United
States
Prevention,
Pesticides
EPA738­
R­
02­
014
Environmental
Protection
And
Toxic
Substances
October
2002
Agency
(7508W)

Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(RED)
OXYFLUORFEN
United
States
Prevention,
Pesticides
EPA­
738­
F02­
013
Environmental
Protection
And
Toxic
Substances
October,
2002
Agency
(7508C)

R.
E.
D.
FACTS
Oxyfluorfen
Pesticide
Reregistration
All
pesticides
sold
or
distributed
in
the
United
States
must
be
registered
by
EPA,
based
on
scientific
studies
showing
that
they
can
be
used
without
posing
unreasonable
risks
to
people
or
the
environment.
Because
of
advances
in
scientific
knowledge,
the
law
requires
that
pesticides
which
were
first
registered
before
November
1,
1984,
be
reregistered
to
ensure
that
they
meet
today's
more
stringent
standards.
In
evaluating
pesticides
for
reregistration,
EPA
obtains
and
reviews
a
complete
set
of
studies
from
pesticide
producers,
describing
the
human
health
and
environmental
effects
of
each
pesticide.
To
implement
provisions
of
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
of
1996,
EPA
considers
the
special
sensitivity
of
infants
and
children
to
pesticides,
as
well
as
aggregate
exposure
of
the
public
to
pesticide
residues
from
all
sources,
and
the
cumulative
effects
of
pesticides
and
other
compounds
with
common
mechanisms
of
toxicity.
The
Agency
develops
any
mitigation
measures
or
regulatory
controls
needed
to
effectively
reduce
each
pesticide's
risks.
EPA
then
reregisters
pesticides
that
meet
the
safety
standard
of
the
FQPA
and
can
be
used
without
posing
unreasonable
risks
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
When
a
pesticide
is
eligible
for
reregistration,
EPA
explains
the
basis
for
its
decision
in
a
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(RED)
document.
This
fact
sheet
summarizes
the
information
in
the
RED
document
for
reregistration
case
2670,
oxyfluorfen.

Use
Profile
Oxyfluorfen
is
a
diphenyl­
ether
herbicide
used
for
broad
spectrum
pre­
and
post­
emergent
control
of
annual
broadleaf
and
grassy
weeds
in
a
variety
of
tree
fruit,
nut,
vine,
and
field
crops.
The
largest
agricultural
markets
in
terms
of
total
pounds
active
ingedient
are
wine
grapes
and
almonds.
There
are
also
nonagricultural
ornamental
and
forestry
uses.
Oxyfluorfen
is
also
used
for
weed
control
in
landscapes,
patios,
driveways,
and
similar
areas
in
residential
sites.

Regulatory
History
Oxyfluorfen
was
first
registered
in
the
United
States
in
1979
to
control
preemergent
and
post­
emergent
broadleaf
and
grassy
weeds
in
a
variety
of
field,
fruit,
and
vegetable
crops,
ornamentals,
as
well
as
non­
crop
sites.
It
is
manufactured
by
Dow
AgroSciences
and
Makhteshim­
Agan
under
the
trade
names
Goal
and
Galigan.
Data
call­
ins
were
issued
in
1991,
1993,
and
1995.
In
January
2002,
the
risk
assessments
were
made
publicly
available
for
comment
and
a
close­
out
conference
call
was
conducted
on
July
25,
2002,
to
discuss
the
risk
management
decisions
and
resultant
changes
to
the
oxyfluorfen
labels.
2
Human
Health
Assessment
Toxicity
Oxyfluorfen
is
of
low
acute
oral,
dermal,
and
inhalation
toxicity.
The
primary
toxic
effects
are
alterations
in
blood
parameters
(anemia)
and
in
the
liver.
Oxyfluorfen
is
classified
as
a
possible
human
carcinogen
based
on
combined
hepatocellular
adenomas/
carcinomas
in
the
mouse
carcinogenicity
study.
A
cancer
potency
factor
(Q1*)
was
used
to
estimate
human
risk.
The
FQPA
Safety
Factor
for
protection
of
infants
and
children
was
reduced
to
1X
for
all
population
subgroups
as
there
was
no
increased
susceptibility
in
animals
due
to
pre­
or
postnatal
exposure
to
oxyfluorfen.

Dietary
Exposure
No
adverse
effects
reflecting
a
single
dose
were
identified
in
toxicological
studies;
therefore,
no
acute
endpoint
was
selected
and
an
acute
dietary
risk
assessment
was
not
conducted.
EPA's
dietary
risk
analysis
for
oxyfluorfen
evaluated
chronic
(non­
cancer)
and
cancer
risk.
For
these
chronic
food
risk
assessments,
anticipated
residues
were
calculated
using
either
USDA
Pesticide
Data
Program
(PDP)
monitoring
data
or
field
trial
data.
Both
data
sets
are
consistent
in
that
they
show
all
non­
detectable
residues.
Based
on
this
analysis,
the
percentage
of
cPAD
utilized
is
expected
to
be
less
than
1
percent
for
the
U.
S.
population
and
all
subpopulations.
Therefore,
the
chronic
(non­
cancer)
dietary
risk
estimate
from
food
alone
is
not
of
concern.
Cancer
risk
from
food
is
calculated
by
using
a
linear
low­
dose
risk
model
("
Q1*")
to
determine
the
lifetime
cancer
risk
estimate.
The
Agency
generally
considers
risks
greater
than
1
x
10
­6
(1
in
1
million)
to
exceed
its
level
of
concern
for
cancer
dietary
exposure.
Using
the
Q1*
of
7.32
x
10
­2
results
in
a
maximum
estimated
lifetime
cancer
risk
to
the
U.
S.
general
population
of
3.8
x
10
­7
.
Therefore,
the
cancer
risk
from
food
alone
is
also
not
of
concern.
People
may
be
exposed
to
residues
of
oxyfluorfen
through
the
diet.
Tolerances
or
maximum
residue
limits
have
been
established
for
33
fruits,
vegetables
and
nut
trees
as
well
as
meat
commodities
(please
see
40
CFR
180.381).
EPA
has
reassessed
the
oxyfluorfen
tolerances
and
found
that
the
majority
are
acceptable.
New
tolerances
must
be
proposed/
established
for
cotton
gin
byproducts,
soybean
forage,
soybean
hay,
and
grass
forage,
grass
hay,
and
grass
seed
screenings.

Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Based
on
current
use
patterns,
handlers
(mixers,
loaders,
and
applicators)
may
be
exposed
to
oxyfluorfen
during
and
after
normal
use
of
liquid
and
granular
formulations
in
agricultural
and
other
settings.
Oxyfluorfen
is
used
in
the
residential
environment
by
homeowners
to
kill
weeds
on
patios,
driveways
and
similar
surfaces.
Oxyfluorfen
homeowner
products
are
intended
solely
for
spot
treatment;
they
are
not
used
for
broadcast
treatment
of
lawns
because
they
kill
grass.
3
FQPA
Considerations
Chronic
(non­
cancer)
Aggregate
Risk
­
This
assessment
addresses
exposure
to
oxyfluorfen
residues
in
food
and
water
only,
as
there
are
no
chronic
residential
scenarios
identified.
Comparison
of
the
chronic
DWLOCs
with
the
environmental
concentrations
of
oxyfluorfen
shows
that
estimated
surface
and
groundwater
concentrations
are
substantially
less
than
the
DWLOCs
for
all
populations.
Consequently,
the
Agency
concludes
that
residues
of
oxyfluorfen
in
food
and
drinking
water
do
not
result
in
a
chronic
aggregate
risk
of
concern.
Short­
term
Aggregate
Risk
­
Short­
term
DWLOCs
were
calculated
based
upon
average
food
residues,
and
the
residential
handler
exposure
which
resulted
in
the
greatest
risk
(spot
treatment
of
weeds
using
a
RTU
trigger
pump
sprayer).
DWLOC
calculations
are
for
adults
only
since
the
residential
exposure
is
to
applicators.
Surface
and
ground
water
concentrations
estimated
using
conservative
modeling
are
less
than
the
short­
term
DWLOCs
for
oxyfluorfen.
Consequently,
there
are
no
short­
term
aggregate
risk
concerns
from
food,
drinking
water
and
residential
exposures.
Cancer
Aggregate
Risk
­
The
chronic
food
cancer
risk
estimate
of
3.8
x
10
­7
,
combined
with
the
highest
residential
cancer
risk
estimate
of
8.7
x
10
­7
,
results
in
a
food
+
residential
cancer
risk
of
1.3
x
10
­6
.
Since
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
is
1.0
x
10
­6
,
cancer
risk
slightly
exceeds
EPA's
level
of
concern
when
considering
both
food
and
residential
exposures.
However,
since
PDP
monitoring
and
field
trial
data
showed
all
residues
on
food
were
non­
detects,
the
food
risk
estimate
is
considered
upper­
bound.
Screening­
level
surface
water
modeling
indicates
that
there
may
be
a
concern
for
oxyfluorfen
in
drinking
water,
but
this
water
modeling
is
also
considered
upper­
bound.

Occupational
and
Residential
Risk
Cancer
risk
to
workers
is
of
greater
concern
than
non­
cancer
risk.
Occupational
cancer
risks,
when
calculated
without
personal
protective
equipment
or
engineering
controls,
can
range
up
to
1
x
10
­3
.
With
the
protection
specified
on
several
current
labels,
most
scenarios
result
in
cancer
risks
in
the
10
­5
range.
The
residential
assessment
for
oxyfluorfen
only
addresses
the
applicator,
because
negligible
postapplication
exposure
is
anticipated
from
spot
treatment
of
weeds.
None
of
the
residential
applicator
scenarios
are
of
concern
because
the
short­
term
MOEs
are
greater
than
100
and
the
cancer
risks
are
less
than
1.0
x
10
­6
.

Environmental
Assessment
Oxyfluorfen
has
the
potential
to
affect
terrestrial
plants
and
aquatic
ecological
systems
at
all
levels,
as
it
is
toxic
to
plants,
invertebrates,
and
fish,
and
has
been
shown
to
drift
from
application
sites
to
nearby
areas.
Birds
and
mammals
may
also
experience
subchronic
and
chronic
effects
from
oxyfluorfen
use.
4
Environmental
Fate
Oxyfluorfen
is
persistent
and
relatively
immobile
in
soil.
The
most
likely
route
of
dissipation
is
soil
binding.
Laboratory
data
suggest
that
once
the
soilbound
oxyfluorfen
reaches
deep
or
turbid
surface
water
it
will
persist
since
it
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
and
since
light
penetration
would
be
limited;
however,
it
may
degrade
by
photolysis
in
clear,
shallow
water.
Oxyfluorfen
can
contaminate
surface
water
through
spray
drift
and
runoff;
however,
it
is
unlikely
to
contaminate
ground
water
because
it
is
relatively
immobile
in
the
soil
column;
therefore,
the
likelihood
of
leaching
is
small.
No
degradates
were
identified,
and
therefore,
only
the
parent,
oxyfluorfen,
is
of
toxicological
concern
for
risk
assessment.
Ecological
Effects
For
acute
exposures,
oxyfluorfen
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
birds,
mammals,
and
bees,
and
the
Agency
has
no
risk
concerns.
However,
subchronic
and
chronic
risks
to
terrestrial
birds
and
mammals
do
present
a
concern.
These
toxic
effects
may
be
manifested
as
reproductive,
developmental,
and
hemolytic
consequences.
Assuming
maximum
residue
values,
the
chronic
level
of
concern
is
exceeded
when
oxyfluorfen
is
applied
to
crops
at
application
rates
greater
than
or
equal
to
0.25
lbs
ai/
acre/
year
for
birds
and
greater
than
or
equal
to
2.0
lbs
ai/
acre
for
mammals.
In
addition,
the
potential
of
oxyfluorfen
(as
a
lightdependent
peroxidizing
herbicide)
to
be
more
toxic
in
the
presence
of
intense
light
may
lead
to
the
occurrence
of
more
serious
environmental
effects
that
are
not
predicted
by
standard
guideline
toxicity
tests.
Oxyfluorfen
is
highly
toxic
to
very
highly
toxic
to
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates.
However,
concentrations
predicted
by
the
Agency's
surface
water
models
from
normal
use
are
generally
not
high
enough
to
cause
an
acute
concern
for
fish.
Chronic
risk
to
fish
and
acute
and
chronic
risk
to
aquatic
invertebrates
may
occur
from
some
uses
of
oxyfluorfen.
There
are
acute
concerns
for
freshwater
algal
plants
for
all
uses
of
oxyfluorfen.
The
risk
to
vascular
aquatic
plants
cannot
be
assessed
due
to
lack
of
data.
Oxyfluorfen
is
expected
and
has
been
shown
to
negatively
impact
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
of
terrestrial
plants.
Non­
target
terrestrial
plants
are
exposed
to
oxyfluorfen
as
a
result
of
spray
drift
and
runoff
and
most
incidents
reported
to
the
Agency
are
related
to
plants
affected
by
spray
drift.
Acute
levels
of
concern
are
exceeded
for
all
uses
of
oxyfluorfen
for
terrestrial
plants
and
semiaquatic
plants
adjacent
to
treated
areas.

Ecological
Effects
Risk
Assessment
Generally,
the
Agency
believes
that
oxyfluorfen
presents
the
greatest
risks
to
terrestrial
plants
and
to
aquatic
organisms
through
spray
drift
of
liquid
formulations
and
runoff
of
dissolved
and
soil
entrained
oxyfluorfen.
5
Risk
Mitigation
To
lessen
the
risks
of
cancer
from
drinking
water,
occupational
risks,
and
risks
to
wildlife
posed
by
oxyfluorfen,
EPA
is
requiring
the
following
risk
mitigation
measures:

N
Lower
the
maximum
rate
to
1.5
lbs
ai/
broadcast
acre/
season
for
food
crops
and
2
lbs
ai/
acre/
season
for
conifer
seedlings.

N
For
liquid
formulations
and
granulars
applied
to
field­
grown
ornamentals,
registrants
have
agreed
to
lower
this
seasonal
maximum
rate
to
4.5
lbs
ai/
A
(1.5
lbs
ai/
A/
application).
For
granulars
applied
to
containerized
ornamentals,
the
rate
will
be
lowered
to
a
seasonal
maximum
of
6
lbs
ai/
A
(2
lbs
ai/
A/
application).

N
Label
language
will
be
added
to
require
25
foot,
no­
spray,
vegetative
buffer
zones
around
surface
water
bodies
such
as
rivers,
lakes,
streams,
and
ponds.

N
To
minimize
oxyfluorfen
drift,
only
use
of
a
coarse,
very
coarse,
or
extremely
coarse
spray
will
be
allowed
according
to
the
ASAE
572
definitions
for
standard
nozzles,
or
a
volume
median
diameter
(VMD)
of
385
microns
or
larger
for
spinning
atomizer
nozzles.

N
The
maximum
application
rate
on
residential
products
will
be
reduced
to
3
lbs
ai/
A
or
less
unless
efficacy
data
support
the
need
for
higher
rates.

N
Closed
mixing/
loading
systems
to
support
applications
to
corn,
cotton,
soybeans,
and
aerial
applications
to
fallow
land.

N
Enclosed
cab
for
applications
to
corn,
and
closed
cockpit
aircraft
for
applications
to
fallow
land.

N
Double
layer
Personal
Protective
Equipment
(PPE)
for
all
other
mixers,
loaders,
and
applicators.

Additional
Data
Required
EPA
is
requiring
the
following
additional
generic
studies
for
oxyfluorfen
to
confirm
its
regulatory
assessments
and
conclusions:
21­
day
Dermal
Toxicity
Study
in
Rats;
Crop
Field
Trials
in
Bananas
and
Cacao
Beans;
Estuarine/
marine
Fish
Early­
life
Stage;
Whole
Sediment
Invertebrate
Freshwater
Acute
Toxicity;
Whole
Sediment
Invertebrate
Estuarine/
marine
Acute
Toxicity;
Seed
Germination/
Seedling
Emergence;
Vegetative
Vigor;
Aquatic
Plant
Growth;
Dislodgeable
Foliar
Residue
Study
in
Conifers;
Fish
Phototoxicity
Study;
and
Edge
of
Field
Water
and
Sediment
Monitoring.

Product
Labeling
Changes
Required
All
oxyfluorfen
end­
use
products
must
comply
with
EPA's
current
pesticide
product
labeling
requirements.
For
a
comprehensive
list
of
labeling
requirements,
please
see
the
oxyfluorfen
RED
document.
The
labeling
requirements
table
is
available
as
a
separate
document.

Regulatory
Conclusion
The
use
of
currently
registered
products
containing
oxyfluorfen
in
accordance
with
approved
labeling
will
not
pose
unreasonable
risks
or
adverse
effects
to
humans
or
the
environment.
Therefore,
all
uses
of
these
products
are
eligible
for
reregistration.
6
All
products
will
be
reregistered
once
the
required
product­
specific
data,
revised
Confidential
Statements
of
Formula,
and
revised
labeling
are
received
and
accepted
by
EPA.

For
More
Information
EPA
is
requesting
public
comments
on
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(RED)
document
for
oxyfluorfen
during
a
60­
day
time
period,
as
announced
in
a
Notice
of
Availability
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
To
obtain
a
copy
of
the
RED
document
or
to
submit
written
comments,
please
contact
the
Pesticide
Docket,
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch,
Information
Resources
and
Services
Division
(7502C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(OPP),
US
EPA,
Washington,
DC
20460,
telephone
703­
305­
5805.
Electronic
copies
of
the
RED
and
this
fact
sheet
are
available
on
the
Internet.
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
REDs.
Printed
copies
of
the
RED
and
fact
sheet
can
be
obtained
from
EPA's
National
Service
Center
for
Environmental
Publications
(EPA/
NSCEP),
PO
Box
42419,
Cincinnati,
OH
45242­
2419,
telephone
1­
800­
490­
9198;
fax
513­
489­
8695.
Following
the
comment
period,
the
oxyfluorfen
RED
document
also
will
be
available
from
the
National
Technical
Information
Service
(NTIS),
5285
Port
Royal
Road,
Springfield,
VA
22161,
telephone
1­
800­
553­
6847,
or
703­
605­
6000.
For
more
information
about
EPA's
pesticide
reregistration
program,
the
oxyfluorfen
RED,
or
reregistration
of
individual
products
containing
oxyfluorfen,
please
contact
the
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
(7508C),
OPP,
US
EPA,
Washington,
DC
20460,
telephone
703­
308­
8000.
For
information
about
the
health
effects
of
pesticides,
or
for
assistance
in
recognizing
and
managing
pesticide
poisoning
symptoms,
please
contact
the
National
Pesticide
Information
Center
(NPIC).
Call
toll­
free
1­
800­
858­
7378,
from
6:
30
am
to
4:
30
pm
Pacific
Time,
or
9:
30
am
to
7:
30
pm
Eastern
Standard
Time,
seven
days
a
week.
Their
internet
address
is
http://
npic.
orst.
edu.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
CERTIFIED
MAIL
Dear
Registrant:

This
is
to
inform
you
that
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(hereafter
referred
to
as
EPA
or
the
Agency)
has
completed
its
review
of
the
available
data
and
public
comments
received
related
to
the
preliminary
risk
assessment
for
the
herbicide
oxyfluorfen.
The
Agency
has
revised
the
human
health
and
environmental
effects
risk
assessments
based
on
the
comments
received
during
the
public
comment
period
and
additional
data
received
from
the
registrant.
Based
on
the
EPA's
revised
risk
assessments
for
oxyfluorfen,
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
oxyfluorfen.
EPA
is
now
publishing
its
reregistration
eligibility,
risk
management,
and
tolerance
reassessment
decisions
for
the
current
uses
of
oxyfluorfen,
and
its
associated
human
health
and
environmental
risks.
The
Agency's
decision
on
the
individual
chemical
oxyfluorfen
can
be
found
in
the
attached
document
entitled,
"Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
for
Oxyfluorfen"
which
was
approved
on
August
2,
2002.

A
Notice
of
Availability
for
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
for
Oxyfluorfen
is
being
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
To
obtain
copies
of
the
RED
document,
please
contact
the
Pesticide
Docket,
Public
Response
and
Program
Resources
Branch,
Field
Operations
Division
(7506C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(OPP),
USEPA,
Washington,
DC
20460,
telephone
(703)
305­
5805.
Electronic
copies
of
the
RED
and
all
supporting
documents
are
available
on
the
Internet.
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/
reregistration/
status.
htm.

As
part
of
the
Agency's
effort
to
involve
the
public
in
the
implementation
of
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
of
1996
(FQPA),
the
Agency
is
undertaking
a
special
effort
to
maintain
open
public
dockets
and
to
engage
the
public
in
the
reregistration
and
tolerance
reassessment
processes.
During
the
public
comment
period,
comments
on
the
risk
assessment
were
submitted
by
Dow
AgroSciences,
the
technical
registrant.
EPA
also
received
letters
from
approximately
65
growers,
extension
agents,
and
commodity
organizations
testifying
to
the
importance
of
oxyfluorfen
to
their
weed
control
programs
for
commodities
such
as
forest
seedlings,
wine
grapes,
artichokes,
raspberries,
blackberries,
strawberries,
garbanzo
beans,
onions,
garlic,
and
almonds.
The
Confederated
Tribes
of
the
Warm
Springs
Reservation
of
Oregon
raised
concern
that
the
dietary
risk
assessment
for
oxyfluorfen
is
not
protective,
because
estimated
fish
consumption
was
based
on
an
amount
representative
of
the
general
public
rather
than
subpopulations
which
may
consume
higher
levels
of
fish.
A
close­
out
conference
call
with
interested
stakeholders
was
conducted
on
July
25,
2002
to
discuss
the
risk
management
decisions
and
resultant
changes
to
the
oxyfluorfen
labels.
Please
note
that
the
oxyfluorfen
risk
assessment
and
the
attached
RED
concern
only
this
particular
pesticide.
The
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(FQPA)
requires
that,
when
considering
whether
to
establish,
modify,
or
revoke
a
tolerance,
the
Agency
consider
"available
information"
concerning
the
cumulative
effects
of
a
particular
pesticide's
residues
and
"other
substances
that
have
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity."
Oxyfluorfen
is
a
diphenyl
ether
herbicide
structurally
related
to
lactofen,
fomesafen
and
acifluorfen.
At
this
time,
the
Agency
has
not
made
a
decision
as
to
whether
oxyfluorfen
shares
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
these
other
diphenyl
ethers
or
any
other
pesticide.
A
careful
evaluation
of
all
the
available
data
is
still
needed,
as
well
as
peer
review
by
the
FIFRA
Science
Advisory
Panel,
before
a
formal
decision
is
made.
Therefore,
for
the
purposes
of
this
risk
assessment,
the
Agency
has
assumed
that
oxyfluorfen
does
not
share
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
other
pesticides.
After
a
decision
is
made
regarding
common
mechanism
of
toxicity,
and
if
the
Agency
has
determined
that
a
cumulative
assessment
is
necessary,
the
Agency
will
address
any
outstanding
risk
concerns
at
that
time.

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

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

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

If
you
have
questions
on
this
document
or
the
proposed
label
changes,
please
contact
the
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
representative,
John
Leahy
(703)
305­
6703.
For
questions
about
product
reregistration
and/
or
the
Product
DCI
that
accompanies
this
document,
please
contact
Bonnie
Adler
at
(703)
308­
8523.

Lois
A.
Rossi,
Director
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
Attachment
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(RED)
for
Oxyfluorfen
Case
No.
2490
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Executive
Summary
...........................................................
v
I.
Introduction
............................................................
1
II.
Chemical
Overview
......................................................
2
A.
Regulatory
History
..................................................
2
B.
Chemical
Identification
..............................................
3
C.
Use
Profile
.........................................................
3
D.
Estimated
Usage
of
Pesticide
..........................................
5
III.
Summary
of
Oxyfluorfen
Risk
Assessment
...................................
6
A.
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
......................................
7
1.
Dietary
Risk
from
Food
.........................................
7
a.
Toxicity
.................................................
7
b.
FQPA
Safety
Factor
.......................................
9
c.
Population
Adjusted
Dose
(PAD)
............................
9
d.
Endpoints
and
Doses
for
Risk
Assessment
.....................
9
e.
Exposure
Assumptions
....................................
10
f.
Dietary
Risk
from
Food
...................................
11
2.
Dietary
Risk
from
Drinking
Water
..............................
11
a.
Surface
Water
...........................................
12
b.
Ground
Water
...........................................
13
c.
Drinking
Water
Levels
of
Comparison
(DWLOCs)
............
13
(1)
DWLOCs
for
Chronic
(Cancer
and
Non­
cancer)
Exposure
..................................................
13
(2)
Chronic
Dietary
Risk
................................
14
(3)
Cancer
............................................
14
3.
Non­
dietary
Risk
from
Residential
Uses
..........................
15
a.
Exposure
...............................................
15
b.
Residential
Handler
Risk
Estimates
.........................
16
4.
Aggregate
Risk
...............................................
16
a.
Chronic
(Non­
Cancer)
Aggregate
Risk
......................
17
b.
Short­
term
Aggregate
Risk
................................
17
c.
Aggregate
Risk
for
Cancer
................................
17
5.
Occupational
Risk
............................................
18
a.
Toxicity
................................................
19
b.
Handler
Exposure
........................................
19
c.
Handler
(Non­
cancer)
Risk
................................
21
d.
Handler
Cancer
Risk
.....................................
22
(1)
Post­
Application
Occupational
Risk
....................
24
(2)
Data
Sources
.......................................
24
(3)
Assumptions
.......................................
25
e.
Reentry
Worker
(Non­
cancer)
Risk
.........................
25
f.
Reentry
Worker
Cancer
Risk
..............................
25
6.
Human
Incident
Data
..........................................
26
B.
Environmental
Risk
Assessment
......................................
27
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
..............................
27
2.
Ecological
Risk
...............................................
28
3.
Risk
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
..................................
28
a.
Toxicity
(Hazard)
Assessment
..............................
28
b.
Exposure
and
Risk
....................................
29
4.
Uncertainties
in
Terrestrial
Risk
Assessment
......................
31
5.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Animals
.......................................
32
a.
Toxicity
(Hazard)
Assessment
..............................
32
b.
Exposure
and
Risk
.......................................
32
6.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Plants
.........................................
34
a.
Uncertainties
in
the
Aquatic
Assessment
.....................
34
7.
Endangered
Species
...........................................
35
8.
Ecological
Incidents
...........................................
37
IV.
Risk
Management
and
Reregistration
Decision
..............................
37
A.
Determination
of
Reregistration
Eligibility
.............................
37
B.
Public
Comments
and
Responses
.....................................
38
C.
Regulatory
Position
................................................
39
1.
FQPA
Assessment
.............................................
39
a.
"Risk
Cup"
Determination
................................
39
b.
Determination
of
Safety
for
U.
S.
Population
..................
40
c.
Determination
of
Safety
for
Infants
and
Children
.............
40
d.
Endocrine
Disruptor
Effects
...............................
41
e.
Cumulative
Risks
........................................
41
f.
Tolerances
Summary
.....................................
42
D.
Regulatory
Rationale
...............................................
46
1.
Human
Health
Risk
Management
...............................
46
a.
Dietary
(Food)
Risk
Mitigation
.............................
46
(1)
Chronic
Dietary
(Food)
..............................
46
(2)
Cancer
Dietary
(Food)
...............................
46
(3)
Drinking
Water
.....................................
47
(4)
Aggregate
Risk
Mitigation
(short­
term,
chronic,
and
cancer)
..................................................
49
b.
Occupational
Risk
Mitigation
..............................
50
(1)
Handler
Risks
......................................
50
(2)
Post­
application
Exposure
............................
51
2.
Environmental
Risk
Mitigation
.................................
53
a.
Risk
Characterization
....................................
53
(1)
Aquatic
Organisms
..................................
53
(2)
Terrestrial
Organisms
...............................
53
(3)
Endangered
Species
.................................
53
(4)
Mitigation
Measures
.................................
54
3.
Other
Label
Statements
........................................
54
a.
Endangered
Species
Statement
.............................
54
b.
Spray
Drift
Management
..................................
55
V.
What
Registrants
Need
to
Do
.............................................
56
A.
Manufacturing
Use
Products
........................................
57
1.
Additional
Generic
Data
Requirements
...........................
57
2.
Labeling
for
Manufacturing
Use
Products
........................
58
B.
End­
Use
Products
..................................................
58
1.
Additional
Product­
Specific
Data
Requirements
...................
58
2.
Labeling
for
End­
Use
Products
..................................
59
C.
Existing
Stocks
....................................................
59
VI.
APPENDICES
...........................................................
66
Appendix
A:
Use
Patterns
Eligible
for
Reregistration
......................
67
Appendix
B:
Data
Supporting
the
Reregistration
of
Oxyfluorfen
............
89
Appendix
C:
Technical
Support
Documents
.............................
95
Appendix
D.
Citations
Considered
to
be
Part
of
the
Database
...............
96
Appendix
E.
Generic
Data
Call­
In
....................................
127
Appendix
F.
Product
Specific
Data
Call­
In
.............................
129
Appendix
G:
EPA'S
Batching
of
Oxyfluorfen
Products
for
Meeting
Acute
Toxicity
Data
Requirements
for
Reregistration
..............
131
Appendix
H.
List
of
Registrants
Sent
This
Data
Call­
In
...................
134
Appendix
I.
List
of
Available
Related
Documents
and
Electronically
Available
Forms
.................................................
136
i
Oxyfluorfen
Team
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs:

Health
Effects
Risk
Assessment
Timothy
Dole
Kit
Farwell
Felecia
Fort
Jose
Morales
Environmental
Fate
Risk
Assessment
Amer
Al­
Mudallal
Norman
Birchfield
Christine
Hartless
Use
and
Usage
Analysis
Jihad
Alsadek
Neil
Anderson
Registration
Support
Eugene
Wilson
Risk
Management
Deanna
Scher
John
Leahy
ii
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
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.
LEL
Lowest
Effect
Level
LOC
Level
of
Concern
iii
LOD
Limit
of
Detection
LOAEL
Lowest
Observed
Adverse
Effect
Level
MATC
Maximum
Acceptable
Toxicant
Concentration
MCLG
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Goal
(MCLG)
The
MCLG
is
used
by
the
Agency
to
regulate
contaminants
in
drinking
water
under
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act.
mg/
kg/
day
Milligram
Per
Kilogram
Per
Day
mg/
L
Milligrams
Per
Liter
MOE
Margin
of
Exposure
MP
Manufacturing­
Use
Product
MPI
Maximum
Permissible
Intake
MRID
Master
Record
Identification
(number).
EPA's
system
of
recording
and
tracking
studies
submitted.
NA
Not
Applicable
N/
A
Not
Applicable
NAWQA
USGS
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
NOEC
No
Observable
Effect
Concentration
NOEL
No
Observed
Effect
Level
NOAEL
No
Observed
Adverse
Effect
Level
NPDES
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
NR
Not
Required
OP
Organophosphate
OPP
EPA
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
OPPTS
EPA
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticides
and
Toxic
Substances
Pa
pascal,
the
pressure
exerted
by
a
force
of
one
newton
acting
on
an
area
of
one
square
meter.
PAD
Population
Adjusted
Dose
PADI
Provisional
Acceptable
Daily
Intake
PAG
Pesticide
Assessment
Guideline
PAM
Pesticide
Analytical
Method
PCA
Percent
Crop
Area
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
RED
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
REI
Restricted
Entry
Interval
RfD
Reference
Dose
RQ
Risk
Quotient
RS
Registration
Standard
RUP
Restricted
Use
Pesticide
SAP
Science
Advisory
Panel
SCI­
GROW
Tier
I
Ground
Water
Computer
Model
SF
Safety
Factor
SLC
Single
Layer
Clothing
SLN
Special
Local
Need
(Registrations
Under
Section
24(
c)
of
FIFRA)
TC
Toxic
Concentration.
The
concentration
at
which
a
substance
produces
a
toxic
effect.
TD
Toxic
Dose.
The
dose
at
which
a
substance
produces
a
toxic
effect.
TEP
Typical
End­
Use
Product
iv
TGAI
Technical
Grade
Active
Ingredient
TLC
Thin
Layer
Chromatography
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
v
Executive
Summary
EPA
has
completed
its
review
of
public
comments
on
the
preliminary
risk
assessments
and
is
issuing
its
risk
management
decision
for
oxyfluorfen.
The
revised
risk
assessments
are
based
on
review
of
the
required
target
data
base
supporting
the
use
patterns
of
currently
registered
products
and
additional
information
received.
After
considering
the
risks
identified
in
the
revised
risk
assessment
and
comments
and
mitigation
suggestions
from
interested
parties,
EPA
developed
its
risk
management
decision
for
uses
of
oxyfluorfen
that
pose
risks
of
concern.
This
decision
is
discussed
fully
in
this
document.

Oxyfluorfen
is
a
broad
spectrum
pre­
and
postemergent
herbicide
used
on
a
variety
of
tree
and
vine
crops,
selected
annual
and
perennial
crops,
as
well
as
fallow
bed
and
non­
crop
uses
(e.
g.
roadsides),
to
control
annual
broadleaf
and
grassy
weeds.
Residential
homeowners
may
use
oxyfluorfen
products
for
spot
treatment
of
weeds.
It
was
first
registered
in
1979.
Approximately
761,000
pounds
of
oxyfluorfen
active
ingredient
are
applied
annually.
Sites
on
which
oxyfluorfen
has
the
highest
percent
of
crop
treated
include
wine
grapes,
almonds,
cotton,
walnuts,
and
table
grapes.

The
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(FQPA)
requires
that,
when
considering
whether
to
establish,
modify,
or
revoke
a
tolerance,
the
Agency
consider
"available
information"
concerning
the
cumulative
effects
of
a
particular
pesticide's
residues
and
"other
substances
that
have
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity."
Oxyfluorfen
is
structurally
related
to
other
diphenyl
ethers
including
lactofen,
acifluorfen,
and
fomesafen.
The
Agency
has
not
determined
whether
or
not
oxyfluorfen
shares
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
these
pesticides
or
any
other
pesticide.
As
a
result,
the
Agency
has
not
determined
if
it
would
be
appropriate
to
include
them
in
a
cumulative
risk
assessment.
After
a
decision
is
made
regarding
common
mechanism
of
toxicity,
and
if
the
Agency
has
determined
that
a
cumulative
assessment
is
necessary,
the
Agency
will
address
any
outstanding
concerns
at
that
time.

Overall
Risk
Summary
Acute
risks
were
not
evaluated
for
oxyfluorfen
because
adverse
effects
reflecting
a
single
dose
were
not
identified
in
toxicological
studies
at
the
highest
dose
tested.
EPA's
human
health
risk
assessment
for
oxyfluorfen
indicates
that
chronic
food
risk
is
not
of
concern
(<
1%
of
cPAD).
Oxyfluorfen
is
classified
in
group
C
(possible
human
carcinogen)
based
on
combined
hepatocellular
adenomas/
carcinomas
in
the
mouse
carcinogenicity
study.
The
cancer
dietary
risk
from
food
alone
is
3.8
x
10
­7
for
the
general
U.
S.
population,
and
is
not
a
concern
for
the
Agency
(<
1
x
10
­6
).
The
drinking
water
risk
estimates
for
chronic
(non­
cancer)
exposures
are
below
EPA's
level
of
concern
for
ground
or
surface
waters.
However,
cancer
risk
estimates
from
modeling
for
surface
water
sources
of
drinking
water
indicate
a
concern
based
on
conservative
assumptions
for
model
inputs.
Residential
risks
are
below
EPA's
level
of
concern,
however,
there
is
a
concern
for
aggregate
risk
when
considering
exposures
from
food,
drinking
water,
and
residential
uses.
There
are
cancer
risk
concerns
for
workers
who
mix,
load,
and
apply
oxyfluorfen
to
agricultural
sites,
as
well
as
workers
who
re­
enter
treated
sites.
Finally,
vi
EPA
has
identified
risks
of
concern
to
plant
and
aquatic
species
and
chronic
concerns
to
birds
and
mammals.

To
mitigate
risks
of
concern
posed
by
the
uses
of
oxyfluorfen,
EPA
considered
the
comments
and
mitigation
ideas
from
interested
parties,
and
has
decided
on
a
number
of
label
amendments
to
address
the
drinking
water,
aggregate,
worker,
and
ecological
concerns.
Results
of
the
risk
assessments,
and
required
label
amendments
to
mitigate
those
risks,
are
presented
in
this
RED.

Dietary
Risk
–
Food
No
adverse
effects
reflecting
a
single
dose
were
identified
in
toxicological
studies;
therefore,
no
acute
endpoint
was
selected
and
an
acute
dietary
risk
assessment
was
not
conducted.
EPA's
dietary
risk
analysis
for
oxyfluorfen
evaluated
chronic
(non­
cancer)
and
cancer
risk.
For
these
chronic
food
risk
assessments,
anticipated
residues
were
calculated
using
either
USDA
Pesticide
Data
Program
(PDP)
monitoring
data
or
field
trial
data.
Both
data
sets
are
consistent
in
that
they
show
all
non­
detectable
residues.

Based
on
this
analysis,
the
percentage
of
cPAD
utilized
is
expected
to
be
less
than
1
percent
for
the
U.
S.
population
and
all
subpopulations.
Therefore,
the
chronic
(non­
cancer)
dietary
risk
estimate
from
food
alone
is
not
of
concern.
Cancer
risk
from
food
is
calculated
by
using
a
linear
low­
dose
risk
model
("
Q1*")
to
determine
the
lifetime
cancer
risk
estimate.
The
Agency
generally
considers
risks
greater
than
1
x
10
­6
(1
in
1
million)
to
exceed
its
level
of
concern
for
cancer
dietary
exposure.
Using
the
Q1*
of
7.32
x
10
­2
results
in
a
maximum
estimated
lifetime
cancer
risk
to
the
U.
S.
general
population
of
3.8
x
10
­7
.
Therefore,
the
cancer
risk
from
food
alone
is
also
not
of
concern.

Dietary
Risk
–
Drinking
Water
Drinking
water
exposure
to
pesticides
can
occur
through
groundwater
and
surface
water
contamination.
For
oxyfluorfen,
EPA
considered
chronic
(lifetime)
drinking
water
risk
and
used
modeling
to
estimate
those
risks.
To
determine
the
maximum
allowable
contribution
from
water
allowed
in
the
diet,
EPA
first
looks
at
how
much
of
the
overall
allowable
risk
is
contributed
by
food
and
then
determines
a
"drinking
water
level
of
comparison"
(DWLOC)
to
determine
whether
modeled
or
monitoring
estimated
environmental
concentration
(EEC)
levels
exceed
this
level.
EECs
that
are
above
the
corresponding
DWLOC
exceed
the
Agency's
level
of
concern.

Since
the
chronic
EECs
for
surface
water
and
groundwater
are
less
than
the
lowest
DWLOC,
chronic
non­
cancer
dietary
risk
from
food
and
drinking
water
is
not
of
concern.
However,
modeling
does
indicate
a
possible
concern
for
cancer
risk,
as
the
EEC
in
surface
water
exceeds
the
cancer
DWLOC.
To
address
surface
water
concerns,
the
technical
registrants
have
agreed
to
implement
measures
to
reduce
the
potential
for
oxyfluorfen
to
reach
surface
water,
including
a
reduction
in
maximum
seasonal
rates
and
implementation
of
vegetative
buffers
between
treated
areas
and
natural
water
bodies.
Actual
drinking
water
exposure
to
oxyfluorfen
vii
from
surface
water
sources
is
expected
to
be
less
than
the
DWLOCs
and
the
registrants
have
also
agreed
to
conduct
an
edge
of
field
monitoring
study
to
confirm
that
drinking
water
exposure
will
not
exceed
the
level
of
concern.

Residential
Risk
Oxyfluorfen
is
used
in
the
residential
environment
by
homeowners
to
kill
weeds
on
patios,
driveways
and
similar
surfaces.
Oxyfluorfen
homeowner
products
are
intended
solely
for
spot
treatment;
they
are
not
used
for
broadcast
treatment
of
lawns
because
they
kill
grass.
The
residential
assessment
for
oxyfluorfen
only
addresses
the
applicator,
because
negligible
postapplication
exposure
is
anticipated
from
spot
treatment
of
weeds.
None
of
the
residential
applicator
scenarios
are
of
concern
because
the
short­
term
MOEs
are
greater
than
100
and
the
cancer
risks
are
less
than
1.0
x
10
­6
.

Aggregate
Risk
An
aggregate
risk
assessment
looks
at
the
combined
risk
from
dietary
exposure
(food
and
drinking
water
pathways)
as
well
as
exposures
from
non­
occupational
sources
(e.
g.,
residential
uses).
Generally,
all
risks
from
these
exposures
must
have
MOEs
greater
than
100
to
not
be
of
concern
to
the
Agency.

Chronic
(Non­
cancer)
Aggregate
Risk.
The
chronic
(non­
cancer)
aggregate
risk
assessment
addresses
exposure
to
oxyfluorfen
residues
in
food
and
water
only,
as
there
are
no
chronic
residential
scenarios
identified.
As
discussed
previously,
comparison
of
the
chronic
DWLOCs
with
the
environmental
concentrations
of
oxyfluorfen
shows
that
estimated
surface
and
groundwater
concentrations
are
substantially
less
than
the
DWLOCs
for
all
populations.
Consequently,
the
Agency
concludes
that
residues
of
oxyfluorfen
in
food
and
drinking
water
do
not
result
in
a
chronic
aggregate
risk
of
concern.

Short­
term
Aggregate
Risk.
Short­
term
DWLOCs
were
calculated
based
upon
average
food
residues,
and
the
residential
handler
exposure
which
resulted
in
the
greatest
risk
(spot
treatment
of
weeds
using
a
RTU
trigger
pump
sprayer).
DWLOC
calculations
are
for
adults
only
since
the
residential
exposure
is
to
applicators.
Surface
and
ground
water
concentrations
estimated
using
conservative
modeling
are
less
than
the
short­
term
DWLOCs
for
oxyfluorfen.
Consequently,
there
is
no
short­
term
aggregate
risk
concerns
from
food,
drinking
water
and
residential
exposures.

Cancer
Aggregate
Risk.
The
chronic
food
cancer
risk
estimate
of
3.8
x
10
­7
,
combined
with
the
highest
residential
cancer
risk
estimate
of
8.7
x
10
­7
,
results
in
a
food
+
residential
cancer
risk
of
1.3
x
10
­6
.
Since
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
is
1.0
x
10
­6
,
cancer
risk
slightly
exceeds
EPA's
level
of
concern
when
considering
both
food
and
residential
exposures.
However,
since
PDP
monitoring
and
field
trial
data
showed
all
residues
on
food
were
non­
detects,
the
food
risk
estimate
is
considered
upper­
bound.
Screening­
level
surface
water
modeling
indicates
that
there
viii
may
be
a
concern
for
oxyfluorfen
in
drinking
water,
but
this
water
modeling
is
also
considered
upper­
bound.

Occupational
Risk
Cancer
risk
to
workers
is
of
greater
concern
than
non­
cancer
risk.
Occupational
cancer
risks,
when
calculated
without
personal
protective
equipment
or
engineering
controls,
can
range
up
to
1
x
10
­3
.
With
the
protection
specified
on
several
current
labels,
most
scenarios
result
in
cancer
risks
in
the
10
­5
range.
EPA
believes
these
risks
can
be
mitigated
to
an
acceptable
level
with
the
following
label
restrictions:
(1)
requiring
additional
personal
protective
equipment
or
engineering
controls
for
certain
scenarios,
and
(2)
increasing
restricted
entry
intervals
for
certain
uses.

Ecological
Risk
Ecological
risks
are
of
concern
to
the
Agency.
Based
on
toxicity
studies
submitted
by
the
registrant,
oxyfluorfen
has
the
potential
to
result
in
adverse
effects
to
birds,
mammals,
aquatic
organisms
and
plants.
To
address
these
ecological
risks,
the
registrants
have
agreed
to
decrease
seasonal
maximum
rates
for
certain
crops,
add
label
statements
prohibiting
application
of
oxyfluorfen
within
25
feet
of
aquatic
areas,
and
require
coarse
droplet
size
for
all
spray
applications.
The
registrants
will
also
conduct
additional
ecological
effects
and
environmental
fate
studies
to
better
characterize
exposure
to
non­
target
species.

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

The
risk
assessments
for
oxyfluorfen
are
based
on
the
best
scientific
data
currently
available
to
the
Agency
and
are
adequate
for
regulatory
decision
making.
Registrants
have
committed
to
provide
additional
data
that
may
remove
some
of
the
uncertainties
associated
with
exposures
and
risks
posed
by
oxyfluorfen,
including
studies
to
define
the
cancer
mechanism
and
efficacy
studies
to
determine
an
appropriate
rate
for
residential
uses.
If
data
are
provided
which
enable
EPA
to
refine
the
exposure
or
risk
conclusions
presented
in
this
document,
EPA
will
evaluate
the
risk
mitigation
measures
identified
above,
and
if
appropriate,
will
amend
this
RED
to
reflect
any
new
risk
conclusions.

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

On
August
3,
1996,
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
of
1996
(FQPA)
was
signed
into
law.
This
Act
amends
FIFRA
to
require
tolerance
reassessment
during
reregistration.
It
also
requires
that
by
2006,
EPA
must
review
all
tolerances
in
effect
on
the
day
before
the
date
of
the
enactment
of
the
FQPA,
which
was
August
3,
1996.
FQPA
also
amends
the
FFDCA
to
require
a
safety
finding
in
tolerance
reassessment
based
on
factors
including
an
assessment
of
cumulative
effects
of
chemicals
with
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity.

Oxyfluorfen
is
a
diphenyl
ether
herbicide
structurally
related
to
lactofen,
fomesafen
and
acifluorfen.
At
this
time,
the
Agency
has
not
made
a
decision
as
to
whether
oxyfluorfen
shares
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
these
other
diphenyl
ethers
or
any
other
pesticide.
A
careful
evaluation
of
all
the
available
data
is
still
needed,
as
well
as
peer
review
by
the
FIFRA
Science
Advisory
Panel,
before
a
formal
decision
is
made.
Therefore,
for
the
purposes
of
this
risk
assessment,
the
Agency
has
assumed
that
oxyfluorfen
does
not
share
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
other
pesticides.
After
a
decision
is
made
regarding
common
mechanism
of
toxicity,
and
if
the
Agency
has
determined
that
a
cumulative
assessment
is
necessary,
the
Agency
will
address
any
outstanding
risk
concerns
at
that
time.

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
probabilistic
analyses
in
dietary
exposure
assessments
°
How
to
interpret
"no
detectable
residues"
in
dietary
exposure
assessments
°
Refining
dietary
(food)
exposure
estimates
°
Refining
dietary
(drinking
water)
exposure
estimates
°
Assessing
residential
exposure
2
°
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.

This
document
consists
of
six
sections.
Section
I
contains
the
regulatory
framework
for
reregistration/
tolerance
reassessment.
Section
II
provides
a
profile
of
the
use
and
usage
of
the
chemical.
Section
III
gives
an
overview
of
the
revised
human
health
and
environmental
effects
risk
assessments
resulting
from
public
comments
and
other
information.
Section
IV
presents
the
Agency's
reregistration
eligibility
and
risk
management
decisions.
Section
V
summarizes
required
label
changes
based
on
the
risk
mitigation
measures
outlined
in
Section
IV.
Section
VI
provides
information
on
how
to
access
related
documents.
Finally,
the
Appendices
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,
and
in
the
Public
Docket.

II.
Chemical
Overview
A.
Regulatory
History
Oxyfluorfen
was
first
registered
in
the
United
States
in
1979
to
control
pre­
emergent
and
post­
emergent
broadleaf
and
grassy
weeds
in
the
culture
of
a
variety
of
field,
fruit,
and
vegetable
crops,
ornamentals,
as
well
as
non­
crop
sites.
It
is
manufactured
by
Dow
AgroSciences
and
Makhteshim­
Agan
under
the
trade
names
Goal
and
Galigan.
Data
call­
ins
were
issued
in
1991,
1993,
and
1995.

In
an
effort
to
promote
transparency
of
the
reregistration
process
and
public
understanding
of
regulatory
decisions,
the
Agency,
in
cooperation
with
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
(USDA)
modified
the
reregistration
and
tolerance
reassessment
process
in
1998.
This
modified
process
provides
opportunities
for
stakeholders
to
ask
questions
about
and
provide
input
to
the
risk
assessment
and
risk
mitigation
strategies,
via
conference
calls
and
other
formats.
Consistent
with
this
process,
the
January
2002
risk
assessments
were
made
publicly
available
for
comment
and
a
close­
out
conference
call
was
conducted
on
July
25,
2002
to
discuss
the
risk
management
decisions
and
resultant
changes
to
the
oxyfluorfen
labels.
3
O
Cl
F
3
C
NO
2
O
CH
3
B.
Chemical
Identification
°
Common
Name:
Oxyfluorfen
°
Chemical
Name:
2­
chloro­
1­(
3­
ethoxy­
4­
nitrophenoxy)­
4­
(trifluoromethyl)
benzene
°
Chemical
family:
Diphenyl
ether
herbicide
°
Case
number:
2490
°
CAS
registry
number:
42874­
03­
3
°
OPP
chemical
code:
111601
°
Empirical
formula:
C15H11ClF3NO4
°
Molecular
weight:
361.72
g/
mole
°
Trade
and
other
names:
Goal,
Galigan
°
Basic
manufacturer:
Dow
AgroSciences
Oxyfluorfen
is
an
orange
to
deep
red
brown
crystalline
solid
with
a
melting
point
of
65­
84
°C,
density
of
1.49
g/
mL,
octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
of
>20,
and
vapor
pressure
of
2.5
x
10
­7
Torr
at
25°
C.
Oxyfluorfen
is
practically
insoluble
in
water
(0.1
ppm),
but
is
readily
soluble
in
most
organic
solvents.

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

Type
of
Pesticide:
Contact
herbicide
used
for
pre­
or
post­
emergence
control
of
monocotyledenous
and
broad­
leaved
weeds.
4
Mode
of
Action:
Oxyfluorfen
targets
a
specific
enzyme,
protoporphyrinogen
oxidase,
in
the
chlorophyll
biosynthetic
pathway.
Inhibiting
protoporphyringen
oxidase
in
plants
leads
to
an
accumulation
of
phototoxic
chlorophyll
precursors
which,
in
the
presence
of
light,
produce
activated
oxygen
species
which
rapidly
disrupt
cell
membrane
integrity.
Oxyfluorfen
must
contact
plant
foliage
to
cause
effects.
Plants
that
are
actively
growing
are
most
susceptible
to
oxyfluorfen.
By
forming
a
chemical
barrier
on
the
soil
surface,
oxyfluorfen
affects
plants
at
emergence.
This
barrier
is
formed
with
adequate
spray
coverage
or
irrigation
following
granule
application
(to
partially
dissolve
granules
and
promote
dispersion
of
oxyfluorfen
over
the
soil
surface).
Because
of
the
length
of
oxyfluorfen
soil
half­
life,
this
barrier
may
last
up
to
three
months.
All
plants
attempting
to
emerge
through
the
soil
surface
will
be
affected
through
contact.
Oxyfluorfen
also
affects
plants
through
direct
contact
of
spray
or
granules
to
exposed
tissues.

Summary
of
Use
Sites:

Food:

Treefruit/
Nut/
Vine
Crops:
Almonds,
apple,
apricot,
avocado,
banana,
beechnut,
brazil
nut,
butternut,
cashew,
cherry,
chestnut,
chinquapin,
citrus
(non­
bearing),
crab
apple,
dates,
feijoa,
fig,
filbert,
grapes,
hickory
nut,
kiwi,
loquat,
macadamia
nut,
mango,
mayhaw,
nectarine,
olives,
papaya,
peach,
pear,
pecan,
persimmon,
pistachio,
plum,
pomegranates,
prune,
quince,
and
walnut.

Field
Crops:
Artichokes
(globe),
blackberries,
broccoli,
cabbage,
cacao,
cauliflower,
clary
sage,
clover,
coffee,
corn,
cotton,
garbanzo
beans,
garlic,
guava,
horseradish,
jojoba,
mint,
onions,
raspberries,
soybeans
and
taro.

Fallow
Bed:
Broccoli,
cabbage,
cauliflower,
cotton,
garlic,
grapes,
kiwi,
onion,
potato,
soybeans,
tree
fruit/
nut/
citrus,
dry
beans.

Fallow
Bed
(non­
food,
no
tolerance):
Cantaloupe,
carrot,
cereal
grains,
celery,
conifers,
dry
beans,
peanut
(other
legumes),
pepper,
safflower,
squash,
strawberries,
sugarbeet
(other
root/
tuber
crops),
tomato
(other
fruiting
vegetables),
watermelon
(other
cucurbits).

Non­
food
Uses:
Ornamental
plants/
trees/
shrubs,
conifer
seed
beds
and
transplants,
cut
flowers,
forest
trees,
Christmas
tree
plantations,
rights­
of­
way/
fencerows
and
non­
crop
areas
(nonagricultural
uncultivated
areas,
roadsides,
industrial
areas,
storage
yards,
non­
grazed
meadows
and
farmsteads.)
5
Residential
Uses:
Landscape,
curbs/
gutters,
patios,
brick
walls,
sidewalks/
walkways
and
driveways.

Formulation
Types
Registered:
Oxyfluorfen
is
formulated
for
agricultural
uses
as
an
emulsifiable
liquid
concentrate
containing
0.2
to
4
pounds
active
ingredient
(ai)
per
gallon
and
as
a
granular
product
containing
2%
oxyfluorfen
by
weight.
Oxyfluorfen
is
most
frequently
used
in
a
liquid
formulation
for
food
crops
and
as
a
granular
formulation
for
ornamental
nursery
crops.
There
are
also
several
ready­
to­
use
products
and
a
liquid
concentrate
available
for
residential
use.
Residential
formulations
contain
0.25%
to
0.70%
oxyfluorfen
by
volume
and
are
packaged
in
a
ready­
to­
use
(RTU)
sprinkler
jug,
a
RTU
trigger
sprayer
or
as
a
liquid
to
be
mixed
in
a
sprinkler
can
or
tank
sprayer.

Application
Methods
and
Equipment:
Agricultural
liquid
formulations
of
oxyfluorfen
are
applied
using
large,
small
or
ATV
groundboom
rigs.
Aerial
application
is
used
mainly
for
fallow
fields
and
bulb
vegetables.
Backpack
sprayers
can
be
used
in
Christmas
tree
plantations
and
right­
of­
way
areas.
Chemigation
is
used
for
over
the
top
application
to
bulb
vegetables
and
for
drip
application
to
some
orchard
trees,
however,
chemigation
is
often
prohibited
per
the
product
labels.
Right­
of­
way
sprayers
are
used
in
right­
of­
way
areas.
Granular
oxyfluorfen
is
applied
to
field­
and
container­
grown
ornamentals
with
broadcast
spreaders.

Application
Rates
and
Frequency:
0.25
­
2.0
lbs
ai/
acre/
application.
Typically
one
or
two
applications
are
made
in
the
growing
season
to
prevent
weed
growth
(pre
emergent)
and/
or
to
kill
small
weeds
(post
emergent).
Some
crops
allow
a
greater
number
of
applications/
season,
including
tropical
commodities
(e.
g.
guava,
coffee,
macadamia
nut)
in
Hawaii
and
ornamentals.

Use
Classification:
General
use
pesticide
D.
Estimated
Usage
of
Pesticide
A
full
listing
of
all
uses
of
oxyfluorfen,
with
the
corresponding
use
and
usage
data
for
each
site,
has
been
completed
and
is
in
the
"Quantitative
Use
Analysis"
document,
which
is
available
in
the
public
docket.
The
data,
reported
on
an
aggregate
and
site
(crop)
basis,
reflect
annual
fluctuations
in
use
patterns
as
well
as
the
variability
in
using
data
from
various
information
sources.

Based
on
available
pesticide
survey
usage
information
for
the
years
1990
through
1999,
an
annual
estimate
of
oxyfluorfen's
total
domestic
usage
averaged
approximately
761,000
pounds
a..
i.
for
1,167,000
acres
treated.
Use
of
oxyfluorfen
is
increasing.
From
1992
to
1997
the
use
of
oxyfluorfen
increased
by
54%,
from
an
estimated
458,000
pounds
active
ingredient
in
1992
to
an
estimated
705,000
lbs
active
ingredient
in
1997.
The
largest
markets
in
terms
of
total
pounds
active
ingredient
are
wine
grapes
(32%),
almonds
(23%),
cotton
(7%),
walnuts
(6%),
and
table
grapes
(4%).
The
remaining
usage
is
primarily
on
apples,
corn,
raisin
grapes,
mint,
dry
6
onion,
ornamentals,
peaches,
pistachios,
prunes,
and
artichokes.
Crops
with
a
high
percentage
of
the
total
U.
S.
planted
acres
treated
include
wine
grapes
(54%),
artichokes
(53%),
pistachios
(44%),
almonds
(43%),
table
grapes
and
nectarines
(35%
each),
and
figs
(33%).
Most
of
the
usage
is
in
CA,
OR,
WA
and
the
cotton
growing
regions
along
the
Mississippi
River.

Table
1.
Oxyfluorfen
Estimated
Usage
for
Representative
Sites
1
Crop
Lbs.
Active
Ingredient
Applied
(Wt.
Avg.)
2
Percent
Crop
Treated
(Wt.
Avg.)
Percent
Crop
Treated
(Likely
Maximum)
Almonds
170,000
43%
86%
Artichokes
4,
000
53%
78%
Blackberries
1,000
18%
29%
Corn
7,000
.02%
0.1%
Cotton
54,000
1%
3%
Figs
3,000
33%
69%
Table
grapes
30,000
35%
61%
Wine
grapes
240,000
54%
84%
Kiwifruit
1,000
9%
29%
Mint
10,000
18%
26%
Nectarines
5,000
35%
61%
Olives
5,000
13%
21%
Onions,
dry
15,000
29%
57%
Peaches
24,000
14%
23%
Pistachios
26,000
44%
76%
Plums
6,
000
24%
52%
Pomegranates
1,000
26%
54%
Raspberries
1,000
28%
56%
Walnuts
48,000
28%
42%
Total
non­
agricultural
(pasture,
ornamentals,
right­
of­
way,
rangeland,
etc.)
41,000
N/
A
N/
A
1
Uses
with
more
than
5,000
lbs
applied
(weighted
average)
and/
or
over
20%
crop
treated
were
selected
as
representative
sites.
2
Weighted
Average
is
based
on
data
for
1990
through
1999;
the
most
recent
years
and
more
reliable
data
are
weighted
more
heavily.

III.
Summary
of
Oxyfluorfen
Risk
Assessment
Following
is
a
summary
of
EPA's
revised
human
health
and
ecological
risk
findings
and
conclusions
for
the
herbicide
oxyfluorfen,
as
fully
presented
in
the
documents,
"Oxyfluorfen.
Revised
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment"
dated
April
29,
2002,
and
"Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
Science
Chapter
for
Reregistration
Eligibility
Document
for
Oxyfluorfen,"
dated
May
2,
2002.
The
purpose
of
this
summary
is
to
assist
readers
by
identifying
the
key
7
features
and
findings
of
these
risk
assessments,
so
that
they
may
better
understand
the
conclusions
reached
in
the
assessments.

The
original
risk
assessments
for
oxyfluorfen
were
made
available
in
the
public
docket
and
on
the
Internet
on
January
30,
2002.
The
Agency
reviewed
and
addressed
all
comments
on
the
risk
assessment
documents.
There
is
a
discussion
of
these
comments
in
Section
IV,
later
in
this
document.

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

1.
Dietary
Risk
from
Food
a.
Toxicity
The
Agency
has
reviewed
all
toxicity
studies
submitted
and
has
determined
that
the
toxicity
database
is
sufficiently
complete,
and
that
it
supports
a
reregistration
eligibility
determination
for
all
currently
registered
uses.
The
Agency
Metabolism
Assessment
Review
Committee
has
concluded
that
the
residue
of
concern
in
plants
and
animals
is
oxyfluorfen
per
se
and
not
its
metabolites
or
degradate
products.

It
should
be
noted
that
older
toxicity
studies
with
oxyfluorfen
used
technical
material
of
approximately
71%
or
85%
purity.
The
newer
toxicity
studies
used
a
technical
material
of
approximately
98%
purity,
which
is
the
basis
for
the
current
registrations
of
oxyfluorfen.
The
newer
technical
material
has
similar
impurities
to
the
older
technical
material,
but
in
reduced
concentrations.
Toxicity
was
less
severe
for
studies
with
the
98%
product
than
for
the
71%
product;
however,
one
mammal
developmental
study
with
the
98%
technical
was
submitted
in
which
animals
experienced
the
most
severe
anemia
and
related
hematologic
effects
of
any
of
the
mammalian
studies.
When
there
were
studies
with
both
the
new
and
old
technical
material,
preference
for
an
endpoint
for
risk
assessment
purposes
was
generally
given
to
the
newer,
98%
technical
material
(current
registrations).

Oxyfluorfen
is
of
low
acute
toxicity
and
is
in
toxicity
category
IV
for
acute
oral,
dermal,
and
inhalation
toxicity.
It
is
a
slight
eye
and
dermal
irritant
and
is
not
a
dermal
sensitizer.

Toxicity
was
similar
for
subchronic
and
chronic
rat,
mouse,
and
dog
studies
in
both
sexes.
Oxyfluorfen
inhibits
heme
production,
which
results
in
a
variety
of
anemias.
Heme
is
the
part
of
the
hemoglobin
molecule
that
contains
iron
and
binds
oxygen.
In
the
1997
subchronic
rat
study
which
used
the
current
98%
a.
i.
formulation,
the
red
blood
cell
count
was
normal,
but
the
red
blood
cell
mass
was
decreased
due
to
the
small
size
of
the
red
blood
cells,
presumably
because
of
inhibition
of
the
protoporphyrinogen
oxidase
enzyme.
The
anemia
was
generally
mild
in
other
studies,
with
varying
hematologic
abnormalities
described
in
the
rat,
mouse,
and
dog
studies.
8
Mild
liver
toxicity
was
described
in
the
1997
subchronic
rat
study
which
used
the
current
98%
formulation.
Increased
liver
weight
was
accompanied
by
very
slight
increases
in
liver
enzyme
activities
and
minimal
histopathologic
changes.
Similar
effects
also
occurred
in
the
other
subchronic
and
chronic
rat,
mouse,
and
dog
studies.
There
were
typically
few
histopathological
lesions
seen
in
the
liver,
although
hepatocyte
necrosis
did
occur
in
the
mouse
and
dog
studies.
Renal
toxicity
was
most
severe
in
the
2­
generation
reproduction
study
in
rats,
in
which
pelvic
mineralization
occurred.

Developmental
studies
using
the
current
98%
technical
material
found
no
developmental
toxicity
in
rats
whereas
an
increase
in
late
resorptions
occurred
in
the
rabbit
study
(principally
in
1
litter).
A
developmental
study
in
rats
using
the
older
71%
technical
material
found
increased
early
resorptions,
decreased
fetal
weight,
and
increased
incidence
of
fetal
visceral
and
skeletal
variations
and
malformations.
A
developmental
study
in
rabbits
with
formulation
manufactured
from
the
older
technical
material
found
increased
early
resorptions
and
decreased
litter
size.
A
reproduction
study
with
71%
technical
material
reported
decreased
live
pups
per
litter
and
decreased
pup
body
weights.

The
newer
technical
material
(96­
99%
a.
i.)
was
tested
in
12
genetic
toxicology
studies,
which
included
assessments
of
gene
mutation,
chromosomal
aberrations,
and
DNA
damage.
All
assays
were
negative,
except
for
one
Ames
assay
which
was
positive
only
at
high,
insoluble
levels.
A
subsequent
Ames
assay
with
96%
material
was
negative.
The
older
72%
technical
material
and
a
polar
fraction
were
tested
in
eight
genetic
toxicology
studies.
Both
Ames
assays
and
a
mouse
lymphoma
study
were
positive
for
the
72%
technical
material.
The
polar
fraction
of
the
72%
technical
material
was
also
positive
in
an
Ames
assay.

Oxyfluorfen
is
classified
as
a
category
C,
possible
human
carcinogen
based
upon
combined
hepatocellular
adenomas/
carcinomas
in
the
mouse
carcinogenicity
study.
The
Cancer
Peer
Review
Committee
recommended
a
linear,
low
dose
extrapolation
for
human
risk
assessments,
with
a
Q1*
of
7.32
x
10
­2
(mg/
kg/
day)
­1
in
human
equivalents.

Lactofen,
a
compound
that
is
structurally
related
to
oxyfluorfen,
has
recently
been
identified
as
a
non­
genotoxic
hepatocarcinogen
with
a
mechanism
of
action
due
to
peroxisome
proliferation.
Peroxisome
proliferator
compounds
are
known
to
cause
an
increased
number
of
peroxisomes
in
rodent
liver
cells.
Peroxisomes
are
membrane­
bound
vesicles
of
enzymes
in
liver
cells
which
produce
hydrogen
peroxide.
The
increased
peroxisomes
leak
hydrogen
peroxide
which
cause
DNA
effects
and
act
as
promoters
for
cancer
in
rodent
livers.
Dow
AgroSciences
has
committed
to
undertake
mechanistic
studies
to
determine
whether
or
not
oxyfluorfen
acts
via
a
mechanism
involving
peroxisome
proliferation.
If
oxyfluorfen
is
shown
to
be
a
peroxisome
proliferator,
an
MOE
approach
(indicative
of
a
non­
linear
dose
response),
rather
than
a
Q*
approach
would
be
more
appropriate
to
quantify
cancer
risks.
If
oxyfluorfen
is
determined
to
be
a
peroxisome
proliferator,
EPA
will
re­
evaluate
cancer
risks
and
risk
mitigation
decisions
for
oxyfluorfen.
9
Further
details
on
the
toxicity
of
oxyfluorfen
can
be
found
in
the
April
29,
2002,
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment,
and
the
August
8,
2001
memo
entitled,
"Oxyfluorfen:
Toxicology
Chapter
for
the
RED".
A
brief
overview
of
the
studies
used
for
the
human
health
risk
assessment
and
other
relevant
information
is
outlined
in
Table
2
.

b.
FQPA
Safety
Factor
The
FQPA
Safety
Factor
was
removed
(i.
e.
reduced
to
1X)
based
on
the
following
factors:
1)
There
does
not
appear
to
be
any
increased
susceptibility
in
animals
due
to
pre­
or
postnatal
exposure
to
oxyfluorfen
based
upon
the
developmental
and
reproductive
toxicity
studies
reviewed.
Although
two
does
in
the
high­
dose
group
of
the
98%
ai
rabbit
developmental
study
aborted,
these
abortions
were
considered
secondary
to
the
debilitating
condition
(generalized,
systemic
toxicity)
of
the
mothers
and
occurred
at
the
same
dose
that
cause
maternal
toxicity;
2)
Although
neurotoxicity
studies
were
not
performed,
there
was
no
indication
of
neurotoxicity
in
the
submitted
developmental
and
reproductive
studies
or
in
the
published
literature.
A
developmental
neurotoxicity
study
was
not
required;
and
3)
The
dietary
(food
and
drinking
water)
and
non­
dietary
(residential)
exposure
assessments
will
not
underestimate
the
potential
exposures
for
infants
and
children.
The
FQPA
safety
factor
is
applicable
to
the
dietary
and
residential
risk
assessments
for
all
population
subgroups.

c.
Population
Adjusted
Dose
(PAD)

Dietary
exposure
estimates
are
expressed
in
mg/
kg
body
weight/
day
and
as
a
percent
of
the
acute/
chronic
Population
Adjusted
Dose
(a/
cPAD)
which
is
the
RfD
taking
into
account
the
FQPA
safety
factor.
This
procedure
is
performed
for
each
population
subgroup.
There
are
no
aPADs
for
oxyfluorfen
because
an
appropriate
acute
endpoint
was
not
identified.
Resorptions
seen
in
the
rabbit
developmental
study
were
not
used
as
an
acute
endpoint
because
they
were
not
considered
indicative
of
a
one­
time
exposure;
rather,
they
were
considered
secondary
to
the
debilitating
condition
of
the
mothers.

The
cPAD
is
a
risk
expression
reflecting
the
Reference
Dose
that
has
been
adjusted
to
account
for
the
FQPA
safety
factor
(i.
e.,
RfD/
FQPA
safety
factor).
In
the
case
of
oxyfluorfen,
the
FQPA
safety
factor
is
1;
therefore,
the
chronic
RfD
equals
the
chronic
PAD.
A
risk
estimate
that
is
less
than
100%
of
the
chronic
PAD
does
not
exceed
the
Agency's
risk
concern.

d.
Endpoints
and
Doses
for
Risk
Assessment
All
doses
for
risk
assessment
purposes
were
assessed
along
with
the
uncertainty
factors
of
10X
for
interspecies
extrapolation
and
10X
for
intraspecies
variability.
An
additional
uncertainty
factor
of
3X
was
applied
to
intermediate­
term
exposures
because
the
dose
was
derived
from
the
LOAEL.
No
short­
or
immediate­
term
oral
endpoints
are
necessary
due
to
negligible
postapplication
residential
exposure.
Long­
term
endpoints
are
also
not
needed,
as
all
exposures
are
expected
to
be
of
short­
or
intermediate­
term
duration.
10
Table
2.
Summary
of
Toxicological
Endpoints
and
Other
Factors
Used
in
the
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
for
Oxyfluorfen
Assessment
Dose
(mg/
kg/
day)
Endpoint
UF
c
Study
Chronic
Dietary
NOAEL
=
3.0
Liver
toxicity
occurring
in
dogs
and
mice
at
the
LOAEL
of
33
mg/
kg/
day
(
)
and
42
mg/
kg/
day
(
)
mice.
100
Chronic
dog
and
mouse
carcinogenicity
studies
Cancer
Q1*
=
7.32
x
10
­2
(mg/
kg/
day)
­1
Combined
hepatocellular
adenomas
and
carcinomas.
n/
a
Mouse
carcinogenicity
study
Dermal,
Short­
Term
a
NOAEL=
30
Clinical
signs
seen
at
the
maternal
LOAEL
of
90
mg/
kg/
day
100
Developmental
rabbit
study
(1998)
Dermal,
Intermediate­
Term
a
LOAEL
=
32
Liver
toxicity
and
anemia
seen
at
the
LOAEL
of
32
mg/
kg/
day.
300
90­
day
mouse
Inhalation,
ShortTerm
b
NOAEL
=
30
Clinical
signs
seen
at
the
maternal
LOAEL
of
90
mg/
kg/
day.
100
Developmental
rabbit
study
(1998)
Inhalation,
Intermediate­
Term
b
LOAEL
=
32
Liver
toxicity
and
anemia
seen
at
the
LOAEL
of
32
mg/
kg/
day.
300
90­
day
mouse
NOAEL
=
no
observed
adverse
effect
level;
LOAEL
=
lowest
observed
adverse
effect
level;
UF=
uncertainty
factor;
RfD
=
reference
dose.

a.
An
oral
endpoint
was
used
for
dermal
exposure:
a
dermal
absorption
factor
of
18%
of
oral
exposure
was
selected
from
a
dermal
absorption
study
in
rats.
b.
An
oral
endpoint
was
used
for
inhalation
exposure:
inhalation
exposure
is
assumed
equivalent
to
oral
exposure.
c.
Uncertainty
factors
of
10x
for
intraspecies
variability,
10x
for
interspecies
extrapolation
and
3x
for
lack
of
a
NOAEL
e.
Exposure
Assumptions
Oxyfluorfen
chronic
dietary
exposure
assessments
were
conducted
using
the
Dietary
Exposure
Evaluation
Model
(DEEM™)
software
Version
7.73,
which
incorporates
consumption
data
from
USDA's
Continuing
Surveys
of
Food
Intake
by
Individuals
(CSFII),
1989­
1992.
The
1989­
92
data
are
based
on
the
reported
consumption
of
more
than
10,000
individuals
over
three
consecutive
days,
and
therefore
represent
more
than
30,000
unique
"person
days"
of
data.
Foods
"as
consumed"
(e.
g.,
apple
pie)
are
linked
to
raw
agricultural
commodities
and
their
food
forms
(e.
g.,
apples­
cooked/
canned
or
wheat­
flour)
by
recipe
translation
files
internal
to
the
DEEM
software.
Consumption
data
are
averaged
for
the
entire
US
population
and
within
population
subgroups
for
chronic
exposure
assessment.

For
chronic
exposure
and
risk
assessment,
an
estimate
of
the
residue
level
in
each
food
or
food­
form
(e.
g.,
orange
or
orange­
juice)
on
the
commodity
residue
list
is
multiplied
by
the
average
daily
consumption
estimate
for
that
food/
food
form.
The
resulting
residue
consumption
estimate
for
each
food/
food
form
is
summed
with
the
residue
consumption
estimates
for
all
other
food/
food
forms
on
the
commodity
residue
list
to
arrive
at
the
total
estimated
exposure.
Exposure
estimates
are
expressed
in
mg/
kg
body
weight/
day
and
as
a
percent
of
the
cPAD.
This
procedure
is
performed
for
each
population
subgroup.

Anticipated
residues
were
calculated
using
either
USDA
Pesticide
Data
Program
(PDP)
monitoring
data
or
field
trial
data.
Both
data
sets
are
consistent
in
that
they
show
essentially
all
non­
detectable
residues,
with
the
same
limit
of
detection
(0.01
ppm).
Monitoring
data
for
11
oxyfluorfen
generated
through
the
USDA
PDP
were
from
the
years
1996
to
1999
(total
of
3,720
samples
analyzed).
These
data
were
used
for
the
following
crops:
apple
juice,
apples,
carrots,
grapes,
green
beans
(canned
and
fresh),
high
fructose
corn
syrup,
oranges,
peaches,
spinach
(
fresh
and
canned),
sweet
corn,
sweet
peas,
tomatoes
(fresh
and
canned),
sweet
potatoes,
orange
juice,
pears,
winter
squash
(fresh
and
canned),
cantaloupe,
grape
juice,
strawberries
(fresh
and
frozen)
and
sweet
bell
peppers.
There
were
no
residues
detected
on
these
commodities.
In
addition,
estimates
of
percent
crop
treated
(%
CT)
generated
by
the
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division
(BEAD),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
were
used
to
refine
the
assessment.

Although
a
Tier
2/
3
dietary
risk
assessment
was
conducted
and
is
the
most
refined
assessment
to
date
for
oxyfluorfen,
there
are
some
uncertainties
associated
with
the
exposure
estimates
as
follows:
(i)
the
use
of
½
LOQs
instead
of
½
LODs
for
field
trial
residue
values
will
tend
to
overestimate
the
residue
values
from
the
field
trial
studies
(all
of
the
field
trial
studies
were
non­
detects;
therefore,
this
assessment
is
an
upper
bound
and
the
real
residues
are
somewhere
between
this
estimate
and
zero);
(ii)
no
cooking
studies
were
used;
(iii)
tolerance
level
residues
for
bananas
and
cacao
beans
and
100%
crop
treated
for
cacao
beans
were
used;
and
(iv)
DEEM
default
processing
factors
were
used
in
the
assessment.

f.
Dietary
Risk
from
Food
In
general,
a
non­
cancer
chronic
dietary
(food)
risk
estimate
of
less
than
100%
of
the
chronic
PAD
is
not
of
concern
to
the
Agency.
Cancer
risks
less
than
1
x
10
­6
are
also
not
of
concern
to
the
Agency.
Oxyfluorfen
is
classified
as
a
category
C,
possible
human
carcinogen
based
upon
combined
hepatocellular
adenomas/
carcinomas
in
the
mouse
carcinogenicity
study.
A
cancer
dietary
(food)
risk
assessment
using
a
low­
dose
linear
extrapolation
was
conducted.
As
shown
in
Table
3,
chronic
dietary
risk
is
<1%
of
the
chronic
PAD
for
the
U.
S.
general
population
and
all
population
subgroups.
Using
the
Q1*
of
7.32
x
10
­2
results
in
a
maximum
estimated
lifetime
cancer
risk
to
the
U.
S.
general
population
of
3.8
x
10
­7
.
Neither
the
non­
cancer
or
the
cancer
risk
estimates
pose
a
dietary
risk
concern
for
food
for
any
population
subgroup.

Table
3.
Summary
of
Dietary
Exposure
and
Risk
for
Oxyfluorfen
Population
Subgroup
Chronic
Dietary
Cancer
Dietary
Exposure
(mg/
kg/
day)
%
cPAD
Risk
U.
S.
Population
0.
000005
<1
3.8
x
10
­7
Infants
(<
1
year
old)
0.000011
<1
Children
1­
6
years
0.
000012
<1
2.
Dietary
Risk
from
Drinking
Water
Drinking
water
exposure
to
pesticides
can
occur
through
ground
water
and
surface
water
contamination.
For
oxyfluorfen,
EPA
considered
chronic
(lifetime)
drinking
water
risks
and
used
modeling
to
estimate
those
risks.
The
PRZM­
EXAMS/
IR
model
was
used
to
estimate
12
surface
water
concentrations,
and
SCI­
GROW
was
used
to
estimate
groundwater
concentrations.
Both
of
these
models
are
considered
to
be
screening
tools,
with
the
PRZM­
EXAMS
model
being
somewhat
more
refined
than
SCI­
GROW.

Oxyfluorfen
in
the
environment
is
expected
to
be
very
persistent
with
low
mobility.
In
general,
oxyfluorfen
degrades
very
slowly
in
both
soil
and
water
and
binds
strongly
to
soil
containing
organic
matter.
Oxyfluorfen
contaminates
surface
water
through
spray
drift
and
runoff;
the
latter
is
considered
a
much
larger
contributor
to
surface
water
contamination.
Oxyfluorfen
is
unlikely
to
contaminate
ground
water
because
it
is
relatively
immobile
in
the
soil
column;
therefore,
the
likelihood
of
leaching
is
small.

Some
samples
have
been
collected
and
analyzed
for
oxyfluorfen
in
water
and
sediments
in
the
Columbia
River
basin
of
Oregon
and
Washington
as
a
result
of
an
August,
2000
oxyfluorfen
(Goal
2XL)
spill
into
the
Fifteen
Mile
Creek
near
its
mouth
into
the
Columbia
River.
Of
35
background
sediment
measurements
made
in
nearby
rivers
and
streams
which
were
reportedly
unaffected
by
the
spill,
2
detections
of
oxyfluorfen
in
sediment
were
noted.
The
higher
detection,
541
ppb,
was
downstream
of
orchards.

Except
for
the
data
collected
near
the
spill
site
in
Fifteen
Mile
Creek
(near
the
Columbia
River),
no
targeted
water
monitoring
data
are
available
for
dissolved
phase
oxyfluorfen.
The
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
(USGS)
monitored
oxyfluorfen
concentrations
in
suspended
sediment
at
one
site
in
the
San
Joaquin
River
in
central
California
during
several
years
in
the
1990's.
The
highest
average
concentration
of
oxyfluorfen
in
sediment
was
27.2
ppb.
Assuming
partitioning
between
water
and
sediment
is
reversible
and
at
equilibrium,
the
dissolved
oxyfluorfen
concentration
was
estimated
to
by
0.27
µg/
L
(calculated
using
the
average
Kd
partitioning
coefficient
of
100.)
Additionally,
the
USGS­
EPA
pilot
reservoir
monitoring
program
did
not
detect
oxyfluorfen
concentrations
in
raw
and
finished
drinking
water.
However,
due
to
the
limited
geographic
range
of
these
data
and
the
uncertainties
in
estimating
the
dissolved
concentration,
these
data
are
insufficient
for
use
in
the
drinking
water
assessment.

The
monitoring
data
are
not
adequate
to
perform
a
quantitative
drinking
water
assessment
for
the
following
reasons:
1)
The
majority
of
the
data
are
limited
to
sediment
levels,
whereas
dissolved
phase
concentrations
are
more
useful
for
estimating
drinking
water
exposure;
and
2)
Oxyfluorfen
use
is
widespread
but
the
monitoring
data
are
limited
to
a
few
locations.
The
monitoring
data
are
temporally
limited.

a.
Surface
Water
PRZM/
EXAMS,
a
Tier
II
model
with
index
reservoir
(IR)
scenarios
and
a
percent
cropped
area
(PCA)
adjustment
factor,
was
used.
For
Tier
II
surface
water
screening
assessments,
OPP
uses
the
PRZM­
EXAMS
model
which
accommodates
the
specific
characteristics
of
the
chemical
and
which
include
site­
specific
information
regarding
the
application
method
and
impact
of
daily
weather
on
the
treated
field
over
a
period
of
30
more
years.
The
PRZM­
EXAMS
model
was
developed
to
provide
`best
estimates'
of
chemical
concentrations
in
the
modeled
water
bodies
based
on
the
fate
characteristics
of
the
chemical.
The
13
input
values
specific
to
each
of
the
modeled
cropping
scenarios
and
the
fate
parameter
inputs
for
a
given
chemical
are
intended
to
be
conservative.

Apples
in
Oregon
(2
lbs
ai/
acre,
1X/
season)
was
chosen
to
estimate
the
concentration
of
oxyfluorfen
in
surface
drinking
water.
This
scenario
was
selected
after
evaluating
results
from
additional
scenarios
chosen
to
represent
areas
where
oxyfluorfen
is
heavily
used
or
has
the
potential
for
heavy
use.

b.
Ground
Water
The
SCI­
GROW
model,
a
Tier
I
model,
was
used
to
estimate
the
concentration
of
oxyfluorfen
in
drinking
water
from
shallow
ground
water
sources.
Currently,
there
is
no
Tier
II
assessment
tool
for
groundwater.
Since
SCI­
GROW,
unlike
the
PRZM/
EXAMS
surface
water
model,
does
not
require
a
specific
crop
scenario,
EFED
used
the
highest
use
rate
of
four
applications
at
2.0
lbs
ai/
acre
as
allowed
for
ornamentals
to
estimate
the
concentration
of
oxyfluorfen
in
drinking
water
from
shallow
groundwater
sources.

c.
Drinking
Water
Levels
of
Comparison
(DWLOCs)

To
determine
the
maximum
allowable
contribution
of
pesticide
residues
in
water,
EPA
first
looks
at
how
much
of
the
overall
allowable
risk
is
contributed
by
food
and
then
determines
a
"drinking
water
level
of
comparison"(
DWLOC)
to
determine
whether
modeled
or
monitoring
levels
exceed
this
level.
The
Agency
uses
the
DWLOC
as
a
surrogate
to
capture
risk
associated
with
exposure
from
pesticides
in
drinking
water.
The
DWLOC
is
the
maximum
concentration
in
drinking
water
which,
when
considered
together
with
dietary
exposure,
does
not
exceed
a
level
of
concern.

The
results
of
the
Agency's
drinking
water
analysis
are
summarized
here.
Details
of
the
drinking
water
analysis
are
found
in
the
Revised
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
for
Oxyfluorfen,
dated
April
29,
2002.

(1)
DWLOCs
for
Chronic
(Cancer
and
Non­
cancer)
Exposure
Chronic
and
cancer
DWLOCs
for
oxyfluorfen
were
calculated
based
on
anticipated
residues
in
food
only;
DWLOCs
calculated
from
food
+
residential
exposure
are
presented
in
the
aggregate
risk
section
of
this
document.
Comparisons
made
between
DWLOCs
and
the
estimated
concentrations
of
oxyfluorfen
in
surface
water
and
ground
water
are
presented
in
Table
4.
If
model
estimates
are
less
than
the
DWLOC,
there
is
generally
no
dietary
(food
+
water)
concern.
14
Table
4.
Oxyfluorfen
Summary
of
Chronic
(Non­
cancer)
DWLOC
Calculations
Population
Subgroup
DWLOCs
(ppb)
1
EECs
(ppb)
Chronic
Cancer
Surface
Water
(PRZM/
EXAMS)
Ground
Water
(SCI­
GROW)
Chronic
2
Cancer
3
Chronic
and
Cancer
U.
S.
Population
1050
0.315
7.1
5.
7
0.08
All
Infants
(<
1Year)
900
N/
A
Children
(1­
6
years)
300
N/
A
Females
(13­
50
years)
300
N/
A
1
DWLOCs
based
on
food
exposure
only.
2
Chronic
risk
based
on
the
1
in
10
yearly
concentration
3
Cancer
risk
based
on
the
36
year
annual
mean
concentration
(2)
Chronic
Dietary
Risk
As
shown
in
Table
4,
the
chronic
DWLOCs,
ranging
from
300
­
1050
for
all
populations,
are
substantially
higher
than
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(EECs)
of
oxyfluorfen
in
surface
and
groundwater
(7.1
ppb
and
0.08
ppb
respectively)
based
on
conservative
modeling.
Consequently,
chronic
drinking
water
risk
from
surface
or
groundwater
sources
is
below
EPA's
level
of
concern.

(3)
Cancer
Dietary
Risk
The
cancer
DWLOC
is
the
concentration
of
a
pesticide
in
drinking
water
that
results
in
a
negligible
cancer
risk
when
considered
together
with
estimated
food
exposure
(1
x
10
­6
or
less).
Upon
comparison
of
the
cancer
DWLOC
with
the
environmental
concentrations
of
oxyfluorfen
estimated
using
conservative
modeling,
the
surface
water
concentration
(5.7
ppb)
is
greater
than
the
cancer
DWLOC
(0.315
ppb).
Thus,
there
appears
to
be
a
potential
concern
for
oxyfluorfen
residues
in
surface
water.

However,
the
estimated
drinking
water
concentrations
are
considered
to
be
conservative.
First,
the
2
lb
ai/
broadcast
acre/
season
maximum
labeled
rate
used
in
the
drinking
water
modeling
assessment
is
not
typically
applied
as
a
broadcast
spray
but
rather
as
a
banded
application
between
rows
of
perennial
crops
such
as
fruit/
nut
trees
and
artichokes,
which
leaves
approximately
50­
75%
of
the
actual
land
area
untreated.
Careful
targeting
of
the
spray
is
required
because
oxyfluorfen
is
non­
selective
and
will
damage
crops.
The
use
rate
for
the
perennial
crops
per
acre
of
total
land
area
is
generally
around
0.5
to
1.0
lbs
ai/
acre.
Although
there
are
oxyfluorfen
use
sites
that
are
broadcast
treated,
such
as
bulb
vegetables
or
fallow
land,
these
sites
have
a
lower
maximum
rate,
typically
0.5
lbs
ai/
acre.

The
drinking
water
assessment
also
assumes
that
the
maximum
labeled
rate
of
2
lbs
ai/
acre
is
applied
every
year
for
70
years
when
it
is
known
that
the
average
reported
use
rate
(regardless
of
application
method)
is
less
than
½
of
the
maximum
labeled
rate
(<
1
lb
ai/
acre).
Based
on
information
provided
by
growers,
extension
service,
and
industry,
the
higher
2
lb
rate
15
is
used
more
during
the
first
couple
of
establishment
years
or
when
a
poorly
managed
orchard/
field
is
purchased;
after
which
lower
rates
are
generally
used
to
manage
weeds
at
a
maintenance
level.
3.
Non­
dietary
Risk
from
Residential
Uses
Oxyfluorfen
is
used
in
the
residential
environment
by
homeowners
to
kill
weeds
on
patios,
driveways
and
similar
surfaces.
Oxyfluorfen
homeowner
products
are
intended
solely
for
spot
treatment;
they
are
not
used
for
broadcast
treatment
of
lawns
because
they
kill
grass.

Residential
formulations
contain
0.25%
to
0.70%
oxyfluorfen
by
weight
and
are
packaged
in
a
RTU
sprinkler
jug,
a
RTU
trigger
sprayer
or
as
a
liquid
to
be
mixed
in
a
sprinkler
can
or
tank
sprayer.

Table
5.
Residential
Use
Product
Information
for
Oxyfluorfen
Product/
Registrant
Formulation
and
Application
Method
Application
Rate
(lbs
ai/
acre)
Kleenup
Super
Edger/
Platte
Chemical
Corp
Contains
0.25%
oxyfluorfen
in
pre­
mixed
one
pint
to
one
gallon
containers.
Applied
from
a
RTU
trigger
sprayer,
a
RTU
sprinkler
jug
or
from
a
tank
sprayer.
4.8
Ortho
GroundClear
SuperEdger/
Scotts
Company
Ready
to
use
liquid
containing
0.25%
oxyfluorfen.
Applied
directly
from
the
jug
which
has
an
applicator
spout.
4.8
Ortho
GroundClear
Triox
Total
Vegetation
Killer
A
/Scotts
Company
Concentrate
containing
0.70%
oxyfluorfen.
Mixed
with
water
and
applied
from
a
sprinkler
can.
8.9
a.
Exposure
The
assessment
evaluated
four
methods
of
application:
1)
low
pressure
tank
sprayer,
2)
"mix
your
own"
sprinkler
can,
3)
ready­
to­
use
(RTU)
invert
sprayer,
and
4)
RTU
trigger
sprayer.
The
residential
assessment
for
oxyfluorfen
only
addresses
the
applicator,
because
negligible
postapplication
exposure
is
anticipated
from
spot
treatment
of
weeds.

Exposure
data
for
scenarios
1
and
4
were
taken
from
an
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
(ORETF)
mixer/
loader/
applicator
exposure
study
with
carbaryl.
Exposure
data
for
scenarios
2
and
3
were
derived
from
an
ORETF
proprietary
study
that
was
conducted
during
the
application
of
diazinon
to
lawns
using
"Mix
Your
Own"
and
"Ready
to
Use"
hose
end
sprayers.

Dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
are
combined
in
this
assessment.
MOEs
were
calculated
for
short­
term
(1­
30
day)
exposure
scenarios
only
based
on
the
use
pattern.

General
assumptions
used
in
the
residential
handler
risk
assessment
are
as
follows:

°
Clothing
consisted
of
a
short­
sleeved
shirt,
short
pants
and
no
gloves.
16
°
An
area
of
200
sq
ft
per
application
was
treated
with
one
gallon
of
the
"ready
to
use"
product
or
2.67
quarts
of
the
"mix
your
own"
product
in
an
invert
jug
or
sprinkler
can.
An
area
of
300
sq
ft
per
application
was
treated
with
one
gallon
of
product
in
a
low
pressure
hand
carried
tank
sprayer.
°
Two
applications
are
made
per
year.
°
Applicators
are
assumed
to
have
50
years
of
potential
exposure
over
a
70
year
life
span.

b.
Residential
Handler
Risk
Estimates
Residential
handler
non­
cancer
risk
is
measured
as
a
Margin
of
Exposure
(MOE),
which
determines
how
closely
the
exposure
comes
to
a
NOAEL.
Since
the
FQPA
safety
factor
was
reduced
to
1X,
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
(i.
e.,
target
MOE)
is
100.
As
with
dietary
risk,
residential
cancer
risk
estimates
less
than
1.0
x
10
­6
do
not
exceed
the
Agency's
level
of
concern.
As
shown
in
Table
6,
none
of
the
residential
applicator
scenarios
alone
are
of
concern
because
the
MOEs
for
non­
cancer
effects
are
greater
than
100
and
the
cancer
risks
are
less
than
1.0
x
10
6
.
The
highest
residential
applicator
cancer
risk
is
8.7
x
10
­7
for
the
trigger
pump
sprayer
scenario;
however,
this
risk
estimate
is
considered
conservative
because
it
is
not
anticipated
that
homeowners
would
use
two
gallons
of
product/
year
if
applying
with
a
trigger
sprayer.
Assuming
one
gallon/
year,
the
cancer
risk
estimate
for
the
trigger
pump
sprayer
is
4.4
x
10
­7
.

Table
6.
Residential
Risk
Estimates
for
Non­
cancer
and
Cancer
Effects
Spot
Treatment
Scenarios
Combined
Absorbed
Daily
Dose
(mg/
kg/
day)
Non­
Cancer
Short­
term
Risk
(MOE)
Lifetime
Absorbed
Daily
Dose
(mg/
kg/
day)
Cancer
Risk
Low
Pressure
Tank
Sprayer
2.
5
x
10
­3
12,000
8.5
x
10
­6
6.2
x
10
­7
"Mix
Your
Own"
Sprinkler
Can
1.4
x
10
­3
22,000
4.6
x
10
­6
3.3
x
10
­7
RTU
Invert
Sprayer
1.8
x
10
­4
170,000
5.9
x
10
­7
4.3
x
10
­8
RTU
Trigger
Pump
Sprayer
3.
5
x
10
­3
8,500
1.2
x
10
­5
8.7
x
10
­7
4.
Aggregate
Risk
The
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
amendments
to
the
Federal
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
(FFDCA,
Section
408(
b)(
2)(
A)(
ii))
require
that
for
establishing
a
pesticide
tolerance,
"that
there
is
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
result
from
aggregate
exposure
to
pesticide
chemical
residue,
including
all
anticipated
dietary
exposures
and
other
exposures
for
which
there
are
reliable
information."
Aggregate
exposure
will
typically
include
exposures
from
food,
drinking
water,
residential
uses
of
a
pesticide,
and
other
non­
occupational
sources
of
exposure.
For
oxyfluorfen,
aggregate
risk
assessments
were
conducted
for
short­
term
(one
to
thirty
days)
and
chronic
(cancer/
non­
cancer)
exposure.
Occupational
exposure
is
not
considered
in
any
aggregate
exposure
assessment.
As
noted
previously,
no
acute
dietary/
aggregate
risks
were
assessed
for
oxyfluorfen
because
no
adverse
effects
reflecting
a
single
dose
were
identified.
17
a.
Chronic
(Non­
Cancer)
Aggregate
Risk
The
chronic
aggregate
risk
assessment
addresses
exposure
to
oxyfluorfen
residues
in
food
and
water
only,
as
there
are
no
chronic
residential
scenarios
identified.
As
shown
previously
in
Table
4,
comparison
of
the
chronic
DWLOCs
with
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
of
oxyfluorfen
shows
that
estimated
surface
and
groundwater
concentrations
are
substantially
less
than
the
DWLOCs
for
all
populations.
Consequently,
the
Agency
concludes
that
residues
of
oxyfluorfen
in
food
and
drinking
water
do
not
result
in
a
chronic
aggregate
risk
of
concern.

b.
Short­
term
Aggregate
Risk
Short­
term
DWLOCs
were
calculated
based
upon
average
food
residues,
and
the
residential
handler
exposure
which
resulted
in
the
greatest
risk
estimate
(spot
treatment
of
weeds
using
a
RTU
trigger
pump
sprayer).
DWLOC
calculations
are
for
adults
only
since
the
residential
exposure
is
to
adult
handlers.
The
DWLOC
calculation
was
done
using
standard
body
weight
and
daily
water
consumption,
i.
e.,
70
kg/
2L
(adult
male)
and
60
kg/
2L
(adult
female).

As
shown
in
Table
7,
surface
and
ground
water
concentrations
(7.1
ppb
and
0.08
ppb
respectively),
estimated
using
modeling,
are
below
the
short­
term
DWLOCs
of
8900
ppb
(females)
and
10400
ppb
(males).
Consequently,
there
are
no
short­
term
aggregate
risk
concerns
from
food,
drinking
water
and
residential
exposures.

Table
7.
Short­
Term
Aggregate
Risk
and
DWLOC
Calculations
Population
Aggregate
Risk
MOE
(food
+
residential)
Surface
Water
EEC
(ppb)
Ground
Water
EEC
(ppb)
Short­
Term
DWLOC
1
(ppb)
Adult
Male
8600
7.1
0.
08
10400
Adult
Female
8600
7.1
0.
08
8900
c.
Aggregate
Risk
for
Cancer
Cancer
DWLOCs
were
calculated
using
average
food
residues
together
with
residential
exposure
estimates.
The
handler
exposure
scenario
which
resulted
in
the
greatest
risk
estimate
(spot
treatment
of
weeds
using
a
RTU
Trigger
Pump
Sprayer)
was
used
in
the
calculation.
DWLOC
calculations
were
done
for
adults
only
using
standard
body
weight
and
daily
water
consumption,
i.
e.,
70
kg/
2L
(adult
male).
The
chronic
food
cancer
risk
estimate
of
3.8
x
10
­7
,
combined
with
the
residential
cancer
risk
estimate
of
8.7
x
10
­7
,
results
in
a
food
+
residential
cancer
risk
of
1.3
x
10
­6
.
Since
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
is
1.0
x
10
­6
,
the
DWLOC
is
effectively
zero
and
any
additional
water
exposure
will
further
contribute
to
potential
risks
of
concern.
18
Table
8.
Cancer
Aggregate
Risk
(
Food
and
Residential)
and
DWLOC
Calculations
Population
Chronic
Food
Risk
Residential
Risk
Aggregate
Cancer
Risk
(food
and
residential)
Surface
Water
EEC
(ppb)
Ground
Water
EEC
(ppb)
Cancer
DWLOC
(ppb)
U.
S.
Pop
3.
8
x
10
­7
8.7
x
10
­7
1.3
x
10
­6
5.7
0.
08
0
The
estimated
food
risk
is
considered
highly
conservative.
First,
PDP
analyzed
3,700
samples
on
approximately
20
different
commodities
from
1996­
1999
and
found
zero
detects.
This
is
not
surprising
considering
the
fact
that,
except
for
bulb
vegetables,
oxyfluorfen
is
not
directly
applied
to
crops
due
to
damage
to
the
foliage.
Secondly,
field
trial
data
also
showed
all
residues
were
non­
detects
at
an
LOD
of
0.01
ppm.
Third,
½
LOQ
(0.01
ppm)
was
used
in
the
dietary
assessment
instead
of
½
LOD
(0.003
ppm),
which
over­
estimates
the
residue
values.
EPA
used
½
LOQ
rather
than
½
LOD
for
field
trial
residue
values
because
of
the
possibility
of
an
occasional
residue
of
oxyfluorfen
greater
than
0.01
ppm,
and
the
registrant's
intention
to
propose
a
new
single
analyte
enforcement
method
for
oxyfluorfen
with
a
quantitation
limit
of
0.02
ppm.
Actual
residues
are
expected
to
be
somewhere
in
between
the
calculated
estimates
and
zero.

In
addition,
the
residential
cancer
risk
estimate
of
8.7
x
10
­7
is
believed
to
be
an
overestimate
since
residential
applicators
are
not
likely
to
apply
two
gallons/
year
of
a
ready­
to­
use
product
with
a
trigger
sprayer.
Assuming
one
gallon/
year,
the
cancer
risk
estimate
for
the
trigger
pump
sprayer
is
4.4
x
10
­7
.
Therefore,
the
cancer
risk
of
6.2
x
10
­7
from
use
of
the
low
pressure
tank
sprayer
can
be
considered
"worst­
case".

Regardless
of
food
and
residential
exposure,
estimated
cancer
risk
from
drinking
water
alone
is
of
concern
based
on
the
surface
water
EEC
of
5.7
ppb.
As
noted
previously,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
surface
water
modeling
overestimates
the
concentration
of
oxyfluorfen
that
may
be
present
in
drinking
water.
Targeted
drinking
water
monitoring
data
would
allow
refinement
of
the
EECs.

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
oxyfluorfen
include:
individual
farmers
or
growers
who
mix,
load,
and/
or
apply
pesticides,
and
professional
or
custom
agricultural
applicators.
Non­
cancer
risk
for
all
of
these
potentially
exposed
populations
is
measured
by
a
Margin
of
Exposure
(MOE)
which
determines
how
close
the
occupational
exposure
comes
to
a
No
Observed
Adverse
Effect
Level
(NOAEL).
In
the
case
of
oxyfluorfen,
dermal/
inhalation
MOEs
greater
than
100
for
short­
term
and
300
for
intermediate­
term
do
not
exceed
the
Agency's
level
of
concern.
Cancer
risks
greater
than
1.0
X
10
­4
(one
in
ten
thousand)
for
the
occupational
population
exceeds
the
Agency's
level
of
concern.
EPA
closely
examines
occupational
cancer
risks
in
the
1
x
10
­4
to
1
x
10
­6
range
and
seeks
cost
effective
ways
to
reduce
occupational
cancer
risks
to
the
greatest
extent
feasible,
preferably
10
­6
or
less.
19
a.
Toxicity
The
toxicological
endpoints,
and
other
factors
used
in
the
occupational
risk
assessment
for
oxyfluorfen
are
listed
previously
in
Table
2.
The
acute
toxicity
profile
for
technical
oxyfluorfen
is
listed
below
in
Table
9.
Oxyfluorfen
is
of
low
acute
toxicity
and
is
in
toxicity
category
IV
for
acute
oral
and
inhalation
toxicity
and
is
category
III
for
acute
dermal
toxicity.
Oxyfluorfen
is
a
slight
eye
and
dermal
irritant
and
is
not
a
dermal
sensitizer.

Table
9.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Technical
Oxyfluorfen
Study
Type
Test
Material
MRID
Results
Toxicity
Category
Acute
Oral
96%
44712010
LD50
>
5000
mg/
kg
IV
97.1%
44828903
LD50
>
5000
mg/
kg
IV
Acute
Dermal
96%
44712011
LD50
>
2000
mg/
kg
III
97.1%
44828904
LD50
>
5000
mg/
kg
IV
Acute
Inhalation
96%
44712012
LC50
>
3.71
mg/
L
IV
Primary
Eye
Irritation
96%
44712013
slight
irritant
IV
96%
44828906
negative
IV
Primary
Skin
Irritation
96%
44712014
slight
irritant
IV
96%
44828905
negative
IV
Dermal
Sensitization
96%
44712015
negative
­­

23%
44814901
negative
­­


b.
Handler
Exposure
EPA
has
determined
that
there
are
potential
exposures
to
mixers,
loaders,
applicators,
or
other
handlers
during
usual
use­
patterns
associated
with
oxyfluorfen.
Agricultural
liquid
formulations
of
oxyfluorfen
are
applied
using
large,
average
or
all­
terrain
vehicle
(ATV)
groundboom
rigs.
Aerial
application
is
generally
used
only
for
fallow
fields
and
bulb
vegetables.
Chemigation
is
mainly
used
for
over­
the­
top
application
to
bulb
vegetables
and
for
drip
application
to
some
orchard
trees,
however,
chemigation
is
often
prohibited
on
product
labels.
Granular
oxyfluorfen
is
applied
to
field
and
container
grown
ornamentals
with
broadcast
spreaders.
Based
upon
the
application
methods,
the
following
exposure
scenarios
were
developed:

Application
Method
Exposure
Scenario
1.
Large
Groundboom
1A
­
Mix/
Load
Liquids
­
Large
Groundboom
(can
treat
200
acres/
day)
1B
­
Spray
Application
­
Large
Groundboom
2.
Average
Groundboom
2A
­
Mix/
Load
Liquids
­
Average
Groundboom
(can
treat
80
acres/
day)
2B
­
Spray
Application
­
Average
Groundboom
3.
ATV
Groundboom
3A
­
Mix/
Load
Liquids
­
ATV
Groundboom
3B
­
Spray
Application
­
ATV
Groundboom
20
4.
Fixed
Wing
Aircraft
4A
­
Mix/
Load
Liquids
for
Aerial
Application
4B
­
Spray
Application
­
Fixed­
Wing
Aircraft
4C
­
Flag
Aerial
Applications
5.
Chemigation
5
­
Mix/
Load
Liquids
­
Chemigation
6.
Right­
of­
Way
(ROW)
Sprayer
6A
­
Mix/
Load
Liquids
­
ROW
Sprayer
6B
­
Spray
Application
­
ROW
Sprayer
7.
Backpack
Sprayer
7
­
Mix/
Load/
Apply
Liquids
­
Backpack
8.
Tractor
Drawn
Broadcast
Spreader
8A
­
Load
Granules
into
Broadcast
Spreader
8B
­
Apply
Granules
with
Broadcast
Spreader
9.
Push
Type
Broadcast
Spreader
9
­
Broadcast
Spreader
(Load/
Apply)

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

Handler
Data
Sources
With
the
exception
of
the
push­
type
broadcast
spreader
scenario,
which
relied
upon
a
high­
quality
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
(ORETF)
study
with
DCPA,
exposure
analyses
were
performed
with
The
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(PHED).
PHED
was
designed
by
a
task
force
of
representatives
from
the
US
EPA,
Health
Canada,
the
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation,
and
member
companies
of
the
American
Crop
Protection
Association.
It
is
a
software
system
consisting
of
two
parts
–
a
database
of
measured
exposure
values
for
workers
involved
in
the
handling
of
pesticides
under
actual
field
conditions
and
a
set
of
computer
algorithms
used
to
subset
and
statistically
summarize
the
selected
data.
Currently,
the
database
contains
values
for
over
1,700
monitored
individuals
(i.
e.,
replicates).
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.

Handler
Exposure
Assumptions
The
following
assumptions
and
factors
were
used
in
order
to
complete
the
exposure
and
risk
assessments
for
occupational
handlers/
applicators:

°
The
average
work
day
was
8
hours.
21
°
Maximum
application
rates
and
daily
acreage
were
used
to
evaluate
non­
cancer
occupational
risk.
°
Average
application
rates
and
daily
acreage
were
used
to
evaluate
cancer
occupational
risk.
°
A
body
weight
of
60
kg
was
assumed
for
short
term
exposures
because
the
short
term
endpoint
relates
to
females
13­
50
years
of
age.
°
A
body
weight
of
70
kg
was
assumed
for
intermediate
term
exposures
because
the
intermediate
term
endpoint
is
not
gender
specific.
°
A
body
weight
of
70
kg
was
assumed
for
cancer
scenarios.
°
A
private
grower
is
assumed
to
mix,
load
and
apply
liquid
formulation
of
oxyfluorfen
5
days
per
year.
This
is
based
upon
the
90
th
to
95
th
percentile
farm
size
(taken
from
the
1997
Census
of
Agriculture)
divided
by
the
assumed
acres
treated
per
day.
It
is
also
assumed
that
approximately
one
or
two
applications
are
made
per
year
as
listed
in
the
National
Agricultural
Statistics
Service
(NASS)
data.
°
A
private
grower
is
assumed
to
load
and
apply
granular
formulations
of
oxyfluorfen
10
days
per
year
because
the
granular
labels
allow
up
to
4
applications
of
2
lb/
ai
per
year.
°
A
custom
applicator
mixes,
loads
and
applies
oxyfluorfen
30
days
per
year.
°
Baseline
PPE
includes
long
sleeve
shirts,
long
pants
and
no
gloves
or
respirator.
°
Single
Layer
PPE
includes
baseline
PPE
with
gloves.
°
Double
Layer
PPE
includes
coveralls
over
single
layer
PPE
.
°
Double
Layer
PPE
PF5
includes
a
dust/
mist
respirator.
°
Double
Layer
PPE
PF10
includes
a
cartridge
respirator.

Anticipated
use
patterns
and
application
methods,
range
of
application
rates,
and
daily
amount
of
acres
treated
were
derived
from
current
product
labeling.
With
the
exception
of
some
tropical
commodities,
application
rates
specified
on
oxyfluorfen
labels
range
from
0.5
to
2.0
pounds
of
active
ingredient
per
acre
in
agricultural
settings.
The
Agency
typically
uses
acres
treated
per
day
values
that
are
thought
to
represent
8
hours
of
application
work
for
specific
types
of
application
equipment.

c.
Handler
(Non­
cancer)
Risk
Since
the
endpoint
of
concern
was
the
same
for
dermal
and
inhalation,
the
exposures
and
risks
were
combined.
The
target
MOEs
are
100
for
short
term
exposures
and
300
for
intermediate
term
exposures.
Scenarios
with
MOEs
greater
than
the
target
MOEs
are
not
of
concern
for
the
occupational
population.

Table
10
summarizes
the
ranges
of
the
combined
MOEs
for
the
various
exposure
scenarios.
A
brief
summary
of
the
specific
exposure
scenarios
with
risks
of
concern
(i.
e.
combined
MOEs
less
than
100
or
300)
is
presented
in
Table
11.
22
Table
10.
Non­
Cancer
Combined
MOEs
for
Occupational
Exposure
to
Oxyfluorfen
Endpoint
Baseline
MOEs
Single
Layer
MOEs
1
Short
Term
6
­
14000
490
­
14000
Intermediate
Term
7
­
17000
520
­
15000
1
Single
layer
=
baseline
clothing
+
gloves
Table
11.
Oxyfluorfen
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
of
Concern
a
Mitigation
Level
Scenarios
of
Concern
(MOE
=
Short
Term,
Intermediate
Term)
Baseline
PPE
1A
­
Mix/
load
liquids
­
Large
Groundboom
(MOE
=23
to
34,
29
to
43)
2A
­
Mix/
load
liquids
­
Average
Groundboom
(MOE
=
22
to
85,
27
to
110)
3A
­
Mix/
load
liquids
­
ATV
Groundboom
(MOE
=
43,
54)
4A
­
Mix/
load
liquids
­
Aerial
(MOE
=
6,
7)
5
­
Mix/
load
liquids
­
Chemigation
(MOE
=20,
24)
6A
­
Mix/
load
liquids
­
Right­
of­
Way
Sprayer
(MOE
=
69,
86)
6B
­
Spray
Application
­
Right­
of­
Way
(MOE
=
150,
190)
Single
layer
PPE
(without
respirators)
None
a.
Scenarios
are
of
concern
when
the
MOE
<100
for
short
term
exposures
or
the
MOE
<300
for
intermediate
term
exposures
The
calculations
of
occupational
handler/
applicator
non­
cancer
risk
indicate
that,
at
the
single
layer
PPE
level
(which
includes
baseline
PPE
+
chemical
resistant
gloves)
none
of
the
scenarios
are
of
concern
for
short
or
intermediate
term
non­
cancer
risks.
Currently,
PPE
requirements
on
labels
ranges
from
baseline
to
double
layer
with
most
of
the
labels
requiring
waterproof
or
chemical­
resistant
gloves.

d.
Handler
Cancer
Risk
For
occupational
risks
between
1
x
10
­6
and
1
x
10
­4
,
the
Agency
will
pursue
risk
mitigation
where
feasible
and
cost
effective
to
manage
the
risks
to
1
x
10
­6
.
The
cancer
risks
were
calculated
starting
with
the
PPE
level
(single
layer)
that
achieved
acceptable
MOEs
for
non­
cancer
risks.
As
shown
in
Table
12,
the
cancer
risks
for
all
of
the
custom
applicator
scenarios
are
less
than
1
x
10
­4
at
the
single
layer
PPE
level
and
some
of
the
applicator
scenarios
are
less
than
1
x
10
­6
.
At
the
highest
level
of
mitigation
(engineering
controls)
the
risks
for
most
of
the
custom
applicator
scenarios
are
reduced
to
less
than
1
x
10
­5
and
some
are
reduced
to
less
than
1
x
10
­6
.
In
general,
cancer
risks
to
private
growers
were
three
to
six
times
less
than
those
for
custom
applicators
due
to
the
assumption
that
they
handle
oxyfluorfen
fewer
number
of
days
per
year
(30
days/
year
=
custom
applicators,
10
days/
year
=
private
grower
[granular],
5
days/
year
=
private
grower
[liquid]).
Cancer
risk
estimates
for
private
growers
can
be
found
in
the
May
1,
2002
Revised
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
and
Risk
Assessment
for
oxyfluorfen.
23
Table
12.
Summary
of
Oxyfluorfen
Cancer
Risks
for
Custom
Applicators
(30
Exposure
Days
per
Year)

Exposure
Scenario
Crops
Average
Application
Rate
(lb
ai/
Acre)
Treated
Area
(Acres/
day)
Single
Layer
Cancer
Risk
Double
Layer
Cancer
Risk
Double
Layer
PF5
Cancer
Risk
Double
Layer
PF10
Cancer
Risk
Engineering
Controls
Cancer
Risk
1A
­
Mix/
Load
Liquids
­
Large
Groundboom
Corn
0.5
200
2.3e­
05
1.
9e­
05
1.5e­
05
1.
4e­
05
7.0e­
06
1B
­
Spray
Application
­
Large
Groundboom
1.4e­
05
1.
2e­
05
9.2e­
06
8.
8e­
06
4.1e­
06
1A
­
Mix/
Load
Liquids
­
Large
Groundboom
Cotton,
Soybeans
0.
25
200
1.1e­
05
9.
3e­
06
7.3e­
05
7.
2e­
06
3.5e­
06
1B
­
Spray
Application
­
Large
Groundboom
7.0e­
06
5.
8e­
06
4.6e­
06
4.
4e­
06
2.0e­
06
2A
­
Mix/
Load
Liquids
­
Average
Groundboom
Orchards/
Vineyards
Nursery
Trees,
Mint
1.0
80
1.8e­
05
1.
5e­
05
1.2e­
05
1.
1e­
05
5.6e­
06
2B
­
Spray
Application
­
Average
Groundboom
1.1e­
05
9.
4e­
06
7.3e­
06
7.
1e­
06
3.2e­
06
2A
­
Mix/
Load
Liquids
­
Average
Groundboom
Onions,
Brassica
0.25
80
4.6e­
06
3.
7e­
06
2.9e­
06
2.
8e­
06
1.4e­
06
2B
­
Spray
Application
­
Average
Groundboom
2.8e­
06
2.
3e­
06
1.8e­
06
1.
8e­
06
8.1e­
07
3A
­
Mix/
Load
Liquids
­
ATV
Groundboom
Artichokes
1.
0
40
9.2e­
06
7.
5e­
06
5.8e­
06
5.
6e­
06
2.8e­
06
3B
­
Spray
Application
­
ATV
Groundboom
5.6e­
06
4.
7e­
06
3.7e­
06
3.
5e­
06
1.6e­
06
4A
­
Mix/
Load
Liquids
for
Aerial
Application
Fallow
Fields
0.25
350
2.0e­
05
1.
6e­
05
1.3e­
05
1.
2e­
05
6.1e­
06
4B
­
Spray
Application
­
Aerial
Not
applicable
(N/
A)
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
3.
6e­
06
4C
­
Flag
Aerial
Applications
9.4e­
06
8.
8e­
06
7.7e­
06
7.
6e­
06
1.8e­
07
5
­
Chemigation
Onions,
Garlic,
Horseradish
0.
25
350
2.0e­
05
1.
6e­
05
1.3e­
05
1.
2e­
05
6.1e­
06
6A
­
Mix/
Load
Liquids
­
Right
of
Way
Sprayer
Right
of
Ways
1.0
50
5.7e­
05
4.
7e­
06
3.6e­
06
3.
5e­
06
1.8e­
06
6B
­
Spray
Application
­
Right
of
Way
Sprayer
8.
0e­
05
6.0e­
05
5.
7e­
05
5.7e­
05
N/
A
7
­
Mix/
Load/
Apply
Liquids
­
Backpack
Conifers
1.0
2
4.1e­
05
2.
7e­
05
2.5e­
05
2.
5e­
05
N/
Aa
7
­
Mix/
Load/
Apply
Liquids
­
Backpack
Conifers
0.375
2
1.
5e­
05
1.0e­
05
9.
5e­
06
9.4e­
06
N/
A
8A
­
Tractor
Drawn
Broadcast
Spreader
­
Load
Ornamentals
1.
0
40
5.1e­
06
4.
0e­
06
1.6e­
06
1.
3e­
06
1.1e­
07
8B
­
Tractor
Drawn
Broadcast
Spreader
­
Apply
Ornamentals
1.0
40
4.
3e­
06
3.4e­
06
1.
7e­
06
1.5e­
06
1.
0e­
06
9
­
Load
and
Apply
Using
Broadcast
Spreader
Ornamentals
1.
0
5
1.
0e­
05
5.9e­
06
4.
6e­
06
4.4e­
06
N/
A
24
(1)
Post­
Application
Occupational
Risk
The
post­
application
occupational
risk
assessment
considered
exposures
to
workers
entering
treated
sites.
Oxyfluorfen
is
a
non­
selective
herbicide
that
can
cause
leaf
damage
to
most
of
the
labeled
crops.
With
the
exception
of
bulb
vegetables
and
conifers,
which
have
more
tolerance
to
oxyfluorfen,
over
the
top
applications
are
not
recommended.
Therefore,
it
was
determined
that
significant
postapplication
exposure
is
only
anticipated
following
applications
of
oxyfluorfen
to
conifer
seedlings,
conifer
trees
and
bulb
vegetables.

Only
dermal
exposures
were
evaluated
in
the
postapplication
worker
assessment;
inhalation
exposures
are
not
anticipated
due
to
the
low
vapor
pressure
of
oxyfluorfen
(2.0
x
10
­7
torr
at
20
C).
Because
oxyfluorfen
is
typically
applied
only
a
few
times
per
season
and
because
the
agricultural
scenarios
generally
occur
for
only
a
few
months
per
year,
it
was
determined
that
oxyfluorfen
exposures
would
be
in
the
range
covered
by
the
short
and
intermediate
term
toxicological
endpoints.

In
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
(WPS),
a
restricted
entry
interval
(REI)
is
defined
as
the
duration
of
time
which
must
elapse
before
residues
decline
to
a
level
so
entry
into
a
previously
treated
area
and
engaging
in
any
task
or
activity
would
not
result
in
exposures
which
are
of
concern.
Typically,
the
activity
with
the
highest
risk
will
drive
the
selection
of
the
appropriate
REI
for
the
crop.
The
restricted
entry
interval
for
oxyfluorfen
is
currently
set
at
24
hours.

(2)
Data
Sources
The
registrant
submitted
a
chemical
specific
Dislodgeable
Foliar
Residue
(DFR)
study
for
postapplication
worker
exposure.
This
study
measured
dislodgeable
foliar
residues
following
groundboom
application
of
oxyfluorfen
(Goal)
to
control
weeds
in
conifer
seedling
beds
at
a
nursery
in
Oregon.
This
study
is
of
marginally
sufficient
quality
for
use
in
risk
assessment.
The
lack
of
validation
data,
high
fortification
levels
and
low
recovery
during
the
study
are
the
most
significant
deficiencies.
In
the
absence
of
acceptable
chemical­
specific
DFR
data,
standard
Agency
assumptions
were
also
used
for
comparative
purposes:
the
initial
percent
of
application
rate
assumed
to
be
available
as
DFR
was
20%
for
bulb
vegetables
and
conifers,
and
the
dissipation
rate
per
day
was
assumed
to
be
10%.

The
transfer
coefficients
are
based
on
proprietary
data
from
the
Agricultural
Re­
entry
Task
Force
(ARTF).
These
coefficients
range
from
300
for
low
contact
activities
such
as
scouting,
irrigating
and
thinning
fields
of
bulb
vegetables
to
3000
for
higher
contact
activities
such
as
shearing
Christmas
trees.
The
exact
transfer
coefficient
for
a
given
scenario
also
depends
upon
the
crop
height
and
foliage
development.
Currently
there
are
no
transfer
coefficients
for
conifer
seedlings
and
a
value
of
~1000
cm
2
/hr
was
chosen
for
conifer
seedling
irrigation/
scouting
based
upon
professional
judgement,
transfer
coefficients
for
similar
activities
on
other
low
crops,
and
preliminary
ARTF
data
that
is
being
collected
for
a
variety
of
related
crops.
1
Chemical
mowing
is
a
term
used
to
describe
the
practice
of
applying
post­
emergent
herbicides
at
low
rates
to
stunt
or
suppress
weeds,
which
is
cost­
effective
and
promotes
soil
conservation.
Chemical
mowing
can
be
used
as
a
broadcast
application
or
as
a
treatment
for
row
middles.

25
(3)
Assumptions
The
following
assumptions
were
made
regarding
post
application
occupational
exposure:

°
Occupational
post
application
cancer
risks
were
calculated
using
a
30
day
rolling
average
DFR
that
was
predicted
using
the
default
dissipation
rate
of
10
percent
per
day.
These
calculations
are
based
upon
the
assumption
that
post
application
exposure
would
only
occur
on
one
particular
farm.
This
assumption
is
considered
valid
for
conifer
seedling
nurseries
and
Christmas
tree
farms,
because
these
industries
are
less
likely
to
employ
migrant
labor
that
would
move
from
one
farm
to
the
next.
This
assumption
is
less
valid
for
bulb
vegetable
farms
that
use
migrant
labor.
°
Non­
Cancer
short
term
risks
were
assessed
using
the
maximum
label
rates.
Intermediate
term
and
cancer
risks
were
assessed
using
average
application
rates.
Risks
for
conifer
trees
were
also
assessed
at
the
rate
of
0.375
lbs
ai/
acre,
which
can
be
used
for
"chemical
mowing
1
"
around
Christmas
trees.
°
It
was
assumed
that
a
private
grower
has
ten
days
of
post
application
exposure
per
year
and
a
commercial
re­
entry
worker
has
thirty
days
of
post
application
exposure
per
year.

e.
Reentry
Worker
(Non­
cancer)
Risk
The
length
of
time
for
non­
cancer
risks
to
decline
to
levels
that
are
not
of
concern
(i.
e.,
MOEs
$
300)
was
shorter
than
the
current
REI
of
24
hours
for
all
activities
except
for
Christmas
tree
shearing,
which
required
3
days.

f.
Reentry
Worker
Cancer
Risk
A
summary
of
the
cancer
risks
for
commercial
re­
entry
workers
is
presented
in
Table
13.
Risks
for
conifer
tree
activities
exceed
1.0x10
­4
on
day
of
treatment.
These
risks
decline
to
less
than
1.0x10
­4
in
3
days
for
all
activities.
All
of
the
scenarios
have
cancer
risks
in
excess
of
1.0x10
­6
on
day
zero
and
the
time
for
these
risks
to
decline
to
1.0x10
­6
ranges
from
12
to
47
days.
Cancer
risks
for
private
growers
are
three
times
less
than
commercial
workers
due
to
the
assumption
that
they
work
fewer
days
per
year.
26
Table
13.
Post
Application
Cancer
Risks
for
Commercial
Workers
(Default
Data)
Crops
Average
Application
Rate
(lbs
ai/
acre)
Activities
Cancer
Risk
on
Day
Zero
After
Treatment
Day
After
Treatment
When
Cancer
Risk
is
Less
Than:
1.0x10
­4
1.0
x
10
­5
1.0x10
­6
Bulb
Vegetables
0.25
Irrigating,
scouting,
hand
weeding
3.3e­
06
0
0
12
Tree
Seedlings,
Conifer
0.5
Irrigation,
Scouting,
Hand
Weeding
2.2e­
05
0
8
30
Trees,
Conifer
1.0
Irrigation,
Scouting
4.
5e­
05
0
15
37
Shearing
1.
3e­
04
3
25
47
Trees,
Conifer
0.375
(chemical
mowing)
Irrigation,
Scouting
1.7e­
05
0
5
27
Shearing
5.
0e­
05
0
16
38
Although
the
chemical­
specific
study
data
on
conifer
seedlings
has
serious
deficiencies,
the
study
is
useful
for
characterizing
oxyfluorfen­
specific
DFR
levels
on
conifers,
as
the
study
suggests
dissipation
is
faster
than
default
assumptions.
Cancer
risk
using
a
30­
day
rolling
average
could
not
be
calculated
using
the
conifer
DFR
data
because
the
conifer
DFR
dissipated
to
the
LOD
by
DAT
5.
When
using
the
study
data,
reentry
risks
for
conifer
tree
activities
decline
to
less
than
1.0x10
­4
in
one
day
and
the
time
for
these
risks
to
decline
to
1.0x10
­6
ranges
from
6
to
11
days.

Table
14.
Postapplication
Cancer
Risks
for
Commercial
Workers
(Conifer
Study
Data)
Crops
Application
Rate
(lbs
ai/
acre)
Activities
Cancer
Risk
on
Day
Zero
After
Treatment
Day
After
Treatment
When
Cancer
Risk
is
Less
Than:
1.0x10
­4
1.0x10
­6
Tree
Seedlings,
Conifer
0.5
Irrigation,
Scouting,
Hand
Weeding
6.9e­
05
0
6
Trees,
Conifer
1.0
Irrigation,
Scouting
1.4e­
04
1
8
Shearing
4.
2e­
04
1
11
Trees,
Conifer
0.375
Irrigation,
Scouting
5.2e­
05
0
6
Shearing
1.
6e­
04
1
8
6.
Human
Incident
Data
The
Agency
consulted
and
reviewed
sources
of
information
on
health
incidents
involving
human
exposure.
Oxyfluorfen
cases
mostly
relate
to
handler
and
worker
exposure.
The
four
sources
of
information
are
OPP's
Incident
Data
System
(IDS),
American
Association
of
Poison
Control
Centers
(PCC),
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation
(CDPR),
and
the
National
Pesticides
Telecommunication
Network.
CDPR
and
OPP
data
tend
to
provide
the
most
insight
into
oxyfluorfen's
association
with
human
health
incidents.
A
total
of
66
incidents
connected
with
oxyfluorfen
were
reported
in
the
OPP
Incident
Data
System
(IDS)
from
1994
to
2000.
Most
of
these
incidents
involved
irritant
effects
to
the
eyes,
skin
and
occasionally
respiratory
27
passages.
There
were
25
cases
reported
in
the
California
Pesticide
Illness
Surveillance
Program
and
the
majority
of
these
cases
involved
minor
symptoms
of
systemic
illness
such
as
headache,
dizziness
and
nausea.
During
one
of
these
incidents,
nine
of
15
field
workers
developed
symptoms
while
transplanting
cauliflower
plants
in
a
field
that
was
sprayed
about
30
minutes
earlier.
The
reentry
interval
required
on
the
label
was
24
hours.
These
illnesses
included
symptoms
of
chemical
conjunctivitis,
eye
irritation,
tingling
and
itching
of
the
skin,
nausea,
dizziness,
headache,
and
vomiting.
The
incident
report
recommends
that
measures
be
taken
to
enforce
the
reentry
interval
and
that
skin
and
eye
protection
be
worn
by
handlers
and
those
who
are
likely
to
have
substantial
contact
with
oxyfluorfen
products.
Both
PCC
and
CDPR
data
indicate
that
incidents
rarely
result
in
hospitalization
or
prolonged
absences
from
work,
which
is
expected
due
to
the
low
acute
toxicity
profile
for
oxyfluorfen.
However,
in
the
case
of
oxyfluorfen,
the
Agency
does
not
have
as
great
a
concern
for
acute
poisoning
as
for
cancer
risk,
which
is
not
covered
by
incident
data.

B.
Environmental
Risk
Assessment
A
summary
of
the
Agency's
environmental
risk
assessment
is
presented
below.
For
detailed
discussions
of
all
aspects
of
the
environmental
risk
assessment,
see
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
Science
Chapter
for
the
Oxyfluorfen
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision,
dated
May
2,
2002,
available
in
the
public
docket.

1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Except
for
the
photolysis
in
water
study
(which
indicates
relatively
rapid
degradation),
laboratory
data
indicate
that
oxyfluorfen
is
persistent
(aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
lives
of
291
and
294
days
in
a
clay
loam
soil
and
556
and
596
days
in
a
sandy
loam
soil;
and
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
lives
between
554
and
603
days).
Adsorption/
desorption
studies
suggest
oxyfluorfen
is
relatively
immobile,
except
perhaps
when
used
on
very
sandy
soils.
The
most
likely
route
of
dissipation
is
soil
binding.
Laboratory
data
suggest
that
once
the
soil­
bound
oxyfluorfen
reaches
deep
or
turbid
surface
water
it
will
persist
since
it
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
and
since
light
penetration
would
be
limited;
however,
it
may
degrade
by
photolysis
in
clear,
shallow
water.
Oxyfluorfen
can
contaminate
surface
water
through
spray
drift
and
runoff;
however,
it
is
unlikely
to
contaminate
ground
water
because
it
is
relatively
immobile
in
the
soil
column;
therefore,
the
likelihood
of
leaching
is
small.

The
major
degradate
found
in
the
environmental
fate
studies
was
2­
chloro­
1­(
3­
ethoxy­
4­
hydroxyphenol)­
4­(
trifluoromethyl)
benzene,
which
was
identified
in
the
aqueous
photolysis
study
at
$
10
%
of
the
applied
radioactivity.
Other
degradates
were
identified
in
the
aqueous
photolysis
study
but
not
quantified.
In
the
hydrolysis
study,
2­
chloro­
1­(
3­
hydroxy­
4­
nitrophenoxy)­
4­(
trifluoromethyl)
benzene
was
identified
at
a
maximum
concentration
of
1.2­
1.7%
of
the
applied
radioactivity.
There
were
no
degradates
identified
in
the
anaerobic
soil
metabolism,
leaching
adsorption/
desorption
and
soil
photolysis
studies.
The
Health
Effects
Division
has
determined
that
only
parent
oxyfluorfen
is
of
toxicological
concern
for
human
health
risk
assessment.
28
2.
Ecological
Risk
The
Agency's
ecological
risk
assessment
compares
toxicity
endpoints
from
ecological
toxicity
studies
to
estimated
environmental
concentrations
based
on
environmental
fate
characteristics,
pesticide
use,
and/
or
monitoring
data.
To
evaluate
the
potential
risk
to
nontarget
organisms
from
the
use
of
oxyfluorfen
products,
EPA
calculates
a
Risk
Quotient
(RQ),
which
is
the
ratio
of
the
estimated
exposure
concentration
to
the
toxicity
endpoint
values,
such
as
the
LC50
(the
concentration
of
a
substance
which
causes
death
to
50%
of
the
test
animals).
The
RQ
is
simply
a
means
of
integrating
the
results
of
ecological
exposure
and
ecological
toxicity.
These
RQ
values
are
compared
to
levels
of
concern
(LOCs),
given
in
Table
15
which
provide
an
indication
of
the
relative
risk
the
particular
pesticide
and/
or
use
may
pose
for
nontarget
organisms.
If
the
RQ
does
not
exceed
the
LOC,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
pesticide
will
pose
a
significant
risk.
Similarly,
when
RQs
are
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
LOC,
then
the
Agency
does
have
concerns.
These
concerns
may
be
addressed
by
further
refinements
of
the
risk
assessment
or
by
mitigation.
Use,
toxicity,
fate,
and
exposure
are
considered
to
characterize
the
risk
as
well
as
the
level
of
certainty
and
uncertainty
in
the
assessment.
EPA
further
characterizes
ecological
risk
based
on
any
reported
aquatic
or
terrestrial
incidents
to
nontarget
organisms
in
the
field
(e.
g.,
fish
or
bird
kills).

Table
15.
Risk
Presumptions
for
Terrestrial
and
Aquatic
Animals
Risk
Presumption
LOC
terrestrial
animals
LOC
aquatic
animals
Acute
Risk
there
is
potential
for
acute
risk;
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted
in
addition
to
restricted
use
classification,
0.5
0.
5
Acute
Restricted
Use
­there
is
potential
for
acute
risk,
but
may
be
mitigated
through
restricted
use
classification,
0.2
0.
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
­endangered
species
may
be
adversely
affected;
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted,
0.1
0.
05
Chronic
Risk
­there
is
potential
for
chronic
risk;
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted.
1
1
Specific
uses
chosen
for
modeling
include
non­
bearing
citrus,
apples,
grapes,
walnuts,
cotton,
and
cole
crops.
Although
this
only
represents
a
portion
of
the
crops
for
which
oxyfluorfen
has
a
labeled
use,
it
does
represent
crops
with
higher
application
rates
and
crops
which
have
a
large
percentage
of
their
total
acreage
treated
with
oxyfluorfen.
By
encompassing
crops
with
large
percentages
of
acreage
treated
with
oxyfluorfen
and
a
large
geographic
area,
some
crops
with
lower
maximum
application
rates
were
also
included
in
the
set
of
scenarios.

3.
Risk
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
a.
Toxicity
(Hazard)
Assessment
Toxicity
values
for
risk
calculations
for
all
terrestrial
assessments
are
given
in
Table
16.
Toxicity
tests
with
terrestrial
species
show
that
oxyfluorfen
is
"practically
non­
toxic"
to
birds
and
mammals
exposed
for
short
periods;
however,
adverse
effects
were
demonstrated
in
one
of
29
the
two
avian
reproduction
toxicity
studies
and
in
the
mammalian
sub­
chronic,
chronic,
developmental,
and
2­
generation
toxicity
studies.
Guideline
toxicity
tests
show
oxyfluorfen
is
"practically
non­
toxic"
to
honeybees;
however,
a
non­
guideline
study
demonstrated
that
an
oxyfluorfen
end­
use
product
caused
almost
100%
mortality
of
predaceous
mites
at
an
application
rate
of
1.28
lbs
ai/
acre/
application.
In
general,
toxicity
tests
demonstrate
that
oxyfluorfen
negatively
impacts
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
of
terrestrial
plants.

Table
16.
Summary
of
toxicity
values
for
terrestrial
risk
assessments
Test
Species
%
a.
i.
Endpoint
Toxicity
Category
and/
or
Most
Sensitive
Endpoint
MRID
Acute
Avian
and
Mammalian
Bobwhite
quail
(oral)
70.1
LD50
>
2150
mg
ai/
kg­
bw
practically
nontoxic
921361­
02
a
Bobwhite
quail
(dietary)
70.2
LC50
>
5000
mg
ai/
kg­
diet
practically
nontoxic
921361­
03
Laboratory
rat
(dietary)
97.1
LD50
>
5000
mg
ai/
kg­
bw
practically
nontoxic
447120­
10
Chronic
(reproductive)
Avian
and
Mammalian
Bobwhite
quail
72.5
NOAEC
<50
mg
ai/
kg­
diet
LOAEC
=
50
mg
ai/
kg­
diet
Reduced
body
weight
of
14­
day
chicks
4153012­
06
Laboratory
rat
71.4
NOAEC
=
400
mg
ai/
kg­
diet
LOAEC
=
1600
mg
ai/
kg­
diet
Parental
=
mortality,
decreased
BW
and
liver
and
kidney
histopathology
Reproductive
=
decreased
BW
and
decreased
number
of
live
pups/
litter
420149­
01
Non­
Target
Insects
Honey
bee
71.4
LD50
>
100
µ
g/
bee
practically
non­
toxic
423681­
01
Terrestrial
Plants
Seedling
EmergenceMonocot
71.5
EC25
=
0.0058
lbs
ai/
acre
shoot
length
(ryegrass)
416440­
01
Seedling
Emergence
Dicot
71.5
EC25
=
0.0026
lbs
ai/
acre
shoot
length
(cabbage)
416440­
01
Vegetative
Vigor
Monocot
71.5
EC25
=
0.0062
lbs
ai/
acre
shoot
weight
(onion)
416440­
01
Vegetative
Vigor
­
Dicot
71.5
EC25
=
0.00043
lbs
ai/
acre
shoot
weight
(tomato)
416440­
01
a
Also
reviewed
under
MRID
422559­
01.

b.
Exposure
and
Risk
For
pesticides
applied
as
liquids,
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(EECs)
on
food
items
following
product
application
are
compared
to
LC50
values
to
assess
risk
with
a
Risk
Quotient
(RQ)
method.
For
birds
and
mammals,
estimates
of
maximum
residue
levels
of
oxyfluorfen
on
wildlife
food
was
based
on
the
model
of
Hoerger
and
Kenega
(1972),
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.
(1994).
EECs
resulting
from
multiple
applications
are
calculated
from
the
maximum
number
of
applications,
minimum
application
interval,
and
foliar
half­
life
data.
The
Agency
does
not
calculate
assess
chronic
risk
from
granular
applications.
For
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
plants,
the
exposure
model
incorporates
runoff
and
spray
drift.
30
RQs
were
not
calculated
to
evaluate
the
potential
acute
risks
to
birds
and
mammals
because
no
adverse
effects
reflecting
a
single
dose
were
identified
at
the
highest
dose.
For
the
current
labeled
application
rates,
minimal
acute
risks
to
birds
and
mammals
are
anticipated.

Subchronic
and
chronic
risks
to
terrestrial
birds
and
mammals
do
present
a
concern.
Assuming
maximum
residue
values,
the
chronic
LOC
of
1.0
is
exceeded
for
birds
consuming
short
grass
when
oxyfluorfen
is
applied
to
crops
at
application
rates
greater
than
or
equal
to
0.25
lbs
ai/
acre/
year.
The
chronic
RQs
are
lower
for
birds
consuming
other
food
stuffs,
but
there
are
chronic
exceedences
at
higher
application
rates.
Since
the
NOEC
in
the
chronic
avian
toxicity
study
was
not
determined
(<
50
mg
ai/
kg­
diet),
the
RQs
represent
a
lower
bound.
Consumption
of
short
grass
leads
to
the
highest
chronic
risk
estimates
for
birds.

Table
17.
Summarized
Chronic
Avian
Risk
Quotients
for
Spray
Applications
a
Crop
(Site)
Max
Single
App.
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Max
No.
of
Apps.
Chronic
RQs
for
Predicted
Max
Residue
Levels
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
Tall
grass
Short
grass
Citrus
(Florida)
2.
0
2
>0.9
>8.4+
>6.8+
>14.9+
Apples
(Oregon)
Walnut
(California)
Grapes
(New
York)
2.0
1
>0.6
>5.4+
>4.4+
>9.6+

Cotton
(Mississippi)
Cole
crops
(California)
0.5
1
>0.2
>1.4+
>1.1+
>2.4+

Cole
crops
(California)
0.25
1
>0.1
>0.7
>0.6
>1.2+
+
indicates
an
exceedence
of
Chronic
LOC
a
Chronic
toxicity
threshold
(NOEC)
was
<50
mg
ai/
kg­
diet;
Chronic
LOC
=
1.0.

For
mammals,
chronic
risk
quotients
are
estimated
to
exceed
the
Chronic
LOC
of
1.0
for
the
citrus
scenario
with
the
highest
application
rate
(2
lbs
ai/
acre,
2
applications/
season)
and
for
all
scenarios
with
a
2
lb
ai/
acre/
year
application
rate
(chronic
RQs
#
2).
Multiple
applications
of
a
pesticide
may
raise
the
risk
to
an
organism
by
increasing
the
concentration
of
residues
on
food
items
and
by
extending
the
period
during
which
these
residues
may
be
present.
31
Table
18.
Summarized
Chronic
Mammalian
Risk
Quotients
for
Spray
Applications
a
Crop
(Site)
Max
Single
App.
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Max
No.
of
Apps.
Chronic
RQs
for
Predicted
Max
Residue
Levels
Seeds
Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
Short
grass
Citrus
(Florida)
2.
0
2
0.12
1.05
1.86+
Apples
(Oregon)
Walnut
(California)
Grapes
(New
York)
2.0
1
0.08
0.68
1.20+

Cotton
(Mississippi)
Cole
crops
(California)
0.5
1
0.
02
0.
17
0.
30
Cole
crops
(California)
0.25
1
0.
01
0.
09
0.
15
+
indicates
an
exceedence
of
the
Chronic
Risk
LOC.
a
Chronic
toxicity
threshold
(NOEC)
was
400
mg
ai/
kg­
diet.

The
Agency
currently
does
not
quantify
risks
to
terrestrial
non­
target
insects;
therefore,
risk
quotients
are
not
calculated
for
these
organisms.

As
a
herbicide,
oxyfluorfen
is
expected
and
has
been
shown
to
negatively
impact
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
of
terrestrial
plants.
For
nearly
all
modeled
scenarios,
the
acute
risk
LOC
of
1.0
for
terrestrial
plants
adjacent
to
treated
areas
and
plants
in
semi­
aquatic
areas
is
exceeded.
The
RQs
range
from
1
to
169.
The
risk
assessment
for
terrestrial
plants
was
based
on
RQs
calculated
from
toxicity
studies
using
the
technical
grade
of
oxyfluorfen
instead
of
a
typical
end­
use
product
(TEP).
Often
the
TEPs
include
surfactants
or
adjuvants
to
increase
the
herbicide's
adsorption
into
the
plant,
thereby
increasing
its
efficacy.
If
the
toxicity
tests
were
conducted
using
a
TEP
of
oxyfluorfen
(e.
g.,
Goal
2XL)
at
the
same
rates
as
the
technical
grade,
the
toxicity
endpoints
may
be
much
lower.
Furthermore,
if
the
toxicity
endpoints
were
reduced
with
the
TEP,
the
RQs
and
the
risks
would
be
higher
than
currently
estimated.

Table
19.
Summarized
Acute
Non­
endangered
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotients
Crop
Application
Rate
(lbs
ai/
acre)
Acute
RQs
Adjacent
to
treated
sites
Semi­
aquatic
areas
Citrus
2
lbs
ai/
acre,
2
applications/
year
6­
93
6­
169
Apples,
Walnuts,
Grapes
2
lbs
ai/
acre,
1
application/
year
3­
47
3­
85
Cotton
(aerial)
0.5
lbs
ai/
acre,
1
application/
year
4­
58
4­
58
Cole
crops
(aerial)
0.25
lbs
ai/
acre,
1
application/
year
2­
30
2­
30
4.
Uncertainties
in
Terrestrial
Risk
Assessment
There
are
a
number
of
areas
of
uncertainty
in
the
terrestrial
risk
assessment.
Sensitivity
differences
between
species
can
be
considerable
(even
up
to
two
orders
of
magnitude)
for
some
chemicals.
The
rank
of
the
tested
species
relative
to
the
distribution
of
all
species'
sensitivities
to
oxyfluorfen
is
unknown.
In
addition,
the
toxicity
of
oxyfluorfen
to
wild
(non­
laboratory)
species
relative
to
laboratory
species
is
unknown.
32
The
risk
assessment
only
considered
a
subset
of
possible
use
scenarios.
It
is
possible
that
some
of
the
labeled
uses
that
were
not
modeled
will
have
a
greater
risk
to
the
environment
than
those
included
in
this
risk
assessment.
For
example,
coffee,
cacao,
and
ornamentals
have
a
higher
seasonal
maximum
application
rate
than
those
modeled.
There
is
uncertainty
in
the
Chronic
RQ
estimates
for
birds
because
a
NOEC
was
not
established
in
the
study
used
for
risk
assessment.
The
true
magnitude
of
the
RQs
for
chronic
avian
toxicity
is
unknown,
as
these
represent
lower
bound
estimates.
Only
dietary
exposure
is
included
in
the
exposure
assessment.
Other
exposure
routes
are
possible
for
animals
in
treated
areas.
These
routes
include
ingestion
of
contaminated
drinking
water,
ingestion
of
contaminated
soils,
preening/
grooming,
dermal
contact,
and
inhalation.

5.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Animals
a.
Toxicity
(Hazard)
Assessment
Toxicity
values
for
risk
calculations
for
all
aquatic
assessments
are
given
in
Table
20.
Based
on
toxicity
studies
with
aquatic
species
submitted
by
the
registrant,
oxyfluorfen
is
"highly
toxic"
to
fish
exposed
for
short
or
extended
periods
of
time,
"very
highly
toxic"
to
"moderately
toxic"
to
aquatic
invertebrates
exposed
for
short
or
extended
periods
of
time,
and
"highly
toxic"
to
aquatic
plants.

Table
20.
Summary
of
toxicity
values
for
aquatic
risk
assessments.

Test
Species
%
a.
i.
Endpoint
Toxicity
Category
and/
or
Most
Sensitive
Endpoint
MRID
Acute
Freshwater
Bluegill
Sunfish
94.0
96­
hr
LC50
=
200
µg/
L
Highly
toxic
Acc.
95583
Daphnia
magna
23.2
48­
hr
EC50
=
80
µg/
L
Very
highly
toxic
Acc.
96881
Acute
Estuarine/
Marine
Sheepshead
Minnow
71.4
96­
hr
LC50
>
170
µg/
L
Highly
toxic
416988­
01
Grass
shrimp
74.0
96­
hr
LC50
=
32
µg/
L
Very
highly
toxic
309701­
17
Chronic
Freshwater
Fathead
Minnow
71
NOAEC
=
38
µg/
L
LOAEC
=
74
µg/
L
Survival,
larval
length
and
weight
921360­
57
a
Daphnia
magna
71.8
NOAEC
=
13
µg/
L
LOAEC
=
28
µg/
L
growth
(length),
reproduction
421423­
05
b
Aquatic
Plants
Selenastrum
capricornutum
23.2
96­
hr
EC50
=
0.29
µg/
L
reduction
in
growth
452713­
02
a
Also
reviewed
under
Acc.
99270.
b
Raw
data
submitted
under
MRID
455502­
01.

b.
Exposure
and
Risk
For
exposure
to
aquatic
animals,
EPA
considers
surface
water
only
since
most
organisms
are
not
found
in
ground
water.
Surface
water
models
are
used
to
estimate
exposure
to
freshwater
33
aquatic
animals
since
monitoring
data
are
generally
not
targeted
studies
on
small
water
bodies
and
primary
streams
where
many
aquatic
animals
are
found.
The
modeling
results
used
in
risk
calculations
are
detailed
in
the
EFED
chapter.

The
Agency
used
PRZM­
EXAMS
to
calculate
refined
EECs.
The
Pesticide
Root
Zone
Model
(PRZM,
version
3.12)
simulates
pesticides
in
field
runoff
and
erosion,
while
the
Exposure
Analysis
Modeling
System
(EXAMS,
version
2.7.95)
simulates
pesticide
fate
and
transport
in
an
aquatic
environment
(one
hectare
body
of
water,
two
meters
deep).
EECs
were
calculated
for
surface
water
using
the
highest
application
rate
on
non­
bearing
citrus,
apples,
grapes,
walnuts,
cotton,
and
cole
crops.
Although
this
only
represents
a
portion
of
the
crops
for
which
oxyfluorfen
has
a
labeled
use,
it
does
represent
crops
with
higher
application
rates
and
crops
which
have
a
large
percentage
of
their
total
acreage
treated
with
oxyfluorfen.
By
encompassing
crops
with
large
percentages
of
acreage
treated
with
oxyfluorfen
and
a
large
geographic
area,
some
crops
with
lower
maximum
application
rates
were
also
included
in
the
set
of
scenarios.

For
freshwater
and
estuarine
fish,
the
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs
are
not
exceeded.
For
freshwater
invertebrates,
the
acute
risk
LOC
of
0.5
is
exceeded
for
two
citrus
scenarios
with
higher
application
rates
(RQs
#
0.62).
For
estuarine
invertebrates,
the
acute
risk
LOC
of
0.5
is
exceeded
for
all
citrus
scenarios
(RQs
#
1.56).
Though
oxyfluorfen
is
highly
toxic
to
all
fish
and
invertebrate
species
tested,
the
RQs
calculated
from
EECs
derived
from
Tier
II
simulations
suggest
little
potential
for
acute
risk
to
fish
or
invertebrates.

Of
the
scenarios
modeled,
there
were
no
Chronic
Risk
LOC
exceedences
for
freshwater
fish.
For
freshwater
invertebrates,
the
Chronic
LOC
was
exceeded
in
all
Florida
citrus
scenarios
and
for
the
maximum
application
rate
on
New
York
grapes.

Table
21.
Acute/
Chronic
Risk
Quotients
for
Aquatic
Species
Crop
(Site)
Max
Single
App.
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Max
No.
of
Apps./
Method
Type
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Acute
RQ
Fish
Invert.
Fish
Invert.
Invert.
Citrus
(Florida)
2.
0
2/
ground
0.25**
0.62***
0.67
2.35+
1.56***
Apples
(Oregon)
2.0
1/
ground
0.04
0.10**
0.10
0.38
0.25**
Grapes
(New
York)
2.
0
1/
ground
0.10**
0.25**
0.33
1.11+
0.61***
Walnut
(California)
2.0
1/
ground
0.02
0.04
0.11
0.82
0.10*

Cotton
(Mississippi)
0.
5
1/
aerial
1/
ground
0.02
0.06*
0.06*
0.08
0.09
0.29
0.27
0.15**
0.14**
Cole
crops
(California)
0.25
1/
aerial
1/
ground
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.06
0.05*
0.04
*
indicates
an
exceedence
of
Endangered
Species
LOC
**
indicates
an
exceedence
of
Acute
Restricted
Use
LOC
***
indicates
an
exceedence
of
Acute
Risk
LOC
+
indicates
an
exceedence
of
Chronic
LOC
34
Limited
monitoring
data
provide
further
information
for
the
evaluation
of
environmental
risk
to
aquatic
organisms.
Based
on
sampling
during
February
1992
in
the
San
Joaquin
River,
oxyfluorfen
concentrations
in
water
were
estimated
to
be
between
0.1
and
1.0
:
g/
L.
Using
1.0
:
g/
L
as
an
EEC,
the
Acute
Risk
LOC
was
exceeded
for
aquatic
plants
(RQ
=
3.45),
but
there
were
no
acute
LOC
exceedences
for
freshwater
fish
(RQ
<
0.01)
and
invertebrates
(RQ
=
0.01),
and
estuarine
fish
(RQ
<
0.01)
and
invertebrates
(RQ
=
0.03).
Long
term
sampling
at
four
sites
had
estimated
average
concentrations
of
oxyfluorfen
in
water
ranging
from
0.01
to
0.27
:
g/
L,
indicating
a
lower
risk
to
aquatic
organisms;
however,
localized
high
concentrations
of
oxyfluorfen
have
been
observed.
As
a
result
of
the
Goal
2XL
spill
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
(Fifteen
Mile
Creek)
on
August
24,
2000,
focused
sediment
and
water
sampling
was
conducted.
Water
and
sediment
samples
were
collected
as
background
measures
from
areas
thought
not
to
be
impacted
by
the
spill.
The
few
background
water
samples
did
not
have
detectable
amounts
of
oxyfluorfen,
but
2
of
the
35
background
sediment
samples
did
have
detectible
amounts
of
oxyfluorfen
(the
highest
was
541
ppb).
It
is
important
to
note
that
these
background
samples
were
collected
seven
months
after
most
oxyfluorfen
applications
would
have
occurred
(oxyfluorfen
is
primarily
applied
during
the
dormant
winter
season).

6.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Plants
The
RQs
for
all
modeled
scenarios
currently
exceed
the
acute
risk
LOC
of
1.0
for
freshwater
algal
plants,
and
range
from
5
to
172.
Risks
to
aquatic
vascular
plants
cannot
be
assessed
at
this
time
since
no
data
have
been
submitted.

Table
22.
Acute
Risk
Quotients
for
Aquatic
Plants*
Crop
(Site)
Max
Single
App.
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Max
No.
of
Apps./
Method
Type
Freshwater
algae
(Nonvascular)
Acute
RQ
Citrus
(Florida)
2.
0
2/
ground
171.59
Apples
(Oregon)
2.0
1/
ground
28.38
Grapes
(New
York)
2.
0
1/
ground
67.59
Walnut
(California)
2.0
1/
ground
44.72
Cotton
(Mississippi)
0.5
1/
aerial
1/
ground
16.72
15.31
Cole
crops
(California)
0.25
1/
aerial
1/
ground
5.45
4.59
*
Acute
toxicity
for
Aquatic
Plants
(The
plant
growth
study
on
Selenastrum
capricornutum
(MRID
452713­
02)
with
Goal
2XL
indicated
a
96­
hr
EC50
of
0.29
ppb
at
23.2
%
ai,
classifying
oxyfluorfen
as
"highly
toxic")

a.
Uncertainties
in
the
Aquatic
Assessment
There
are
a
number
of
areas
of
uncertainty
in
the
aquatic
organism
risk
assessment.
The
risk
assessment
only
considers
the
most
sensitive
species
tested.
The
position
of
the
tested
species
relative
to
the
distribution
of
all
species'
sensitivities
to
oxyfluorfen
is
unknown.
The
aquatic
plant
risk
assessment
is
based
on
only
one
species,
a
freshwater
algae.
There
is
a
large
uncertainty
because
the
response
of
non­
vascular
plants
to
oxyfluorfen
may
be
different
than
the
response
of
the
vascular
plants
to
oxyfluorfen.
The
risk
assessment
only
considered
a
subset
of
35
possible
use
scenarios.
Some
of
the
labeled
uses
that
were
not
modeled
may
have
a
greater
risk
to
the
environment
than
those
included
in
this
risk
assessment.
No
chronic
toxicity
studies
for
estuarine
fish
or
invertebrates
were
submitted
to
the
Agency,
so
the
toxicity
of
oxyfluorfen
to
these
organisms
is
unknown.

Aquatic
risks
have
not
been
assessed
for
a
myriad
of
aquatic
habitats
(e.
g.,
marshes,
streams,
intermittent
aquatic
areas)
which
are
more
extensive
and
are
frequently
more
productive
than
2­
meter
deep
ponds.
The
benthic
environment
(aquatic
soil
environment)
provides
habitat
to
many
invertebrates
that
provide
important
food
sources
to
fish
and
other
aquatic
organisms.
Based
on
toxicity
data
to
invertebrates,
oxyfluorfen
may
pose
long
term
effects
to
benthic
organisms.
Because
of
oxyfluorfen's
high
affinity
to
soil,
soil
eroding
from
application
areas
is
likely
to
carry
bound
oxyfluorfen
to
aquatic
areas.
Guideline
studies
for
aerobic
and
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
suggest
oxyfluorfen
is
highly
persistent
on
soil
and
would
likely
accumulate
in
depositing
sediments.
This
information,
combined
with
oxyfluorfen
measurements
in
river
suspended
sediment
and
aquatic
toxicity
data,
suggests
benthic
organisms
may
be
impacted
and
aquatic
habitat
degraded
as
a
result
of
oxyfluorfen
usage.
EPA
is
requesting
a
10­
day
survival
and
growth
toxicity
test
for
sediments
using
freshwater
sediment
toxicity
organisms.

Oxyfluorfen
may
pose
risks
to
animals
not
conveyed
by
standard
guideline
toxicity
studies
because
oxyfluorfen's
mode
of
action
suggests
it
may
be
more
toxic
in
the
presence
of
light
(phototoxic).
Oxyfluorfen,
and
other
light­
dependent
peroxidizing
herbicides,
act
in
plants
by
producing
phototoxic
compounds.
Toxicity
studies
with
oxyfluorfen
and
other
similar
herbicides
suggest
the
same
phototoxic
compounds
may
occur
in
animals
as
a
result
of
herbicide
exposure.
Because
guideline
toxicity
studies
are
normally
conducted
under
relatively
low,
artificial
light
conditions,
the
effects
of
being
exposed
simultaneously
to
oxyfluorfen
and
sunlight
are
not
known.
To
provide
information
on
the
magnitude
of
this
effect,
EPA
is
requesting
fish
phototoxicity
studies
be
conducted
for
oxyfluorfen.

7.
Endangered
Species
The
preliminary
risk
assessment
for
endangered
species
indicates
that
oxyfluorfen
exceeds
the
endangered
species
LOCs
for
the
following
combinations
of
analyzed
uses
and
species:

°
terrestrial
plants
for
all
uses;
°
avian
chronic
for
non­
bearing
citrus
and
all
applications
with
rates
greater
than
0.5
lb
ai/
acre/
application
(such
as
rights­
of­
way,
apples,
walnuts
and
grapes)
based
on
both
maximum
and
mean
residue
levels;
°
mammalian
chronic
for
non­
bearing
citrus,
and
applications
with
rates
of
2
lbs
ai/
acre
(such
as
rights­
of­
way,
apples,
walnuts
and
grapes)
based
on
maximum
residues;
°
freshwater
fish
for
non­
bearing
citrus
and
grapes
(of
those
scenarios
modeled);
and
°
estuarine
fish
for
non­
bearing
citrus,
apples
and
grapes
(of
those
scenarios
modeled);
and
°
freshwater
invertebrates
for
non­
bearing
citrus,
apples,
grapes
and
cotton
(of
those
scenarios
modeled).
36
Although
the
endangered
species
LOC
for
estuarine
invertebrates
has
been
exceeded,
there
are
no
federally
listed
species
in
this
group.
Risks
to
endangered
aquatic
vascular
plants
cannot
be
assessed
at
this
time
since
no
acceptable
toxicity
test
for
Lemna
gibba
has
been
submitted
to
the
Agency.
Further
analysis
regarding
the
overlap
of
individual
species
and
their
behavior
with
each
use
site
is
required
prior
to
determining
the
likelihood
of
potential
impact
to
listed
species.

The
Agency
had
a
consultation
in
1985
(amended
in
1986)
with
the
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(FWS
or
the
Service)
on
oxyfluorfen
(Goal
1.6E
and
Goal
2E)
regarding
its
use
on
noncrop
areas
including
rights­
of
ways,
fence
rows,
roadsides,
and
levee
banks.
The
Service
found
jeopardy
to
76
species
of
endangered
plants,
54
species
of
endangered
fish,
23
species
of
endangered
mussels
(clams),
two
species
of
snails,
eleven
species
of
endangered
insects,
four
endangered
amphibians
and
one
endangered
bird
(piping
plover).
The
Service
proposed
a
Reasonable
and
Prudent
Alternatives
(RPA)
to
avoid
jeopardy
to
these
species.
The
RPA
prohibited
the
application
of
Goal
within
a
quarter
mile
of
the
habitat
of
the
listed
plants
and
terrestrial
invertebrates
and
within
a
quarter
mile
of
the
streams
or
bodies
of
water
where
the
aquatic
species
occur.

Oxyfluorfen
was
included
in
the
corn
cluster
consultation
in
1983,
and
it's
uses
on
crops
and
forests
were
also
included
in
the
"reinitiation"
of
clusters
in
1988.
The
resulting
1989
opinion
found
jeopardy
to
one
amphibian
(the
Wyoming
toad
which
is
extirpated
in
the
wild
except
on
FWS
refuges),
five
fish
species,
two
species
of
crustaceans
and
one
bird
species
(the
wood
stork).
The
Service
proposed
Reasonable
and
Prudent
Alternatives
(RPA)
for
each
of
these
jeopardized
species.
In
addition,
the
Service
had
Reasonable
and
Prudent
Measures
(RPM)
to
reduce
incidental
take
of
34
aquatic
and
three
bird
species.
The
details
of
the
RPM
recommendations
are
provided
in
the
FWS
1989
biological
opinion.

Acute
risks
to
endangered
birds
is
no
longer
a
concern
for
oxyfluorfen,
as
the
study
used
as
the
basis
for
the
earlier
findings
of
jeopardy
to
birds
has
since
been
determined
to
be
invalid.
However,
many
additional
species,
especially
aquatic
species,
have
been
federally
listed
as
endangered/
threatened
since
the
biological
opinion
of
1989
was
written,
and
determination
of
potential
effect
to
these
species
has
not
been
assessed
for
oxyfluorfen.
In
addition,
endangered
plants,
which
were
considered
in
the
1985
and
1986
biological
opinions
for
the
rights­
of­
way
uses,
were
not
considered
in
the
1989
opinion
and
need
to
be
addressed.
Finally,
not
only
are
more
refined
methods
to
define
ecological
risks
of
pesticides
being
used
but
also
new
data,
such
as
that
for
spray
drift,
are
now
available
that
did
not
exist
in
1989.
The
RPAs
and
RPMs
in
the
1989
opinion
may
need
to
be
reassessed
and
modified
based
on
these
new
approaches.

The
Agency
is
currently
engaged
in
a
Proactive
Conservation
Review
with
FWS
and
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
under
section
7(
a)(
1)
of
the
Endangered
Species
Act
to
clarify
and
develop
consistent
processes
for
endangered
species
risk
assessments
and
consultations.
Subsequent
to
the
completion
of
this
process,
the
Agency
will
reassess
both
those
species
listed
since
the
completion
of
the
biological
opinion
and
those
not
considered
in
the
opinion.
The
Agency
will
also
consider
regulatory
changes
implemented
in
this
RED
when
the
reassessment
is
undertaken.
37
8.
Ecological
Incidents
There
is
one
reported
incident
in
the
EIIS
database
with
an
aquatic
organism
effect.
On
August
22,
2000,
Fifteen
Mile
Creek
near
the
Dalles
Dam
in
Oregon
was
the
site
of
an
oxyfluorfen
spill.
A
truck
carrying
formulated
oxyfluorfen
(Goal
2XL)
crashed
on
a
bridge
spilling
approximately
20,000
gallons
of
herbicide
into
the
creek
yards
from
where
the
creek
enters
the
Columbia
River.
Two
weeks
after
the
spill,
samples
of
filtered
and
unfiltered
water
near
the
spill
site
contained
an
average
of
32
:
g/
L
and
340
:
g/
L,
respectively.
This
spill
was
estimated
to
cause
a
35%
decrease
in
the
numbers
of
adult
chinook
salmon
and
a
26%
decrease
in
the
numbers
of
steelhead
passing
over
the
Dalles
Dam
the
day
immediately
following
the
spill,
relative
to
the
day
prior
to
the
spill.
The
spill
was
also
reported
to
kill
thousands
of
young
lampreys.
An
extensive
cleanup
operation
(removal
of
water
and
sediment)
removed
a
majority
of
the
chemical,
and
the
estimated
quantity
of
oxyfluorfen
not
recovered
was
less
than
1000
gallons.

There
are
several
reported
plant
incidents
in
the
Environmental
Incident
Information
System
(EIIS)
database.
One
incident
occurred
on
March
7,
1996,
when
a
pest
control
operator
in
Madera
County,
California,
applied
Roundup
(glyphosate)
and
Goal
(oxyfluorfen)
to
an
unspecified
site.
These
herbicides
drifted
to
40
acres
of
plums
and
90­
100
acres
of
almonds
with
total
damage
estimated
at
$520,000
to
$760,000.
A
similar
incident
occurred
in
1996
in
Arkansas.
A
grower
stated
that
aerial
drift
of
Roundup
Ultra
and
Goal
damaged
160
acres
of
rice,
and
80
acres
had
to
be
replanted.
Another
aerial
drift
incident
occurred
in
1996
in
California.
A
grower
stated
that
aerial
drift
of
Roundup
Ultra
and
Goal
damaged
10
acres
of
oranges.
Investigation
by
Monsanto
representatives
revealed
that
adequate
buffer
zones
had
not
been
employed.
In
these
cases,
either
of
these
compounds
may
have
contributed
to
the
damage
of
these
crops.
There
are
2
reported
incidents
of
damage
attributed
to
a
home
use
product
(Ortho
GroundClear
Triox).
Both
incidents
involved
damage
and
death
to
small
numbers
of
ornamentals
and
juniper
trees.
The
damage
may
have
been
caused
by
oxyfluorfen
and/
or
the
other
active
ingredient
in
Triox,
isopropylamine
salt.

The
lack
of
reported
incidents
to
birds,
mammals,
and
aquatic
species
cannot
be
considered
as
evidence
of
lack
of
risk.
For
example,
the
major
concerns
for
risks
to
birds
and
mammals
are
chronic
effects.
If
oxyfluorfen
is
having
a
chronic
impact
to
bird
and
mammal
populations
in
the
wild,
observance
of
these
effects
is
much
less
likely
than
if
the
risks
of
concern
were
acute
effects
(e.
g.,
mortality).

IV.
Risk
Management
and
Reregistration
Decision
A.
Determination
of
Reregistration
Eligibility
Section
4(
g)(
2)(
A)
of
FIFRA
calls
for
the
Agency
to
determine,
after
submissions
of
relevant
data
concerning
an
active
ingredient,
whether
products
containing
the
active
ingredient
38
are
eligible
for
reregistration.
The
Agency
has
previously
identified
and
required
the
submission
of
the
generic
(i.
e.,
an
active
ingredient
specific)
data
required
to
support
reregistration
of
products
containing
the
active
ingredient
oxyfluorfen.

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

Based
on
its
evaluation
of
oxyfluorfen,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
oxyfluorfen
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
oxyfluorfen.
If
all
changes
outlined
in
this
document
are
incorporated
into
the
product
labels,
then
all
current
risks
for
oxyfluorfen
will
be
adequately
mitigated
for
the
purposes
of
this
determination.

B.
Public
Comments
and
Responses
When
making
its
reregistration
decision,
the
Agency
took
into
account
all
comments
received
after
opening
of
the
public
docket.
These
comments
in
their
entirety
are
available
in
the
docket
(OPP
#34252).
Comments
on
the
risk
assessment
were
submitted
by
two
registrants,
Dow
AgroSciences
and
the
Scotts
Company.
EPA
also
received
letters
from
approximately
65
growers,
extension
agents,
and
commodity
organizations
attesting
to
the
importance
of
oxyfluorfen
to
their
weed
control
programs
for
commodities
such
as
forest
seedlings,
grapes,
artichokes,
various
brassica
and
crucifer
crops,
Christmas
trees,
raspberries,
blackberries,
garbanzo
beans,
onions,
ornamentals,
various
orchard
crops,
garlic,
walnuts,
and
almonds.
The
majority
of
comments
were
submitted
by
the
forestry
and
nursery
industries,
which
point
out
that
oxyfluorfen
is
one
of
the
most
important,
if
not
the
most
important,
pesticides
used
for
weed
control
based
on
its
cost
effectiveness
and
efficacy.
The
Oregon
Strawberry
Commission
submitted
a
comment
regarding
their
pending
Section
3
petition
for
use
of
oxyfluorfen
on
strawberries.
Strawberry
growers
have
used
oxyfluorfen
(Goal
2XL)
under
the
Section
18
Emergency
Exemption
Program
from
1997­
2001.
39
The
Confederated
Tribes
of
the
Warm
Springs
Reservation
of
Oregon
raised
concern
that
the
dietary
risk
assessment
for
oxyfluorfen
is
not
protective,
because
estimated
fish
consumption
was
based
on
an
amount
representative
of
the
general
public
rather
than
subpopulations
which
may
consume
higher
levels
of
fish.
EPA
did
not
address
this
comment
in
the
Response
to
Comments
documents,
so
this
comment
is
being
addressed
here.
The
fish
bioconcentration
study
suggests
that
accumulation
would
occur,
but
residues
would
depurate
rapidly
when
fish
move
to
clean
water.
In
contrast,
the
fish
monitoring
data
from
the
Columbia
river
(gathered
as
a
part
of
the
oxyfluorfen
spill
incident)
suggests
a
slower
depuration
period.
The
fish
in
the
Columbia
River
were
not
sediment
dwelling
but
frequently
contained
residues
greater
than
10
ppb
and
a
couple
of
instances
over
100
ppb.
It
is
uncertain
whether
or
not
residues
were
caused
by
the
spill
because
the
fish
were
collected
either
upstream
or
many
miles
downstream.
These
measurements
in
the
Columbia
River
are
useful
in
defining
bioaccumulation
potential
since
they
were
collected
in
the
field
and
represent
a
variety
of
fish
(including
those
eaten
by
tribes
and
recreational
anglers).
The
Columbia
River
results
do
suggest
that
oxyfluorfen
has
the
potential
to
accumulate
in
fish
in
the
environment
to
a
certain
extent.
The
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
has
provided
the
information
relevant
to
potential
oxyfluorfen
accumulation
in
fish
to
the
Office
of
Water
who
will
determine
if
state
advisory
actions
and/
or
additional
monitoring
programs
are
needed.
The
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
will
continue
to
work
with
the
Office
of
Water
to
ensure
that
potential
exposures
and
risks
are
appropriately
assessed.

Formal
Agency
responses
to
comments
related
to
the
risk
assessments
can
be
found
in
the
following
documents,
which
are
available
in
the
public
docket:
"Oxyfluorfen:
Response
to
Public
Comments
to
the
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment"
dated
May
1,
2002;
"Oxyfluorfen:
Response
to
the
Occupational/
Residential
Exposure
(ORE)
Comments
Submitted
in
Response
to
the
60
Day
Public
Comment
Period"
dated
May
2,
2002;
and
"Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
Response
to
Public
Comments
Made
by
Dow
AgroSciences
and
the
California
Almond
Board
on
EFED's
Risk
Assessment
for
Oxyfluorfen"
dated
May
2,
2002.

C.
Regulatory
Position
1.
FQPA
Assessment
a.
"Risk
Cup"
Determination
As
part
of
the
FQPA
tolerance
reassessment
process,
EPA
assessed
the
risks
associated
with
this
pesticide.
EPA
has
determined
that
risk
from
dietary
(food
sources
only)
exposure
to
oxyfluorfen
is
within
its
own
"risk
cup."
In
other
words,
EPA
has
concluded
that
the
tolerances
for
oxyfluorfen
meet
the
FQPA
safety
standards.
In
reaching
this
determination
EPA
has
considered
the
available
information
on
the
special
sensitivity
of
infants
and
children,
as
well
as
the
acute
and
chronic
food
exposure.
An
aggregate
assessment
was
conducted
for
exposures
through
food,
drinking
water,
and
residential
uses.
The
Agency
has
determines
that
the
human
health
risks
from
these
combined
exposures
are
within
acceptable
levels.
40
Therefore,
there
are
no
changes
in
oxyfluorfen
tolerances
due
to
risk
concerns
and
most
tolerances
will
remain
in
effect;
however,
the
following
tolerance
changes
and
data
are
necessary:

Tolerances
for
field
corn
fodder
and
forage
are
not
warranted
because
oxyfluorfen's
registered
use
on
field
corn
is
limited
to
the
states
of
NC
and
SC
in
conjunction
with
a
USDA
program
to
eradicate
"witchweed"
(Striga
asiatica);
the
treated
forage
and
fodder
of
field
corn
are
not
fed
to
livestock
to
avoid
the
spread
of
the
weed.
With
respect
to
animal
commodities,
the
established
oxyfluorfen
tolerances
for
milk,
fat,
meat,
and
meat
by­
products
of
cattle,
goats,
hogs,
horses,
and
sheep
should
be
lowered
from
0.05
to
0.01
ppm
based
on
the
reviewed
cattle
feeding
study.
Similarly,
adjustments
in
the
tolerance
levels
of
the
following
poultry
commodities
are
required
based
on
the
results
of
the
poultry
feeding
study:
eggs
(from
0.05
to
0.03
ppm);
meat
and
meat
by­
products
(from
0.05
to
0.01
ppm);
and
fat
(from
0.05
to
0.2
ppm).
The
registrant
may
impose
label
restrictions
on
the
feeding
of
oxyfluorfen­
treated
soybean
forage
and
hay
in
lieu
of
submitting
field
residue
data
and
proposing
tolerances
for
these
soybean
commodities.
The
Agency
will
establish
tolerances
for
cotton
gin
byproducts,
and
citrus
oil.
Tolerances
with
regional
registration
for
grass
forage,
grass
hay,
and
grass
seed
screenings
at
0.05
ppm
each
should
also
be
established.
The
need
to
modify
tolerances
for
bananas
and
cacao
beans
will
be
determined
upon
receipt
of
confirmatory
data.

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

c.
Determination
of
Safety
for
Infants
and
Children
EPA
has
determined
that
the
established
tolerances
for
oxyfluorfen,
with
amendments
and
changes
as
specified
in
this
document,
meet
the
safety
standards
under
the
FQPA
amendments
to
section
408(
b)(
2)(
C)
of
the
FFDCA,
that
there
is
a
reasonable
certainty
of
no
harm
for
infants
and
children.
The
safety
determination
for
infants
and
children
considers
the
factors
noted
above
for
the
general
population,
but
also
takes
into
account
the
possibility
of
41
increased
dietary
exposure
due
to
the
specific
consumption
patterns
of
infants
and
children,
as
well
as
the
possibility
of
increased
susceptibility
to
the
toxic
effects
of
oxyfluorfen
residues
in
this
population
subgroup.

In
determining
whether
or
not
infants
and
children
are
particularly
susceptible
to
toxic
effects
from
oxyfluorfen
residues,
EPA
considered
the
completeness
of
the
database
for
developmental
and
reproductive
effects,
the
nature
of
the
effects
observed,
and
other
information.
An
FQPA
safety
factor
is
not
required
for
oxyfluorfen
because:
1)
There
does
not
appear
to
be
any
increased
susceptibility
in
animals
due
to
pre­
or
postnatal
exposure
to
oxyfluorfen
based
upon
the
developmental
and
reproductive
toxicity
studies
reviewed.
Although
two
does
in
the
high­
dose
group
of
the
rabbit
developmental
study
aborted,
these
abortions
are
considered
secondary
to
the
debilitating
condition
(generalized,
systemic
toxicity)
of
the
mothers;
2)
Although
neurotoxicity
studies
were
not
performed,
there
was
no
indication
of
neurotoxicity
in
the
submitted
developmental
and
reproductive
studies
or
in
the
published
literature.
A
developmental
neurotoxicity
study
was
not
required;
and
3)
the
dietary
(food
and
drinking
water)
and
non­
dietary
(residential)
exposure
assessments
will
not
underestimate
the
potential
exposures
for
infants
and
children.

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

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

e.
Cumulative
Risks
The
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(FQPA)
requires
that,
when
considering
whether
to
establish,
modify,
or
revoke
a
tolerance,
the
Agency
consider
"available
information"
concerning
the
cumulative
effects
of
a
particular
pesticide's
residues
and
"other
substances
that
have
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity."
Oxyfluorfen
is
a
diphenyl
ether
herbicide
structurally
related
to
lactofen,
fomesafen
and
acifluorfen.
Although
chemical
class
is
not
necessarily
synonymous
42
with
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity,
structurally
similar
chemical
substances
do
frequently
exhibit
common
modes
of
toxicity.
At
this
time,
the
Agency
has
not
made
a
decision
as
to
whether
oxyfluorfen
shares
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
these
other
diphenyl
ethers
or
any
other
pesticide.
A
careful
evaluation
of
all
the
available
data,
as
well
as
additional
data
on
the
cancer
mechanism
of
the
diphenyl
ether
herbicides
are
still
needed.
A
peer
review
by
the
FIFRA
Science
Advisory
Panel
is
also
necessary
before
a
formal
decision
is
made.
Therefore,
for
the
purposes
of
this
risk
assessment,
the
Agency
has
assumed
that
oxyfluorfen
does
not
share
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
other
pesticides.
After
a
decision
is
made
regarding
common
mechanism
of
toxicity,
and
if
the
Agency
has
determined
that
a
cumulative
assessment
is
necessary,
the
Agency
will
address
any
outstanding
risk
concerns
at
that
time.

f.
Tolerances
Summary
A
summary
of
the
oxyfluorfen
tolerance
reassessments
is
presented
in
Table
23.
In
the
assessment,
tolerances
for
residues
of
oxyfluorfen
in/
on
plant
commodities
[40
CFR
§180.381]
are
presently
expressed
in
terms
of
the
parent
only.

No
Codex
MRLs
have
been
established
for
oxyfluorfen;
therefore,
issues
of
compatibility
between
Codex
MRLs
and
U.
S.
tolerances
do
not
exist.

The
majority
of
data
indicate
that
oxyfluorfen
residues
in/
on
most
plant
commodities
were
below
the
LOQ
(<
0.01
ppm)
of
the
data­
collection
method
following
application
of
oxyfluorfen
formulation(
s)
according
to
maximum
registered
uses.
At
this
time,
EPA
is
reassessing
most
plant
commodity
tolerances
at
the
established
level
of
0.05
ppm
until
an
adequate
single
analyte
enforcement
method
becomes
available.

The
need
to
modify
tolerances
for
bananas
and
cacao
beans
will
be
determined
upon
receipt
of
confirmatory
data.
The
reassessed
tolerance
for
broccoli
is
based
on
residue
data
translated
from
cabbage
and
cauliflower.
As
per
40
CFR
§180.1
a
separate
tolerance
for
garlic
is
not
needed
because
the
established
tolerance
for
dry
bulb
onions
will
apply
to
garlic.

Tolerances
for
field
corn
fodder
and
forage
are
not
warranted
because
oxyfluorfen's
registered
use
on
field
corn
is
limited
to
the
states
of
NC
and
SC
in
conjunction
with
a
USDA
program
to
eradicate
"witchweed"
(Striga
asiatica);
the
treated
forage
and
fodder
of
field
corn
are
not
fed
to
livestock
to
avoid
the
spread
of
the
weed.

With
respect
to
animal
commodities,
the
established
oxyfluorfen
tolerances
for
milk,
fat,
meat,
and
meat
by­
products
of
cattle,
goats,
hogs,
horses,
and
sheep
should
be
lowered
from
0.05
to
0.01
ppm
based
on
the
reviewed
cattle
feeding
study.
Similarly,
adjustments
in
the
tolerance
levels
of
the
following
poultry
commodities
are
required
based
on
the
results
of
the
poultry
feeding
study:
eggs
(from
0.05
to
0.03
ppm);
meat
and
meat
by­
products
(from
0.05
to
0.01
ppm);
and
fat
(from
0.05
to
0.2
ppm).
43
An
oxyfluorfen
tolerance
for
cotton
gin
byproducts
must
be
proposed
once
adequate
field
residue
data,
reflecting
the
maximum
registered
use
pattern,
have
been
submitted
and
evaluated.
The
registrant
may
impose
label
restrictions
on
the
feeding
of
oxyfluorfen­
treated
soybean
forage
and
hay
in
lieu
of
submitting
field
residue
data
and
proposing
tolerances
for
these
soybean
commodities.

Adequate
data
are
available
to
reassess
the
established
tolerances
with
regional
registrations
for
the
following
commodities,
as
defined:
blackberry,
garbanzo
beans,
guava,
papaya,
raspberry,
and
taro
(corms
and
leaves).

Table
23.
Tolerance
Reassessment
Summary
for
Oxyfluorfen.

Commodity
Current
Tolerance
(ppm)
Tolerance
Reassessment
(ppm)
Comment/
[Correct
Commodity
Definition]
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§180.381
(a):
Almond
hulls
0.1
0.
1
[Almond,
hulls]
Artichokes
0.
05
0.
05
[Artichoke,
globe]
Avocados
0.05
0.05
[Avocado]
Bananas
(including
plantain)
0.05
TBD
1
[Banana
(including
plantain)]

Broccoli
0.05
0.05
The
registrant
may
wish
to
propose
a
crop
group
tolerance
of
0.05
ppm
for
Head
and
stem
Brassica
subgroup.
Cabbage
0.05
0.05
Cauliflower
0.
05
0.
05
Cattle,
fat
0.
05
0.
01
Cattle,
mbyp
0.05
0.01
Cattle,
meat
0.05
0.01
Cocoa
beans
0.
05
TBD
1
[Cacao
bean]
Coffee
0.
05
0.
05
[Coffee
bean,
green]
Corn,
grain
0.
05
0.
05
[Corn,
field,
grain]
Cottonseed
0.05
0.05
[Cotton,
undelinted
seed]
Dates
0.
05
0.
05
[Date]
Eggs
0.05
0.03
Feijoa
0.
05
0.
05
[Feijoa
(pineapple
guava)]
Figs
0.05
0.05
[Fig]
Garlic
­­
0.05
Goat,
fat
0.
05
0.
01
Goat,
mbyp
0.05
0.01
Goat,
meat
0.05
0.01
Grapes
0.05
0.05
[Grape]
Hogs,
fat
0.
05
0.
01
Hogs,
mbyp
0.05
0.01
Hogs,
meat
0.05
0.01
Commodity
Current
Tolerance
(ppm)
Tolerance
Reassessment
(ppm)
Comment/
[Correct
Commodity
Definition]

44
Horseradish
0.
05
0.
05
Horses,
fat
0.
05
0.
01
Horses,
mbyp
0.05
0.01
Horses,
meat
0.05
0.01
Kiwifruit
0.05
0.05
Olives
0.05
0.05
[Olive]
Onions
(dry
bulb)
0.05
0.05
[Onion,
dry
bulb
(only)]
Milk
0.05
0.01
Mint
hay
(peppermint
and
spearmint)
0.1
0.
05
Separate
tolerances
should
be
established,
each
at
0.05
ppm
for:
[Peppermint,
tops]
[Spearmint,
tops]
Persimmons
0.05
0.05
[Persimmon]
Pistachios
0.
05
0.
05
[Pistachio]
Pome
fruits
group
0.05
0.05
[Fruit,
Pome,
Group]
Pomegranates
0.05
0.05
[Pomegranate]
Poultry,
fat
0.
05
0.
2
Poultry,
mbyp
0.05
0.01
Poultry,
meat
0.05
0.01
Sheep,
fat
0.
05
0.
01
Sheep,
mbyp
0.05
0.01
Sheep,
meat
0.05
0.01
Soybeans
0.
05
0.
05
[Soybean]
Stone
fruits
group
0.05
0.05
[Fruits,
Stone,
Group]

Tree
nuts
group
(except
almond
hulls)
0.05
0.05
[Nuts,
Tree,
Group]
For
tolerance
reassessment
counting
purposes
walnut
was
counted
separately
because
it
had
been
listed
separately
in
the
Tolerance
Index
System
.
Tolerances
To
Be
Proposed
Under
40
CFR
§180.381
(a):
Cotton,
gin
byproducts
None
TBD
1
New
RAC
according
to
Table
1
(OPPTS
860.1000).

Soybean
forage
None
TBD
1
A
feeding
restriction
may
be
established
in
lieu
of
proposing
tolerances.
Soybean
hay
None
TBD
1
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§180.381
(c):

Blackberry
0.05
0.05
Recently
established
under
PP#
5E04429
(60
FR
62330,
12/
6/
95)
Garbanzo
beans
0.
05
0.
05
[Chickpea
(bean,
garbanzo)]
Guava
0.
05
0.
05
Papaya
0.05
0.05
Raspberry
0.05
0.05
Recently
established
under
PP#
5E04429
(60
FR
62330,
12/
6/
95)
Commodity
Current
Tolerance
(ppm)
Tolerance
Reassessment
(ppm)
Comment/
[Correct
Commodity
Definition]

45
Taro
(corms
and
leaves)
0.05
0.05
Separate
tolerances
should
be
established,
each
at
0.05
ppm
for:
[Taro,
corm],
[Taro,
foliage]
Tolerances
To
Be
Proposed
Under
40
CFR
§180.381
(c)
Grass
Forage,
Grass
Hay,
and
Grass
Seed
Screenings
None
0.05
Separate
tolerances
should
be
established,
each
at
0.05
ppm
for
grass
forage,
grass
hay
and
grass
seed
screenings
TBD
=
To
be
determined.
This
term
means
the
tolerance
to
be
set
will
be
safe.
However,
additional
confirmatory
data
are
needed
to
be
able
to
set
the
tolerance
level.

Residue
Analytical
Methods
The
Pesticide
Analytical
Manual
(PAM)
Vol.
II
lists
two
GLC/
electron
capture
detector
(ECD)
methods,
designated
as
Methods
I
and
II,
for
the
enforcement
of
tolerances
for
oxyfluorfen
residues
in/
on
plant
and
animal
commodities,
respectively.
Both
methods
determine
levels
of
oxyfluorfen
and
its
reduced
metabolites
by
a
common
moiety
(as
heptafluorobutyryl
derivatives
of
oxyfluorfen).
The
tolerance
expression
for
oxyfluorfen
was
amended
(60
FR
62330,
12/
6/
95)
to
delete
the
metabolites
of
oxyfluorfen
containing
the
diphenyl
ether
linkage.
The
established
tolerances
for
plant
and
animal
commodities
[40
CFR
§180.381
(a),
(b),
and
(c)]
are
now
expressed
in
terms
of
oxyfluorfen
per
se
[2­
chloro­
1­(
3­
ethoxy­
4­
nitrophenoxy)­
4­
(trifluoromethyl)
benzene].
Because
oxyfluorfen
per
se
is
now
the
residue
of
concern,
the
PAM
Vol.
II
methods
are
no
longer
suitable
for
enforcement
purposes.

EPA
recommends
that
FDA's
Multiresidue
Methods
for
oxyfluorfen
per
se
be
utilized
as
the
primary
enforcement
method
for
plant
commodities
until
the
registrant
submits
a
proposed
enforcement
method
for
plants
to
determine
oxyfluorfen
per
se.
An
enforcement
method
for
the
determination
of
oxyfluorfen
per
se
in
animal
commodities
is
required
as
FDA's
Multiresidue
Methods
are
not
suitable
for
animal
commodities.

New
single
analyte
methods
are
being
proposed
for
determination
of
residues
of
oxyfluorfen
per
se
for
enforcement
and
data
collection
purposes.
In
conjunction
with
a
pending
tolerance
petition
(PP#
3F4229/
FAP#
3H5674)
on
peanut,
the
registrant
proposed
a
GC/
ECD
method
(Method
TR
34­
94­
150,
renamed
as
Method
TR­
34­
95­
111)
including
a
confirmatory
GC/
MS
method
for
the
enforcement
of
oxyfluorfen
tolerances
on
plant
commodities.
The
stated
limits
of
quantitation
(LOQ)
and
detection
(LOD)
for
Method
TR­
34­
95­
111
are
0.01
ppm
and
0.003
ppm,
respectively,
except
on
peanut
vine,
shell,
and
hay
for
which
the
reported
LOQ
and
LOD
are
0.02
ppm
and
0.007
ppm,
respectively.
Method
TR
34­
95­
111
was
adequately
validated
by
the
registrant
using
a
wide
array
of
plant
matrices
and
by
an
independent
laboratory
using
peanut
nutmeat.
The
method
will
be
forwarded
to
the
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division's
Analytical
Chemical
Laboratory
for
a
petition
method
validation
trial
to
ensure
that
the
procedures
are
appropriate
for
tolerance
enforcement.
46
Also
in
conjunction
with
PP#
3F4229/
FAP#
3H5674,
the
registrant
proposed
a
GC/
ECD
method
(Method
TR
34­
95­
110)
including
a
confirmatory
GC/
MS
method
for
the
enforcement
of
oxyfluorfen
tolerances
on
animal
commodities.
The
stated
LOQ
and
LOD
for
Method
TR­
34­
95­
110
are
0.01
ppm
and
0.003
ppm,
respectively,
for
all
animal
commodities.
Method
TR
34­
95­
110
was
adequately
validated
by
the
registrant
using
a
variety
of
animal
matrices
and
by
an
independent
laboratory
using
milk
and
chicken
fat.
The
method
was
also
successfully
radiovalidated
using
aged
samples
from
the
hen
and
goat
metabolism
studies.
EPA
will
forward
Method
TR
34­
95­
110
to
the
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division's
Analytical
Chemical
Laboratory
(ACL)
for
a
petition
method
validation
trial.

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

1.
Human
Health
Risk
Management
a.
Dietary
(Food)
Risk
Mitigation
No
adverse
effects
reflecting
a
single
dose
were
identified;
therefore,
no
acute
endpoint
was
selected
and
an
acute
dietary
risk
assessment
was
not
conducted.
A
refined
Tier
3
dietary
risk
assessment
using
the
Dietary
Exposure
Evaluation
Model
(DEEM
TM
)
was
completed
for
chronic
food
exposure.
The
DEEM
TM
analysis
evaluated
the
individual
food
consumption
as
reported
by
respondents
in
the
USDA
1989­
91
Continuing
Surveys
for
Food
Intake
by
Individuals
(CSFII)
and
accumulated
exposure
to
the
chemical
for
each
commodity.
For
all
analyses,
anticipated
residues
and
percent
of
crop
treated
data
were
used.

(1)
Chronic
Dietary
(Food)

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

(2)
Cancer
Dietary
(Food)

A
cancer
dietary
exposure
and
risk
analysis
was
performed
based
upon
revised
cancer
Q1*
of
7.32
x
10
­2
derived
from
a
mouse
carcinogenicity
study
and
upon
Agency
analyses
of
anticipated
residues
in
food.
Based
on
that
analysis,
which
yielded
a
cancer
risk
of
3.8
x
10
­7
,
the
Agency
has
concluded
that
the
cancer
dietary
risk
from
food
alone
is
not
of
concern
(<
1
x
10
­6
),
and
that
no
mitigation
measures
are
needed
to
address
the
cancer
food
risk.
47
(3)
Drinking
Water
As
previously
mentioned,
acute
endpoints
were
not
established
for
oxyfluorfen
and
an
acute
drinking
water
assessment
was
not
performed.
The
Agency
has
determined
that
there
are
no
chronic
(non­
cancer)
drinking
water
concerns,
as
the
chronic
EECs
are
substantially
less
than
the
DWLOCs
for
all
populations
(see
Section
III.
A.
2).
However,
the
Agency
risk
assessment
shows
potential
dietary
cancer
risks
of
concern
for
drinking
water
derived
from
surface
waters.
This
assessment
was
based
on
modeling
simulations
which
predict
that
oxyfluorfen
residues
in
surface
waters
have
a
36­
year
annual
mean
concentration
of
5.7
ppb.
In
comparison,
the
cancer
DWLOC
based
on
food
exposure
is
0.315
ppb.

EPA
believes
that
the
DWLOC
based
on
food
exposure
is
upper­
bound
because
PDP
and
field
trial
residue
data
show
all
non­
detectable
residues,
and
½
the
LOQ
was
used
in
the
dietary
(food)
assessment
which
overestimates
residue
values.
EPA
used
½
LOQ
rather
than
½
LOD
for
field
trial
residue
values
because
of
the
possibility
of
an
occasional
residue
of
oxyfluorfen
greater
than
0.01
ppm,
and
the
registrant's
intention
to
propose
a
new
single
analyte
enforcement
method
for
oxyfluorfen
with
a
quantitation
limit
of
0.02
ppm.
Actual
residues
are
expected
to
be
somewhere
in
between
the
calculated
estimates
and
zero.

The
Agency
also
believes
that
the
modeling
simulations
over­
estimate
exposures
through
drinking
water.
First,
the
model
input
variables
assumed
maximum
use
rates
and
frequencies.
Usage
data
indicate
that
typical
use
rates
are
below
maximum
use
rates
by
approximately
50%.
Secondly,
the
modeling
assumed
that
the
2
lb
ai/
acre
application
rate
was
being
applied
as
a
broadcast
treatment;
however,
oxyfluorfen
is
typically
applied
as
a
banded
application
between
rows
of
crops.
Careful
targeting
of
the
spray
is
required
because
oxyfluorfen
is
non­
selective
and
will
damage
crops.
The
maximum
use
rate
for
crops
per
acre
of
total
land
area
treated
is
generally
around
1.0
lb
ai/
acre.
There
are
oxyfluorfen
use
sites
that
are
broadcast
treated
rather
than
banded,
such
as
bulb
vegetables
or
fallow
land,
but
these
sites
have
a
lower
maximum
rate,
typically
0.5
lbs
ai/
acre/
season.
Nut
trees
may
also
require
broadcast
treatment
to
clear
the
orchard
floor
before
harvest,
but
typically
at
a
rate
of
0.5
lbs
ai/
acre.

Monitoring
data
also
indicate
that
concentrations
may
be
lower
than
what
was
estimated
with
the
PRZM/
EXAMS
model.
For
example,
USGS
conducted
monitoring
of
oxyfluorfen
bound
to
suspended
sediment
for
several
years
in
central
California,
within
an
area
of
high
usage.
The
highest
average
concentration
of
oxyfluorfen
associated
with
the
suspended
sediment
was
27.2
ppb.
From
this
monitoring,
it
is
estimated
that
approximately
0.27
ppb
of
oxyfluorfen
may
be
available
in
the
water,
assuming
reversible
partitioning
with
an
average
Kd
partitioning
coefficient
of
100.

These
water
monitoring
results
are
useful,
but
do
not
negate
the
need
for
targeted
water
monitoring.
The
monitoring
data
available
are
not
adequate
because
the
data
are
mainly
limited
to
sediment
levels,
they
are
limited
to
only
a
few
locations,
and
the
data
are
temporally
limited;
samples
were
often
taken
outside
the
major
use
season.
Also,
the
samples
collected
as
a
result
of
the
August
24,
2000
spill
in
Oregon
indicated
that
a
sediment
detection
of
541
ppb
was
found
in
2
Use
rates
are
higher
(up
to
6
lbs
ai/
broadcast
acre/
season)
for
some
Hawaiian
commodities
such
as
guava,
coffee,
and
macadamia
nuts
because
high
humidity,
heat,
and
rain
require
a
higher
single
application
rate
and
more
frequent
applications.
EPA
is
not
concerned
with
surface
water
contamination
for
drinking
water
risk
purposes
because
drinking
water
sources
are
predominately
groundwater
in
Hawaii.
The
higher
rates
are
addressed
in
more
detail
in
the
ecological
risk
mitigation
section.

48
a
nearby
creek
believed
to
be
unaffected
by
the
spill
and
downstream
from
orchards.
EPA
needs
additional
information
to
ascertain
whether
this
detection
was
actually
related
to
the
spill
or
due
to
the
presence
of
the
upstream
orchards.

In
response
to
potential
dietary
cancer
risks
from
drinking
water
derived
from
surface
waters,
the
registrants
have
agreed
to
several
measures
which
are
expected
to
decrease
the
amount
of
oxyfluorfen
reaching
surface
water:

°
The
maximum
seasonal
application
rate
for
oxyfluorfen
use
on
food
crops
is
currently
2
lbs
ai/
broadcast
acre/
season
2
.
Registrants
have
agreed
to
lower
this
maximum
rate
to
1.5
lbs
ai/
broadcast
acre/
season
and
2
lbs
ai/
acre/
season
for
conifer
seedlings.
The
time
interval
of
the
total
chemical
applied
is
inconsistent
and
unclear
on
some
labels,
and
for
some
uses
the
maximum
poundage
to
be
applied
per
year
or
the
maximum
number
of
applications
per
year
is
not
specified
(e.
g.
right­
of­
way).
The
maximum
poundage
of
the
chemical
applied
per
acre
must
be
given
on
a
calendar
year
basis
for
all
uses,
or
the
terms
"season"
and
"growing
season"
must
be
clearly
defined
on
the
labels.

°
The
maximum
seasonal
application
rate
for
oxyfluorfen
use
on
ornamentals
is
currently
8
lbs
ai/
A.
For
liquid
formulations
and
granulars
applied
to
field­
grown
ornamentals,
registrants
have
agreed
to
lower
this
seasonal
maximum
rate
to
4.5
lbs
ai/
A
(1.5
lbs
ai/
A/
application).
For
granulars
applied
to
containerized
ornamentals,
the
rate
will
be
lowered
to
a
seasonal
maximum
of
6
lbs
ai/
A
(2
lbs
ai/
A/
application).

°
Labeling
will
clearly
limit
the
seasonal
maximum
rate
for
conifer
seedlings
to
2
lbs
ai/
acre.
Information
provide
by
conifer
seedling
growers
indicate
the
need
for
greater
than
1.5
lbs
ai/
acre,
particularly
in
the
South.
Since
conifer
seedling
nurseries
tend
to
be
relatively
small
operations
(20
to
40
acres)
and
only
about
2,500
acres
are
in
U.
S.
production,
EPA
concludes
that
the
2
lb
ai/
acre/
season
rate
is
appropriate
and
will
add
negligible
risk.

°
Label
language
will
be
added
to
require
25
foot,
no­
spray,
vegetative
buffer
zones
around
surface
water
bodies
such
as
rivers,
lakes,
streams,
and
ponds.

°
Spray
requirements
will
be
added
to
labels
to
minimize
oxyfluorfen
drift.
Only
use
of
a
coarse,
very
coarse,
or
extremely
coarse
spray
will
be
allowed
according
to
the
ASAE
572
definitions
for
standard
nozzles,
or
a
volume
median
diameter
(VMD)
of
385
microns
or
larger
for
spinning
atomizer
nozzles.
49
The
registrant
(Dow
AgroSciences)
has
further
agreed
to
conduct
a
tiered
surface
water
monitoring
study
to
provide
additional
information
on
potential
drinking
water
contamination.
The
initial
tier
consists
of
an
edge­
of­
field
water
and
sediment
monitoring
in
a
limited
number
of
vulnerable
sites
around
the
country.
Vulnerability
would
be
based
on
soil
types,
historical
precipitation
levels,
and/
or
other
relevant
factors.
Study
sites
as
well
as
the
monitoring
study
protocol
would
be
agreed
upon
by
the
registrant
and
the
Agency
in
advance
of
study
initiation.
Higher
tiers
(e.
g.,
full
scale
monitoring
study
at
drinking
water
treatment
plants)
would
be
initiated
based
on
the
results
of
the
initial
monitoring.

(4)
Aggregate
Risk
Mitigation
(short­
term,
chronic,
and
cancer)

The
short­
term
aggregate
risk
assessment
considers
exposures
from
food,
drinking
water,
and
residential
exposures.
As
shown
in
Section
III.
A.
4,
surface
and
ground
water
concentrations
(7.1
ppb
and
0.08
ppb
respectively),
estimated
using
modeling,
are
below
the
short­
term
DWLOCs
of
8900
ppb
(females)
and
10400
ppb
(males).
Consequently,
there
are
no
short­
term
aggregate
risks
of
concern.

The
chronic
(non­
cancer)
aggregate
risk
assessment
addresses
exposure
to
oxyfluorfen
residues
in
food
and
water
only,
as
there
are
no
chronic
residential
scenarios
identified.
The
lowest
DWLOC
of
300
is
substantially
higher
than
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
of
oxyfluorfen
in
surface
and
groundwater
(7.1
ppb
and
0.08
ppb
respectively).
Consequently,
the
Agency
concludes
that
residues
of
oxyfluorfen
in
food
and
drinking
water
do
not
result
in
a
chronic
aggregate
risk
of
concern.

To
evaluate
cancer
aggregate
risk,
the
chronic
food
cancer
risk
estimate
combined
with
the
highest
residential
cancer
risk
estimate
results
in
a
food
+
residential
cancer
risk
of
1.3
x
10
­6
.
Since
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
is
1.0
x
10
­6
,
this
cancer
risk
exceeds
EPA's
level
of
concern
when
considering
just
food
and
residential
exposures
combined.
As
stated
previously,
the
exposure
and
risk
estimate
from
food
is
upper­
bound
as
all
field
trial
and
PDP
samples
contained
non­
detectable
residues
of
oxyfluorfen.
Therefore,
no
mitigation
measures
are
necessary
to
address
dietary
risk
from
food
due
to
aggregate
risk
concerns.

Although
residential
cancer
risk
alone
is
not
of
concern
(<
1.0
x
10
­6
),
it
contributes
to
aggregate
risk.
It
is
realistic
to
assume
that
residential
applicators
are
only
applying
1
gallon/
year
with
a
trigger
sprayer;
therefore,
the
highest
residential
cancer
risk
is
6
x
10
­7
for
spot
treatment
of
weeds
using
a
low
pressure
tank
sprayer.
Currently,
residential
rates
(4.5
to
8.9
lbs
ai/
acre)
are
considerably
higher
than
agricultural
rates
(2
lbs
ai/
acre).
The
Scotts
Company,
a
registrant
of
two
oxyfluorfen
residential
products,
has
stated
that
a
4.5
lb
ai/
acre
rate
is
necessary
to
control
perennial
grassy
weeds
and
for
effective
residual
control.
The
registrant
is
conducting
efficacy
trials
to
support
appropriate
residential
use
rates.
In
response
to
the
residential/
aggregate
cancer
risks,
the
registrants
have
agreed
to
several
measures
which
are
expected
to
decrease
the
amount
of
oxyfluorfen
used
in
residential
settings:
50
°
The
maximum
application
rate
on
residential
products
will
be
reduced
to
3
lbs
ai/
A
or
less
unless
efficacy
data
support
the
need
for
higher
rates.
This
measure
will
bring
the
residential
rates
in
line
with
the
highest
rate
(2
lb
ai/
A/
season)
needed
for
efficacy
in
agricultural
use
scenarios.
EPA
will
consider
the
results
of
the
efficacy
studies
to
determine
whether
the
data
support
a
different
rate.

Notwithstanding
the
food
+
residential
risk
estimate,
aggregate
cancer
risk
is
still
of
concern
because
surface
water
modeling
indicates
that
there
may
be
a
risk
exceedence
from
oxyfluorfen
in
drinking
water
alone.
The
Agency
believes
this
risk
can
be
reduced
by
implementing
the
risk
mitigation
actions
previously
mentioned
under
drinking
water
risk
management.
The
modeled
drinking
water
concentrations
are
believed
to
be
high­
end
estimates
that
may
not
represent
levels
that
people
actually
consume
in
finished
drinking
water
(for
reasons
discussed
earlier
in
the
drinking
water
sections
of
this
document).
However,
the
extent
to
which
the
modeling
may
overestimate
surface
water
concentrations
is
not
known
and
additional
information
is
necessary.
The
registrants
of
oxyfluorfen
must
submit
edge­
of­
field
water
and
sediment
monitoring.
Pending
review
of
these
studies,
no
additional
mitigation
measures
are
necessary
to
address
drinking
water
concerns
at
this
time.

b.
Occupational
Risk
Mitigation
(1)
Handler
Risks
Handler
exposure
assessments
are
completed
by
EPA
using
a
baseline
exposure
scenario
and,
if
required,
increasing
levels
of
mitigation
(PPE
and
engineering
controls)
to
achieve
an
adequate
margin
of
exposure
(MOE).
For
oxyfluorfen
the
target
MOE
is
100
or
greater
for
short­
term
risks
and
300
or
greater
for
intermediate­
term
risks.
Analyses
for
handler/
applicator
exposures
were
performed
using
PHED.
These
calculations
indicate
that
the
MOEs
for
most
mixing/
loading
scenarios
and
the
Right­
of­
Way
application
scenario
are
below
100
at
the
baseline
level
and
exceed
EPA's
level
of
concern.
At
the
single
layer
PPE
level
(which
includes
chemical
resistant
gloves),
all
of
the
scenarios
have
MOEs
of
490
or
greater.
Cancer
risks
to
handlers
are
of
greater
concern
than
non­
cancer
risks;
therefore,
risk
mitigation
measures
will
be
determined
based
on
the
cancer
risk
assessment
for
occupational
handlers.

Occupational
cancer
risks
greater
than
1
x
10
­4
are
of
concern.
For
risks
between
10
­6
and
10
­4
,
EPA
carefully
evaluates
exposure
scenarios
to
seek
cost
effective
ways
to
reduce
cancer
risks
to
the
greatest
extent
feasible,
preferably
to
a
risk
of
1
x
10
­6
or
less.

At
baseline
and
single­
layer
PPE,
cancer
risks
for
all
handler
scenarios
are
greater
than
1
x
10
­6
,
but
less
than
1
x
10
­4
.
Assuming
the
use
of
double
layer
protective
clothing
currently
on
some
oxyfluorfen
labels,
most
cancer
risks
are
in
the
10
­5
range.

To
address
cancer
risks
to
agricultural
handlers,
EPA
has
determined
that
the
following
mitigation
measures
are
necessary,
reasonable,
and
cost­
effective:
51
°
closed
mixing/
loading
systems
to
support
applications
to
corn,
cotton,
soybeans,
and
aerial
applications
to
fallow
land;
°
enclosed
cab
for
applications
to
corn,
and
closed
cockpit
aircraft
for
applications
to
fallow
land;
and
°
double
layer
PPE
for
all
other
mixers,
loaders,
and
applicators.

For
high­
acreage
crops
such
as
corn,
cotton,
and
soybeans,
engineering
controls
for
mixing
and
loading,
and
closed
cabs
are
increasingly
common
for
exposure
reduction
as
well
as
for
comfort
and
increased
efficiency
of
mixing
and
transferring
high
volumes
of
chemicals
necessary
to
treat
large
fields.
Also,
EPA
understands
that
virtually
all
agricultural
aviators
currently
use
closed­
cockpit
aircraft.
As
such,
EPA
believes
that
these
requirements
are
cost
effective
and
appropriate.

Likewise,
EPA
has
determined
that
the
use
of
engineering
controls
for
additional
handler
scenarios
would
further
reduce
exposure
to
handlers,
but
for
some
scenarios,
such
as
mixing/
loading
and
applying
with
handheld
(backpack)
equipment
and
applying
with
Right­
ofWay
spray
equipment,
engineering
controls
are
not
currently
available.
For
other
scenarios,
such
as
mixing/
loading
to
support
applications
to
perennials
including
tree
fruit,
nut,
and
vine
crops,
while
some
engineering
controls
may
be
available
they
are
not
common
with
the
equipment
typically
used
to
make
ground­
directed
herbicide
applications
in
these
crops.
Such
equipment
tends
to
be
smaller
and
less
sophisticated
than
the
equipment
used
for
foliar
sprays
of
fungicides
and
insecticides.
EPA
encourages
the
use
of
engineering
controls
in
all
settings
where
practical
and
feasible,
and
allows
for
handlers
to
reduce
PPE
when
engineering
controls
are
used.
But
EPA
concludes
that
the
risk­
reduction
potential
of
requiring
engineering
controls
for
additional
scenarios
would
not
be
commensurate
with
the
costs
and
difficulties
associated
with
implementing
the
requirement.

(2)
Post­
application
Exposure
Oxyfluorfen
is
a
non­
selective
herbicide
that
can
cause
leaf
damage
to
most
of
the
labeled
crops.
For
this
reason,
the
liquid
product
labels
specify
that
it
should
be
applied
to
the
ground
in
such
a
manner
as
to
minimize
crop
damage
and
the
granular
product
labels
specify
that
it
should
be
watered
in
to
rinse
the
granules
off
of
the
foliage.
With
the
exceptions
of
bulb
vegetables
and
conifers,
which
have
more
tolerance
to
oxyfluorfen,
over
the
top
applications
are
not
recommended.
Based
upon
these
factors
it
was
determined
that
re­
entry
workers
would
only
have
significant
post­
application
exposure
following
applications
of
oxyfluorfen
to
conifer
seedlings,
conifer
trees
and
bulb
vegetables.

The
Restricted
Entry
Interval
(REI)
represents
the
amount
of
time
required
for
residues
to
dissipate
in
treated
areas
prior
to
beginning
a
job
or
task
in
that
area
such
that
the
resulting
exposures
do
not
exceed
the
Agency's
level
of
risk
concern.
In
order
to
determine
the
REI
for
a
crop,
EPA
calculates
the
number
of
days
that
must
elapse
after
pesticide
application
until
residues
dissipate
and
risk
to
a
worker
falls
below
the
target
risk
estimate.
For
a
specific
crop/
pesticide
combination,
the
duration
required
to
achieve
the
target
risk
estimate
can
vary
depending
on
the
activity
assessed.
52
To
address
potential
risks
to
post­
application
workers,
the
Agency
is
modifying
the
REIs
for
oxyfluorfen
as
described
in
Table
24
below.
Since
the
conifer
REIs
are
based
on
the
chemical­
specific
DFR
study
which
has
serious
deficiencies,
a
confirmatory
DFR
study
on
conifers
is
necessary.

For
all
post­
application
commercial
worker
exposure
scenarios,
the
proposed
REIs
provide
estimated
dermal
MOEs
greater
than
the
target
MOE
of
300.
Although
the
estimated
cancer
risks
for
some
of
the
scenarios
are
slightly
above
the
1
x
10
­6
target
value,
they
are
still
in
the
10
­6
range,
and
the
Agency
believes
these
REIs
provide
an
acceptable
level
of
protection
without
disruption
to
needed
cultural
practices.

Table
24.
Restricted
Entry
Intervals
(REIs)
for
Oxyfluorfen
Crop
Pre­
harvest
Interval
(days)
REI
(days)
Comments
Bulb
vegetables
45
(dry
bulb
onion)
60
(onions
grown
for
seed)
60
(dry
bulb
garlic)
6
months
(taro)
2
A
two
day
REI
results
in
a
cancer
risk
estimate
of
2.7
x
10
­6
.

Conifer
seedlings
N/
A
3
A
three
day
REI
results
in
a
cancer
risk
estimate
of
3.1
x
10
­6
.
Conifer
trees
N/
A
6
An
REI
of
6
days
results
in
a
cancer
risk
estimate
of
1.8
x
10
­6
for
low
exposure
activities
(e.
g.
irrigation,
scouting,
hand
weeding)
and
5.4
x
10
­6
for
medium
exposure
activities
(shearing).
Since
oxyfluorfen
is
applied
to
weeds
in
Christmas
tree
plantations
in
a
semi­
directed
manner
to
reduce
tree
contact,
only
the
lower
branches
typically
receive
overspray.
Therefore,
the
risk
estimates
for
Christmas
tree
shearing
are
probably
conservative.
All
other
crops
N/
A
24
hours
Current
Labeling
Scouting
is
a
handler
activity
under
the
WPS,
so
anyone
performing
this
activity
may
legally
enter
the
treated
field
during
the
REI
provided
they
use
the
handler
personal
protective
equipment
(PPE)
specified
on
the
label.
In
addition,
if
the
scout
is
a
certified
crop
advisor
as
defined
in
the
WPS
[40
CFR
170.204(
b)],
the
individual
can
determine
the
appropriate
PPE
to
be
used.
For
many
of
these
crops,
irrigation
equipment
is
not
routinely
moved
by
hand.
For
these
methods,
the
primary
activity
involves
entering
the
field
to
turn
the
watering
equipment
on
and
off.
This
activity
is
allowed
during
the
REI
under
the
no
contact
exception
to
WPS
[40
CFR
170.112(
b)].
Should
irrigation
equipment
need
unexpected
repairs
during
the
REI,
WPS
allows
workers
to
enter
a
treated
field
provided
early
entry
PPE
is
used
[40
CFR
170.112(
c)].
This
exception
also
usually
applies
to
mechanical
harvesting
and
tree
shaking
for
nut
crops
in
enclosed
cabs.
53
2.
Environmental
Risk
Mitigation
a.
Risk
Characterization
(1)
Aquatic
Organisms
Oxyfluorfen
has
the
potential
to
affect
aquatic
ecological
systems
at
all
levels,
as
it
is
toxic
to
plants,
invertebrates,
and
fish,
and
exceeds
the
LOCs
based
on
modeled
EECs.
For
freshwater
invertebrates,
the
chronic
level
of
concern
was
exceeded
in
all
Florida
citrus
scenarios,
as
well
as
for
the
maximum
application
rate
on
New
York
grapes.
For
estuarine
invertebrates,
the
acute
risk
level
of
concern
is
exceeded
for
all
citrus
scenarios.
Based
on
toxicity
data
to
invertebrates,
oxyfluorfen
may
pose
long
term
effects
to
benthic
(soil
dwelling)
aquatic
organisms;
however,
data
on
persistence
and
toxicity
in
the
benthic
environment
is
poor.
Dissolved
oxyfluorfen
concentrations
are
expected
to
be
relatively
low
in
runoff
water.
However,
because
of
oxyfluorfen's
high
affinity
to
soil,
soil
eroding
from
application
areas
is
likely
to
carry
bound
oxyfluorfen
to
aquatic
areas.

The
RQs
for
all
modeled
scenarios
exceed
the
acute
risk
level
of
concern
for
freshwater
algal
plants.
The
risk
to
vascular
aquatic
plants
cannot
be
assessed
due
to
lack
of
data.

(2)
Terrestrial
Organisms
For
acute
exposures,
oxyfluorfen
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
birds,
mammals,
and
bees,
and
the
Agency
has
no
risk
concerns.
However,
subchronic
and
chronic
risks
to
terrestrial
birds
and
mammals
do
present
a
concern.
These
toxic
effects
may
be
manifested
as
reproductive,
developmental,
and
hemolytic
consequences.
Assuming
maximum
residue
values,
the
chronic
level
of
concern
is
exceeded
when
oxyfluorfen
is
applied
to
crops
at
application
rates
greater
than
or
equal
to
0.25
lbs
ai/
acre/
year
for
birds
and
greater
than
or
equal
to
2.0
lbs
ai/
acre
for
mammals.

Oxyfluorfen
is
expected
and
has
been
shown
to
negatively
impact
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
of
terrestrial
plants.
Non­
target
terrestrial
plants
are
exposed
to
oxyfluorfen
as
a
result
of
spray
drift
and
runoff
and
most
incidents
reported
to
the
Agency
are
related
to
plants
affected
by
spray
drift.
Acute
levels
of
concern
are
exceeded
for
all
uses
of
oxyfluorfen
for
terrestrial
plants
and
semi­
aquatic
plants
adjacent
to
treated
areas.

(3)
Endangered
Species
The
preliminary
risk
assessment
for
endangered
species
indicates
that
oxyfluorfen
exceeds
the
endangered
species
LOCs
for
the
following
combinations
of
analyzed
uses
and
species:

°
terrestrial
plants
for
all
uses;
54
°
avian
chronic
for
non­
bearing
citrus
and
all
applications
with
rates
greater
than
0.5
lb
ai/
acre/
application
(such
as
rights­
of­
way,
apples,
walnuts
and
grapes)
based
on
both
maximum
and
mean
residue
levels;
°
mammalian
chronic
for
non­
bearing
citrus,
and
applications
with
rates
of
2
lbs
ai/
acre
such
as
rights­
of­
way,
apples,
walnuts
and
grapes)
based
on
maximum
residues;
°
freshwater
fish
for
non­
bearing
citrus
and
grapes
(of
those
scenarios
modeled);
and
°
freshwater
invertebrates
for
non­
bearing
citrus,
apples,
grapes
and
cotton
(of
thosescenarios
modeled).

Based
on
the
available
data,
oxyfluorfen
acute
toxicity,
RQs,
and
LOC
exceedences
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
were
assumed
to
be
similar
to
that
of
freshwater
fish.
Although
the
endangered
species
LOC
for
estuarine
invertebrates
has
been
exceeded,
there
are
no
federally
listed
species
in
this
group.
Risks
to
endangered
aquatic
vascular
plants
cannot
be
assessed
at
this
time
since
no
acceptable
toxicity
test
for
Lemna
gibba
has
been
submitted
to
the
Agency.

(4)
Mitigation
Measures
Those
same
mitigation
measures
that
will
reduce
drinking
water
exposure
will
also
reduce
exposure
to
non­
target
organisms.
A
reduction
in
maximum
seasonal
rates
from
2.0
lbs
ai/
broadcast
acre
to
1.5
lbs
ai/
broadcast
acre
will
protect
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
organisms.
The
maintained
25
foot
vegetative
buffer
strip
is
designed
to
reduce
the
potential
for
oxyfluorfen
to
contaminate
water
through
runoff.
The
buffer
strips
in
combination
with
use
of
only
coarse,
very
coarse,
or
extremely
coarse
spray
will
also
reduce
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms
through
spray
drift.
The
water
and
sediment
monitoring
will
further
refine
the
exposure
potential
for
aquatic
and
sediment­
dwelling
species.

3.
Other
Label
Statements
In
order
to
be
eligible
for
reregistration,
various
use
and
safety
information
must
also
be
placed
on
the
labeling
of
all
end­
use
products
containing
oxyfluorfen.
For
the
specific
labeling
statements,
refer
to
Section
V
of
this
document.

a.
Endangered
Species
Statement
The
Agency
has
developed
the
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
to
identify
pesticides
whose
use
may
cause
adverse
impacts
on
endangered
and
threatened
species,
and
to
implement
mitigation
measures
that
address
these
impacts.
The
Endangered
Species
Act
requires
federal
agencies
to
ensure
that
their
actions
are
not
likely
to
jeopardize
listed
species
or
adversely
modify
designated
critical
habitat.
To
analyze
the
potential
of
registered
pesticide
uses
to
affect
any
particular
species,
EPA
puts
basic
toxicity
and
exposure
data
developed
for
REDs
into
context
for
individual
listed
species
and
their
locations
by
evaluating
important
ecological
parameters,
pesticide
use
information,
the
geographic
relationship
between
specific
pesticides
uses
and
species
locations,
and
biological
requirements
and
behavioral
aspects
of
the
particular
species.
This
analysis
will
take
into
consideration
any
regulatory
changes
55
recommended
in
this
RED
that
are
being
implemented
at
that
time.
A
determination
that
there
is
a
likelihood
of
potential
impact
to
a
listed
species
may
result
in
limitations
on
use
of
the
pesticide,
other
measures
to
mitigate
any
potential
impact,
or
consultations
with
the
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
and/
or
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
as
necessary.

The
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
as
described
in
a
Federal
Register
notice
(54
FR
27984­
28008,
July
3,
1989)
is
currently
being
implemented
on
an
interim
basis.
As
part
of
the
interim
program,
the
Agency
has
developed
County
Specific
Pamphlets
that
articulate
many
of
the
specific
measures
outlined
in
the
Biological
Opinions
issued
to
date.
These
Pamphlets
are
available
for
voluntary
use
by
pesticide
applicators,
on
EPA's
web
site
at
www.
EPA.
gov/
espp
.
A
final
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program,
which
may
be
altered
from
the
interim
program,
is
scheduled
to
be
proposed
for
public
comment
in
the
Federal
Register
in
2002.

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

Until
EPA
decides
upon,
and
publishes
the
final
label
guidance
for
spray,
and
dust
drift,
the
registrant
for
oxyfluorfen
has
agreed
to
add
the
following
spray
drift
related
language,
in
part
to
address
concerns
of
surface
water
runoff
of
oxyfluorfen.

A
25
ft.
vegetative
buffer
strip
must
be
maintained
between
all
areas
treated
with
this
product
and
lakes,
reservoirs,
rivers,
permanent
streams,
marshes
or
natural
ponds,
estuaries
and
commercial
fish
farm
ponds.

"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
groundboom
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
coarse
spray
according
to
ASAE
572
definition
for
standard
nozzles
or
VMD
of
475
microns
for
spinning
atomizer
nozzles.

The
applicator
also
must
use
all
other
measures
necessary
to
control
drift."
56
V.
What
Registrants
Need
to
Do
The
Agency
has
determined
that
oxyfluorfen
is
eligible
for
reregistration
provided
that:
(i)
additional
data
that
the
Agency
intends
to
require
confirm
this
interim
decision;
and
(ii)
the
risk
mitigation
measures
outlined
in
this
document
are
adopted,
and
label
amendments
are
made
to
reflect
these
measures.
To
implement
the
risk
mitigation
measures,
the
registrants
must
amend
their
product
labeling
to
incorporate
the
label
statements
set
forth
in
the
Label
Summary
Table
in
Section
V.
D
below.
The
additional
data
requirements
that
the
Agency
intends
to
obtain
will
include,
among
other
things,
submission
of
the
following:

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

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

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

Within
the
time
limit
specified
in
the
generic
DCI:

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

Please
contact
John
Leahy
at
(703)
305­
6703
with
questions
regarding
generic
reregistration
and/
or
the
DCI.
All
materials
submitted
in
response
to
the
generic
DCI
should
be
addressed:

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

Within
90
days
from
the
receipt
of
the
product­
specific
data
call­
in
(PDCI):
57
(1)
completed
response
forms
to
the
PDCI
(i.
e.,
PDCI
response
form
and
requirements
status
and
registrant's
response
form);
and
(2)
submit
any
time
extension
or
waiver
requests
with
a
full
written
justification.

Within
eight
months
from
the
receipt
of
the
PDCI:

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

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

(3)
five
copies
of
the
draft
label
incorporating
all
label
amendments
outlined
in
Table
25
of
this
document;

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

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

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

By
US
mail:
By
express
or
courier
service
only:
Document
Processing
Desk
(PDCI/
PRB)
Document
Processing
Desk
(PDCI/
PRB)
Bonnie
Adler
Bonnie
Adler
US
EPA
(7508C)
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(7508C)
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW
Room
266A,
Crystal
Mall
2
Washington,
DC
20460
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Highway
Arlington,
VA
22202
A.
Manufacturing
Use
Products
1.
Additional
Generic
Data
Requirements
The
generic
data
base
supporting
the
reregistration
of
oxyfluorfen
for
the
above
eligible
uses
has
been
reviewed
and
determined
to
be
substantially
complete.
However
the
following
data
requirements
are
necessary
to
confirm
the
reregistration
eligibility
decision
documented
in
this
RED.
58
OPPTS
GLN
870.3200:
21­
day
Dermal
Toxicity
Study
in
Rats
OPPTS
GLN
870.3465:
90­
day
Subchronic
Inhalation
Toxicity
OPPTS
GLN
860.1200:
(Directions
for
Use
)
­
Label
revisions
are
required
OPPTS
GLN
860.1500:
Crop
Field
Trials
in
Bananas
and
Cacao
Beans
OPPTS
GLN
850.1400:
Estuarine/
marine
Fish
Early­
life
Stage
OPPTS
GLN
850.1735:
Whole
sediment
acute
toxicity
invertebrates,
Fresh
Water
OPPTS
GLN
850.1740:
Whole
sediment
acute
toxicity
invertebrates,
Estuarine/
marine
OPPTS
GLN
850.1300:
Daphnid
Chronic
Toxicity
OPPTS
GLN
850.2300:
Avian
Reproduction
Studies,
Quail
and
Duck
OPPTS
GLN
850.4225:
Seed
Germination/
seedling
Emergence
OPPTS
GLN
850.4250:
Vegetative
Vigor
OPPTS
GLN
850.4400:
Aquatic
Plant
Growth
OPPTS
GLN
875.2100:
Dislodgeable
Foliar
Residue
Study
in
Conifers
Non­
Guideline
Studies:

Fish
Phototoxicity
Study.
Oxyfluorfen
has
a
light
dependent
peroxidase
and
may
be
more
toxic
to
fish
in
clear
natural
waters
than
the
guideline
fish
acute
toxicity
study
would
indicate.
This
study
should
quantify
any
additional
toxicity
which
is
light
induced.

Edge
of
Field
Water
and
Sediment
Monitoring.
Simple
initial
tier
study
to
determine
oxyfluorfen
residues
in
drinking
water.
Monitoring
of
drinking
water
is
reserved
pending
the
results
of
this
study.

2.
Labeling
for
Manufacturing
Use
Products
To
ensure
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
25
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.
59
A
product­
specific
data
call­
in,
outlining
specific
data
requirements,
accompanies
this
RED.

2.
Labeling
for
End­
Use
Products
Labeling
changes
are
necessary
to
implement
the
mitigation
measures
outlined
in
Section
IV
above.
Specific
language
to
incorporate
these
changes
is
specified
in
Table
25.

C.
Existing
Stocks
Registrants
may
generally
distribute
and
sell
products
bearing
old
labels/
labeling
for
12
months
from
the
date
of
the
issuance
of
this
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
document.
Persons
other
than
the
registrant
may
generally
distribute
or
sell
such
products
for
24
months
from
the
date
of
the
issuance
of
this
RED.
However,
existing
stocks
time
frames
will
be
established
case­
by­
case,
depending
on
the
number
of
products
involved,
the
number
of
label
changes,
and
other
factors.
Refer
to
"Existing
Stocks
of
Pesticide
Products;
Statement
of
Policy";
Federal
Register,
Volume
56,
No.
123,
June
26,
1991.
60
D.
Required
Labeling
Changes
Summary
Table
Table
25
Summary
of
Required
Labeling
Changes
for
Oxyfluorfen
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
Manufacturing
Use
Products
One
of
these
statements
may
be
added
to
a
label
to
allow
reformulation
of
the
product
for
a
specific
use
or
all
additional
uses
supported
by
a
formulator
or
user
group
"Only
for
formulation
into
an
herbicide
for
the
following
use(
s):
artichokes
(globe),
broccoli,
cabbage,

cauliflower,
cacao,
citrus
(non­
bearing),
coffee,
conifers
(seedbeds,
transplants,
container
stock)
and
selected
deciduous
trees,
corn,
cotton,
cottonwood,
eucalyptus,
fallow
bed
(cotton/
soybeans),
fallow
land,

garbanzo
beans,
garlic,
guava
(Hawaii
only),
horseradish,
jojoba,
mint,
onions,
onions
grown
for
seed,

papayas
(Hawaii
only),
soybeans,
taro,
and
tree
fruit,
nuts,
and
vines
(which
includes
almond,
apple,

avocado,
beechnut,
brazil
nut,
butternut,
cashew,
cherry,
chestnut,
chinquapin,
crabapple,
date,
feijoa,
fig,

filbert,
grapes,
hickory
nut,
kiwi,
loquat,
macadamia
nut,
mayhaw,
nectarines,
olives,
peach,
pear,
pecan,

persimmon,
pistachio,
plum,
pomegranates,
prune,
quince,
walnut).
Directions
for
Use
"This
product
may
be
used
to
formulate
products
for
specific
use(
s)
not
listed
on
the
MP
label
if
the
formulator,
user
group,
or
grower
has
complied
with
U.
S.
EPA
submission
requirements
regarding
support
of
such
use(
s)."
Directions
for
Use
Environmental
Hazards
Statements
Required
by
the
RED
and
Agency
Label
Policies
This
pesticide
is
toxic
to
fish.
Do
not
discharge
effluent
into
lakes,
streams,
ponds,
estuaries,
oceans,
or
public
waters
unless
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
a
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(NPDES)
permit
and
the
permitting
authority
has
been
notified
in
writing
prior
to
discharge.
Do
not
discharge
effluent
containing
this
product
to
sewer
systems
without
previously
notifying
the
sewage
treatment
plant
authority.
For
guidance,
contact
your
State
Water
Board
or
Regional
Office
of
the
EPA.
Directions
for
Use
Handler
PPE
Guidelines
(all
formulations)
Note
the
following
information
when
preparing
labeling
for
all
end
use
products:

For
sole­
active­
ingredient
end­
use
products
that
contain
oxyfluorfen,
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
oxyfluorfen,
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
will
be
established
on
the
basis
of
Acute
Toxicity
testing
on
end­
use
products
undergoing
product
reregistration
must
be
compared
with
the
active
ingredient
PPE
specified
below
by
the
RED.
The
more
protective
PPE
must
be
placed
in
the
product
labeling.
For
guidance
on
which
PPE
is
considered
more
protective,
see
PR
Notice
93­
7.
Handler
PPE
Statements
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
61
End
Use
Products
Intended
for
Occupational
Use
(WPS
and
Non­
WPS
Uses)

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

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

Mixers,
loaders
and
applicators
using
engineering
controls
(see
engineering
controls
requirements
below),

must
wear:
Long­
sleeved
shirt
and
long
pants
Shoes
plus
socks
Chemical­
resistant
gloves
when
mixing
and
loading
Chemical­
resistant
apron
when
mixing
and
loading
All
other
mixers,
loaders,
applicators
and
other
handlers
must
wear:

Coveralls
over
long­
sleeved
shirt
and
long
pants
Chemical­
resistant
footwear
plus
socks
Chemical­
resistant
gloves
Chemical­
resistant
headgear
when
exposed
overhead
Chemical­
resistant
apron
when
exposed
to
the
concentrate
Immediately
following/
below
Precautionary
Statements:

Hazards
to
Humans
and
Domestic
Animals
PPE
Requirements
Established
by
the
RED
for
Granular
product
formulations.
"Personal
Protective
Equipment
(PPE)

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

Mixers,
loaders,
applicators
and
other
handlers
must
wear:

Coveralls
over
long­
sleeved
shirt
and
long
pants
Chemical­
resistant
footwear
plus
socks
Chemical­
resistant
gloves
Chemical­
resistant
apron
for
mixers
and
loaders.
Immediately
following/
below
Precautionary
Statements:

Hazards
to
Humans
and
Domestic
Animals
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
62
User
Safety
Requirements
"Follow
manufacturer's
instructions
for
cleaning/
maintaining
PPE.
If
no
such
instructions
for
washables
exist,
use
detergent
and
hot
water.
Keep
and
wash
PPE
separately
from
other
laundry."

"Discard
clothing
and
other
absorbent
materials
that
have
been
drenched
or
heavily
contaminated
with
this
product's
concentrate.
Do
not
reuse
them."
Precautionary
Statements:

Hazards
to
Humans
and
Domestic
Animals
immediately
following
the
PPE
requirements
Engineering
Controls
Established
by
the
RED
for
liquid
products
"Engineering
Controls
"Mixers
and
loaders
supporting
aerial
applications
to
fallow
land
or
ground
applications
to
corn,
cotton,
or
soybeans
must
use
a
closed
system
that
meets
the
requirements
listed
in
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
(WPS)
for
agricultural
pesticides
[40
CFR
170.240(
d)(
4)],
and
must:

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

­­
wear
protective
eyewear
if
the
system
operates
under
pressure,
and
­­
be
provided
and
have
immediately
available
for
use
in
an
emergency,
such
as
a
broken
package,

spill,
or
equipment
breakdown:
coveralls,
and
chemical­
resistant
footwear
."

"Handlers
performing
applications
to
corn
must
use
an
enclosed
cab
that
meets
the
definition
in
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
for
Agricultural
Pesticides
[40
CFR
170.240(
d)(
5)]
for
dermal
protection.
In
addition,

such
applicators
must:

­­
wear
the
personal
protective
equipment
required
above
for
applicators
using
engineering
controls,

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

and
chemical­
resistant
headgear,
if
overhead
exposure,

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

"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)];

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

Hazards
to
Humans
and
Domestic
Animals
(Immediately
following
PPE
and
User
Safety
Requirements.)

Engineering
Controls
Established
by
the
RED
for
Granular
Formulations.
"Engineering
controls"

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

Hazards
to
Humans
and
Domestic
Animals
(Immediately
following
PPE
and
User
Safety
Requirements.)
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
63
User
Safety
Recommendations
"User
Safety
Recommendations
Users
should
wash
hands
before
eating,
drinking,
chewing
gum,
using
tobacco,
or
using
the
toilet.

Users
should
remove
clothing/
PPE
immediately
if
pesticide
gets
inside.
Then
wash
thoroughly
and
put
on
clean
clothing.
Users
should
remove
PPE
immediately
after
handling
this
product.
Wash
the
outside
of
gloves
before
removing.
As
soon
as
possible,
wash
thoroughly
and
change
into
clean
clothing."
Precautionary
Statements
under:

Hazards
to
Humans
and
Domestic
Animals
immediately
following
Engineering
Controls
(Must
be
placed
in
a
box.)

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

"Do
not
enter
or
allow
workers
to
enter
during
the
restricted­
entry
interval
(REI).
Directions
for
Use,
Agricultural
Use
Requirements
Box
and
Application
Instructions
for
Appropriate
Crop
In
the
Directions
for
Use
under
Application
Instructions
for
each
crop,
specify
the
following
REIs:

The
REI
is
24
hours
for
all
crops
except
for
the
following:

Onions,
garlic
and
horseradish:
The
REI
is
48
hours.

Conifer
seedlings:
The
REI
is
three
days.

Conifer
trees:
The
REI
is
six
days.

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

­­
coveralls,

­­
chemical­
resistant
gloves
made
of
any
waterproof
material,

­­
shoes
plus
socks
Directions
for
Use,
Agricultural
Use
Requirements
Box
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
64
REI
Statements
required
if
non

WPS
uses
are
on
the
label
Liquid
Formulations:

"Do
not
enter
or
allow
others
to
enter
until
sprays
have
dried."

Granular
formulations:

"Do
not
enter
or
allow
others
to
enter
until
dusts
have
settled."
Directions
for
Use
Non­
Agricultural
Use
Requirements
Box
General
Application
Restrictions
Do
not
apply
this
product
in
a
way
that
will
contact
workers
or
other
persons,
either
directly
or
through
drift.
Only
protected
handlers
may
be
in
the
area
during
application."
Place
in
the
Direction
for
Use
directly
above
the
Agricultural
Use
Box.

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

New
Maximum
Annual
Application
Rates
Restrictions:

All
Food/
Feed
Crops
(except
tropical
commodities
grown
in
HI):
1.5
lbs
ai/
A
All
ornamentals:
liquid
application
rate
of
1.5
lbs/
ai/
application
(4.5
lbs
ai/
season)

Container­
grown
ornamentals:
granular
application
rate
of
2
lbs
ai/
A/
application
(6
lbs
ai/
season).

Conifer
seedlings:
2
lbs/
ai/
A.
Directions
for
Use
Description
Required
Labeling
Placement
on
Label
65
Spray
Drift
Buffer
Restrictions
The
following
spray
drift
statement
is
required.

"A
25
ft.
vegetative
buffer
strip
must
be
maintained
between
all
areas
treated
with
this
product
and
lakes,

reservoirs,
rivers,
permanent
streams,
marshes
or
natural
ponds,
estuaries
and
commercial
fish
farm
ponds."

"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,
non­
target
crops,
aquatic
and
wetland
areas,

woodlands,
pastures,
rangelands,
or
animals.

For
groundboom
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
coarse
spray
according
to
ASAE
572
definition
for
standard
nozzles
or
VMD
of
475
microns
for
spinning
atomizer
nozzles.

The
applicator
also
must
use
all
other
measures
necessary
to
control
drift."
Directions
for
Use
under
General
Application
Instructions
and/
or
Restrictions
End
Use
Products
Intended
for
Residential
Consumer
Use
Environmental
Hazards
"Environmental
Hazards"

"Do
not
apply
directly
to
water.
Do
not
contaminate
water
when
disposing
of
equipment
washwaters
or
rinsate."
Precautionary
Statements
Entry
Restrictions
"Do
not
allow
people
or
pets
to
enter
treated
area
until
spays
have
dried."
Directions
for
Use
General
Application
Restrictions
"Do
not
apply
this
product
in
a
way
that
will
contact
people
or
pets"
Directions
for
Use
Other
Application
Restrictions/
Risk
Mitigation
The
application
instructions
must
be
revised
to
reflect
the
maximum
consumer
product
(residential)
rate
of
3
lbs
ai/
A.
Directions
for
Use
Instructions
in
the
Labeling
Required
section
appearing
in
quotations
represent
the
exact
language
that
must
appear
on
the
label.

Instructions
in
the
Labeling
Required
section
not
in
quotes
represent
actions
that
the
registrant
must
take
to
amend
their
labels
or
product
registrations.
66
VI.
APPENDICES
This
Reregistration
Eligibility
Document
is
supported
by
documents
that
are
presently
maintained
in
the
OPP
docket.
The
OPP
docket
is
located
in
Room
119,
Crystal
Mall
#2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
VA.
It
is
open
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays
from
8:
30
am
to
4
pm.

All
documents,
in
hard
copy
form,
may
be
viewed
in
the
OPP
docket
room
or
downloaded
or
viewed
via
the
Internet
at
the
following
site:
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/
reregistration/
oxyfluorfen.
67
Appendix
A:
Use
Patterns
Eligible
for
Reregistration
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
Almonds
(See
also
"Tree
nuts")

Directed
spray
application
Nondormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[CA890012]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[CA960020]
1.5
lb/
A
Not
specified
(NS)
1.5
lb/
A
(nondormant
season)
30
Use
limited
to
CA.
Application
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
(minimum
of
10
gal/
A
for
certain
tank
mix
applications).
Application
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.

Chemigation
Nondormant
Flood
(basin)
irrigation,
low

volume
sprinkler
(microsprinkler)
or
drip
trickle
irrigation
2
lb/
gal
EC
[CA960020]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
(nondormant
season)
30
Use
limited
to
CA.

Apples
(See
"Pome
fruits")

Apricots
(See
"Stone
fruits")

Artichokes,
Globe
Directed
spray
application
Postemergence
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
1.5
lb/
A
1
1.
5
lb/
A
5
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage
and
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area
are
prohibited
for
the
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
formulation
only.

1.0
lb/
A
2
1.
5
lb/
A
5
The
first
application
is
made
to
susceptible
weed
seedlings
and
the
second
application
is
made
8­
10
weeks
later.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage
and
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area
are
prohibited
for
the
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
formulation
only.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
68
Avocados
Directed
spray
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
NS
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage,
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area,
and
application
after
buds
start
to
swell
or
when
foliage
or
fruit
are
present
are
prohibited.

Beech
nut
(See
"Tree
nuts")

Blackberries
Directed
spray
application
Early
season
(primocane
growth
4
to
6
inches)
or
dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[OR960005]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[OR960036]
[OR000028]
0.8
lb/
A
(early
season)
1.0
lb/
A
(dormant)
4
1.
5
lb/
A
15
Use
limited
to
OR.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
50
gal
water/
A.

Brazil
nut
(See
"Tree
nuts")

Broccoli
Broadcast
application
Pretransplant
(preplant)

Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
NS
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.

Butternut
(See
"Tree
nuts")

Cabbage
Broadcast
application
Pretransplant
(preplant)

Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
NS
See
"Broccoli."
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
69
Cacao
beans
(bearing
and
nonbearing)

Directed
spray
application
Postemergence
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
2.0
lb/
A
NS
6.0
lb/
A
1
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
15
gal
of
water/
A.

Directed
spray
application
Pretransplant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
1.0
lb/
A
NS
6.0
lb/
A
1
Cashew
(See
"Tree
nuts")

Cauliflower
Broadcast
application
Pretransplant
(preplant)

Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
NS
See
"Broccoli."

Cherries
(See
"Stone
fruits")

Chestnut
(See
"Tree
nuts")

Chickpea
(Garbanzo
bean)

Broadcast
application
Preemergence
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.25
lb/
A
NS
NS
NS
Use
limited
to
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
25
gal
of
water/
A.
Feeding
of
bean,
vines,

or
hay
is
prohibited.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
70
Chickpea
(Garbanzo
bean)
(continued)

Broadcast
application
Preemergence
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[CA920029]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[AZ000001]
[CA960022]
0.25
lb/
A
NS
NS
NS
Use
limited
to
AZ
and
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.

Chinquapin
(See
"Tree
nuts")

Coffee
(bearing
and
nonbearing)

Broadcast
application
(over
the
top)
Dormant
transplants
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
2.0
lb/
A
NS
6.0
lb/
A
1
Use
limited
to
HI.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
30
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.

Directed
spray
application
Postemergence
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
2.0
lb/
A
NS
6.0
lb/
A
1
Directed
spray
application
Pretransplant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
1.0
lb/
A
NS
6.0
lb/
A
1
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
71
Corn,
field
Directed
spray
application
Foliar/
postemergence
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]

[NC990007]
[SC000002]
0.75
lb/
A
(first
application)
0.5
lb/
A
(subsequent
applications)
NS
1.25
lb/
A
30
[62719­
395]

[62719­
400]
60
[62719­
424]

[NC990007]
[SC000002]
Use
in
conjunction
with
the
USDA
"witchweed"

eradication
program
in
NC
and
SC.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
10
gal
of
water/
A.
The
use
of
any
plants
from
a
treated
field
for
green
chop,
ensilage,

forage,
or
fodder
is
prohibited.
PHI
is
60
days.

Broadcast
application
Fallow
bed
Ground
or
aerial
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[LA930011]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[AR960009]
[LA960012]
[MS960015]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
(per
fallow
season)
Not
applicable
(NA)
Use
limited
to
AR,
LA,
and
MS.
Application
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
using
ground
equipment
or
5
gal/
A
by
air.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
A
7­
day
interval
from
treatment
to
planting
is
specified.
The
use
of
any
plants
from
a
treated
field
for
green
chop,

ensilage,
forage
or
fodder
or
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
animals
on
any
treated
area
is
prohibited.
PHI
is
60
days.

Cotton
Directed
spray
application
Postemergence
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

[VA930010]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
(single
or
multiple
applications)
90
[62719­
400]

[62719­
424]

[VA930010]
NS
[62719­
395]
Use
limited
to
AL,
AR,
GA,
LA,
MS,
MO,
NM,
NC,

OK,
SC,
TN,
TX,
and
VA
(Southern
cotton).

Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
Application
after
initiation
of
bloom
is
prohibited.

1.0
lb/
A
(multiple
applications)
0.5
lb/
A
(single
application)
75
[62719­
400]

[62719­
424]
NS
[62719­
395]
Use
limited
to
AZ
and
CA
(Western
cotton).

Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
Application
after
initiation
of
bloom
is
prohibited.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
72
Cotton
(continued)
Broadcast
application
Fallow
bed
Aerial
equipment
2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
(per
fallow
season)
NA
Use
limited
to
AZ
and
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
10
gal
of
water/
A
(minimum
of
5
gal/
A
for
certain
tank
mix
applications).
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
A
14­

day
interval
from
treatment
to
incorporation
and
planting
is
specified.

Broadcast
application
Fallow
bed
Ground
equipment
2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
(per
fallow
season)
NA
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
A
14­
day
interval
from
treatment
to
incorporation
and
planting
is
specified.

Broadcast
application
Fallow
bed
Ground
or
aerial
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
(per
fallow
season)
NA
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
using
ground
equipment
or
5
gal/
A
by
air
(minimum
of
10
gal/
A
by
air
in
CA).
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
A
7­
day
interval
from
treatment
to
planting
is
specified.

Crabapples
(See
"Pome
fruits")

Dates
Directed
spray
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
NS
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage,
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area,
and
application
after
buds
start
to
swell
or
when
foliage
or
fruit
are
present
are
prohibited.

Fallow
land
Broadcast
application
Fallow
bed
Ground
or
aerial
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
NA
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
using
ground
equipment
or
10
gal/
A
by
air.

Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
73
Fallow
land
(continued)
Broadcast
application
Fallow
bed
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
NS
NA
Use
limited
to
ID,
OR,
and
WA.
Use
is
restricted
to
summer
fallow
land
that
will
be
planted
back
the
following
year
to
barley,
oats,
or
winter
wheat.

Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.

Feijoa
Directed
spray
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
NS
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage,
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area,
and
application
after
buds
start
to
swell
or
when
foliage
or
fruit
are
present
are
prohibited.

Figs
Directed
spray
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
NS
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage,
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area,
and
application
after
buds
start
to
swell
or
when
foliage
or
fruit
are
present
are
prohibited.

Filberts
(See
"Tree
Nuts")

Garbanzo
bean
(see
"Chickpea")

Garlic
Broadcast
or
band
application
Postemergence
to
seeded
garlic
(at
least
2
true
leaves)

Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.25
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
60
Use
limited
to
direct­
seeded
garlic
in
Western
states
of
AZ,
CA,
CO,
ID,
NV,
NM,
OR,
TX,
UT,
and
WA.

Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
For
use
on
dry
bulb
garlic
only;
use
on
garlic
grown
for
seed
is
prohibited.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
74
Garlic
(continued)
Broadcast
or
band
application
Postemergence
to
seeded
garlic
(at
least
3
true
leaves)

Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.06
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
60
Use
limited
to
direct­
seeded
garlic
in
Northeastern
states
of
CT,
ME,
MA,
NH,
NJ,
NY,
RI,
and
VT.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
For
use
on
dry
bulb
garlic
only;
use
on
garlic
grown
for
seed
is
prohibited.

Broadcast
or
band
application
Postemergence
to
seeded
garlic
(at
least
2
true
leaves)

Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.12
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
60
Use
limited
to
direct­
seeded
garlic
in
all
other
states
not
listed
above.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
For
use
on
dry
bulb
garlic
only;

use
on
garlic
grown
for
seed
is
prohibited.

Broadcast
or
band
application
After
transplanting
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
60
Use
limited
to
transplanted
garlic
for
all
states
except
the
Northeastern
states
listed
above.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
For
use
on
dry
bulb
garlic
only;
use
on
garlic
grown
for
seed
is
prohibited.

0.06
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
60
Use
limited
to
transplanted
garlic
in
the
Northeastern
states
listed
above.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
For
use
on
dry
bulb
garlic
only;
use
on
garlic
grown
for
seed
is
prohibited.

Broadcast
application
Preemergence
Ground
or
aerial
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[CA920018]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[CA960021]
0.25
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
60
Use
limited
to
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
using
ground
equipment
or
10
gal/
A
by
air.
For
use
on
dry
bulb
garlic
only.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
75
Garlic
(continued)
Directed
spray
application
Postemergence
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[CA920018]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[CA960021]
[NV990001]
0.25
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
60
Use
limited
to
CA
and
NV.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.
For
use
on
dry
bulb
garlic
only.

Chemigation
Preemergence
or
postemergence
Sprinkler
irrigation
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[CA920018]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[CA960021]
0.25
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
60
Use
limited
to
CA.
For
use
on
dry
bulb
garlic
only.

Grapes
Directed
spray
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
NS
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage,
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area,
and
application
after
buds
start
to
swell
or
when
foliage
or
fruit
are
present
are
prohibited.

Directed
spray
or
broadcast
(over
the
top)
application
Dormant
(nonbearing)
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[CA950008]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[CA960023]
[WA970023]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
NS
NS
Use
limited
to
CA
and
WA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
Application
after
buds
start
to
swell
is
prohibited.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
76
Grapes
(continued)
Directed
spray
application
Nondormant
Ground
equipment
2
lb/
gal
EC
[CA970026]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
14
Use
limited
to
CA
as
a
nondormant
application
to
wine
grapes
and
raisin
grapes
only.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
(minimum
of
10
gal/
A
for
certain
tank
mix
applications).
Application
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.

2
lb/
gal
EC
[OR000001]
[WA970013]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
60
Use
limited
to
OR
and
WA
as
a
nondormant
application
to
wine
and
processing
grapes
only.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
o
f
50
gal
of
water/
A.

Application
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.

Chemigation
Nondormant
Low­
volume
sprinkler
(microsprinkler)
or
drip
trickle
irrigation
2
lb/
gal
EC
[CA970026]
[WA970024]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
14
Use
limited
to
CA
and
WA
as
a
nondormant
application
to
grapes
grown
for
processing
(includes
juice,
wine,
and
raisin
grapes
only).

Grasses
grown
for
seed
Broadcast
application
Ground
equipment
2
lb/
gal
EC
[OR990006]
[WA990035]
0.125­
0.375
lb/
A
2
0.
375
lb/
A
150
Use
limited
to
OR
and
WA
for
grass
grown
for
seed
(including
Kentucky
bluegrass,
tall
fescue,
orchardgrass,

bentgrass,
and
perennial
ryegrass).
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
A
150­
day
pregrazing
interval
(PGI)
has
been
established.

2
lb/
gal
EC
[OR990006]
0.12
lb/
A
1
0.
12
lb/
A
150
Use
limited
to
OR
for
grass
grown
for
seed
(including
fine
fescues:
chewing,
creeping
red,
and
hard
types).

Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
A
150­
day
pregrazing
interval
(PGI)
has
been
established.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
77
2
lb/
gal
EC
[OR990036]
0.0375
lb/
A
1
NS
150
Use
limited
to
OR
for
grass
grown
for
seed
(including
perennial
ryegrass
and
tall
fescue).
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
A
150­
day
pregrazing
interval
(PGI)
has
been
established.

Guavas
(bearing
and
nonbearing)

Directed
spray
application
Postemergence
(after
new
foliage
has
hardened
off)

Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
2.0
lb/
A
NS
4.0
lb/
A
1
Use
limited
to
HI.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
15
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.

Hickory
Nut
(See
"Tree
Nuts")

Horseradish
Broadcast
application
Preemergence
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
NS
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.

Kiwifruit
Directed
spray
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
NS
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage,
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area,
and
application
after
buds
start
to
swell
or
when
foliage
or
fruit
are
present
are
prohibited.

Loquat
(See
"Pome
fruits")
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
78
Macadamia
Nut
(bearing
and
nonbearing;
see
also
"Tree
nuts")

Directed
spray
application
Postemergence
(after
new
foliage
has
hardened
off)

Ground
equipment
2
lb/
gal
EC
[HI960010]
2.0
lb/
A
1.0
lb/
A
(lava
soil)
NS
4.0
lb/
A
7
Use
limited
to
HI.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
15
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.

Feeding
or
grazing
of
animals
on
any
treated
area
is
prohibited.

Mayhaws
(See
"Pome
fruits")

Nectarines
(See
"Stone
fruits")

Olive
Directed
spray
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
NS
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage,
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area,
and
application
after
buds
start
to
swell
or
when
foliage
or
fruit
are
present
are
prohibited.

Onions,
bulb
Broadcast
or
band
application
Postemergence
to
seeded
onions
(at
least
2
true
leaves)

Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.25
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
45
Use
limited
to
direct­
seeded
onions
in
Western
states
of
AZ,
CA,
CO,
ID,
NV,
NM,
OR,
TX,
UT,
and
WA.

Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.

Broadcast
or
band
application
Postemergence
to
seeded
onions
(at
least
3
true
leaves)

Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.06
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
45
Use
limited
to
direct­
seeded
onions
in
Northeastern
states
of
CT,
ME,
MA,
NH,
NJ,
NY,
RI,
and
VT.

Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
79
Onions,
bulb
(continued)
Broadcast
or
band
application
Postemergence
to
seeded
onions
(at
least
2
true
leaves)

Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.12
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
45
Use
limited
to
direct­
seeded
onions
in
all
other
states
not
listed
above.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.

Broadcast
or
band
application
After
transplanting
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
45
Use
limited
to
transplanted
onions
for
all
states
except
the
Northeastern
states
listed
above.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.

0.06
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
45
Use
limited
to
transplanted
onions
in
the
Northeastern
states
listed
above.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.

Broadcast
or
band
application
Pre­
transplanting
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
45
Use
prohibited
in
Northeastern
and
Western
states
listed
above,
except
if
specifically
directed
on
other
approved
supplemental
labeling.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.

Broadcast
application
Pre­
transplanting
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[GA890006]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
NS
Use
limited
to
GA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage
and
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area
are
prohibited.

Chemigation
Postemergence
(at
least
2
true
leaves)
or
after
transplanting
Sprinkler
irrigation
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[CA880034]
[OR910026]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[OR970008]
0.25
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
45
(OR)

60
(CA)
Use
limited
to
CA
and
OR.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
80
Onions,
bulb
(continued)
Chemigation
Postemergence
(at
least
2
true
leaves)
Sprinkler
irrigation
2
lb/
gal
EC
[CA960026]
[WA960033]
0.25
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
45
Use
limited
to
CA
and
WA.

Chemigation
After
transplanting
Sprinkler
irrigation
2
lb/
gal
EC
[WA960033]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
45
Use
limited
to
WA.

Onions
Grown
for
Seed
Broadcast
application
Postemergence
(at
least
4
true
leaves)
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.03
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
60
Use
limited
to
onions
grown
for
seed
in
Northeastern
states
of
CT,
ME,
MA,
NH,
NJ,
NY,
RI,
&
VT.

Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal/
A.

Broadcast
application
Postemergence
(at
least
3
true
leaves)
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.12
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
60
Use
limited
to
onions
grown
for
seed
in
all
other
states
not
listed
above.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal/
A.

Ornamental
Plants
Field
grown
ornamentals
and
Containerized
ornamentals
Broadcast
application
Postemergence
(at
least
4
true
leaves)
Ground
equipment
2%
Granular
[538­
172]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
4.5
lb/
A
NA
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
81
Ornamental
Plants
(continued)

Containerized
ornamentals
Broadcast
application
Postemergence
(at
least
4
true
leaves)
Ground
equipment
2%
Granular
[538­
172]
2.0
lb/
A
NS
6.0
lb/
A
NA
Residential
ornamentals
Broadcast
application
Ground
equipment
0.25%
Solution
[239­
2356]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
3.0
lb/
A
NA
Papayas
Directed
spray
application
Postemergence
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
1.0
lb/
A
NS
3.0
lb/
A
1
Use
limited
to
HI.
Initial
application
should
occur
no
earlier
than
4
months
after
transplanting
or
6
months
after
direct
seeding.
Applications
may
be
made
in
minimum
of
15
gal
of
water/
A
and
repeated
at
4­
month
intervals.

Peaches
(See
"Stone
fruits")

Pears
(See
"Pome
fruits")

Pecans
(See
"Tree
nuts")
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
82
Peppermint
Broadcast
or
band
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]
1.5
lb/
A
1
NS
NA
Use
limited
to
OR
and
WA
(East
of
Cascades)
and
western
ID.
Application
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.

0.75
lb/
A
1
NS
NA
Use
limited
to
western
OR
(Willamette
Valley).

Application
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.

1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[CA930014]
[NV930002]
[SD940001]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[MT960003]
[ND980001]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
NA
Use
limited
to
CA,
MT,
ND,
NV,
and
SD.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.

Broadcast
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
1.5
lb/
A
1
NS
NA
Use
limited
to
OR
and
WA
(East
of
Cascades)
and
CA,

ID,
MT,
NV,
SD,
and
UT.
Application
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.

0.75
lb/
A
1
NS
NA
Use
limited
to
western
OR
(Willamette
Valley).

Application
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.

Broadcast
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
2
lb/
gal
EC
[SD960007]
1.5
lb/
A
1
NS
NA
Use
limited
to
SD.
Application
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
83
Peppermint
(continued)
Broadcast
application
Preemergence
(dormant)

Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[IN840003]
[WI950001]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[IN960004]
[MI970002]
[WI960009]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
NS
NA
Use
limited
to
IN,
MI,
and
WI
for
mint
grown
in
muck
soil
(
$
20%
organic
matter).
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage
and
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area
are
prohibited.

Persimmons
Directed
spray
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
2.0
lb/
A
NS
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage,
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area,
and
application
after
buds
start
to
swell
or
when
foliage
or
fruit
are
present
are
prohibited.

Pistachios
(See
also
"Tree
Nuts")

Directed
spray
application
Nondormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[CA950007]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[CA960019]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
(nondormant
season)
7
Use
limited
to
CA.
Application
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
(minimum
of
10
gal/
A
for
certain
tank
mix
applications).
Application
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.

Chemigation
Nondormant
Flood
(basin)
irrigation
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[CA950007]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
(nondormant
season)
7
Use
limited
to
CA.

Chemigation
Nondormant
Flood
(basin)
irrigation,
low

volume
sprinkler
(microsprinkler)
or
drip
trickle
irrigation
2
lb/
gal
EC
[CA960019]
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
84
Plums
(See
"Stone
fruits")

Pome
fruits
(including
apple,
crabapple,
loquat,
mayhaws,
pear,
and
quince)

Directed
spray
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
NS
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage,
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area,
and
application
after
buds
start
to
swell
or
when
foliage
or
fruit
are
present
are
prohibited.

Pomegranates
Directed
spray
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
NS
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage,
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area,
and
application
after
buds
start
to
swell
or
when
foliage
or
fruit
are
present
are
prohibited.

Prunes
(See
"Stone
fruits")

Quince
(See
"Pome
fruits")

Raspberries
Directed
spray
application
Early
season
(primocane
growth
4
to
6
inches)

Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[OR960006]
0.8
lb/
A
2
1.
2
lb/
A
50
Use
limited
to
OR
and
WA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
50
gal
water/
A.

2
lb/
gal
EC
[OR960037]
[WA960034]
0.75
lb/
A
2
1.
25
lb/
A
50
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
85
Soybeans
Broadcast
application
(Conservation
tillage)

Early
preplant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
0.75
lb/
A
2
0.75
lb/
A
(all
uses)
NS
Use
prohibited
in
CA.
Application
should
be
made
approximately
14
days
prior
to
planting.

Broadcast
application
(No­
till)

Preemergence
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
0.5
lb/
A
2
0.75
lb/
A
(all
uses)
0.5
lb/
A
(preemergent
uses)
NS
Use
prohibited
in
CA.
Application
should
be
made
within
1
day
of
planting.
Application
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.
Application
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.

Broadcast
application
(Conventional
till)

Preemergence
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
0.38
lb/
A
2
0.75
lb/
A
(all
uses)
0.5
lb/
A
(preemergent
uses)
NS
Directed
spray
application
(Conventional­
till)

Postemergence
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
0.25
lb/
A
2
0.75
lb/
A
(all
uses)
0.5
lb/
A
(preemergent
uses)
NS
Use
prohibited
in
CA.
Application
should
be
made
when
soybean
plants
are
a
minimum
of
8
inches
tall
and
before
blooms
appear.
Application
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.
Application
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
86
Soybeans
(continued)
Broadcast
application
Fallow
bed
Ground
or
aerial
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
0.5
lb/
A
(per
fallow
season)
NA
Use
prohibited
in
CA.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
using
ground
equipment
or
5
gal/
A
by
air.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
A
7­
day
interval
from
treatment
to
planting
is
specified.

Spearmint
Broadcast
or
band
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]
1.5
lb/
A
1
NS
NA
See
"Peppermint."

Broadcast
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]

[SD960007]
1.5
lb/
A
1
NS
NA
See
"Peppermint."

Broadcast
or
band
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[CA930014]
[NV930002]
[SD940001]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[MT960003]
[ND980001]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
NS
NA
See
"Peppermint."
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
87
Spearmint
(continued)
Broadcast
application
Preemergence
(dormant)

Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[IN840003]
[WI950001]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[IN960004]
[MI970002]
[WI960009]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
NS
NA
See
"Peppermint."

Stone
fruits
(including
apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
plum,
and
prune)

Directed
spray
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
NS
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage,
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area,
and
application
after
buds
start
to
swell
or
when
foliage
or
fruit
are
present
are
prohibited.

Taro
Broadcast
or
band
application
Preemergence
(within
one
week
after
transplanting)

Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.5
lb/
A
NS
1.0
lb/
A
(all
uses)
6
(months)
Use
limited
to
HI.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
15
gal
of
water/
A.

Directed
spray
application
Postemergence
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
0.25
lb/
A
NS
1.0
lb/
A
(all
uses)
0.5
lb/
A
(multiple
post­
direct
applications)
0.5
lb/
A
(preemergent
uses)
6
(months)
Use
limited
to
dryland
taro
grown
in
HI.
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A.
Site
Application
Type
Application
Timing
Application
Equipment
Formulation
Example
[EPA
Reg.
No.]
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(ai)
Maximum
No.

of
Applications
Per
Season
Maximum
Seasonal
Rate
(ai)
Preharvest
Interval
(Days)
Use
Limitations
1
88
Tree
nurseries
and
plantations,
right
of
ways,
irrigation
systems,
uncultivated
non­
agricultural
land,
industrial
sites
Directed
spray
application
Postemergence
Ground
equipment
2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
424]
2.0
lb/
A
NS
2.0
lb/
A
NA
Tree
nuts
(including
almond,
beech
nut,
Brazil
nut,
butternut,
cashew,
chestnut,
chinquapin,
filbert,
hickory
nut,
macadamia
nut,
pecan,
pistachio,
and
walnut)

Directed
spray
application
Dormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
400]

2
lb/
gal
EC
[62719­
395]

[62719­
424]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
NS
Applications
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
40
gal
of
water/
A.
Applications
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.
The
use
of
any
treated
plants
for
feed
or
forage,
the
feeding
or
grazing
of
any
treated
area,
and
application
after
buds
start
to
swell
or
when
foliage
or
fruit
are
present
are
prohibited.

Walnuts
(See
also
"Tree
nuts")

Directed
spray
application
Nondormant
Ground
equipment
1.6
lb/
gal
EC
[CA890012]
2
lb/
gal
EC
[CA960020]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
(nondormant
season)
7
Use
limited
to
CA.
Application
may
be
made
in
a
minimum
of
20
gal
of
water/
A
(minimum
of
10
gal/
A
for
certain
tank
mix
applications).
Application
may
be
made
alone
or
as
a
tank
mix
with
other
herbicides.

Chemigation
Nondormant
Flood
(basin)
irrigation,
low

volume
sprinkler
(microsprinkler)
or
drip
trickle
irrigation
2
lb/
gal
EC
[CA960020]
1.5
lb/
A
NS
1.5
lb/
A
(nondormant
season)
7
Use
limited
to
CA.
89
Appendix
B:
Data
Supporting
the
Reregistration
of
Oxyfluorfen
Data
Supporting
Guideline
Requirements
for
the
Reregistration
of
Oxyfluorfen
REQUIREMENT
USE
PATTERN
CITATION(
S)

New
Guideline
Number
Old
Guideline
Number
Description
PRODUCT
CHEMISTRY
830.1550
61­
1
Product
Identity
and
Composition
All
44828901,
CSF
11/
17/
99
44720201,
CSF
12/
4/
98
830.1600
830.1200
61­
2A
Start.
Mat.
&
Mnfg.
Process
All
44828901,
44720201
830.1670
61­
2B
Formation
of
Impurities
All
44828901,
44720201
830.1700
62­
1
Preliminary
Analysis
All
44828901,
44720201,
44720202
830.1750
62­
2
Certification
of
limits
All
44828901,
CSF
11/
17/
99,
44712001,
44712002,
CSF
12/
4/
98
830.1800
62­
3
Analytical
Method
All
44828901,
44720201,
44720202
830.6302
63­
2
Color
All
44828902,
44720203
830.6303
63­
3
Physical
State
All
44828902,
44720203
830.6304
63­
4
Odor
All
44828902,
44720203
830.7050
None
UV/
Visable
Absorption
All
44828902,
44720203
830.7200
63­
5
Melting
Point
All
44828902,
44720203
830.7300
63­
7
Density
All
44828902,
44720203
830.7840
830.7860
63­
8
Solubility
All
44828902,
44712004,
44712005
830.7950
63­
9
Vapor
Pressure
All
44828902,
44712006
830.7550
63­
11
Octanol/
Water
Partition
Coefficient
All
44828902,
44712007
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
850.2100
71­
1
Avian
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
All
92136102
850.2200
71­
2A
Avian
Dietary
Toxicity
­
Quail
All
92136103
850.2200
71­
2B
Avian
Dietary
Toxicity
­
Duck
All
92136104
850.2300
71­
4A
Avian
Reproduction
­
Quail
All
Data
Gap
850.2300
71­
4B
Avian
Reproduction
­
Duck
All
Data
Gap
850.1075
72­
1A
Fish
Toxicity
Bluegill
All
42129801
850.1075
72­
1C
Fish
Toxicity
Rainbow
Trout
All
42129802
850.1010
72­
2A
Invertebrate
Toxicity
All
45271301
850.1075
72­
3A
Estuarine/
Marine
Toxicity
­
Fish
All
41698801
850.1025
72­
3B
Estuarine/
Marine
Toxicity
­
Mollusk
All
42378901
850.1035
850.1045
72­
3C
Estuarine/
Marine
Toxicity
­
Shrimp
All
30970117
850.1400
72­
4A
Fish­
Early
Life
Stage
All
92136057
(99270),
Data
Gap
Data
Supporting
Guideline
Requirements
for
the
Reregistration
of
Oxyfluorfen
REQUIREMENT
USE
PATTERN
CITATION(
S)

New
Guideline
Number
Old
Guideline
Number
Description
90
850.1300
850.1350
72­
4B
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrate
Life
Cycle
All
Data
Gap
850.1735
None
Fresh
Water
Whole
Sediment
Acute
Toxicity
All
Data
Gap
850.1740
None
Estruarine/
marine
Whole
Sediment
Acute
Toxicity
All
Data
Gap
850.1500
72­
5
Life
Cycle
Fish
All
Reserved
850.4225
123­
1A
Seed
Germ./
Seedling
Emergence
All
41644001,
Data
Gap
850.4250
123­
1B
Vegetative
Vigor
All
41644001,
Data
Gap
850.4400
123­
2
Aquatic
Plant
Growth
All
45271302
TOXICOLOGY
870.1100
81­
1
Acute
Oral
Toxicity­
Rat
All
44712010,
44828903
870.1200
81­
2
Acute
Dermal
Toxicity­
Rabbit/
Rat
All
44712011,
44828904
870.1300
81­
3
Acute
Inhalation
Toxicity­
Rat
All
44712012
870.2400
81­
4
Primary
Eye
Irritation­
Rabbit
All
44712013,
44828906
870.2500
81­
5
Primary
Skin
Irritation
All
44712014,
44828905
870.2600
81­
6
Dermal
Sensitization
All
44712015,
44814901
870.3100
82­
1A
90­
Day
Feeding
­
Rodent
All
44933101,
00117601,
92136011,
42142317,
00117603,
0017602,
92136012,
42142316
870.3200
82­
2
21­
Day
Dermal
­
Rabbit/
Rat
All
Data
Gap
870.3465
82­
4
90­
Day
Inhalation­
Rat
All
Data
Gap
870.4100
83­
1B
Chronic
Feeding
Toxicity
­
Non­
Rodent
All
00078767,
92136062,
92136016
870.4200
83­
2B
Oncogenicity
­
Mouse
All
00037939,
92136017
870.3700
83­
3A
Developmental
Toxicity
­
Rat
All
44933103
870.3700
83­
3B
Developmental
Toxicity
­
Rabbit
All
44933102,
00094052,
00094051,
92136018,
92136019
870.3800
83­
4
2­
Generation
Reproduction
­
Rat
All
42014901
870.4300
83­
5
Combined
Chronic
Toxicity/
Carcinogenicity
All
00083445,
00135072,
92136061
870.5140
84­
2A
Gene
Mutation
(Ames
Test)
All
00098421,
44942801,
44933104,
40992201,
00098420,
00098422,
44947205
870.5375
84­
2B
Structural
Chromosomal
Aberration
All
00098419,
44933105,
44933106,
44947204,
44947203,
41873801,
00098418,
00109283,
00098423
None
84­
4
Other
Genotoxic
Effects
All
44947201,
00098424
870.7485
85­
1
General
Metabolism
All
42374201,
42652401
870.7600
85­
2
Dermal
Penetration
All
42142306,
92136095
Data
Supporting
Guideline
Requirements
for
the
Reregistration
of
Oxyfluorfen
REQUIREMENT
USE
PATTERN
CITATION(
S)

New
Guideline
Number
Old
Guideline
Number
Description
91
OCCUPATIONAL/
RESIDENTIAL
EXPOSURE
875.2100
132­
1A
Foliar
Residue
Dissipation
ABC
42098301
875.2400
133­
3
Dermal
Passive
Dosimetry
Exposure
ABC
42098301
None
231
Estimation
of
Dermal
Exposure
at
Outdoor
Sites
ABC
44972201,
444598­
01
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
835.2120
161­
1
Hydrolysis
All
96882
835.2240
161­
2
Photodegradation
­
Water
All
42142307,
42129101
835.2410
161­
3
Photodegradation
­
Soil
All
41999901
835.4100
162­
1
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
All
42142309
835.4200
162­
2
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
All
42142310
835.1240
163­
1
Leaching/
Adsorption/
Desorption
All
94336,
42142311
835.6100
164­
1
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
All
43840101
None
165­
4
Bioaccumulation
in
Fish
All
96883
840.1200
202­
1
Drift
Field
Evaluation
ABC
144894
RESIDUE
CHEMISTRY
None
171­
2
Chemical
Identity
AB
Data
Gap
860.1300
171­
4A
Nature
of
Residue
­
Plants
AB
00160143,
42865001,
42873301,
42913201,
92136027,
92136101,
92136114,
92136121
860.1300
171­
4B
Nature
of
Residue
­
Livestock
AB
42634701
,
42670601,
43317701
860.1340
171­
4C
Residue
Analytical
Method
­
Plants
AB
00149622,
40223201,
92136028,
92136029,
92136065,
44400202,
44400203
860.1340
171­
4D
Residue
Analytical
Method
­
Animals
AB
00135077,
43307502
,
43307503,
43346401,
92136030,
92136060,
44400204,
44407801,
44506601
860.1380
171­
4E
Storage
Stability
AB
43424201,
43424202,
43813201,
43859801
860.1480
171­
4J
Magnitude
of
Residues
Meat
Milk/
Poultry/
Egg
AB
43152201,
43152202
Root
and
Tuber
Vegetables
Group
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Horseradish)
AB
43973701
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Taro
Corm)
AB
40940301
Leaves
of
Root
and
Tuber
Vegetables
Group
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Taro
Foliage)
AB
40940301
Bulb
Vegetables
Group
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Garlic)
AB
No
additional
data
required
Data
Supporting
Guideline
Requirements
for
the
Reregistration
of
Oxyfluorfen
REQUIREMENT
USE
PATTERN
CITATION(
S)

New
Guideline
Number
Old
Guideline
Number
Description
92
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Onions,
dry
bulb)
AB
00126583,
43965501,
92136049,
92136083
Brassica
Leafy
Vegetables
Group
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Broccoli)
AB
00148291,
40007203,
92136034,
92136070
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Cabbage)
AB
00148291,
40007201,
43986301,
92136035,
92136071
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Cauliflower)
AB
00148291,
40007202,
43986302,
92136036,
92136072
Legume
Vegetables
(Succulent
or
Dried)
Group
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Chickpea)
AB
41622701
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Soybean
seed
and
aspirated
grain
fractions)
AB
00125632,
00136873,
92136053,
92136086
Foliage
of
Legume
Vegetables
Group
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Soybean
forage
and
hay)
AB
Data
Gap
Pome
Fruits
Group
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(All)
AB
00079475,
00141092,
40223206,
43794001,
44575901,
92136050,
92136051,
92136084
Stone
Fruits
Group
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(All)
AB
00036704,
00036705,
00036708,
00079475,
00110745,
00146340,
43794008,
44025401,
92136054,
92136087
Berries
Group
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Blackberries)
AB
43424201
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Raspberries)
AB
43424202
,
43424203
Tree
Nuts
Group
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(All)
AB
00036707,
00071290,
00071291,
00071292,
00071293,
00110745,
00141093,
40223206,
92136055,
92136088
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Pistachios)
AB
00071290,
00071291,
00071292,
00071293,
92136056,
92136089
Cereal
Grains
Group
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Corn,
field,
grain
and
aspirated
grain
fractions)
AB
00135077,
43944801,
92136038,
92136074
Forage,
Fodder,
Hay,
and
Straw
of
Cereal
Grains
Group
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Corn,
field,
forage
and
fodder)
AB
00135077,
92136038,
92136074
Data
Supporting
Guideline
Requirements
for
the
Reregistration
of
Oxyfluorfen
REQUIREMENT
USE
PATTERN
CITATION(
S)

New
Guideline
Number
Old
Guideline
Number
Description
93
Miscellaneous
Commodities
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Artichokes)
AB
00145973,
43794007,
92136031,
92136067
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Avocado)
AB
00145972,
40223202,
43794002,
92136032,
92136068
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Bananas)
AB
00102529,
92136033,
92136069,
Data
Gap
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Cacao
beans)
AB
PP#
0E3898
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Coffee)
AB
00102529,
92136037,
92136073
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Cotton,
seed,
and
gin
byproducts)
AB
00071290,
00071291,
00071292,
00071293,
00110747,
92136039,
92136040,
92136075
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Dates)
AB
00145972,
40223205,
92136041,
92136076
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Fallow
land)
AB
40567001
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Feijoa)
AB
PP#
9E3779
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Figs)
AB
00079475,
43794003
,
92136042,
92136077
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Grapes)
AB
00036703,
00110745,
00146340,
92136043,
92136078,
44385401,
44385402
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Guavas)
AB
00158014,
92136044,
92136079
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Kiwifruits)
AB
00145972,
40223203,
43794005,
92136045,
92136080
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Mint,
tops)
AB
00071290,
00071291,
00071292,
00071293,
92136046,
92136047,
92136081
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Olives)
AB
00145972,
40223204,
43794006,
92136048,
92136082
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Papayas)
AB
40783201
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Persimmons)
AB
PP#
9E3718
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Pomegranates)
AB
00145972,
43794004
,
92136052,
92136085
860.1500
171­
4K
Crop
Field
Trials
(Strawberries)
AB
IR­
4
Project
PR­
3443
Processed
Commodities
860.1520
171­
4L
Processed
Food
(Apples)
AB
00141092,
92136051
860.1520
171­
4L
Processed
Food
(Coffee)
AB
44172301
860.1520
171­
4L
Processed
Food
(Corn,
field,
grain)
AB
43944801
860.1520
171­
4L
Processed
Food
(Cottonseed)
AB
00071290,
00071291,
00071292,
00071293,
00110747,
92136040,
92136075
860.1520
171­
4L
Processed
Food
(Figs)
AB
No
additional
data
required
Data
Supporting
Guideline
Requirements
for
the
Reregistration
of
Oxyfluorfen
REQUIREMENT
USE
PATTERN
CITATION(
S)

New
Guideline
Number
Old
Guideline
Number
Description
94
860.1520
171­
4L
Processed
Food
(Grapes)
AB
No
additional
data
required
860.1520
171­
4L
Processed
Food
(Mint)
AB
00071290,
00071291,
00071292,
00071293,
92136046,
92136047
860.1520
171­
4L
Processed
Food
(Olives)
AB
No
additional
data
required
860.1520
171­
4L
Processed
Food
(Plums)
AB
No
additional
data
required
860.1520
171­
4L
Processed
Food
(Soybeans)
AB
43764901
860.1850
165­
1
Rotational
Crops
(Confined)
AB
40567001
95
Appendix
C:
Technical
Support
Documents
Additional
documentation
in
support
of
this
RED
is
maintained
in
the
OPP
docket,
located
in
Room
119,
Crystal
Mall
#2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
VA.
It
is
open
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays,
from
8:
30
am
to
4
pm.

The
docket
initially
contained
preliminary
risk
assessments
and
related
documents
as
of
August
10,
1998.
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
June
16,
1999.

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:

HED
Documents:

1.
Revised
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
for
Oxyfluorfen,
4­
29­
02,
Felicia
Fort,
OPP/
HED
2.
Second
Revised
Occupational
and
Residential
Risk
Assessment
for
Oxyfluorfen,
5­
01­
02,
Timothy
Dole,
OPP/
HED
3.
Report
of
the
HIARC
for
Oxyfluorfen,
Kit
Farwell,
OPP/
HED
4.
Toxicity
Chapter
for
Oxyfluorfen,
4­
08­
02,
Kit
Farwell,
OPP/
HED
5.
FQPA
Safety
Factor
Report,
4­
30­
01,
Kit
Farwell,
OPP/
HED
6.
Product
and
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter
for
Oxyfluorfen,
6­
06­
01,
Jose
Morales,
OPP/
HED
7.
Dietary
Risk
Assessment
for
Oxyfluorfen,
7­
12­
01,
Jose
Morales,
OPP/
HED
EFED
Documents:

1.
Water
Estimates
for
Oxyfluorfen,
8­
30­
01,
Amer
Al­
Mudallal,
OPP/
EFED
2.
Revised
EFED
Risk
Assessment,
5­
02­
02,
Christine
Hartless,
OPP/
EFED
96
Appendix
D.
Citations
Considered
to
be
Part
of
the
Database
Supporting
the
Interim
Reregistration
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.
97
c.
Title.
In
some
cases,
it
has
been
necessary
for
the
Agency
bibliographers
to
create
or
enhance
a
document
title.
Any
such
editorial
insertions
are
contained
between
square
brackets.

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

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

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

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

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

98
Toxicology
Chapter
Bibliography
00037939
Goldenthal,
E.
and
Wazeter,
F.
(1977).
RH­
2915
Technical
­
Twenty
month
dietary
feeding
study
in
mice.
Final
reports.
International
Research
and
Development
Corporation,
Mattawan,
MI.
Laboratory
Project
Identification:
None
given.
Unpublished.

00071915
Cruzan,
G.(
1978)
RH
2915,
Twenty
day
repeat
percutaneous
toxicity
in
rabbits.
Toxicology
Department,
Rohm
and
Haas
Company,
Spring
House,
PA.
Protocol
No.
TD­
77P­
35.
February,
1978.
Unpublished.

00071916
Goldenthal,
E.
1978.
One
month
inhalation
toxicity
study
in
rats.
International
Research
and
Development
Corporation
Toxicology
Department
(address
not
given).
Study
No.
285­
018,
June
21,
1978.
Unpublished.

00078767
Weatherholtz
W.
W.
(1981)
104­
Week
Toxicity
Study
in
Dogs
RH
2915.
Hazleton
Laboratories
of
America,
Inc.
Project
No.
417­
367,
April
9,
1981.
Unpublished.

00083445,
Auletta,
C.
and
W.
Rinehart
(1990)
Goal
®
technical
Herbicide
(RH­
2915
00096872,
technical):
twenty­
four
month
oral
toxicity/
carcinogenicity
study
in
rats.
92136061
Bio/
dynamics,
Inc.
Mettler
Rd.,
East
Millstone,
NJ
08873,
Laboratory
project
ID
75­
1111A,
May
16,
1990.
(This
study
was
completed
in
1977.)

00094051
Hoberman,
A.
M.;
Christian,
M.
S.
(1981)
Goal
herbicide–
oral
rangefinding
study
in
pregnant
rabbits:
Argus
Project
018­
006P;
Rohm
and
Haas
Company
Study
81P­
86.
Prepared
by
Argus
Research
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.,
Philadelphia,
Pa.;
CDL:
246694­
B).
Unpublished.

00094052
Hoberman,
A.
M.,
M.
S.
Christian,
and
G.
D.
Christian
(1981)
Goal
herbicide
teratogenicity
study
in
rabbits.
Argus
Research
Laboratories,
Inc..
Argus
Project
018­
006,
November
26,
1981.
Unpublished.

00098418
McCarthy,
K.
L.;
O'Neill,
P.
J.
(1982)
Goal
Technical
Cytogenetic
Study
in
Rats:
Report
No.
81R­
261.
(Unpublished
study
received
Apr
8,
1982
under
707­
145;
submitted
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.,
Philadelphia,
Pa.;
CDL:
247206­
B)

00098419
Cifone,
M.
A.;
Fisher,
J.
(1982)
Mutagenicity
Evaluation
of
RH­
2915,
Pure,
TD­
81­
308
in
the
Mouse
Lymphoma
Forward
Mutation
Assay:
LBI
Project
No.
20989;
Report
No.
81RC­
165.
Final
rept.
(Unpublished
study,
including
letter
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

99
dated
Mar
10,
1982
from
K.
L.
McCarthy
to
S.
S.
Burke,
received
Apr
8,
1982
under
707­
145;
prepared
by
Litton
Bionetics,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.;
Philadelphia,
Pa.;
CDL:
247206­
C)

00098420
Scribner,
H.
E.;
Melly,
J.
G.;
O'Neill,
P.
J.;
et
al.
(1982)
Goal
RH­
2915:
Microbial
Mutagen
Assay:
Report
No.
80R­
247.
(Unpublished
study,
including
letter
dated
Mar
10,
1982
from
M.
F.
Cochran
and
S.
S.
Burke
to
C.
Swithenbank,
received
Apr
8,
1982
under
707­
145;
submitted
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.,
Philadelphia,
Pa.;
CDL:
247206­
D)

00098421
Scribner,
H.
E.;
Melly,
J.
G.;
O'Neill,
P.
J.;
et
al.
(1980)
Goal
Tech,
Purified:
Microbial
Mutagen
Assay:
Report
No.
81R­
28.
(Unpublished
study,
including
letter
dated
Oct
28,
1981
from
M.
F.
Cochran
and
W.
T.
Lynch
to
C.
Swithenbank,
received
Apr
8,
1982
under
707­
145;
submitted
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.,
Philadelphia,
Pa.;
CDL:
247206­
E)

00098422
Scribner,
H.
E.;
Melly,
J.
G.;
Lohse,
K.;
et
al.
(1982)
Goal
(Polar
Fraction):
Microbial
Mutagen
Assay:
Report
No.
82R­
80.
(Unpublished
study
received
Apr
8,
1982
under
707­
145;
submitted
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.,
Philadelphia,
Pa.;
CDL:
247206­
F)

00098423
Myhr,
B.
C.;
McKeon,
M.
(1982)
Evaluation
of
RH­
2915
(TD
81­
561,
Lot
No.
7530)
in
the
Primary
Rat
Hepatocyte:
Unscheduled
DNA
Synthesis
Assay:
LBI
Project
No.
20991;
No.
82RC­
20.
Final
rept.
(Unpublished
study,
including
letter
dated
Mar
23,
1982
from
K.
L.
McCarthy
to
S.
S.
Burke,
received
Apr
8,
1982
under
707­
145;
prepared
by
Litton
Bionetics,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.,
Philadelphia,
Pa.;
CDL:
247206­
G)

00098424
Myhr,
B.
C.;
McKeon,
M.
(1982)
Evaluation
of
Polar
Fraction
from
Lot
2­
3985
(TD
81­
562,
WJZ
1861)
in
the
Primary
Rat
Hepatocyte:
Unscheduled
DNA
Synthesis
Assay:
LBI
Project
No.
20991;
No.
82RC­
21.
Final
rept.
(Unpublished
study,
including
letter
dated
Mar
23,
1982
from
K.
L.
McCarthy
to
S.
S.
Burke,
received
Apr
8,
1982
under
707­
145;
prepared
by
Litton
Bionetics,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.,
Philadelphia,
Pa.;
CDL:
247206­
H)

00109283
Cifone,
M.;
Fisher,
J.
(1982)
Mutagenicity
Evaluation
of
RH
2915
Technical
in
the
Mouse
Lymphoma
Forward
Mutation
Assay:
LBI
Project
No.
20989;
Rohm
and
Haas
Report
No.
82RC­
37.
Final
rept.
(Unpublished
study
received
Jul
22,
1982
under
707­
145;
prepared
by
Litton
Bionetics,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.,
Philadelphia,
PA;
CDL:
247900­
A)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

100
00117601
Harris,
J.
C.
and
O'Hara,
G.
P.
(1982).
RH­
2915
Three
month
dietary
toxicity
study
in
rats.
Rohm
and
Haas
Company,
Toxicology
Department,
Spring
House,
PA.
Report
No.
82R­
62.
10/
26/
82.
Unpublished.

00117602
DiDonato,
L.
J.
and
O'Hara,
G.
P.
(1982).
Goal­­
Three
month
mouse
dietary
study.
Rohm
and
Haas
Company,
Toxicology
Department,
Spring
House,
PA.
Report
No.
82R­
12.
10/
26/
82.
Unpublished.

00117603
Burke,
S.
S.
(review,
translated
from
Japanese,
original
author
not
provided,
1982).
Goal:
thirteen
week
subacute
toxicity
study
by
dietary
administration
in
rats.
Nomura
Research
Institute
(Japan).
Report
No.
81RC1008.
Unpublished.

00135072
Tornaben,
J.;
Barthel,
C.;
Brown,
W.
(1977)
A
Twenty­
four
Month
Oral
Toxicity/
Carcinogenicity
Study
of
RH
2512
and
RH
2915
in
Rats:
Project
No.
75­
1111.
(Unpublished
study
received
Mar
8,
1978
under
707­
142;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Research
Pathology
Services,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.,
Philadelphia,
PA;
CDL:
096872­
A)

40992201
Sames,
J.;
Frank,
J.
(1988)
Goal
Herbicide
(Technical):
Salmonella
typhimurium
Gene
Mutation
Assay:
Report
No.
88R­
191.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
25
p.

41873801
Gudi,
R.
(1990)
Acute
Test
for
Chemical
Induction
of
Chromosome
Aberration
in
Mouse
Bone
Marrow
Cells
in
Vivo:
Lab
Project
Number
0158­
1541:
90RC­
006.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Sitek
Research
Laboratories.
49
p.

41806501
Solomon,
H.
M.
and
Romanello,
A.
S.
(1991)
Goal:
oral
(gavage)
developmental
toxicity
study
in
rats.
Rohm
and
Haas
Company,
Spring
House,
PA.
Study
Number:
90R­
008.
Unpublished.
2/
15/
91.
Unpublished.

42014901
Solomon,
H.
M.,
W.
R.
Brown,
R.
E.
Swenson,
and
T.
L.
Thomas
(1991)
Goal
®

Technical
Herbicide:
Two
generation
reproduction
study
in
rats.
Rohm
and
Haas
Company,
Toxicology
Department,
Spring
House,
PA
19477.
Report
No.
90P007
August
26,
1991.
Unpublished.

42142316
Spinnler,
J.
F.
and
Towson,
A.
J.
(1990)
Goal®
technical
herbicide:
analytical
report
on
Goal®
content
in
mouse
feed.
5/
15/
90.
Unpublished.
(In
support
of
MRID
00117602,
Goal­­
Three
month
mouse
dietary
study,
Rohm
and
Haas
Company,
1982.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

101
42142317
Spinnler,
J.
F.
and
Towson,
A.
J.
(1990).
Goal®
technical
herbicide:
analytical
report
on
Goal®
content
in
rat
feed.
Report
Supplement
No.
82R­
062A.
5/
15/
90.
Unpublished.
(in
support
of
MRID
00117601,
Three
month
dietary
toxicity
study
in
rats.
Rohm
and
Haas
Company,
1982)

42142318
Spinnler,
J.;
Towson,
A.
(1990)
Goal
Technical
Herbicide:
Analytical
Report
on
Goal
Content
in
Rabbit
Gavage
Dose
Samples:
Supplement
to
MRID
94051:
Project
ID:
SC­
81­
0258:
81RC­
142A.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas.
Unpublished.

42142319
Spinnler,
J.;
Towson,
A.
(1990)
Goal
Technical
Herbicide:
Analytical
Report
on
Goal
Content
in
Rabbit
Gavage
Dose
Samples:
Supplement
to
MRID
94052:
Project
ID:
SC­
81­
0259:
81RC­
173A.
Prepared
and
submitted
by
Rohm
&
Haas.
Unpublished.

42374201
DiDonato,
L;
Hazelton,
G.
(1992)
Oxyfluorfen
(carbon
14)
(Goal
Herbicide):
Pharmacokinetic
Study
in
Rats:
Lab
Project
Number:
90P­
193:
90R­
193.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
133
p.

42652401
Zhang,
Q.
(1993)
Final
Report:
Pharmacokinetic
Study
in
Rats:
(carbon
14)
Oxyfluorfen
Supplemental
Report
A:
Metabolism
of
(carbon
14)­
Oxyfluorfen
in
Rats:
Lab
Project
Number:
90R­
193:
34­
92­
97.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
251
p.

44712010
Dreher,
D.
(1995)
AG
510:
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
(Limit)
Test
in
the
Rat:
Lab
Project
Number:
008.297.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Safepharm
Laboratories,
Ltd.
18
p.

44712011
Dreher,
D.
(1995)
AG
510:
Acute
Dermal
Toxicity
(Limit
Test)
in
the
Rat:
Lab
Project
Number:
008.298.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Safepharm
Laboratories,
Ltd.
19
p.

44712012
Blagden,
S.
(1995)
AG
510:
Acute
Inhalation
Toxicity
(Nose
Only)
in
the
Rat:
Lab
Project
Number:
008.299.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Safepharm
Laboratories,
Ltd.
34
p.

44712013
Dreher,
D.
(1995)
AG
510:
Acute
Eye
Irritation
Test
in
the
Rabbit:
Lab
Project
Number:
008.301.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Safepharm
Laboratories,
Ltd.
20
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

102
44712014
Dreher,
D.
(1995)
AG
510:
Acute
Dermal
Irritation
Test
in
the
Rabbit:
Lab
Project
Number:
008.300.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Safepharm
Laboratories,
Ltd.
15
p.

44712015
Dreher,
D.
(1995)
AG
510:
Magnusson
and
Kligman
Maximization
Study
in
the
Guinea
Pig:
Lab
Project
Number:
008.302.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Safepharm
Laboratories,
Ltd.
33
p.

44814901
Glaza,
S.
(1996)
Dermal
Sensitization
Study
of
Goal
2XL(
P)
in
Guinea
Pigs­­
Maximization
Test:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
CHW
6228­
123:
96P­
102:
96RC­
102.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Corning
Hazleton
Inc.
104
p.

44828903
Lampe,
K.;
Morrison,
R.;
Baldwin,
R.
(1988)
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
Study
in
Male
and
Female
Rats:
Goal
Technical
95
Herbicide:
Lab
Project
Number:
87P­
245:
87R­
142.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
13
p.

44828904
Lampe,
K.;
Morrison,
R.;
Baldwin,
R.
(1988)
Acute
Dermal
Toxicity
Study
in
Male
Rabbits:
Goal
Technical
95
Herbicide:
Lab
Project
Number:
87P­
246:
87R­
144.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
11
p.

44828905
Lampe,
K.;
Morrison,
R.;
Baldwin,
R.
(1988)
Skin
Irritation
Study
in
Rabbits:
Goal
Technical
95
Herbicide:
Lab
Project
Number:
87P­
231:
87R­
145.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
10
p.

44828906
Lampe,
K.;
Morrison,
R.;
Baldwin,
R.
(1988)
Eye
Irritation
Study
in
Rabbits:
Goal
Technical
95
Herbicide:
Lab
Project
Number:
87P­
233:
87R­
143.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
14
p.

44933101
Steward,
J.
S.,
(1997)
Oxyfluorfen
Technical:
Toxicity
Study
by
Dietary
Administration
to
CD
Rats
for
13
Weeks.
Huntingdon
Life
Sciences
Ltd.,
Suffolk,
England.
Laboratory
Report
No.
96/
AGN077/
1128,
March
3,
1997.
Unpublished.

44933102
Burns,
L.
M.
(1997).
Oxyfluorfen
Technical:
Study
of
Embryo­
Fetal
Toxicity
in
the
Rabbit
by
Oral
Gavage
Administration.
Huntingdon
Life
Sciences
Ltd.,
Suffolk,
England.
Laboratory
Report
#
96/
AGN074/
1147,
February
5,
1997.
Unpublished.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

103
44933103
Burns,
L.
M.
(1997).
Oxyfluorfen
Tech:
Study
of
Embryo­
Fetal
Toxicity
in
the
CD
Rat
by
Oral
Gavage
Administration.
Huntingdon
Life
Sciences
Ltd.,
Suffolk,
England.
Laboratory
Report
#
96//
AGN075/
1054,
January
30,
1997.
Unpublished.

44933104
Everich,
R.
(1995)
AG
510
Technical:
Bacterial
Mutation
Assay:
Lab
Project
Number:
AGM35/
951066.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Huntingdon
Research
Centre,
Ltd.
23
p.

44933105
Everich,
R.
(1995)
AG
510
Technical:
Mouse
Micronucleus
Test:
Lab
Project
Number:
AGM/
952067.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Huntingdon
Research
Centre,
Ltd.
23
p.

44933106
Everich,
R.
(1995)
AG
510
Technical:
In
Vivo
Rat
Liver
DNA
Repair
Test:
Lab
Project
Number:
AGM37/
951849.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Huntingdon
Research
Centre,
Ltd.
25
p.

44942801
Willington,
S.
(1999)
AG
510:
Testing
for
Mutagenic
Activity
with
Salmonella
typhimurium
TA
1535,
TA
1537,
TA
1538,
TA
98,
and
TA
100:
Lab
Project
Number:
757039:
12096.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Inveresk
Research
International.
37
p.

44947201
Jagannath,
D.
(1987)
Mutagenicity
Test
on
Goal
Technical
95
Herbicide
in
the
Bacterial
DNA
Damage
Test
(Rec­
Assay):
Revised
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
1002.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories
America,
Inc.
20
p.

44947203
Sames,
J.;
Frank,
J.
(1989)
Goal
Herbicide
(Technical
95):
In
VIvo
Cytogenetics
Study
in
Mice:
Lab
Project
Number:
88P­
149:
88R­
163.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Company.
29
p.

44947204
Murli,
H.
(1999)
Mutagenicity
Test
on
Goal
Technical
Purified
Herbicide
(TD98­
0115)
Measuring
Chromosomal
Aberrations
in
Chinese
Hamster
Ovary
(CHO)
Cells:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
20155­
0­
437OECD:
98RC­
191.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Covance
Laboratories
Inc.
83
p.

92136101,
Cheng,
T.
(1989)
14
C­
Oxyfluorfen:
Dermal
absorption
study
in
male
rats.
42142306,
Hazleton
Laboratories
America,
Inc.,
Madison,
WI.
Laboratory
Project
No.
HLA
92136095
6228­
105,
May
8,
1989.
Unpublished.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

104
92136011
Nave,
V.
A.;
Longacre,
S.
L.
(1990).
Phase
3
summary
of
MRID
00117601.
Goal
herbicide
(oxyfluorfen)
three
month
dietary
toxicity
study
in
rats.
Unpublished
92136012
Nave,
V.
A.
and
Longacre,
S.
L.
(1990).
Phase
3
summary
of
MRID
00117602
Goal®
herbicide
(oxyfluorfen)
three
month
dietary
toxicity
study
in
mice.
5/
8/
90.

92136015
Nave,
V.;
Longacre,
S.
(1990).
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00083445.
Goal
Herbicide
(Oxyfluorfen)
Twenty­
Four
Month
Oral
Toxicity/
Carcinogenicity
Study
in
Rats:
Rohm
and
Haas
Report
77RC­
904;
Project
75­
1111A.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.

92136016
Nave,
V.;
Longacre,
L.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00078767.
Goal
Herbicide
(Oxyfluorfen)
104­
Week
Dietary
Toxicity
Study
in
Dogs:
Rohm
and
Haas
Report
81RC­
055;
Project
No.
417­
367.
Prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories
America,
Inc.
12
p.

92136017
Longacre,
S.
(1990).
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00037939.
Goal
Herbicide
(Oxyfluorfen)
Oncogenicity
Study
in
Mice:
Rohm
and
Haas
Report
No.
77RC­
1110;
Project
285­
012.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
March
20,
1990.
92136018
Nave,
V.;
Longacre,
S.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00094051
and
Related
MRIDs
00094052.
Goal
Herbicide
(Oxyfluorfen)
Oral­
range­
finding
Study
in
Pregnant
Rabbits:
Rohm
and
Haas
Report
81RC­
142;
Project
No.
018­
006P.
Prepared
by
Argus
Research
Labs.
Inc.
15
p.
Unpublished.

92136019
Nave,
V.;
Longacre,
S.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00094052
and
Related
MRIDs
00094051.
Goal
Herbicide
(Oxyfluorfen)
Teratogenicity
Study
in
Rabbits:
Rohm
and
Haas
Report
81RC­
173;
Project
No.
018­
006.
Prepared
by
Argus
Research
Labs.
Inc.,
submitted
by
Rohm
&
Haas.
5/
15/
90.
Unpublished.

92136062
Weatherholtz,
W.
W.
(1990)
Goal®
Technical
Herbicide
(RH­
2915
Technical):
104­
Week
Dietary
Toxicity
study
in
Dogs.
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00078767.
Hazleton
Laboratories
America,
Inc.,
Vienna,
VA.
Report
81RC­
055.
May
16,
1990.
Unpublished.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

105
Chemistry
Chapter
References
44712001
Wells,
D.
(1997)
Galigan
­
Characterization
of
the
Pure
Active
Ingredient
(AI):
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97­
1­
6852:
11742.0896.6108.210.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
61
p.

44712002
Guzikevich,
G.
(1996)
Analysis
of
5
Lots
of
Oxyfluorfen
Technical:
Lab
Project
Number:
96­
08:
9000849B.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Agan
Chemical
Manufacturers
Ltd.
120
p.

44712003
Wells,
D.
(1997)
Galigan
TGAI
­
Determining
the
Product
Chemistry:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97.1.6831:
11742.0896.6109.885.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
66
p.

44712004
Harley,
D.
(1997)
Galigan
TGAI
­
Determination
of
Solubility
in
Water
and
Six
Organic
Solvents:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97.1.6861:
11742.0896.6110.700.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
51
p.

44712005
Wells,
D.
(1998)
Galigan
(Oxyfluorfen)
TGAI
­
Determination
of
Water
Solubility:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
98.4.7297:
11742.0997.6137.702.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
33
p.

44712006
Wells,
D.
(1997)
Galigan
(Oxyfluorfen)
TGAI
­
Determination
of
Vapor
Pressure
Using
a
Gas
Saturation
Method:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97.1.6853:
11742.0896.6111.740.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
57
p.

44712007
Hartley,
D.
(1997)
Oxyfluorfen
(Galigan
PAI)
­
Determination
of
the
n­
Octanol/
Water
Partition
Coefficient:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97.1.6856:
11742.0896.6112.705.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
42
p.

44712008
Wells,
D.
(1997)
Galigan
TGAI
­
Determination
of
Stability:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97.1.6837:
11742.0896.
6113.863.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
43
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

106
44712009
Wells,
D.
(1998)
Galigan
(Oxyfluorfen)
TGAI
­
Determination
of
the
Storage
Stability
Under
Controlled
Conditions:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97.1.6862:
11742.0986.6114.865.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
50
p.

44720201
Guzikevich,
G.
(1997)
Oxyfluorfen
Technical
­
Product
Properties:
Lab
Project
Number:
97­
05.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Agan
Chemical
Manufacturers,
LTD.
156
p.

44712002
Guzikevich,
G.
(1996)
Analysis
of
5
Lots
of
Oxyfluorfen
Technical:
Lab
Project
Number:
96­
08:
9000849B.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Agan
Chemical
Manufacturers
Ltd.
120
p.

44828901
Crawford,
J.
(1999)
Product
Chemistry
Series
830
Group
A:
Product
Identity,
Composition,
and
Analysis
for
Goal
High
Purity
Technical
Active
Ingredient:
Lab
Project
Number:
APR­
99­
060:
13­
99­
013TR.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Lancaster
Laboratories.
425
p.

44828902
Crawford,
J.
(1999)
Product
Chemistry
Series
830
Group
B:
Physical
and
Chemical
Characteristics
of
Goal
High
Purity
Technical
Active
Ingredient:
Lab
Project
Number:
APR­
99­
061:
RAS
133/
992443:
18862P.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Huntingdon
Life
Sciences
Ltd.
447
p.

Residue
Chapter
References
00036703
Adler,
I.
L.;
Jones,
B.
M.
(1975)
A
Summary
of
RH­
2915
Residue
Data
for
Grapes:
Technical
Report
No.
3923­
75­
40.
(Unpublished
study
received
Oct
14,
1975
under
6G1690;
prepared
by
Bristol
Dev.
Ag.
Chem.
Research,
submitted
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.,
Philadelphia,
Pa.,
CDL:
094687­
D)

00036704
Rohm
and
Haas
Company
(1975)
Detailed
Analytical
Reports
for
Peaches.
(Unpublished
study
received
Oct
14,
1975
under
6G1690;
CDL:
094687­
F)
00036705
Rohm
and
Haas
Company
(1975)
Analytical
Results
for
RH­
2915
Residues:
Apricots.
(Unpublished
study
received
Oct
14,
1975
under
6G1690;
CDL:
094687­
G)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

107
00036706
Rohm
and
Haas
Company
(1975)
Analytical
Results
for
RH­
2915
Residues:
Nectarines.
(Unpublished
study
received
Oct
14,
1975
under
6G1690;
CDL:
094687­
H)
00036707
Rohm
and
Haas
Company
(1975)
Detailed
Analytical
Reports
for
Almonds.
(Unpublished
study
received
Oct
14,
1975
under
6G1690;
CDL:
094687­
I)

00036708
Rohm
and
Haas
Company
(1975)
Analytical
Results
for
RH­
2915
Residues:
Prunes.
(Unpublished
study
received
Oct
14,
1975
under
6G1690;
CDL:
094687­
J)

00071290
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
(1980)
Summary
and
Discussion:
óGoal¼(
R)
:
|.
(Unpublished
study
received
Mar
20,
1981
under
707­
145;
CDL:
099954­
C)
00071291
Adler,
I.
L.;
Haines,
L.
D.;
Jones,
B.
M.
(1978)
Gas­
liquid
chromatographic
determination
of
residues
from
the
herbicide
2­
Chloro­
1­
(3­
ethoxy­
4­
nitrophenoxy)­
4­(
trifluoromethyl)
Benzene.
Journal
of
the
Association
of
Official
Analytical
Chemists
61(
3):
636­
639.
(Also~
In~
unpublished
submission
received
Mar
20,
1981
under
707­
145;
submitted
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.,
Philadelphia,
Pa.;
CDL:
099954­
D)

00071292
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
(1979)
Discussion:
Goal¼(
R)
:
|.
(Unpublished
study
received
Mar
20,
1981
under
707­
145;
CDL:
099954­
E)
00071293
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
(1979)
Results
and
Discussion:
Goal
2E.
(Unpublished
study
received
Mar
20,
1981
under
707­
145;
CDL:
099954­
G)

00079475
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
(1981)
Goal¼(
R)
:
2E
Herbicide:
2­
Chloro­
1­(
3­
ethoxy­
4­
nitrophenoxy)­
4­(
trifluoromethyl)
Benzene:
Residue
Chemistry.
(Compilation;
unpublished
study,
including
published
data,
received
Aug
6,
1981
under
1F2549;
CDL:
070261­
A)

00102529
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
(1982)
Residue
Chemistry:
óGoal
2E
Herbicide.
(Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
May
21,
1982
under
707­
145;
CDL:
070878­
A)

00110745
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
(1979)
Goal
2E
Herbicide
(Formerly
RH­
2915)
...:
Residue
Chemistry.
(Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Mar
12,
1979
under
707­
142;
CDL:
098209­
A)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

108
00110747
Fisher,
J.
(1978)
Goal
Residue
Analysis
of
Cottonseed
Oil:
Technical
Report
No.
34H­
78­
21.
(Unpublished
study
received
Oct
19,1978
under
707­
EX­
91;
submitted
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.,
Philadelphia,
PA;
CDL:
235349­
A)

00125632
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
(1975)
RH­
2915:
Residue
Data.
(Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Dec
23,
1975
under
707­
EX­
83;
CDL:
095071­
A)

00126583
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
(1983)
Goal
1.6E
Herbicide:
Residue
Chemistry:
Onion.
(Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Mar
23,
1983
under
707­
174;
CDL:
071493­
A)

00135077
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
(1978)
GOAL
2E
Herbicide
(Formerly
RH­
2915):
Residue
Reports
and
Methods
(Residue
Chemistry
12.03).
(Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Mar
8,
1978
under
707­
142;
CDL:
096873­
A;
096874)

00136873
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
(1978)
Goal
2E
Herbicide
(Formerly
RH­
2915)
...:
Residue
Reports
and
Methods:
Soybeans
and
Other
Food
Crops.
(Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Mar
8,
1978
under
707­
142;
CDL:
096875­
A;
096876)

00141092
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
(1984)
Residue
Chemistry:
Goal
1.
GE;
Goal
2E.
Unpublished
compilation.
99
p.

00141093
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
(1984)
Residue
Chemistry:
Goal
1.
GE.
Unpublished
compilation.
322
p.

00145972
Rohm
&
Haas
Co
(1984)
Residue
Chemistry:
Goal
1.
GE;
Goal
2E.
Unpublished
compilation.
127
p.

00145973
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
(1984)
Residue
Chemistry:
Goal
1.6E.
Unpublished
compilation.
50
p.

00146340
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1984)
Residue
Chemistry:
Goal
1.6E
and
Goal
2E
Herbicides
in
Fruits.
Unpublished
compilation.
216
p.

00148291
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4
(1985)
Residue
of
Oxyfluoren
in
Broccoli,
Cabbage
&
Cauliflower¿.
Unpublished
compilation.
275
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

109
00149622
Haines,
L.
(1975)
Residue
Chemistry:
Goal
Herbicide:
Technical
Report
No.
3923­
75­
22.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Company.
145
p.

00158014
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4
(1984?)
The
Results
of
Tests
on
the
Amount
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
Remaining
in
or
on
Guava
Including
a
Description
of
the
Analytical
Method
Used.
Unpublished
compilation.
99
p.

00160143
Zogorski,
W.;
Lafferty,
J.
(1986)
Translocation
Studies
on
Mature
Apple
Trees
from
Soil
Treated
with
Carbon
14
Goal
Herbicide:
Technical
Report
No.
310­
86­
06.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
275
p.

40007201
Baron,
J.
(1986)
Oxyfluorfen
­
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Cabbage:
Additional
Data:
Project
ID:
86­
0076.
Unpublished
compilation
prepared
by
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4
in
cooperation
with
Craven
Laboratories.
41
p.

40007202
Baron,
J.
(1986)
Oxyfluorfen
­
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Cauliflower:
Additional
Data:
Project
ID:
86­
0077.
Unpublished
compilation
prepared
by
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4
in
cooperation
with
Craven
Laboratories.
54
p.

40007203
Baron,
J.
(1986)
Oxyfluorfen
­
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Broccoli:
Additional
Data:
Project
ID:
84­
0089.
Unpublished
compilation
prepared
by
Interregional
Research
Project
40223201
Zogorski,
W.;
Craven,
D.
(1987)
An
Improved
Terminal
Residue
Analytical
Method
for
Determining
Residues
Due
to
Oxyfluorfen,
Its
Major
Isomers,
and
Reduced
Metabolites
in
a
Variety
of
Crops
and
Soils:
Rohm
&
Haas
Technical
Report
No.:
31C­
87­
16.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
in
cooperation
with
Craven
Labs,
Inc.
66
p.

40223202
Zogorski,
W.
(1987)
Magnitude
of
Residues
Due
to
Oxyfluorfen
in
Avocado:
Rohm
&
Haas
Analytical
Report
No.
31A­
87­
29.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
in
cooperation
with
Craven
Labs,
Inc.
101
p.

40223204
Zogorski,
W.
(1987)
Magnitude
of
Residues
Due
to
Oxyfluorfen
in
Olives:
Rohm
&
Haas
Analytical
Report
No.
31A­
87­
28.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
in
cooperation
with
Craven
Labs,
Inc.
106
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

110
40223205
Zogorski,
W.
(1987)
Magnitude
of
Residues
Due
to
Oxyfluorfen
in
Dates:
Rohm
&
Haas
Analytical
Report
No.
31A­
87­
30.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
in
cooperation
with
Craven
Labs,
Inc.
144
p.

40223206
Holmdal,
J.
(1987)
Harvest
and
Storage
Information
on
Nut
and
Pome
Fruit
Crops
(Supplement
to
Residue
Data
in
PP4F3115
and
4F3119):
Rohm
&
Haas
Memorandum
No.
JAH­
85­
59
and
JAH­
84­
233.
Unpubished
compilation
prepared
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
6
p.

40567001
Zogorski,
W.
(1988)
Carbon
14­
Oxyfluorfen
Confined
Rotation
Crop
Study:
Rohm
and
Haas
Technical
Report
No.
34C­
88­
11.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas.
153
p.

40783201
Baron,
J.
(1988)
Oxyfluorfen­­
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Papaya:
Project
ID:
IR­
4
PR
2062.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Univ.,
of
Hawaii,
Pesticide
Laboratory.
95
p.

40940301
Baron,
J.
(1988)
Oxyfluorfen:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Taro
(Dryland):
IR­
4
PR
No.
3527.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
University
of
Hawaii.
66
p.

41622701
Choban,
R.
(1989)
Oxyfluorfen:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Garbanzo
Beans:
Lab
Project
Number:
IR/
4/
4041.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
University
of
Hawaii.
82
p.

42634701
Kim­
Kang,
H.
(1993)
Metabolism
of
(carbon
14)­
Oxyfluorfen
in
the
Laying
Hen­­
Analytical
Phase:
Identification
and
Quantitation
of
Metabolites
in
Eggs
and
Tissues:
Lab
Project
Number:
XBL
92002:
RPT00111:
3107.13.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Xenobiotic
Labs
Inc.
299
p
42670601
Reibach,
P.
(1993)
Metabolism
of
(carbon
14)­
Oxyfluorfen
in
Lactating
Dairy
Goats:
Lab
Project
Number:
34­
93­
4.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
and
ABC
Labs.,
Inc.
332
p.

42865001
Sun,
Y.
(1993)
Oxyfluorfen:
Nature
of
the
Residue
in
Tomato:
Lab
Project
Number:
34­
93­
49.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Company.
115
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

111
42873301
Sun,
Y.
(1993)
Oxyfluorfen:
Nature
of
the
Residue
in
Stone
Fruit:
Lab
Project
Number:
34­
93­
50.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
129
p.

42913201
Sun,
Y.
(1993)
Oxyfluorfen:
Nature
of
the
Residue
in
Onion:
Lab
Project
Number:
34­
93­
65:
34P­
92­
35.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
138
p.

43152201
Zhang,
Q.;
Martin,
D.
(1994)
Oxyfluorfen
(Goal
Herbicide)
Cow
Feeding
Study;
Magnitude
of
Residue
in
Lactating
Diary
Cows:
Lab
Project
Number:
34P/
92/
61:
34/
93/
114.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Biodevelopment
Labs,
Inc.,
Centre
Analytical
Labs,
Inc.,
Bio­
Life
Associates,
Ltd.,
and
Enviro­
Bio­
Tech
Ltd.
715
p.

43152202
Zhang,
Q.
(1994)
Oxyfluorfen
(Goal
Herbicide)
Hen
Feeding
Study;
Magnitude
of
Residue
in
Chickens
in
Full
Lay:
Lab
Project
Number:
34P/
92/
62:
34/
93/
115.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Centre
Analytical
Labs,
Inc.,
Bio­
Life
Associates,
Ltd.,
and
Enviro­
Bio­
Tech
Ltd.
587
p.
43307502
Zhang,
Q.;
Martin,
D.;
Chen,
J.
et
al.
(1993)
Oxyfluorfen
(Goal)
Meat
and
Fat
Analytical
Method:
Lab
Project
Number:
34­
93­
72.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
and
Centre
Analytical
Laboratories,
Inc.
88
p.

43307503
Li,
Z.;
Arjmand,
M.
(1993)
Analytical
Method
for
Goal
(Oxyfluorfen
and
its
Isomers)
Residues
in
Egg:
Lab
Project
Number:
34­
93­
46.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Centre
Analytical
Laboratories,
Inc.
33
p.

43317701
Kim­
Kang,
H.
(1994)
Supplemental
Analyses
of
Liver
Samples
from
Dairy
Goats
Dosed
with
(carbon
14)­
Oxyfluorfen:
Supplement
to
Rohm
and
Haas
Technical
Report
No.
34­
93­
4
(MRID
No.
42670601):
Lab
Project
Number:
XBL
93101:
RPT00145:
34­
94­
79.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
XenoBiotic
Labs,
Inc.
98
p.

43346401
Zhang,
Q.;
Stavinski,
S.
(1993)
Oxyfluorfen
(Goal):
Milk
Residue
Analytical
Method:
Lab
Project
Number:
34­
93­
17:
TR
34­
93­
17.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
33
p.

43424201
Biehn,
W.
(1994)
Oxyfluorfen:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Blackberry,
1988­
1989
Trials:
Lab
Project
Number:
3485:
88­
OR­
001:
89­
OR­
001.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Oregon
State
University.
75
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

112
43424202
Biehn,
W.
(1994)
Oxyfluorfen:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Raspberry,
1988­
1989
Trials:
Lab
Project
Number:
3486:
88­
OR­
002:
89­
OR­
002.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Oregon
State
University.
64
p.

43424203
Biehn,
W.
(1994)
Oxyfluorfen:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Raspberry,
1992
Trial:
Lab
Project
Number:
A3486:
3486.92­
RHR
08:
3486.92­
WA37.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Arthur
D.
Little,
Inc.,
Washington
State
University.
263
p.

43764901
Holmdal,
J.
(1995)
Levels
of
Residues
in
Soybeans
and
its
Processed
Components:
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Soybean
Seed:
Lab
Project
Number:
34A­
94­
36:
RAR
92­
0107:
94­
0136.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
79
p.

43794001
Martin,
D.;
Zhang,
Q.
(1995)
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Apples:
RAR
94­
0129,
94­
0130,
94­
0152:
Lab
Project
Number:
94365:
34P­
95­
28A:
34­
95­
113.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
McKenzie
Labs
and
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
108
p.

43794002
Martin,
D.;
Zhang,
Q.
(1995)
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Avocado:
RAR
94­
0141:
Lab
Project
Number:
94366:
34P­
95­
29A:
34­
95­
115.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Centre
Analytical
Labs.
75
p.

43794003
Martin,
D.;
Zhang,
Q.
(1995)
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Fig:
RAR
94­
0142:
Lab
Project
Number:
94367:
34P­
95­
30A:
34­
95­
116.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Centre
Analytical
Labs.
74
p.

43794004
Martin,
D.;
Zhang,
Q.
(1995)
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Pomegranate:
RAR
94­
0143:
Lab
Project
Number:
94368:
34P­
95­
31A:
34­
95­
117.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Centre
Analytical
Labs.
72
p.

43794005
Martin,
D.;
Zhang,
Q.
(1995)
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Kiwi:
RAR
94­
0146:
Lab
Project
Number:
94369:
34P­
95­
32A:
34­
95­
118.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Centre
Analytical
Labs.
79
p.
43794006
Martin,
D.;
Zhang,
Q.
(1995)
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Olive:
RAR
94­
0172:
Lab
Project
Number:
94369:
34P­
95­
33A:
34­
95­
119.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Centre
Analytical
Labs.
78
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

113
43794007
Martin,
D.;
Zhang,
Q.
(1995)
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Artichoke:
RAR
94­
0060,
94­
0061:
Lab
Project
Number:
94374:
34P­
95­
36A:
34­
95­
120.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Centre
Analytical
Labs.
95
p.

43794008
Martin,
D.;
Zhang,
Q.
(1995)
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Cherry:
RAR
94­
0041,
94­
0042:
Lab
Project
Number:
92302:
34P­
95­
37A:
34­
95­
121.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Centre
Analytical
Lab.
90
p.

43813201
Martin,
D.;
Zhang,
Q.
(1995)
Storage
Stability
of
Cow
Muscle,
Cow
Liver,
Milk,
and
Egg
Treated
With
Goal
Herbicide:
Lab
Project
Number:
34­
95­
83:
TR­
34­
95­
83:
RAR­
93­
0160.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Centre
Analytical
Labs
and
Biodevelopment
Labs,
Inc.
488
p.

43859801
Martin,
D.;
Zhang,
Q.
(1995)
Storage
Stability
Study:
Oxyfluorfen
in
Apples,
Alfalfa,
Almond
Nuts
and
Hulls,
Banana
Pulp,
Cabbage,
Cottonseeds,
Onions,
Oranges,
Peaches,
Strawberries,
Wheat
Grain,
and
Soil:
Lab
Project
Number:
34­
95­
82:
34P­
92­
09:
3107­
04.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Biodevelopment
Labs,
Inc.
731
p.

43944801
Leppert,
B.
(1996)
Nature
and
Levels
of
Residues
in
Field
Corn
and
Its
Processed
Commodities
When
Goal
Herbicide
is
Applied
as
a
Post
Directed
Spray:
Lab
Project
Number:
TR
34­
95­
175:
SARS­
94­
86:
94376.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Stewart
Agricultural
Research
Services,
Inc.
and
Centre
Analytical
Labs.
221
p.

43965501
Biehn,
W.;
Kunkel,
D.
(1996)
Oxyfluorfen:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Onion:
Lab
Project
Number:
PR­
5739:
05739:
5739.95­
IDR06.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
University
of
Idaho.
456
p.

43973701
Biehn,
W.;
Kunkel,
D.
(1996)
Oxyfluorfen:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Horseradish:
Lab
Project
Number:
05738:
PR
5738:
05738.94­
IDR07.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4.
174
p.

43986301
Biehn,
W.;
Kunkel,
D.
(1996)
Oxyfluorfen:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Cabbage:
Lab
Project
Number:
5105:
5105.91­
RHR03:
5105.95­
IDR05.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Biodevelopment
Labs,
Inc.
and
University
of
Idaho.
637
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

114
43986302
Biehn,
W.;
Kunkel,
D.
(1996)
Oxyfluorfen:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Cauliflower:
Lab
Project
Number:
4013:
4013.92­
RHE05:
4013.95­
IDR10.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Biodevelopment
Labs,
Inc.
and
University
of
Idaho.
384
p.
44025401
Martin,
D.;
Zhang,
Q.
(1996)
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Peach:
RAR
94­
0117,
95­
0196:
Lab
Project
Number:
34­
95­
114:
34P­
95­
35A:
34P­
95­
51A.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Mckenzie
Labs.
and
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
122
p.

44172301
Kunkel,
D.
(1996)
Oxyfluorfen:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Coffee:
Lab
Project
Number:
5154:
5154.93­
HSR01:
5154.93­
HI05.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Hawaiian
Sugar
Planters
Assoc.
and
Univ.
of
Hawaii
Manoa.
151
p.

44385401
Martin,
D.;
Zhang,
Q.
(1996)
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Non­
Dormant
Grape
(Non­
CA
Trials);
Supplemental
to
TR
34­
95­
104:
Lab
Project
Number:
92308:
92308A:
34P­
95­
65A.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Company
and
Centre
Analytical
Labs,
Inc.
168
p.

44385402
Martin,
D.;
Zhang,
Q.
(1995)
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Grape
RAR's
92­
0069,
92­
0070,
92­
0080,
92­
0132,
93­
0012:
Lab
Project
Number:
92308:
92308A:
34P­
95­
65A.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Company
and
Centre
Analytical
Labs,
Inc.
168
p.

44400202
Martin,
D.;
Zhang,
Q.
(1996)
Enforcement
Residue
Analytical
Method
for
GOAL
Herbicide
(Oxyfluorfen)
in
Crop
Commodities
with
GC/
MS
Confirmation:
Lab
Project
Number:
34P­
95­
92:
34­
95­
111:
TR
34
95
111.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.,
Centre
Analytical
Labs.,
Inc.
and
McKenzie
Labs.
246
p.

44400203
Bruns,
G.;
Nelson,
S.
(1996)
Independent
Laboratory
Validation
of
the
Tolerance
Enforcement
Method
(TR34­
95­
111)
for
GOAL
Herbicide
(Oxyfluorfen)
in
Crop
Commodities
Using
Peanut
Nutmeat
as
a
Sample:
Lab
Project
Number:
34P­
96­
56:
3107.14:
RHC09.
REP.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Enviro­
Test
Labs.
168
p.

44400204
Zhang,
Q.;
Martin,
D.
(1997)
Oxyfluorfen
(Goal)
Meat,
Milk
and
Egg
Tolerance
Enforcement
Method
with
GLC/
MSD
Confirmation:
Lab
Project
Number:
34­
95­
110:
TR
34­
95­
110:
34­
93­
114.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.,
Centre
Analytical
Labs.,
Inc.
and
XenoBiotic
Labs.,
Inc.
279
p.
{OPPTS
860.1340}
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

115
44407801
Zhang,
Q.
(1997)
Rohm
and
Haas
Company
Partial
Response
to
EPA
CBTS
Review
of
Livestock
Feeding,
Ruminant
Metabolism
and
Analytical
Method
Data
Submitted
for
Oxyfluorfen
(Case
2490)
Reregistration
(MRID
#43307502,
43346401,
433075503,
and
43317701
DB
Barcode
D207134,
CBTS
#14321
and
14323):
Lab
Project
Number:
34­
95­
164:
TR
34­
95­
164:
TR
34­
93­
46.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Company.
393
p.
{OPPTS
860.1300}

44506601
Szuter,
S.
(1995)
Independent
Laboratory
Method
Validation:
Oxyfluorfen
(Goal
Herbicide)
and
its
Isomers
Residue
Analytical
Method
(TR
34­
95­
110)
for
Meat,
Milk,
and
Egg:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
TR
34­
96­
151:
TR­
34P­
95­
85:
TR­
34­
93­
17.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
McKenzie
Laboratories,
Inc.
194
p.

44575901
Martin,
D.
(1998)
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
(GOAL
Herbicide)
Residue
in
Pears:
Lab
Project
Number:
96317:
34P­
96­
96A:
34­
97­
18.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Centre
Analytical
Laboratories,
Agri
Business
Group,
and
A.
C.
D.
S.
Research
Inc.
114
p.
{OPPTS
860.1500}

44712001
Wells,
D.
(1997)
Galigan
­
Characterization
of
the
Pure
Active
Ingredient
(AI):
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97­
1­
6852:
11742.0896.6108.210.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
61
p.

44712002
Guzikevich,
G.
(1996)
Analysis
of
5
Lots
of
Oxyfluorfen
Technical:
Lab
Project
Number:
96­
08:
9000849B.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Agan
Chemical
Manufacturers
Ltd.
120
p.

44712003
Wells,
D.
(1997)
Galigan
TGAI
­
Determining
the
Product
Chemistry:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97.1.6831:
11742.0896.6109.885.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
66
p.

44712004
Harley,
D.
(1997)
Galigan
TGAI
­
Determination
of
Solubility
in
Water
and
Six
Organic
Solvents:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97.1.6861:
11742.0896.6110.700.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
51
p.

44712005
Wells,
D.
(1998)
Galigan
(Oxyfluorfen)
TGAI
­
Determination
of
Water
Solubility:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
98.4.7297:
11742.0997.6137.702.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
33
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

116
44712006
Wells,
D.
(1997)
Galigan
(Oxyfluorfen)
TGAI
­
Determination
of
Vapor
Pressure
Using
a
Gas
Saturation
Method:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97.1.6853:
11742.0896.6111.740.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
57
p.

44712007
Hartley,
D.
(1997)
Oxyfluorfen
(Galigan
PAI)
­
Determination
of
the
n­
Octanol/
Water
Partition
Coefficient:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97.1.6856:
11742.0896.6112.705.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
42
p.

44712008
Wells,
D.
(1997)
Galigan
TGAI
­
Determination
of
Stability:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97.1.6837:
11742.0896.
6113.863.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
43
p.

44712009
Wells,
D.
(1998)
Galigan
(Oxyfluorfen)
TGAI
­
Determination
of
the
Storage
Stability
Under
Controlled
Conditions:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97.1.6862:
11742.0986.6114.865.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.
50
p.

44720201
Guzikevich,
G.
(1997)
Oxyfluorfen
Technical
­
Product
Properties:
Lab
Project
Number:
97­
05.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Agan
Chemical
Manufacturers,
LTD.
156
p.

44828901
Crawford,
J.
(1999)
Product
Chemistry
Series
830
Group
A:
Product
Identity,
Composition,
and
Analysis
for
Goal
High
Purity
Technical
Active
Ingredient:
Lab
Project
Number:
APR­
99­
060:
13­
99­
013TR.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Lancaster
Laboratories.
425
p.

44828902
Crawford,
J.
(1999)
Product
Chemistry
Series
830
Group
B:
Physical
and
Chemical
Characteristics
of
Goal
High
Purity
Technical
Active
Ingredient:
Lab
Project
Number:
APR­
99­
061:
RAS
133/
992443:
18862P.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Huntingdon
Life
Sciences
Ltd.
447
p.

92136031
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00072716.
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Artichoke.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
9
p.

92136033
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00070878.
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Banana/
Plantain.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
1
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

117
92136037
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00070878.
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Coffee.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
11
p.

92136041
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00072715
and
Related
MRIDs
40223205.
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Dates.
Prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories
America,
Inc.
10
p.

92136042
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00070261.
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Figs.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
9
p.

92136043
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00098209
and
Related
MRIDs
00036701.
Magnitude
of
Residue
in
Grape.
Prepared
by
American
Cyanamid
Co.
10
p.

92136044
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00002537.
IR­
4
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Guava.
Prepared
by
University
of
Hawaii.
10
p
92136046
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00099954.
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Mint
Hay.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
13
p.

92136047
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00099954.
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Mint
Oil.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
17
p.

92136049
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00071493.
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Onion.
Prepared
by
Applied
Biological
Sciences
Lab.
Inc.
10
p.

92136050
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00070261
and
Related
MRIDs
00072714,
40223206.
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Pomefruit.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
10
p.

92136051
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00072714.
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Processed
Apples.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
10
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

118
92136052
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00072715.
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Pomegranate.
Prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories
America,
Inc.
9
p.

92136053
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00096876
and
Related
MRIDs
00095071.
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Soybean.
Prepared
by
Chevron
Chemical
Co.
13
p.

92136054
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00036705
and
Related
MRIDs
00098209,
00036704,
00036708,
00070261,
00146340.
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Stone
Fruits.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
14
p.

92136055
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00099954
and
Related
MRIDs
00072717,
00036707,
00098209,
40223206,
00072718.
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Treenuts.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
14
p.

92136056
Fisher,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00099954.
Magnitude
of
Goal
Residue
in
Pistachios.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
9
p.

92136057
Godfrey,
W.;
Longacre,
S.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00099270.
Goal
Technical
Herbicide
(Oxyfluorfen)
Acute
Toxicity
to
Fathead
Minnow
Eggs
and
Fry:
Rohm
and
Haas
Report
80RC­
015;
Project
BW­
79­
7­
523.
Prepared
by
EG&
G
Bionomics.
15
p.

92136060
Carpenter,
C.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
40478002
and
Related
MRIDs
40966201.
Revised
Product
Chemistry
Series
63
Physical
and
Chemical
Characteristics
for
RH­
2915
(Oxyfluorfen):
Laboratory
Project
ID
CRC­
90­
029.
108
p.

92136067
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00072716.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Artichoke:
RAR
Code
Nos.
83­
0090,
83­
0185,
83­
0186
and
83­
0187.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
57
p.

92136069
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00070878.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Banana/
Plantain.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
116
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

119
92136070
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00073644
and
Related
MRIDs
40007203.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Broccoli.
Prepared
by
Cannon
Laboratories,
Inc.
157
p.

92136072
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00073644
and
Related
MRIDs
40007202.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Cauliflower.
Prepared
by
Cannon
Laboratories,
Inc.
117
p.

92136073
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00070878.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Coffee.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
191
p.

92136074
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00096874.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Corn.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
269
p.
92136075
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00110747
and
Related
MRIDs
00099954.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Cottonseed
and
Cottonseed
Oil.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
146
p.
92136076
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00072715
and
Related
MRIDs
40223205.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Dates.
Prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories,
Inc.
176
p.

92136077
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00070261.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Figs:
RAR
Code
Nos.
80­
0229,
80­
0230
and
80­
0231.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
49
p.
92136078
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00098209
and
Related
MRIDs
00036701,
00146340.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Grape.
Prepared
by
American
Cyanamid
Co.
175
p.
92136079
Nishimoto,
R.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00002537.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Guava.
Prepared
by
University
of
HawaiI.
79
p.

92136081
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00099954.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Mint
Hay
and
Oil.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
100
p.

92136082
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00072715
and
Related
MRIDs
40223204.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Olives.
Prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories,
inc.
146
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

120
92136083
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00071493.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Onion.
Prepared
by
Applied
Biological
Sciences
Lab,
Inc.
261
p.

92136084
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00070261
and
Related
MRIDs
00072714,
40223206.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Pome
Fruit
and
Pome
Fruit
Byproducts.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
310
p.

92136085
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00072715.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Pomegranate:
RAR
Code
Nos.
82­
0413
and
82­
0433.
Prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories,
Inc.
40
p.

92136086
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00096876
and
Related
MRIDs
00095071.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Soybean
and
Soybean
Oil.
Prepared
by
Chevron
Chemical
Co.
769
p.
92136087
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00036705
and
Related
MRIDs
00036704,
00036708,
00098209,
00070261,
00146340.
Magnitude
od
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Stone
Fruit.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
559
p.

92136088
Rohm
and
Hass
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00099954
and
Related
MRIDs
00072718,
00072717,
00036707,
00098209,
40223206.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Treenuts.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
436
p.

92136089
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Reformat
of
MRID
00099954.
Magnitude
of
Oxyfluorfen
Residues
in
Pistachio:
RAR
Code
Nos.
78­
0413,
78­
0414
and
78­
0416.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
32
p.

92136101
Reibach,
P.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
92136114.
Carbon
14­
Oxyfluorfen
Metabolism
by
Alfalfa
under
Field
Conditions:
Rohm
and
Haas
Technical
Report
No.
34­
90­
27.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
44
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

121
Occupational
Exposure
Chapter
References
42098301
Massey,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
and
Haas
Response
to
the
Oxyfluorfen
Reregistration
Phase
4
Data
Call­
In:
Persistence
of
Dislodgeable
Residues
Under
Tree
Nursery
Conditions.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas.
10
p.

44459801
Merricks,
D.
(1997)
Carbaryl
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Exposure
Study
During
Application
of
RP­
2
Liquid
(21%),
Sevin
Ready
to
Use
Insect
Spray
or
Sevin
10
Dust
to
Home
Garden
Vegetables:
Lab
Project
Number:
1519:
10564:
ML97­
0676­
RHP.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Agrisearch
Inc.,
Rhone­
Poulenc
Ag
Co.
and
Morse
Labs.,
Inc.
358
p.

44972201
Klonne,
D.
(1999)
Integrated
Report
for
Evaluation
of
PotentialExposures
to
Homeowners
and
Professional
Lawn
Care
Operators
Mixing,
Loading,
and
Applying
Granular
and
Liquid
Pesticides
to
Residential
Lawns:
Lab
Project
Number:
OMAOO5:
OMAOO1:
OMAOO2.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ricerca,
Inc.,
and
Morse
Laboratories.
2213
p.

Revised
Oxyfluorfen
(Goal)
Quantitative
Risk
Assessment
(Q1*)
Based
on
CD­
1
Male
Mouse
Dietary
Study
with
3/
4's
Interspecies
Scaling
Factor;
Author
Lori
L.
Brunsman,
SAB/
HED/
OPP
(09/
24/
98)

Oxyfluorfen
­
Report
of
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
Safety
Factor
Committee
;
Author:
Brenda
Tarplee,
(Hed
Document
#014554
of
04/
30/
01)

Oxyfluorfen
Hazard
Identification
And
Review
Committee
Report;
Author:
Kit
Farwell,
DVM,
RRB1/
HED/
OPP;
(HED
Document
#0145549
of
04/
23/
01)

Review
of
Oxyfluorfen
Incident
Reports;
Authors:
Jerome
Blondell,
PhD,
and
Monica
Spann,
MPH,
CEB1/
HED/
OPP;
(HED
Document
#276054
of
07/
03/
01)

Oxyfluorfen
Use
Closure
Memo;
Author:
Deanna
Scher,
Chemical
Review
Manager
for
oxyfluorfen,
SRRD/
OPP;
Memo
directed
to
Oxyfluorfen
Team
(7/
01/
99).

Draft
Standard
Operating
Procedures
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments.
U.
S.
EPA.
February
10,
1998.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

122
HED
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure,
Policy
003.1,
"Agricultural
Default
Transfer
Coefficients"
Health
Effect
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
August,
1998.

HED
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure,
Policy.
007,
"Use
of
Values
from
the
PHED
Surrogate
Table
and
Chemical­
Specific
Data."
Health
Effects
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
January,
1999.

HED
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure,
Policy.
009,
"Standard
Values
for
Daily
Acres
Treated
in
Agriculture"
Health
Effects
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
July
2000.

PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Guide,
V1.1.
Health
Effects
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Program.
August,
1998."

Application
of
Pesticides
to
Crops,
G.
A.
Matthews,
Imperial
College
Press,
1999
USDA
Crop
Profiles
"Chemical
Mowing
with
Post­
Emergent
Herbicides
in
Fraser
Fir
Christmas
Trees",
North
Carolina
Cooperative
Extension
Service
"Weed
Management
in
Conifer
Seedbeds
and
Transplant
Beds",
HIL­
449,
Joseph
C.
Neal,
NC
State
University,
1999
Growing
Christmas
Trees
in
North
Carolina,
North
Carolina
Cooperative
Extension
Service,
May
1997
"Exposure
of
Herbicide
Handlers
in
the
CALTRANS
Vegetation
Control
Program
1993­
1994"
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
April
27,
1995.

A
Strategy
for
Assessing
and
Managing
Occupational
Exposures,
John
Mulhausen
and
Joseph
Damiano,
AIHA
Press,
2
nd
Edition,
1998.

Ecotoxicity
Chapter
References
41644001
Hoberg,
J.
(1990)
Goal
Technical:
Determination
of
Effects
on
Seed
Germination,
Seedling
Emergence
and
Vegetative
Vigor
of
Ten
Plant
Species:
Lab
Project
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

123
Number:
34­
90­
58:
86­
1289­
6105­
610:
90­
7­
3373.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories
Inc.
289
p.

41698801
Graves,
W.
(1990)
Goal
Technical
Herbicide:
A
96­
Hour
Static
Acute
Toxicity
Test
with
the
Sheepshead
Minnow
(Cyprinodon
variegatus)
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
129A­
101;
90RC­
0009.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
161
p.

42129801
Graves,
W.;
Smith,
G.
(1991)
Goal
Technical
Herbicide:
A
96­
Hour
Static
Acute
Toxicity
Test
with
the
Bluegill
(Lepomis
macrochirus):
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
129A­
103A:
90RC­
0097.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
85
p.

42129802
Graves,
W.;
Smith,
G.
(1991)
Goal
Technical
Herbicide:
A
96­
Hour
Static
Acute
Toxicity
Test
with
the
Rainbow
Trout
(Oncorynchus
mykiss):
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
129A­
102:
90RC­
0098.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
84
p.

42378901
Graves,
W.
(1992)
Goal
Technical
Herbicide:
A
96­
Hour
Shell
Deposition
Test
with
the
Eastern
Oyster
(Crassostrea
virginica):
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
129A­
111A:
91RC­
0175.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Wildlife
Intl.
Ltd.
74
p.

45271301
Sutherland,
C.;
Kendall,
T.;
Krueger,
H.
(2000)
Goal
2XL
(P)
Herbicide:
A
48­
Hour
Flow­
Through
Acute
Toxicity
Test
with
the
Cladoceran
(Daphnia
magna):
Lab
Project
Number:
129A­
174:
00RC­
0020.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Wildlife
International,
Ltd.
71
p.
{OPPTS
850.1010}

45271302
Sutherland,
C.;
Kendall,
T.;
Krueger,
H.
(2000)
Goal
2XL
(P)
Herbicide:
A
96­
Hour
Toxicity
Test
with
the
Freshwater
Alga
(Selenastrum
capricornutum):
Lab
Project
Number:
129A­
176:
00RC­
0021.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Wildlife
International,
Ltd.
84
p.
{OPPTS
850.5400}

92136057
Godfrey,
W.;
Longacre,
S.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00099270.
Goal
Technical
Herbicide
(Oxyfluorfen)
Acute
Toxicity
to
Fathead
Minnow
Eggs
and
Fry:
Rohm
and
Haas
Report
80RC­
015;
Project
BW­
79­
7­
523.
Prepared
by
EG&
G
Bionomics.
15
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

124
92136090
Godfrey,
W.;
Longacre,
S.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
92136102.
Goal
Technical
Herbicide
(Oxyfluorfen)
21­
Day
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
Study
in
Bobwhite
Quail:
Rohm
and
Haas
Report
86RC­
077;
Project
BLAL
86
QD
76.
Prepared
by
Bio­
Life
Associates,
Ltd.
14
p.

92136091
Godfrey,
W.;
Longacre,
S.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
92136103.
Goal
Technical
Herbicide
(Oxyfluorfen)
8­
Day
Dietary
LC50
Study
in
Bobwhite
Quail:
Rohm
and
Haas
Report
86RC­
075;
Project
BLAL
86
QC
74.
Prepared
by
Bio­
Life
Associates,
Ltd.
14
p.

92136092
Godfrey,
W.;
Longacre,
S.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
92136104.
Goal
Technical
Herbicide
(Oxyfluorfen):
8­
Day
Dietary
LC50
Study
in
Mallard
Ducklings:
Rohm
and
Haas
Report
86RC­
076;
Project
BLAL
86
DC
75.
Prepared
by
Bio­
Life
Associates,
Ltd.
15
p.

Environmental
Fate
Chapter
References
00094336
Root,
M.;
Taitel,
C.;
Doull,
J.
(1964)
Subacute
Oral
Toxicity
ofBayer
25141
to
Male
and
Female
Rats:
submitter
14243.
(Unpublished
study
received
June
22,
1965;
Feb
7,
1966
under
3125­
EX­
101;
prepared
by
Univ.
of
Chicago,
Dept.
of
Pharmacology,
submitted
by
Mobay
Chemical
Corp.,
Kansas
City,
Mo.;
CDL:
126969­
C)

41999901
Reibach,
P.
(1991)
Carbon
14­
Oxyfluorfen
Photolysis
On
Soil
Under
Natural
Sunlight:
Lab
Project
Number:
34­
91­
46.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.,
and
PTRL
East.
309
p.

42129101
Reibach,
P.
(1991)
Aqueous
Photolysis
of
Carbon
14­
Oxyfluorfen:
Lab
Project
Number:
34­
91­
47.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
and
Xenobiotics
Labs.
268
p.

42142307
Kesterson,
A.;
Lawrence,
B.;
King,
D.;
et
al.
(1989)
Aqueous
Photolysis
of
Carbon
14
Oxyfluorfen
(Nitrophenyl
Ring
labelled)
in
Natural
Sunlight:
RTRL
Project
No.
261;
Report
No.
1194.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pharmacology
&
Toxicology
Research
Laboratory.
138
p.

42142310
Korsch,
B.;
Doran,
T.
(1988)
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
of
Oxyfluorfen:
Project
No.
87­
0093;
Doc.
No.
1668­
87­
0093­
EF­
001;
TR­
34C­
88­
61.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ricerca,
Inc.
116
p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MRID
CITATION
______________________________________________________________________________

125
42142311
Reibach,
P.
(1988)
Adsorption/
Desorption
of
Carbon
14
Oxyfluorfen
R&
H
Tech
Report
No.
34C­
88­
64;
Protocol
No.
34P­
88­
75.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rohm
&
Haas
Co.
196
p.

43840101
Reibach,
P.
(1995)
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
of
Goal
Herbicide
at
Two
Sites
in
California:
Lab
Project
Number:
34­
95­
139:
002­
105:
94345.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
ABC
Labs,
Inc.
and
Centre
Analytical
Lab.
1416
p.

92136023
Reibach,
P.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00096882.
Oxyfluorfen
Hydrolysis:
TR
No.
34H­
77­
30.
29
p.

92136026
Reibach,
P.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00096883.
A
Residue
and
Metabolism
Study
of
Carbon­
14­
RH­
2915
in
Bluegill
Sunfish:
TR
No.
34­
23.
Prepared
by
Chevron
Chemical
Co.
31
p.

92136058
Holmdal,
J.
(1990)
Rohm
&
Haas
Company
Phase
3
Summary
of
MRID
00144894.
Oxyfluorfen
­
Spray
Drift
Field
Evaluation.
Prepared
by
Rohm
and
Haas
Co.
16
p.
126
127
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.
128
129
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.
130
131
Appendix
G:
EPA'S
Batching
of
Oxyfluorfen
Products
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
Oxyfluorfen
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
(identity,
percent
composition
and
biological
activity),
type
of
formulation
(e.
g.,
emulsifiable
concentrate,
aerosol,
wettable
powder,
granular,
etc.),
and
labeling
(e.
g.,
signal
word,
use
classification,
precautionary
labeling,
etc.).
Note
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.
Not­
with­
standing
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
EPA
Registration
Number.
If
more
than
one
confidential
statement
of
formula
(CSF)
exists
for
a
product,
the
registrant
must
indicate
the
formulation
actually
tested
by
identifying
the
corresponding
CSF.

In
deciding
how
to
meet
the
product
specific
data
requirements,
registrants
must
follow
the
directions
given
in
the
Data
Call­
In
Notice
and
its
attachments
appended
to
the
RED.
The
DCI
Notice
contains
two
response
forms
which
are
to
be
completed
and
submitted
to
the
Agency
within
90
days
of
receipt.
The
first
form,
"Data
Call­
In
Response,"
asks
whether
the
registrant
will
meet
the
data
requirements
for
each
product.
The
second
form,
"Requirements
Status
and
Registrant's
Response,"
lists
the
product
specific
data
required
for
each
product,
including
the
standard
six
acute
toxicity
tests.
A
registrant
who
wishes
to
participate
in
a
batch
must
decide
whether
he/
she
will
provide
the
data
or
depend
on
someone
else
to
do
so.
If
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
132
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.

Fourteen
products
were
found
which
contain
Oxyfluorfen
as
the
active
ingredient.
These
products
have
been
placed
into
four
batches
and
a
"No
Batch"
category
in
accordance
with
the
active
and
inert
ingredients
and
type
of
formulation.
Furthermore,
the
following
bridging
strategies
are
deemed
acceptable
for
this
chemical:

°
No
Batch:
Each
product
in
this
Batch
should
generate
their
own
data.

NOTE:
The
technical
acute
toxicity
values
included
in
this
document
are
for
informational
purposes
only.
The
data
supporting
these
values
may
or
may
not
meet
the
current
acceptance
criteria.

Batch
1
EPA
Reg.
No.
%
Active
Ingredient
11603­
29
97.4
62719­
399
99.0
Batch
2
EPA
Reg.
No.
%
Active
Ingredient
62719­
395
23.5
62719­
400
19.4
Batch
3
EPA
Reg.
No.
%
Active
Ingredient
62719­
424
23.0
66222­
28
22.2
Batch
4
EPA
Reg.
No.
%
Active
Ingredient
4­
432
Oxyfluorfen:
0.25
Glyphosate:
0.25
239­
2516
Oxyfluorfen:
0.25
Glyphosate:
0.25
133
No
Batch
EPA
Reg.
No.
%
Active
Ingredient
239­
2622
Oxyfluorfen:
0.70
Imazapyr:
0.08
524­
520
Oxyfluorfen:
2.50
Glyphosate:
40.00
538­
172
Oxyfluorfen:
2.00
Pendimethalin:
1.00
48234­
10
Oxyfluorfen:
2.00
Oxadiazon:
1.00
58185­
27
Oxyfluorfen:
2.00
Oryzalin:
1.00
62719­
447
41.00
134
Appendix
H.
List
of
Registrants
Sent
This
Data
Call­
In
135
136
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
williams.
nicole@
epa.
gov.

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

8570­
1
Application
for
Pesticide
Registration/
Amendment
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
1.
pdf
8570­
4
Confidential
Statement
of
Formula
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
4.
pdf
8570­
5
Notice
of
Supplemental
Registration
of
Distribution
of
a
Registered
Pesticide
Product
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
5.
pdf
8570­
17
Application
for
an
Experimental
Use
Permit
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
17.
pdf
8570­
25
Application
for/
Notification
of
State
Registration
of
a
Pesticide
To
Meet
a
Special
Local
Need
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
25.
pdf
8570­
27
Formulator's
Exemption
Statement
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
27.
pdf
137
8570­
28
Certification
of
Compliance
with
Data
Gap
Procedures
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
28.
pdf
8570­
30
Pesticide
Registration
Maintenance
Fee
Filing
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
30.
pdf
8570­
32
Certification
of
Attempt
to
Enter
into
an
Agreement
with
other
Registrants
for
Development
of
Data
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opprd001/
forms/
8570­
32.
pdf
8570­
34
Certification
with
Respect
to
Citations
of
Data
(PR
Notice
98­
5)
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opppmsd1/
PR_
Notices/
pr98­
5.
pdf
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
Properties
(PR
Notice
98­
1)
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opppmsd1/
PR_
Notices/
pr98­
1.
pdf
8570­
37
Self­
Certification
Statement
for
the
Physical/
Chemical
Properties
(PR
Notice
98­
1)
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opppmsd1/
PR_
Notices/
pr98­
1.
pdf
Pesticide
Registration
Kit
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/
registrationkit/

Dear
Registrant:

For
your
convenience,
we
have
assembled
an
online
registration
kit
which
contains
the
following
pertinent
forms
and
information
needed
to
register
a
pesticide
product
with
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(OPP):

1.
The
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
(FIFRA)
and
the
Federal
Food,
Drug
and
Cosmetic
Act
(FFDCA)
as
Amended
by
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(FQPA)
of
1996.

2.
Pesticide
Registration
(PR)
Notices
a.
83­
3
Label
Improvement
Program­­
Storage
and
Disposal
Statements
b.
84­
1
Clarification
of
Label
Improvement
Program
c.
86­
5
Standard
Format
for
Data
Submitted
under
FIFRA
d.
87­
1
Label
Improvement
Program
for
Pesticides
Applied
through
Irrigation
Systems
(Chemigation)
e.
87­
6
Inert
Ingredients
in
Pesticide
Products
Policy
Statement
f.
90­
1
Inert
Ingredients
in
Pesticide
Products;
Revised
Policy
Statement
g.
95­
2
Notifications,
Non­
notifications,
and
Minor
Formulation
Amendments
h.
98­
1
Self
Certification
of
Product
Chemistry
Data
with
Attachments
(This
document
is
in
PDF
format
and
requires
the
Acrobat
reader.)
138
Other
PR
Notices
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opppmsd1/
PR_
Notices
3.
Pesticide
Product
Registration
Application
Forms
(These
forms
are
in
PDF
format
and
will
require
the
Acrobat
reader).

a.
EPA
Form
No.
8570­
1,
Application
for
Pesticide
Registration/
Amendment
b.
EPA
Form
No.
8570­
4,
Confidential
Statement
of
Formula
c.
EPA
Form
No.
8570­
27,
Formulator's
Exemption
Statement
d.
EPA
Form
No.
8570­
34,
Certification
with
Respect
to
Citations
of
Data
e.
EPA
Form
No.
8570­
35,
Data
Matrix
4.
General
Pesticide
Information
(Some
of
these
forms
are
in
PDF
format
and
will
require
the
Acrobat
reader).

a.
Registration
Division
Personnel
Contact
List
B.
Biopesticides
and
Pollution
Prevention
Division
(BPPD)
Contacts
C.
Antimicrobials
Division
Organizational
Structure/
Contact
List
d.
53
F.
R.
15952,
Pesticide
Registration
Procedures;
Pesticide
Data
Requirements
(PDF
format)
e.
40
CFR
Part
156,
Labeling
Requirements
for
Pesticides
and
Devices
(PDF
format)
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
139
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
Information
Center
(NPIC)
can
provide
information
on
active
ingredients,
uses,
toxicology,
and
chemistry
of
pesticides.
You
can
contact
NPIC
by
telephone
at
(800)
858­
7378
or
through
their
website:
http://
npic.
orst.
edu..

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:

a.
Date
of
receipt;
b.
EPA
identifying
number;
and
c.
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.
