID III. For tobacco caterpillar management A. Carbamate Thiodicarb 75 WP 250 g Larvin B. Organochlorinate Endosulfan 35 EC 1 litre Thiodan/Endocel C. Organophosphates Acephate 75 SP 800 g Orthene/Asataf/Starthene Chlorpyriphos 20 EC 2 litres Coroban/Dursban/Durmet/ Chlorgaurd/Radar/Lethal/Force Quinalphos 25 EC 800 ml Ekalux/Quingaurd Note: Insecticides for jassid management are also effective against aphids.

602

www.SID.ir Integrated Pest Management in Cotton ______

Street plays at village level to enhance subjected to analysis by Student’s t test farmers’ knowledge concerning side effects (Snedecor and Cochran, 1980). of indiscriminate use of insecticides. Setting up of Farmers’ Information RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Centres at village level with placement of one scout per information centre. Solution of farmers’ problems on untimely Insecticide Use Pattern pest attack, through field visits and meetings by university staff. During both the years i.e. 2002 and 2003, Solution of farmers’ problems through no spray of insecticide was used by farmers phone calls. in either IPM or non-IPM villages in From each of IPM and non-IPM villages, Window I (Table 3). However, sprays were 10 farmers were selected by following used in the successive windows. simple random sampling method to record In organochlorines group, endosulfan is the data on pesticide use, incidence of recommended as first spray since it is insect-pests and damage, population of relatively safe to natural enemies. Its use natural enemies and inputs used by them was significantly more in IPM villages i.e. throughout the crop season. The data were 1.07 and 0.85 sprays as compared to that in taken from one acre field each at weekly non-IPM villages i.e. 0.49 and 0.32 sprays, intervals. The jassid and whitefly population in 2002 and 2003, respectively. This reflects was recorded by observing the number of the increase in knowledge of farmers in IPM nymphs and adults respectively, from three villages about the use of chemicals safe to fully formed leaves in upper plant canopy natural enemies. For the control of sucking from 12 randomly selected plants (three pests especially jassid, imidacloprid, plants/quarter) in the one acre field. The data thiamethoxam and acetamiprid were used. on bollworms damage in intact fruiting The total number of sprays of bodies were recorded on per plant basis from imidacloprid/thiamethoxam was 12 randomly selected plants while that for significantly less being 0.20 and 0.88 in IPM shed fruiting bodies, 25 freshly shed fruiting as against 0.36 and 1.19 in non-IPM villages bodies were collected from each quarter of during 2002 and 2003, respectively. Acetamiprid was not used against jassid in field to record percent bollworms’ damage. 2002 in either of IPM and non-IPM villages, The data on population of various natural while in 2003, its use was significantly more enemies were recorded on per plant basis (0.20 sprays) in non-IPM villages over the from 12 plants selected at random. The IPM ones (0.01 sprays). pesticide application and other input use In case of organophosphates, total number data from sowing till last picking were of sprays of triazophos/ethion targeted recorded from individual farmers. The against whitefly and bollworms, was whole cotton season was divided into although significantly low (0.72) in IPM window system i.e. up to first week of July villages over non-IPM ones (0.93) in 2002, (Window I),Archive second week of July to mid ofbut in 2003SID an opposite trend was observed. August (Window II), second fortnight of It may probably be due to untimely attack of August (Window III) and September- spotted bollworms and whitefly in those October (Window IV) (PAU, 2002). The villages. This opposite trend of increased use mean number of insecticidal applications of of sprays in IPM villages (0.60) over non- different chemicals in each window and in IPM ones (0.49) was also observed in case the whole crop season, mean pest and of monocrotophos in 2002, whereas in 2003, natural enemies’ population and total input the total number of sprays remained costs were calculated. The data were significantly low (0.16) in IPM villages over non-IPM ones (0.40). The maximum use of

603

www.SID.ir ______Dhawan et al.

Archive of SID

604

www.SID.ir Integrated Pest Management in Cotton ______

20 n ≤ t (p 0.05) 17.29 18 Sucking pests: Year 2002<0. 002, Year 16 2003<0. 004 Bollworms: Year 2002<0. 001, Year 13.67 14 2003<0. 006 12 10 8

6 4.3* 4.26* 4 * 1.99 2 0.56* 0.83 1.07 Average number ofapplications/ seaso 0 IPM Non-IPM IPM Non-IPM IPM Non-IPM IPM Non-IPM

2002 2003 2002 2003

*=Significant Sucking pests Bollworms n=10

Figure1. Number of insecticidal applications against sucking pests and bollworms in IPM and non- IPM villages during 2002 and 2003. quinalphos/ profenofos was observed in In carbamate group, carbaryl and September-October (Window IV) for the thiodicarb were employed against control of bollworms (Earias spp. and H. bollworms and tobacco caterpillar, armigera). Again, the number of sprays in Spodoptera litura (Fabricius). Here again, a IPM villages remained significantly lower similar trend of less number of sprays in (0.53) than those in non-IPM villages (0.83) IPM villages was observed, as in other in 2002. Almost similar trend of less number chemicals, except in 2003 where no use was of sprays of acephate/chlorpyriphos in IPM recorded in non-IPM villages. villages over non-IPM ones was observed as Synthetic pyrethroids were employed for in other insecticides for the CBW, H. the control of spotted bollworms (SBW, armigera. An opposite trend of increased Earias spp.). Their maximum use was use of quinalphos in IPM villages (0.53 recorded after mid August i.e. in Window III applications) (Table 3) over non-IPM (0.13) and IV. The total number of sprays of these villages was reported in 2003. It is important chemicals was 0.72 and 0.44 in IPM villages to mention here that the use remained being significantly less than those in non- similar to that in 2002 (0.53 applications), IPM villages i.e. 0.90 and 1.25 in 2002 and however, it Archivedeclined in non-IPM as farmers of2003, respectively.SID shifted to acephate/chlorpyriphos (0.54 The new chemicals i.e. indoxacarb and applications) in 2003 than in IPM (0.29 spinosad were preferred more by farmers for applications). Similar reasons can be the control of CBW over conventional assigned to increased use of monocrotophos groups. Their maximum use was reported in in 2002 in IPM villages (0.6 applications) Window III and IV in both years of the whereas more number of sprays of study. In 2002, there were 0.3 sprays in the acephate/chlorpyriphos (1.15) were applied IPM villages as against a significantly more in non-IPM villages. number of sprays (0.57) in the non-IPM villages. A similar trend was observed in

605

www.SID.ir ______Dhawan et al.

1.4 1.3 t (p≤0.05) Jassid nymphs: Year 2002=0.05, Year 2003=0.003 1.2 1.1* 1.1 Whitefly adults: Year 2002<0.014, Year 2003<0.001

1 0.9*

s 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6* 0.6 Number/3 leave 0.4* 0.4

0.2

0 IPM Non-IPM IPM Non-IPM IPM Non-IPM IPM Non-IPM

2002 2003 2002 2003 *=Significant n=12 Jassid nymphs/ 3 leaves Whitefly adults/ 3 leaves

Figure2. Incidence of sucking pests in IPM and non-IPM villages in 2002 and 2003.

2003, however, there was an increase in 4.26 sprays in the IPM villages as compared number of sprays in IPM (1.79) and non- to 17.29 and 13.67 in the non-IPM ones in IPM villages (1.86). The lesser number of 2002 and 2003, respectively. There was sprays in 2002 were due to a very less 75.13 and 68.83 percent reduction in number population build up of CBW as it was a of sprays in the IPM over non-IPM villages drought year. in 2002 and 2003, respectively. Farmers in non-IPM villages used various mixtures of insecticides for the control of Pest and Natural Enemies’ Incidence different insect-pests of cotton. However, no such insecticidal mixture was used in IPM villages, as use of mixtures is not Despite the reduced number of insecticidal recommended in Punjab. Similarly, there applications in IPM villages, the incidence was no spray of un-recommended and damage by sucking pests and bollworms insecticides in IPM villages while these remained lower than that in non-IPM were used in non-IPM villages. villages (Figures 2 and 3). The population of The mean number of insecticidal sprays sucking pests i.e. jassid and whitefly was targeted against sucking pests and significantly lower in the IPM villages than bollworms are presentedArchive in Figure 1. There thatof in the non-IPMSID villages in both years. were 0.56 and 1.07 insecticidal applications Mean jassid population in crop season was against sucking pests in IPM villages as 1.1 and 0.9 nymphs/3 leaves in the IPM compared to 0.83 and 1.99 in non-IPM villages as compared to 1.3 and 1.1 villages in 2002 and 2003, respectively. The nymphs/3 leaves in the non-IPM villages in respective reduction in number of sprays 2002 and 2003, respectively (Figure 2). was 32.53% and 46.23% in IPM over non- Similarly, the incidence of whitefly was IPM villages in 2002 and 2003. A similar lower (0.6 and 0.4 adults/3 leaves) in IPM trend was observed for insecticidal sprays villages than in non-IPM ones (0.8 and 0.7 targeted against bollworms with 4.30 and adults/3 leaves) in 2002 and 2003,

606

www.SID.ir Integrated Pest Management in Cotton ______

t (p≤0.05) Cotton bollworm Intact fruiting bodies: Year 2002<0.009 Year 2003<0.005 Shed fruiting bodies: Year 2002<0.001 30.0 Year 2003<0.002 25.2 Spotted bollworms 25.0 23.4 Intact fruiting bodies: Year 2002<0.006 21.7* Year 2003=0.01 Shed fruiting bodies: Year 2002<0.004 e 20.0 Year 2003<0.002 17.0*

15.0 13.2* 14.1 11.1 11.5 11.5 10.1* 9.3* Per cent Damag cent Per 10.0 7.6* 6.6 5.6* 5.0 3.4* 3.7

0.0 IPM Non- IPM Non- IPM Non- IPM Non- IPM Non- IPM Non- IPM Non- IPM Non- IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM

2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003

Intact fruiting bodies Shed fruiting bodies Intact fruiting bodies Shed fruiting bodies

*=Significant Cotton bollworm Spotted bollworms

Figure 3. Percent damage by bollworms in intact and shed fruiting bodies in IPM and non- IPM villages during 2002 and 2003. respectively. A similar trend was observed predatory bugs, coccinellids (Coccinella with respect to percent damage by cotton septempunctata and Cheilomenes bollworm and spotted bollworms in intact sexmaculatus) and Chrysopa, spiders and shed fruiting bodies for both years (Oxyopus sp., Neoscona sp.) were the wherein significantly lower damage was dominant predators of sucking pests and reported in IPM than for non-IPM villages small larvae of bollworms as well as (Figure 3). On the other hand, the population Spodoptera litura throughout the crop of natural enemies was higher in the IPM season. In the IPM villages the mean than in the non-IPM villages. Among the incidence was 0.8 and 1.0 of natural different natural enemies viz. spiders, enemies/plant, higher than that observed in

1.2

1.0* 1.0

t (p≤0.05) 0.8* Year 2002<0.013 0.8 Year 2003<0.012 0.7

0.6

0.4 0.4

Archiveplant per enemies natural of Number of SID 0.2

0.0 IPM Non-IPM IPM Non-IPM *=Significa nt 2002 2003 12 Figure 4. Population of natural enemies in IPM and non-IPM villages in 2002 and 2003.

607

www.SID.ir ______Dhawan et al.

2500

2000 2000 1890 1810 1750

1500 US $ 1110 1050 1005 1000 972 712 630 580 561 530 500 489 375 365 347 324 323 305 279 260 252 238

0 IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM IPM Non-IPM Non-IPM Non-IPM Non-IPM Non-IPM Non-IPM Non-IPM Non-IPM Non-IPM Non-IPM Non-IPM Non-IPM 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003

Cost of cultivation Cost of plant Total input cost (US Yield (kg/ha) Income (US $/ha) Net profit (US $/ha) (US $/ha) protection (US $/ha) $/ha)

Figure 5. Comparative input costs, yield and net profit in IPM and non-IPM villages in 2002 and 2003. the non-IPM villages (0.4 and 0.7 natural of the product and its dissemination in soils enemies/plant) in 2002 and 2003, and water. Thus farmers in IPM villages respectively (Figure 4). obtained higher yields and returns than those in non-IPM villages and effectively Economics managed the pest populations in their fields besides using less number of insecticides. All the above mentioned strategies are Total input and plant protection costs from simple and easy to adopt. Thus, these can be sowing to picking was lower in IPM than in easily incorporated in the pest management non-IPM villages in both years of the study. program with high efficacy. The Input costs included seed cost, cost of introduction of new molecules in pest sowing, irrigations, fertilizers, cultivation, management strategy helped the farmers a weeding, plant protection costs and cost of lot in diverting from the non-recommended picking. There was 21.20 and 15.87 percent insecticidal mixtures and from the use of reduction in total input costs in IPM over chemicals at doses greater than the non-IPM villages in 2002 and 2003, recommended ones. respectively (Figure 5). The respective Thus, with the adoption of IPM strategy 3- reduction in plant protection costs was 34.80 4 times decline in the use of insecticides was and 17.40 percent. reported. There was 73.18 and 66.00 percent In spite of the reduced input costs reduction in insecticidal applications and including plant Archiveprotection costs, farmers in 140of and 190 SID kg ha-1 increase in yield in IPM the IPM villages were able to obtain higher villages as compared to non-IPM ones in yields than farmers in the non-IPM villages. 2002 and 2003, respectively. Similar results There was 8.00 and 10.50 percent increase were obtained in China by adoption of IPM in yield, hence net income, in IPM over non- strategy whereby there was 3-4 times IPM villages in 2002 and 2003, respectively. reduction in insecticidal application and 80 The respective increase in net profit was kg ha-1 increase in lint cotton yield (Wei et 88.10 and 54.66 per cent in 2002 and 2003. al., 1996). In an earlier study in Punjab, the The environmental cost of the community implementation of Operational Research was difficult to evaluate due to manipulation Project (ORP) from 1976 to 1989 resulted in

608

www.SID.ir Integrated Pest Management in Cotton ______

73.7 and 12.4 per cent reduction in number problems concerning the insecticide use in of sprays against sucking pests and this part of the country were: bollworms, respectively after the adoption of • Lack of decision making about the supervised pest management technology. correct time of application, resulting in Properly timed sprays along with a number badly timed sprays. of cultural and mechanical practices resulted • Use of inappropriate chemicals at in 38.5 percent reduction in bollworms incorrect doses. incidence in ORP area as compared to • Mixing of two or more chemicals. adjoining non-ORP area. In spite of reduced • Use of substandard chemicals or even plant protection expenditure, the ORP spurious insecticides mostly with the farmers obtained 23.2 per cent higher yield advice of local pesticide dealers. and 31.7 per cent higher income (Simwat, Moreover, farmers showed great 1994). reluctance to make any special effort to A shift in the use of insecticides was consult a specialist before making pesticide observed in 2003 from 2002. There was a applications. However, when such service decline observed in the number of was available at their doorsteps, they applications of all the conventional groups showed keen interest and actively in 2003 except synthetic pyrethroids, while participated with the scientists and followed farmers showed increased preference for their advice. Even after five years of its new chemistries (imidacloprid, acetamiprid, implementation, farmers in those villages thiamethoxam, spinosad and indoxacarb) as are still using the IPM strategies. They have evident from increased applications of these included Bt cotton hybrids in the strategy compounds. Inclusion of new chemicals in which has further resulted in reduction in the IPM strategy is a healthy sign as it will pesticide applications specifically targeted lead to the reduced selection pressure on the against bollworms. Thus, the limited number of efficacious products implementation of IPM programme was (Murray et al., 2005). Further, indoxacarb highly successful and sustainable in this part will help in managing pyrethroid resistant of the country for cotton pest management. populations of cotton bollworm, H. armigera, as it exhibits negative cross resistance between indoxacarb and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS pyrethroids (Gunning and Devonshire, 2003). However, optimized use of new Authors are thankful to the Ministry of insecticides through monitoring field pest Agriculture, Government of India for tolerance is needed to prolong their lifespan providing the financial support under the (Horowitz et al., 1992). Mini Mission Project on Cotton. Thanks are also due to the referees for improvement of CONCLUSIONS an earlier draft of the manuscript and Prof. K. Poustini for translation of the English abstract into Persian. The InsecticideArchive Resistance Management of SID Programme was found to be successful because of its simplicity and straightforward REFERENCES nature of the strategies which do not include any component that is either less effective or 1. Agnihotri, N. P. 1999. Pesticide Safety unavailable. There was a lack of proper Evaluation and Monitoring. All India guidance to the farmers due to which they Coordinated Research Project on Pesticide resorted to untimely and unnecessary spray Residues, Indian Council of Agricultural applications either as a part of routine Research, New Delhi, India. practice or under peer pressure. The major

609

www.SID.ir ______Dhawan et al.

2. Agnihotri, N. P. 2000. Pesticide Cotton Pest Management in India. Consumption in Agriculture in India: An Pestology, 12:58-67. Update. Pestic. Res. J., 12(1): 150-155. 13. Kranthi, K. R., Jadhav, D. R., Wanjari, R. 3. Anonymous, 2003. Arrested Development: R., Shaher, A. S. and Russel, D. 2002. The Impacts of Pesticides on Children’s Insecticide Resistance in Five Major Insect Mental Health and Development. Pests of Cotton in India. Crop Prot., 21: Greenpeace India, Bangalore, India. 449-460. 4. Dhaliwal, G. S. and Arora, R. 2006. 14. Mathur, H. B., Johnson, S. and Kumar, A. Integrated Pest Management: Concepts and 2003. Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Soft Approaches. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, Drinks. Centre for Science and India. Environment, New Delhi, India. 5. Dhaliwal, G. S. and Koul, O. 2007. 15. Mehrotra, K. N. 2000. Status of Insecticide Biopesticides and Pest Management- Resistance in Insect Pests. In: "Pesticides: Conventional and Biotechnological Their Ecological Impact in Developing Approaches. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, Countries", Dhaliwal, G. S. and Singh, B. India (Eds.), Commonwealth Publishers, New 6. Dhaliwal, G. S., Singh, R. and Chhillar, B. Delhi, India, PP. 30-50. S. 2006. Essentials of Agricultural 16. Murray, D. A. H., Lloyd, R. J. and Entomology. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, Hopkinson, J. E. 2005. Efficacy of new India. insecticides for management of Helicoverpa 7. Dhawan, A. K. 2004. Insecticide Resistance spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Australian Management Strategy: Awareness and grain crops. Aust. J. Entomol., 44 (1): 62-67. Monitoring. Department of Entomology, 17. NRDC, 1989. Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Our Children’s Food. Natural Resources India. PP. 56. Defense Council, Washington DC, USA. 8. Gunning, R. V. and Devonshire, A. L. 2003. 18. PAU, 2002. Package of Practices for Crops Negative Cross-resistance between of Punjab-Kharif. Punjab Agricultural Indoxacarb and Pyrethroids in the Cotton University, Ludhiana, India. Bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera, in 19. Sawicki, R. M. and Denholm, I. 1987. Australia: A Tool for Resistance Management of Resistance to Pesticides in Management. Proc BCPC Intl. Congress of Cotton Pests. Trop. Pest Mgt., 33: 262-272. Crop Science and Technology, November 20. Simwat, G. S. 1994. Modern Concepts in 10-12, 2003, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, PP. Insect Pest Management. In: "Trends in 789-794. Agricultural Insect Pest Management", 9. Horowitz, A. R., Ishaaya, I. and Forer, G. Dhaliwal, G. S. and Arora, R. (Eds.), 1992. Insecticide Resistance Management Commonwealth Publishers, New Delhi, Strategy in Cotton Fields in Israel. Resistant India, PP. 186-237. Pest Mgt., 4(1): 26-27. 21. Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1980. 10. IRAC, 2008. Insecticide Resistance Action Statistical Methods 7th Edn. The Iowa State Committee. Available at http://www.irac- University Press, Ames, IA. online.org 22. Wei, C., Rui, C. H., Zhao, J. Z., Fan, X. L., 11. Khauta, B. C. and Gajaria, V. 1997. Cotton Meng, X. Q. and Qiu, S. B. 1996. Insecticide Production Demand Outstrips Supplies. Resistance Management in Helicoverpa Agriculture and Industry Survey. Annual armigera Using IPM Strategy and Volume 1997-98.Archive ofTechniques. SID Proc. 3rd Natl. Conf. Integrated 12. Kranthi. K. R., Banerjee. S. K. and Russell, Pest Management, November 12-15, 1996, D. 2000. IRM Strategies for Sustainable Beijing, China, PP. 414-417.

610

www.SID.ir Integrated Pest Management in Cotton ______

ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﺗﻠﻔﻴﻘﻲ آﻓﺎت در ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻣﻴﺰان آﻓﺖﻛﺶ در ﭘﺒﻨﻪ

آ. ك. دﻫﺎوان، س. ﺳﻴﻨﮓ و س. ﻛﻮﻣﺎر

ﭼﻜﻴﺪه

اﺳﺘﻔﺎده زارﻋﻴﻦ ﻣﺤﺪوده ﻛﻤﺮﺑﻨﺪ ﭘﻨ ﺒ ﻪ ﺑ ﺘ ﻬ ﻴ ﻨ ﺪ ا ي ﭘ ﻨ ﺠ ـ ﺎ ب ﻫ ﻨ ـ ﺪ ا ز ﻣ ـ ﺪ ﻳ ﺮ ﻳ ﺖ ﺗ ﻠ ﻔ ﻴ ﻘ ـ ﻲ آ ﻓ ـ ﺎ ت ﺑ ﺎ ﻋ ـ ﺚ ﻛ ـ ﺎ ﻫ ﺶ ﻣ ﻴ ـ ﺰ ا ن ﻣﺼﺮف ﺣﺸﺮهﻛﺶ ﻫ ﺎ ﮔ ﺮ د ﻳ ﺪ ه ا ﺳ ﺖ. ﺗ ﻌ ﺪ ا د د ﻓ ﻌ ﺎ ت ﺳ ﻤ ﭙ ﺎ ﺷ ﻲ د ر ر و ﺳ ﺘ ﺎ ﻫ ﺎ ﻳ ﻲ ﻛ ـ ﻪ ﻣ ـ ﺪ ﻳ ﺮ ﻳ ﺖ ﺗ ﻠ ﻔ ﻴ ﻘ ـ ﻲ ﺑ ﻜ ـ ﺎ ر ﮔ ﺮ ﻓ ﺘ ـ ﻪ ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ (86/4-33/5) ﺳ ﻪ ﺗ ﺎ ﭼ ﻬ ﺎ ر ﻧ ﻮ ﺑ ﺖ ﻛ ﻤ ﺘ ﺮ ا ز ر و ﺳ ﺘ ﺎ ﻫ ﺎ ي ﺑ ﺪ و ن ﻣ ﺪ ﻳ ﺮ ﻳ ﺖ ﺗ ﻠ ﻔ ﻴ ﻘ ﻲ (16/15-12/18) ﺑﻮده اﺳـﺖ. در ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ روﺳﺘﺎﻫﺎي ﺑﺎ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﺗﻠﻔﻴﻘﻲ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ روﺳﺘﺎﻫﺎي ﺑﺪون ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﺗﻠﻔﻴﻘﻲ، روﻧﺪ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻲ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﺗﻌﺪاد د ﻓ ﻌ ﺎ ت ﺳ ﻤ ﭙ ﺎ ﺷ ﻲ ﻫ ﻢ د ر ﻣ ﻮ ر د ﺳ ﻤ ﻮ م ﻗ ﺪ ﻳ ﻤ ﻲ و ﻫ ﻤ ﭽ ﻨ ﻴ ﻦ ﺳ ﻤ ﻮ م ﺟ ﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه ﮔﺮدﻳﺪ. ﺑﺎ اﻳﻦ وﺟﻮد ﺗﻌﺪاد دﻓﻌﺎت ﻣ ﺼ ﺮ ف ا ﻧ ﺪ و ﺳ ﻮ ﻟ ﻔ ﺎ ن ﻃ ﻲ ﺳ ﺎ لﻫﺎ 2002-2003 ﻣ ﻴ ﻼ د ي ، ﺑ ﻪ ﺗ ﺮ ﺗ ﻴ ـ ﺐ ، د ر ر و ﺳ ـ ﺘ ﺎ ﻫ ﺎ ي ﺑ ـ ﺎ ﻣ ـ ﺪ ﻳ ﺮ ﻳ ﺖ ﺗ ﻠ ﻔ ﻴ ﻘ ـ ﻲ (07/1 و 85/0 ﻧﻮﺑﺖ) ﻧ ﺴ ﺒ ﺖ ﺑ ﻪ ر و ﺳ ﺘ ﺎ ﻫ ﺎ ي ﺑ ـ ﺪ و ن آ ن (49/0 و 32/0 ﻧﻮﺑـﺖ) ﺑﻴـﺸﺘﺮ ﺑـﻮده اﺳـﺖ. ﻣـﺼﺮف ﺳـﺎﻳﺮ ﺳـﻤﻮم در ر و ﺳ ﺘ ﺎ ﻫ ﺎ ي ﺑ ﺎ ﻣ ﺪ ﻳ ﺮ ﻳ ﺖ ﺗ ﻠ ﻔ ﻴ ﻘ ﻲ ﺑ ﻪ ﺻ ﻮ ر ت ﻣ ﻌ ﻨﻲ د ا ر ي ﻛ ﻤ ﺘ ﺮ ا ز ر و ﺳ ﺘ ﺎ ﻫ ﺎ ي ﺑ ﺪ و ن آ ن ﺑ ﻮ د ه ا ﺳ ـ ﺖ. ﺑ ـ ﺮ ﺧ ﻼ ف ﻣ ﻨ ـ ﺎ ﻃ ﻖ ﺑﺪون ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﺗﻠﻔﻴﻘﻲ، ﻫﻴﭻ ﻧﻮع اﺳﺘﻔﺎدهاي از ﺣﺸﺮه ﻛـﺶ ﻫ ـ ﺎ ي ﺗ ﻮ ﺻ ـ ﻴ ﻪ ﻧ ـ ﺸ ﺪ ه و ﻳ ـ ﺎ ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ـ ﻮ ط آ ﻧ ﻬ ـ ﺎ د ر ﻣ ﻨ ـ ﺎ ﻃ ﻖ ﺑ ـﺎ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﺗﻠﻔﻴﻘﻲ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه ﻧﮕﺮدﻳﺪ. ﺑ ﻪ ﻋ ﻼ و ه ز ا ر ﻋ ﻴ ﻦ ر و ﺳ ﺘ ﺎ ﻫ ﺎ ي ﺑ ﺎ ﻣ ـ ﺪ ﻳ ﺮ ﻳ ﺖ ﺗ ﻠ ﻔ ﻴ ﻘ ـ ﻲ ﻳ ـ ﻚ ا ﻓ ـ ﺰ ا ﻳ ﺶ ﺗ ـ ﺮ ﺟ ﻴ ﺢ ﺑ ـ ﺮ ا ي ا ﺳ ﺘ ﻔ ﺎ د ه ا ز ﺳ ﻤ ﻮ م ﻧﺴﺒﺘﺎً ﺟﺪﻳﺪ، از ﻗﺒﻴـﻞ اﻣﻴﺪاﻛﻠﻮﭘﺮﻳـﺪ، اﺳـﺘﺎﻣﻴﭙﺮﻳﺪ، ﺗﻴﻮﻣﺘﻮﻛـﺴﺎم، اﻳﻨﺪوﻛـﺴﺎﻛﺎرب و اﺳﭙﻴﻨﻮﺳـﺎد ﻧ ﺴ ﺒ ﺖ ﺑ ﻪ ﮔ ﺮ و هﻫﺎي راﻳﺞ از ﺧﻮد ﻧﺸﺎن دادﻧﺪ. ﻛ ﺎ ر ﺑ ﺮ د ﺳ ﺎ ز و ﻛ ﺎ ر ﻫ ﺎ ي ﻣ ﺪ ﻳ ﺮ ﻳ ﺖ ﺗ ﻠ ﻔ ﻴ ﻘ ـ ﻲ ﺑ ﺎ ﻋ ـ ﺚ ﻛ ـ ﺎ ﻫ ﺶ ﻣ ﻌ ﻨ ـ ﻲدار ﻣﺼﺮف آﻓﺖﻛﺶ ﻫﺎ (32-75%)، ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺣﻔﺎﻇﺖ ﮔﻴﺎﻫﻲ و ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎي ﻛﻠﻲ ( ﺑ ـ ﻪ ﺗ ﺮ ﺗ ﻴ ـ ﺐ 17-34 و 21-15 درﺻﺪ) و ا ﻓ ﺰ ا ﻳ ﺶ ﺳ ﻮ د ﺧ ﺎ ﻟ ﺺ (54-88%)، ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﺣﻔﻆ دﺷﻤﻨﺎن ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ (8/0-0/1 د ﺷ ـ ﻤ ﻦ ﻃ ﺒ ﻴ ﻌ ـ ﻲ د ر ﻣ ﻨ ـ ﺎ ﻃ ﻖ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﺗﻠﻔﻴﻘﻲ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ 4/0-7/0 ﺑﻪ ازاي ﻫﺮ ﺑﻮﺗﻪ) ﮔﺮدﻳﺪه اﺳﺖ.

Archive of SID

611