2,4­
D
PC
Code
No.
030001,
Case
No.
0073
DP
Barcode
D287660
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Residue
Chemistry
Considerations
July
8,
2003
Contract
No.
68­
W­
99­
053
Submitted
to:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Arlington,
VA
Submitted
by:
Dynamac
Corporation
1910
Sedgwick
Road
Durham,
NC
i
2,4­
D
REREGISTRATION
ELIGIBILITY
DECISION
RESIDUE
CHEMISTRY
CONSIDERATIONS
Case
0073
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
page
INTRODUCTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
REGULATORY
BACKGROUND
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
SUMMARY
OF
SCIENCE
FINDINGS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
GLN
860.1200:
Directions
for
Use
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
GLN
860.1300:
Nature
of
the
Residue
­
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
GLN
860.1300:
Nature
of
the
Residue
­
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
GLN
860.1340:
Residue
Analytical
Methods
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
GLN
860.1360:
Multiresidue
Methods
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
GLN
860.1380:
Storage
Stability
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
GLN
860.1400:
Water,
Fish,
and
Irrigated
Crops
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
GLN
860.1460:
Food
Handling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
GLN
860.1480:
Meat,
Milk,
Poultry,
Eggs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
GLN
860.1500:
Crop
Field
Trials
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
GLN
860.1520:
Processed
Food/
Feed
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
GLN
860.1650:
Submittal
of
Analytical
Reference
Standards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
GLN
860.1850
and
860.1900:
Confined/
Field
Accumulation
in
Rotational
Crops
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
TOLERANCE
REASSESSMENT
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
1)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
37
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
2)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
3)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
4)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
5)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
6)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
8)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
9)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
10)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
11)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
12)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
ii
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
13)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
b)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
Tolerances
Needed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
Tolerances
Needed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
c)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
Tolerances
Needed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
d)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
CODEX
HARMONIZATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
DIETARY
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
AGENCY
MEMORANDA
RELEVANT
TO
REREGISTRATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
MASTER
RECORD
IDENTIFICATION
NUMBERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
O
Cl
Cl
OH
O
2,4­
D
CASE
0073
REREGISTRATION
ELIGIBILITY
DECISION
RESIDUE
CHEMISTRY
CONSIDERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
2,4­
D
[
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid]
is
a
List
A
pesticide
active
ingredient
classified
as
an
herbicide,
a
plant
growth
regulator,
and
a
fungicide.
It
is,
however,
mainly
used
as
a
selective
postemergence
herbicide
for
the
control
of
broadleaf
weed
species
in
a
variety
of
food/
feed
sites
including
field,
fruit,
and
vegetable
crops.
In
addition
to
the
acid
form,
there
are
numerous
salts
and
esters
of
2,4­
D
in
Reregistration
Case
0073,
each
with
an
assigned
PC
Code
number,
that
are
presently
registered
as
active
ingredients
in
end­
use
products
(
EPs).
The
Industry
Task
Force
II
on
2,4­
D
Research
Data
(
Task
Force
II)
is
supporting
the
reregistration
of
2,4­
D.
The
members
of
the
Task
Force
currently
include
Agro­
Gor
Corp
(
jointly
owned
by
Atanor,
S.
A.
and
PBIGordon
Corp.),
Dow
AgroSciences,
and
Nufarm
USA.
In
addition,
USDA's
Interregional
Project
No.
4
(
IR­
4)
is
supporting
the
reregistration
of
a
number
of
minor
crop
uses
for
2,4­
D,
and
the
California
Citrus
Quality
Council
(
CCQC)
is
supporting
selected
uses
of
2,4­
D
isopropyl
ester
(
IPE)
on
citrus
fruits.

2,4­
D
is
currently
registered
by
members
of
Task
Force
II
for
food/
feed
uses
on
a
variety
of
field,
fruit,
and
vegetable
crops
and
aquatic
sites.
The
2,4­
D
formulation
classes
registered
for
food/
feed
uses
include
wettable
powders
(
WP),
granules
(
G),
soluble
concentrates
in
both
liquid
(
SC/
L)
and
solid
(
SC/
S)
forms,
and
emulsifiable
concentrates
(
EC).
These
formulations
are
typically
applied
as
broadcast,
banded,
or
directed
(
spray
or
wiper)
applications
during
dormancy
or
preplant,
preharvest,
preemergence,
emergence,
postemergence,
or
postharvest
using
ground
or
aerial
equipment.

REGULATORY
BACKGROUND
2,4­
D
was
the
subject
of
a
Reregistration
Standard
Guidance
Document
dated
9/
1/
88;
the
Residue
Chemistry
Science
Chapter
of
the
Guidance
Document
was
dated
2/
16/
88.
These
documents
summarized
the
regulatory
conclusions
based
on
available
residue
chemistry
data,
and
specified
the
additional
data
required
for
reregistration
purposes.
Numerous
data
submissions
have
been
received
and
evaluated
since
the
Reregistration
Standard
Guidance
Document.
The
information
2
contained
in
this
document
outlines
the
Residue
Chemistry
Science
Assessments
with
respect
to
the
reregistration
of
2,4­
D.

According
to
the
Agency
publication
entitled
Status
of
Pesticides
in
Registration,
Reregistration,
and
Special
Review
(
EPA
738­
R­
98­
002,
Spring
1998),
2,4­
D
remains
in
pre­
Special
Review
status
because
of
carcinogenicity
concerns.
A
proposed
decision
not
to
initiate
Special
Review
was
published
(
53
FR
9590)
on
3/
23/
88.
The
Task
Force
agreed
to
risk
reduction
measures
on
9/
92
that
included
an
exposure
reduction
plan
effected
through
modifications
of
technical
and
manufacturing
use
product
labels
and
implementation
of
a
user
education
program.
New
rodent
carcinogenicity
data
were
submitted
on
12/
95,
and
following
peer
review
of
these
data,
the
Agency
classified
2,4­
D
as
a
category
D
chemical
[
Not
classifiable
as
to
human
carcinogenicity]
[
TXR
#
0050017].

Tolerances
for
residues
of
2,4­
D
in/
on
plant
and
processed
food/
feed
commodities,
fish,
and
potable
water
are
expressed
in
terms
of
2,4­
D
per
se
[
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
1­
6
and
9­
12)
and
(
b)].
Tolerances
for
residues
in
livestock
commodities
are
currently
established
in
terms
of
residues
2,4­
D
and/
or
its
metabolite
2,4­
dichlorophenol
[
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
8)].
The
HED
Metabolism
Committee
determined
that
2,4­
D
per
se
is
the
residue
of
concern
and
that
tolerances
listed
at
40
CFR
§
180.142
are
to
be
defined
as
"
residues
of
2,4­
D,
both
free
and
conjugated,
determined
as
the
acid"
(
R.
Perfetti,
6/
16/
93;
and
W.
Smith,
12/
10/
93).
The
HED
Metabolism
Assessment
Review
Committee
(
MARC),
at
its
9/
3/
03
meeting,
upheld
this
decision
but
clarified
and
expanded
it
to
specify
that
the
residue
of
concern
for
risk
assessment
and
the
tolerance
expression
is
2,4­
D,
both
free
and
conjugated,
determined
as
the
acid
in
primary
and
rotational
crops,
ruminants,
poultry,
fish
and
shellfish.
Also,
the
residue
of
concern
in
drinking
water
for
risk
assessment
purposes
is
2,4­
D
per
se
(
MARC
Decision
Document
by
W.
Hazel
and
L.
Taylor,
12/
3/
03,
D293119,
TXR
No.
0052264).

The
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA)
of
1996
amended
and
strengthened
the
standard
for
establishing
tolerances
under
the
Federal
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA).
All
future
tolerance
petitions
as
well
as
reassessment
of
established
tolerances
must
meet
the
requirements
of
the
FFDCA
as
amended
by
the
FQPA.
OPP
may
require
additional
data
to
determine
if
the
terms
of
the
amended
statute
are
met.

As
a
result
of
changes
to
Table
1
(
OPPTS
860.1000,
8/
96),
additional
2,4­
D
residue
data
are
now
required
for
some
commodities
and
other
commodities
have
been
deleted;
any
changes
in
data
requirements
have
been
incorporated
into
this
document.
Any
new
data
requirements
will
be
imposed
at
the
issuance
of
the
2,4­
D
RED
but
should
not
impact
the
reregistration
eligibility
decisions
for
2,4­
D.
If
necessary,
the
dietary
exposure
and
risk
will
be
reassessed
upon
receipt
of
the
required
residue
chemistry
data.
3
(
Continued;
footnotes
follow)
SUMMARY
OF
SCIENCE
FINDINGS
GLN
860.1200:
Directions
for
Use
There
are
numerous
2,4­
D
EPs
registered
under
FIFRA
Section
3
to
the
members
of
Task
Force
II.
To
indicate
what
uses
are
being
supported,
Task
Force
II
has
provided
the
Agency
with
a
list
of
EP
labels
representing
a
cross
section
of
2,4­
D
forms
and
formulations
that
its
member
companies
are
supporting
(
Table
A1).

Table
A1.
Representative
2,4­
D
End­
Use
Products
being
Supported
by
the
2,4­
D
Task
Force
II
1.

EPA
Reg.
No.
Label
Acceptance
Date
2
Formulation
3
Product
name
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
(
030001)

228­
315
7/
16/
1996
0.76%
G
Sweet
Sixteen
Weed
&
Feed
with
Triplet
MC
DRI
538­
186
1/
28/
2002
0.75%
G
Fertilizer
Plus
Dicot
Weed
Control
III
2217­
579
1/
08/
2003
0.69%
G
Gordon's
Trimec
®
Weed
&
Feed
30
2217­
660
8/
23/
2002
0.76%
G
Gordon's
Trimec
®
Weed
&
Feed
33
½
62719­
218
4
3/
08/
2002
85%
WP
Statesman
®
62719­
330
5
3/
06/
2002
2.8
lb/
gal
EC
Esteron
638
71368­
3
5
3/
07/
2002
2.8
lb/
gal
EC
Weedone
®
638
Sodium
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetate
(
030004)

5080­
2
11/
30/
1982
17.5%
P/
T
Aquacide
71368­
22
10/
27/
2000
76.8
SC/
S
2,4­
D
Sodium
Salt
Diethanolamine
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetate
(
030016)

2217­
703
7
11/
14/
2002
3.8
lb/
gal
EC
Hi­
Dep
®
Herbicide
2217­
813
3/
15/
2002
5.03
lb/
gal
EC
EH1330
Herbicide
Dimethylamine
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetate
(
030019)

228­
145
7/
31/
2001
3.8
lb/
gal
EC
Weedestory
®
AM­
40
Amine
Salt
228­
331
10/
20/
1997
0.83%
G
2,4­
D
Amine
Weed
&
Feed
228­
354
1/
21/
1999
19.2%
G
Depth
Charge
 
Aquatic
Herbicide
228­
260
7/
06/
1999
80.5%
SC/
S
Solution
Water
Soluble
®
2217­
2
3/
08/
2002
3.8
lb/
gal
EC
Amine
400
2,4­
D
Weed
Killer
2217­
543
7/
11/
2002
1.98
lb/
gal
SC/
L
Trimec
®
Herbicide
34707­
606
3/
04/
2002
78.9%
CR
Savage
Dry
Soluble
Herbicide
34707­
803
5/
29/
1999
3.8
lb/
gal
EC
Saber
Herbicide
42750­
21
6/
26/
1995
5.6
lb/
gal
EC
2,4­
D
Amine
6
Herbicide
62719­
1
6
11/
07/
2001
3.8
lb/
gal
EC
Formula
40
®
Herbicide
62719­
3
10/
13/
2000
3.8
lb/
gal
EC
DMA
4
71368­
1
10/
03/
2002
3.8
lb/
gal
EC
Weedar
®
64
Broadleaf
Herbicide
Table
A1.
Continued.

EPA
Reg.
No.
Label
Acceptance
Date
2
Formulation
3
Product
name
4
Isopropylamine
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetate
(
030025)

62719­
303
3/
06/
2002
3.8
lb/
gal
EC
IPA­
4
Triisopropanolamine
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetate
(
030035)

62719­
1
6
11/
07/
2001
3.8
lb/
gal
EC
Formula
40
®
herbicide
Butoxyethyl
ester
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetate
(
030053)

228­
378
9/
21/
2000
19%
G
2,4­
D
Aquatic
Granules
62719­
50
9/
28/
2001
3.8
lb/
gal
EC
2,4­
D
BEE­
4
62719­
330
5
3/
06/
2002
2.8
lb/
gal
EC
Esteron
638
71368­
3
5
3/
07/
2002
2.8
lb/
gal
EC
Weedone
®
638
71368­
4
3/
12/
1980
19%
G
Aqua­
Kleen
2­
Ethylhexyl
ester
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetate
(
030063)

228­
139
10/
11/
2002
3.84
lb/
gal
EC
2,4­
D
LV4
Ester
228­
153
5/
27/
1993
0.66%
G
Fertilizer
Plus
2,4­
D
2217­
77
3/
26/
2002
3.8
lb/
gal
EC
LV
400
2,4­
D
Weed
Killer
5905­
529
7/
13/
2001
4.7
lb/
gal
EC
Barrage
®
HF
Low
Volatile
Herbicide
34704­
609
3/
18/
1997
5
lb/
gal
EC
Salvo
®
Postemergence
Broadleaf
Herbicide
42750­
20
11/
16/
2000
5.5
lb/
gal
EC
2,4­
D
LV6
Low
Volatile
Herbicide
62719­
9
6/
08/
2001
3.8
lb/
gal
EC
Weed
Killer
4D
71368­
11
2/
17/
2000
5.4
lb/
gal
EC
Weedone
®
LoVol
6
Broadleaf
Herbicide
Isopropyl
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetate
(
030066)

5481­
145
12/
28/
2001
3.36
lb/
gal
EC
Citrus
Fix
 
35935­
21
4/
13/
1998
3.4
lb/
gal
EC
Alphaset
IPE
64864­
31
8/
18/
1998
3.3
lb/
gal
EC
Leffingwell
Hivol
44
1
Industry
Task
Force
II
on
2,4­
D
Research
Data
(
Agro­
Gor
Corp,
Dow
AgroSciences,
and
Nufarm
USA)
has
cited
labels
for
the
Agency
which
include
representative
2,4­
D
active
ingredients
and
formulations.
2
Date
of
the
most
recently
EPA­
approved
label
found
by
reviewer
on
the
Pesticide
Product
Label
System.
3
The
active
ingredient
for
the
formulated
products
is
expressed
as
the
acid
equivalent.
For
formulations
containing
more
than
one
2,4­
D
a.
i.,
the
total
2,4­
D
acid
equivalents
is
presented.
5
EPA
Reg.
Nos.
62719­
330
and
71368­
3
are
MAI
formulations
containing
both
the
acid
(
030001)
and
the
butoxyethyl
ester
of
2,4­
D
(
030053)
for
a
total
acid
equivalent
of
2.8
lb/
gal.
6
EPA
Reg.
No.
62719­
1
is
a
MAI
formulation
containing
both
DMA
(
030019)
and
TIPA
(
030035)
salts
of
2,4­
D
for
a
total
acid
equivalent
of
3.8
lb/
gal.
7
EPA
Reg.
No.
2217­
703
is
an
MAI
formulation
containing
both
DMA
(
030019)
and
DEA
(
030016)
salts
of
2,4­
D
for
a
total
acid
equivalent
of
3.8
lb/
gal.

In
addition,
Task
Force
II
has
provided
the
Agency
with
a
"
Master
Label"
of
2,4­
D
uses
being
supported
by
its
member
companies.
For
each
use
site,
the
Master
Label
generally
summarizes
the
following
information:
forms
of
2,4­
D
being
supported
(
i.
e.
acid,
amine
salts,
and/
or
esters);
types
of
formulations
being
supported
(
i.
e.
EC,
WP,
etc.);
limitations
on
the
type
and
timing
of
5
application(
s);
allowed
application
equipment;
reentry
interval
(
REI);
maximum
single
and
seasonal
application
rates;
minimum
retreatment
interval
(
RTI);
regional
restrictions;
and
restrictions
on
the
preharvest
and
grazing
intervals
(
PHI
and
PGI).
The
Master
Label
does
not
provide
details
for
uses
on
labels
of
specific
EPs.
The
information
regarding
the
food/
feed
and
aquatic
use
sites
on
the
Master
Label
is
summarized
in
Table
A2.
Agreement
has
been
reached
between
SRRD,
HED,
and
EFED
that
the
use
patterns
summarized
in
the
Master
Label
comprise
the
universe
of
use
patterns
addressed
by
the
2,4­
D
RED
and
all
supporting
documents
[
Memorandum
from
M.
Rice
of
SRRD
to
S.
Abel
(
EFED)
and
M.
Metzger
(
HED)
dated
3/
18/
03].

A
tabular
summary
of
the
residue
chemistry
science
assessments
for
reregistration
of
2,4­
D
is
presented
in
Table
B.
For
purposes
of
evaluating
the
adequacy
of
the
available
residue
chemistry
database
for
2,4­
D
and
reassessing
tolerances,
HED
has
utilized
the
information
in
Table
A2.
When
end­
use
product
DCIs
are
developed
(
e.
g.,
at
issuance
of
the
RED),
RD
should
require
that
all
end­
use
product
labels
(
e.
g.,
MAI
labels,
SLNs,
and
products
subject
to
the
generic
data
exemption)
be
amended
such
that
they
are
consistent
with
use
patterns
listed
in
Table
A2
or
supported
by
end­
use
product­
specific
residue
chemistry
data.

A
review
of
the
food/
feed
crop
uses
listed
in
Table
A2
and
the
supporting
residue
data
indicate
that
the
following
changes
should
be
made
to
all
labels
having
the
designated
uses:

(
i)
directions
for
preharvest
uses
on
citrus
in
the
U.
S.
should
be
restricted
to
AZ
and
CA
and
should
list
a
maximum
use
rate
of
0.27
lb
ae/
A/
crop
cycle;

(
ii)
a
7­
day
PHI
should
be
specified
for
corn
forage
(
all
types);

(
iii)
for
uses
on
stone
fruits,
tree
nuts,
and
pistachios,
the
maximum
single
use
rate
should
be
reduced
to
1.4
lb
ae/
A,
and
the
maximum
seasonal
use
rate
should
be
reduced
to
2.8
lb
ae/
A.

(
iv)
all
labels
bearing
aquatic
uses
should
be
amended
to
indicate
that:
(
a)
all
treated
bodies
of
water
to
be
used
or
likely
to
be
used
as
a
drinking
water
source
must
be
demonstrated
to
contain
2,4­
D
at
<
70
ppb
using
an
approved
assay
after
each
treatment
before
diversion
for
drinking
water
may
occur;
(
b)
the
aquatic
uses
of
2,4­
D
should
be
restricted
to
Federal,
State,
or
local
agencies
or
applicators
under
their
control;
and
(
c)
when
treating
moving
bodies
of
water,
applications
must
be
made
while
traveling
upstream
to
prevent
concentration
of
2,4­
D
downstream
from
the
application.
The
1500­
foot
setback
in
the
Master
Label
is
an
additional,
yet
optional,
restriction
that
may
appear
on
aquatic
use
labels
that
is
expected
to
further
reduce
dietary
exposure
to
2,4­
D
following
direct
aquatic
use.
Task
Force
II
may
choose
to
propose
(
and
support)
a
longer
setback,
if
practical,
that
would
mitigate
risk
to
an
acceptable
level.

In
addition,
HED
notes
that
according
to
the
Master
Label,
the
Task
Force
II
is
not
supporting
the
use
of
2,4­
D
esters
on
pistachios,
filberts,
and
other
tree
nut
crops.
However,
adequate
6
residue
data
are
available
supporting
the
use
of
ester
forms
of
2,4­
D
on
these
crops.
Therefore,
labels
for
the
ester
forms
of
2,4­
D
may
include
use
directions
for
pistachios,
tree
nuts,
and
filberts
(
sucker
control)
if
a
party
is
interested
in
labeling
for
such
uses.

Also,
a
40­
day
PHI
is
presently
being
specified
for
stone
fruits.
However,
the
available
residue
data
indicate
that
residues
are
<
LOQ
(<
0.05
ppm)
at
a
14­
day
posttreatment
interval.
Therefore,
strictly
from
a
residue
chemistry
perspective,
the
PHI
for
stone
fruits
could
be
reduced
to
14
days
without
affecting
the
tolerance
level.

The
supported
use
on
grapes
is
restricted
to
CA
only;
however,
adequate
field
trial
data
reflecting
use
of
2,4­
D
amine
salts
are
available
for
the
entire
U.
S.
Therefore,
labels
for
the
acid
and
amine
salt
forms
of
2,4­
D,
strictly
from
a
residue
chemistry
perspective,
do
not
need
to
restrict
the
use
on
grapes
to
only
CA.

GLN
860.1300:
Nature
of
the
Residue
­
Plants
The
reregistration
requirements
for
plant
metabolism
are
fulfilled.
Adequate
metabolism
studies
are
available
depicting
the
qualitative
nature
of
the
residues
in
three
dissimilar
crops
(
lemon,
potato,
and
wheat).
Based
on
the
available
data,
on
9/
3/
03,
the
MARC
determined
that
the
residue
of
concern
in
plants
for
the
tolerance
expression
and
for
risk
assessment
is
2,4­
D
per
se
in
both
the
free
and
conjugated
forms
(
W.
Hazel
and
L.
Taylor,
12/
3/
03,
D293119,
TXR
No.
0052264).

In
the
lemon
metabolism
study,
[
14C]
2,4­
D
IPE
was
applied
to
lemons
as
a
postharvest
dip
treatment
with
wax
at
500
ppm
for
2
minutes
(
1x
label
rate),
and
lemons
were
sampled
2
hours
to
20
weeks
after
treatment.
Total
radioactive
residues
(
TRR)
ranged
from
2.1
ppm
to
2.8
ppm
and
showed
little
decline
with
storage
at
5
C.
The
parent
compound,
2,4­
D
IPE,
was
rapidly
hydrolyzed,
declining
from
47%
of
the
TRR
at
2
hours
posttreatment
to
0.3%
of
the
TRR
at
2
weeks
posttreatment.
Residues
of
2,4­
D
(
acid)
accounted
for
24%
of
the
TRR
at
2
hours
and
68%
of
the
TRR
at
20
weeks.
Other
minor
metabolites
(
each
<
1%
TRR)
identified
in
lemons
included
2,4­
dichlorophenol
(
2,4­
DCP),
2,5­
dichloro­
4­
hydroxyphenoxyacetic
acid
(
4­
hydroxy­
2,5­
D),
and
2,3­
dichloro­
4­
hydroxyphenoxyacetic
acid
(
4­
hydroxy­
2,3­
D).
Refer
to
table
below
for
structures
of
2,4­
D
and
its
metabolites.

In
the
potato
metabolism
study,
TRR
in
mature
vines
and
tubers
were
6.3
and
0.58
ppm,
respectively,
20
days
following
the
second
of
two
foliar
broadcast
applications
of
[
14C]
2,4­
D
2­
EHE
totaling
0.62
lb
ae/
A
(
4.4x
maximum
labeled
rate).
In
potato
tubers,
solvent
extractable
14Cresidues
accounted
for
>
95%
of
the
TRR.
The
largest
single
component
of
the
extractable
14Cresidues
was
identified
as
2,4­
D
(
43­
46%
TRR);
minor
portions
were
comprised
of
2,4­
D
EHE
(
0.5­
8.3%
TRR)
and
4­
hydroxy­
2,5­
D
(
6.4%
TRR).
The
remainder
of
the
extractable
radioactivity
was
comprised
of
4­
6
polar
unknowns
together
accounting
for
42­
50%
of
the
TRR.
Upon
acid
hydrolysis,
these
unknowns
were
converted
to
4­
hydroxy­
2,5­
D
(
15%
TRR)
and
4­
chlorophenoxy
acetic
acid
(
4­
CPA,
24%
TRR).
Acid
hydrolysis
of
unextracted
14C­
residues
7
released
an
additional
8.7%
of
the
TRR,
the
major
portion
of
which
was
comprised
of
2,4­
D
(
2.3%
TRR),
4­
CPA
(
1.6%
TRR),
and
4­
hydroxy­
2,5­
D
(
0.9%
TRR).

In
the
wheat
metabolism
study,
[
14C]
2,4­
D
2­
EHE
was
applied
to
plants
at
tillering
as
a
broadcast
application
at
1.5
lb
ae/
A
(

1x).
TRR
were
34
ppm
in/
on
forage
harvested
10
days
after
treatment
and
56
ppm
in
straw
and
0.30
ppm
in
grain
harvested
at
maturity
(
49
days
after
treatment).
Following
acid
hydrolysis,
2,4­
D
was
the
major
compound
identified
in
forage
(
68%
TRR)
and
straw
(
56%
TRR).
After
subsequent
base
hydrolysis,
another
8.8%
of
the
TRR
in
forage
and
16%
of
the
TRR
in
straw
was
identified
as
2,4­
D.
Minor
metabolites
(
each
<
10%
TRR)
identified
in
forage
and
straw
included:
4­
hydroxy­
2,5­
D;
4­
hydroxy­
2,3­
D;
5­
hydroxy­
2,4­
D;
and
2,4­
DCP.
The
only
compound
identified
in
grain
was
2,4­
D
(
6.0%
TRR).
The
majority
of
14C­
residues
in
grain
(
45%
TRR)
was
characterized
as
being
incorporated
into
natural
plant
constituents,
such
as,
protein,
starch
and
cellulose.

GLN
860.1300:
Nature
of
the
Residue
­
Livestock
The
reregistration
requirements
for
livestock
metabolism
are
fulfilled.
Adequate
goat
and
hen
metabolism
studies
are
available,
and
the
metabolism
of
2,4­
D
is
similar
in
both
species.
Based
on
the
available
data,
on
9/
3/
03,
the
MARC
determined
that
the
residue
of
concern
in
livestock
for
the
tolerance
expression
and
for
risk
assessment
is
2,4­
D
per
se
in
both
the
free
and
conjugated
forms
(
W.
Hazel
and
L.
Taylor,
12/
3/
03,
D293119,
TXR
No.
0052264).

In
the
ruminant
metabolism
study,
a
lactating
goat
was
dosed
orally
with
[
14C]
2,4­
D
for
three
consecutive
days
at
a
level
equivalent
to
480
ppm
in
the
diet
(~
0.6x
the
maximum
theoretical
dietary
burden).
At
sacrifice,
the
TRR
was
0.22
ppm
in
liver,
1.4
ppm
in
kidney,
0.037
ppm
in
muscle,
0.088
ppm
in
fat,
and
0.020
ppm
in
milk
(
Day
3).
The
major
residue
in
milk
and
tissues
was
2,4­
D,
accounting
for
47%
TRR
in
milk,
21%
TRR
in
liver,
53%
TRR
in
kidney,
45%
TRR
in
fat,
and
38%
TRR
in
muscle.
Minor
amounts
of
2,4­
DCP
were
also
tentatively
identified
in
milk
(
5%
TRR)
and
fat
(
2.3%
of
TRR),
and
4­
CPA
was
identified
in
milk
(
6.9%
TRR).
Several
other
nonpolar
components
(
designated
NP1,
NP2,
and
NP3)
were
detected
in
tissues;
however,
these
metabolites
may
be
the
result
of
uptake
of
nonpolar
impurities
known
to
be
present
in
the
test
material.

In
the
poultry
metabolism
study,
laying
hens
were
dosed
orally
with
[
14C]
2,4­
D
for
seven
consecutive
days
at
levels
equivalent
to
18
ppm
in
the
diet
(
11x
the
maximum
theoretical
dietary
burden).
At
sacrifice,
the
TRR
was
0.030
ppm
in
liver,
0.71
ppm
in
kidney,
<
0.002
ppm
in
breast
muscle,
0.008
ppm
in
thigh
muscle,
0.027
ppm
in
fat,
and
0.018
ppm
in
eggs.
The
major
identified
component
in
eggs
and
tissues
was
2,4­
D,
accounting
for
23%
TRR
in
eggs,
25%
TRR
in
fat,
18%
TRR
in
liver,
and
76%
TRR
in
kidney.
Minor
amounts
of
2,4­
DCP
were
also
identified
in
eggs
(
7.3%
TRR)
and
liver
(
4.4%
TRR).

2,4­
D
and
its
metabolites
in
plants.
8
O
Cl
Cl
OH
O
O
Cl
O
H
OH
O
Cl
O
Cl
Cl
OH
O
O
H
O
Cl
O
H
OH
O
Cl
OH
Cl
Cl
Code
Chemical
Name
Substrate
MRID
Structure
Common
Name
1.
(
2,4­
dichlorophenoxy)
acetic
acid
poultry
and
ruminants;
wheat
forage,
straw,
and
grain
42439701
2,4­
D
2.
(
4­
hydroxy­
2,5­
dichlorophenoxy)
acetic
acid
wheat
forage
and
straw
42439701
42615601
4­
OH­
2,5­
D
3.
(
5­
hydroxy­
2,4­
dichlorophenoxy)
acetic
acid
wheat
forage
and
straw
42439701
42615601
5­
OH­
2,4­
D
4.
(
4­
hydroxy­
2,3­
dichlorophenoxy)
acetic
acid
wheat
forage
and
straw
42439701
42615601
4­
OH­
2,3­
D
5.
2,4­
dichlorophenol
poultry
and
ruminants;
wheat
forage
and
straw
42439701
2,4­
DCP
9
GLN
860.1340:
Residue
Analytical
Methods
For
the
purpose
of
reregistration,
adequate
methods
are
available
for
data
collection
and
the
enforcement
of
plant
commodity
tolerances.
The
Pesticide
Analytical
Manual
(
PAM)
Vol.
II
lists
three
GC
methods
(
designated
as
Methods
A,
B,
and
C)
with
microcoulometric
detection
and
one
GC
method
(
designated
as
Method
D)
with
electron
capture
detection
(
ECD).
In
a
letter
dated
9/
3/
93
(
CBRS
No.
12270,
DP
Barcode
D193335,
9/
3/
93,
W.
Smith),
Task
Force
II
indicated
that
the
enforcement
methods
currently
listed
in
PAM
Vol.
II
are
unsuitable
for
determining
residues
of
2,4­
D
in
wheat
and
poultry
commodities.

Plant
Commodities:
Task
Force
II
submitted
an
adequate
proposed
GC/
ECD
enforcement
method
for
plants
(
designated
as
EN­
CAS
Method
No.
ENC­
2/
93)
which
has
been
independently
validated.
Adequate
radiovalidation
data
have
been
submitted
and
evaluated
for
the
proposed
enforcement
method
using
samples
from
the
wheat
metabolism
study.
The
proposed
enforcement
method
or
modifications
of
the
enforcement
method
were
used
for
data
collection
purposes.

Livestock
Commodities:
Task
Force
II
submitted
two
separate
(
but
essentially
comparable)
proposed
enforcement
methods
(
GC/
ECD)
for
determination
of
2,4­
D
in
livestock
commodities.
Adequate
radiovalidation
data
have
been
submitted
for
the
method
using
samples
of
fat,
kidney,
and
milk
from
the
goat
metabolism
study
and
samples
of
eggs
from
the
poultry
metabolism
study.
The
Agency
concluded
that
the
methods
are
adequate
provided
the
registrants
satisfy
the
following
requests:
(
i)
submit
a
revised
method
which
combines
the
two
methods
into
a
single
method;
(
ii)
delete
from
the
method
all
references
to
the
use
of
diazomethane
as
a
derivatizing
agent;
and
(
iii)
provide
complete
raw
data
and
sample
calculations
(
including
chromatograms
showing
peak
areas,
external
standard
linearity
curves
and
associated
data,
standard
calculations,
etc.).
Once
an
adequate
revised
method
is
received,
HED
will
forward
the
method
to
an
EPA
laboratory
(
BEAD/
ACB)
for
a
tolerance
method
validation.
Recently,
it
has
been
determined
that
the
technology
to
generate
diazomethane
has
advanced
such
that
it
is
no
longer
considered
to
be
a
dangerous
procedure;
as
a
result,
the
use
of
diazomethane
as
a
derivatizing
agent
is
now
considered
acceptable
(
minutes
of
9/
17/
03
ChemSAC
meeting).

GLN
860.1360:
Multiresidue
Methods
The
10/
97
edition
of
FDA
PAM
Volume
I,
Appendix
I
indicates
that
2,4­
D
is
partially
recovered
(
50­
80%)
using
Multiresidue
Method
Sections
402
E1
and
402
E2.
Conjugated
metabolites
would
not
be
determined
by
these
multiresidue
methods.

GLN
860.1380:
Storage
Stability
Data
The
reregistration
requirements
for
2,4­
D
storage
stability
data
have
been
met.
Adequate
storage
stability
data
are
available
to
support
the
data
from
crop
field
trials,
processing
studies,
livestock
feeding
studies,
and
fish
and
shellfish
studies
being
used
for
reassessing
tolerances.
10
The
available
storage
stability
data
indicate
that
residues
of
2,4­
D
are
stable
under
frozen
storage
conditions
for
at
least
18
months
in
apples
and
pears;
29
months
in
cranberries;
28
months
in
cherries;
15
months
in
grapes
and
grape
processed
fractions;
6
months
in
nut
crops
and
pistachios;
6­
9
months
in
peaches,
plums,
and
prunes;
24
months
in
potatoes;
2
months
in
strawberries;
3
months
in
citrus
fruit
and
processed
commodities;
and
1
month
in
asparagus.
2,4­
D
is
also
stable
at
­
20
C
for
at
least
12
months
in/
on
corn
grain,
forage,
and
fodder;
sorghum
grain;
wheat
grain,
forage,
and
straw;
rice
grain;
grass
forage
and
hay;
soybean
seed;
corn
starch,
flour,
and
oil;
wheat
flour;
sugarcane,
sugar,
molasses,
and
bagasse;
and
rice
bran
and
hulls.

Regarding
livestock
tissues,
2,4­
D
is
stable
at
­
20
C
for
up
to
4
months
in
ruminant
tissues
and
milk
and
is
stable
in
clam
tissues
stored
at
­
4
C
for
at
least
12
months.

GLN
860.1400:
Water,
Fish,
and
Irrigated
Crops
Nature
of
the
Residues
in
Fish
and
Shellfish.
An
adequate
fish
metabolism
study
is
available
that
fulfills
reregistration
requirements.
In
the
fish
metabolism
study,
bluegill
sunfish
were
exposed
for
4
consecutive
days
in
aquaria
to
[
14C]
2,4­
D
in
the
water
at
11
ppm
under
static
conditions.
TRR
were
0.41­
0.60
ppm
in
whole
fish
sampled
on
Days
1­
3
and
were
0.41
ppm
in
fillets
from
fish
sampled
on
Day
4.
Following
acid
hydrolysis,
the
major
14C­
residue
in
edible
tissues
was
2,4­
D
(
80%
TRR)
along
with
minor
amounts
of
2,4­
DCP
(
7.9%
TRR).
Based
on
these
data,
the
residue
to
be
regulated
in
fish
and
shellfish
is
the
same
as
that
in
livestock,
i.
e.,
2,4­
D,
free
and
conjugated,
determined
as
the
acid
(
W.
Hazel
and
L.
Taylor,
12/
3/
03,
D293119,
TXR
No.
0052264).

Magnitude
of
Residues
in
Fish
and
Shellfish.
Adequate
studies
are
available
depicting
the
magnitude
of
2,4­
D
residues
in
catfish,
bluegill
sunfish,
crayfish,
and
clams
exposed
to
water
containing
6.0
ppm
of
2,4­
D
in
a
static
system.
The
maximum
supported
rate
for
aquatic
uses
of
2,4­
D
is
10.8
lb
ae/
acre­
ft,
which
is
equivalent
to
a
concentration
of
4
ppm.
Therefore,
the
studies
were
conducted
at
1.5x
the
maximum
labeled
rate
(
concentration).
In
the
two
studies,
2,4­
D
residues
in
edible
tissues
plateaued
within
6
hours
for
both
species
of
fish,
12
hours
for
clams,
and

8
days
for
crayfish.
During
the
15­
day
exposure
in
one
test,
maximum
2,4­
D
residues
in
edible
tissues
were
0.07
ppm
in
catfish,
0.067
ppm
in
bluegill
sunfish,
and
1.1
ppm
in
crayfish.
During
the
28­
day
exposure
in
another
test,
maximum
2,4­
D
residues
in
edible
tissues
were
0.59
ppm
in
clams
and
1.18
ppm
in
crayfish.
Based
on
an
exposure
of
6
ppm
(
1.5x),
these
studies
support
tolerances
for
2,4­
D
residues
in
fish
at
0.1
ppm
and
in
shellfish
at
1.0
ppm.

Residues
in
Water.
The
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water
has
established
a
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
(
MCL)
of
0.07
ppm
for
2,4­
D
in
drinking
water.
The
aquatic
use
patterns
currently
being
supported
by
Task
Force
II
also
prohibit
the
use
of
2,4­
D
treated
water
for
use
as
potable
water
unless
an
approved
assay
indicates
that
2,4­
D
concentrations
are

0.07
ppm.
11
Data
pertinent
to
residues
in
water
were
reviewed
in
the
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter
of
the
1988
2,4­
D
Reregistration
Standard.
This
information
along
with
other
previous
reviews
was
summarized
in
an
HED
amended­
use
petition
review
(
CBTS
No.
9026,
3/
3/
92,
G.
Otakie).
In
studies
by
the
Department
of
the
Army,
application
of
the
DMA
salt
to
ponds
at
4
lb
ae/
A
resulted
in
2,4­
D
residues
in
water
of
0.39
ppm
1­
3
days
after
treatment,
0.4
ppm
after
7
days,
and
0.1
ppm
after
14
days.
Application
at
8
lb
ae/
A
resulted
in
2,4­
D
residues
of
0.69
ppm
1­
3
days
after
treatment,
0.395
ppm
after
7
days,
and
0.013
ppm
after
14
days.
At
28
days
following
either
treatment,
residues
were
<
0.005
ppm.
In
another
study,
application
of
the
DMA
salt
to
two
TVA
reservoirs
at
40
lb
ae/
A
resulted
in
residues
of
up
to
1.2
ppm
1
hour
posttreatment,
4.8
ppm
at
8
hours,
1.8
ppm
at
24
hours,
and
0.67,
0.24,
and
0.018
ppm,
respectively,
at
2
weeks,
4
weeks,
and
2
months
after
treatment.
In
a
Bureau
of
Reclamation
study,
reservoir
water
treated
with
the
DMA
salt
or
butoxyethyl
ester
at
40
lb
ae/
A
had
residues
of
up
to
0.22
ppm
after
1
day,
0.09
ppm
after
4
days,
and
0.01
ppm
after
14
days.
Treatment
of
lakes
in
three
states
at
40
lb
ae/
A
yielded
samples
containing
0.004­
3.8
ppm
of
2,4­
D
one
day
after
treatment,
0.0015­
1.1
ppm
after
4
days,
and
<
0.052
ppm
after
7­
14
days,
and
at
reservoir
outlets,
maximum
residues
were
0.015
ppm
throughout
the
study.
Potable
water
monitoring
showed
residues
of
2,4­
D
in
drinking
water
from
the
Fort
Cobb
reservoir
ranging
from
nondetectable
to
0.062
ppm.
The
1992
review
of
the
above
data
concluded
that
rates
of
up
to
40
lb
ae/
A
could
be
extended
to
sites
outside
the
TVA
system,
provided
that
use
is
restricted
to
Federal,
State,
or
local
agencies
or
applicators
under
their
control.
Official
agency
oversight
of
this
aquatic
use
was
deemed
necessary
owing
to
the
relatively
high
2,4­
D
concentrations
in
water
observed
initially
after
treatment
and
the
need
to
control
treatment
and
subsequent
water
uses.
These
data
reflect
the
registered
aquatic
use
patterns
and
are
adequate
from
a
residue
chamistry
perspective.

Irrigated
Crops.
The
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter
of
the
2,4­
D
Reregistration
Standard
previously
determined
that
residues
of
2,4­
D
at
up
to
0.5
ppm
are
expected
in
irrigation
water
derived
from
2,4­
D
treated
ponds,
lakes
and
reservoirs.
Citing
the
data
from
numerous
studies
on
crops
irrigated
with
2,4­
D
treated
water,
the
Agency
tentatively
concluded
that
tolerances
for
irrigated
crops
should
be
established
at
1
ppm
for
all
crop
groups
and
individual
miscellaneous
crops.

However,
the
aquatic
use
patterns
currently
being
supported
by
Task
Force
II
prohibit
the
use
of
2,4­
D
treated
water
for
irrigation
unless
an
approved
assay
indicates
that
2,4­
D
concentrations
are

0.1
ppm.

To
reassess
tolerances
for
irrigated
crops,
a
summary
of
residues
in
various
crops
irrigated
with
2,4­
D
treated
water
is
presented
in
a
table
below.
In
these
studies,
assorted
field
crops
were
irrigated
once
or
twice
with
water
containing
2,4­
D
at
0.02­
5.5
ppm.
Although
a
large
number
of
studies
have
been
conducted,
the
number
of
tests
and
samples
for
a
given
crop
or
commodity
are
limited,
and
no
data
are
available
for
irrigated
perennial
crops.
In
addition,
the
majority
of
the
residue
data
reflect
treatment
with
water
containing
2,4­
D
at
levels
well
above
the
allowed
0.1
ppm
concentration
in
irrigation
water.
Nevertheless,
many
of
the
current
tolerances
in
irrigated
crops
have
been
reassessed.
12
No
residue
data
on
irrigated
crops
are
available
to
support
inadvertent
tolerances
on
avocados,
cottonseed,
citrus
fruits,
pome
fruits,
stone
fruits,
hops,
tree
nuts,
berries
crop
group,
grapes,
and
strawberry.
The
reassessed
tolerance
for
preharvest
plus
postharvest
uses
on
citrus
fruits
(
3.0
ppm),
the
0.2­
ppm
tolerance
in
hops,
and
the
0.2­
ppm
tolerance
in
members
of
the
Tree
Nut
Group
would
readily
cover
any
inadvertent
residues
in
these
crops.
However,
tolerances
based
on
the
primary
uses
of
2,4­
D
on
pome
fruits,
stone
fruits,
blueberry,
grapes,
and
strawberry
are
all
being
reassessed
to
0.05
ppm,
which
is
the
enforcement
method
LOQ.
Although
it
is
unlikely
that
irrigation
with
water
containing
2,4­
D
at

0.1
ppm
would
result
in
residues
>
0.05
ppm
in
these
perennial
crops,
irrigated
crop
field
trials
conducted
on
strawberry
to
represent
perennial
crops
have
been
required
as
confirmatory
data.

Regarding
field
crops,
the
available
irrigated
crop
residue
data
support
tolerances
for
inadvertent
residues
at
0.05
ppm
in/
on
the
following
crop
groups:
bulb
vegetables
(
group
3),
legume
vegetables
(
group
6),
foliage
of
legume
vegetables
(
group
7),
cucurbit
vegetables
(
group
9),
and
fruiting
vegetables
(
group
8).
Treatment
of
cucumbers,
bell
peppers,
beans,
onions,
and
soybeans
with
irrigation
water
containing
2,4­
D
at
up
to
5.5
ppm
resulted
in
residues

0.05
ppm
in/
on
RACs
of
these
crops.
The
irrigated
crop
data
support
inadvertent
tolerances
of
0.2
ppm
in
alfalfa
and
sorghum
RACs
and
0.4
ppm
in
lettuce
and
potato.

In
addition,
tolerances
resulting
from
the
primary
use
of
2,4­
D
on
corn
(
field,
pop­,
and
sweet)
and
grasses
are
high
enough
to
cover
any
inadvertent
residues
in
these
crops
resulting
from
irrigation
with
water
containing
2,4­
D.

However,
irrigated
crop
residue
data
(
see
table
below)
are
equivocal
from
trials
on
sugar
beets.
As
a
result,
the
appropriate
tolerance
for
the
root
and
tuber
vegetables
group
represented
by
this
crop
(
as
well
as
potato
at
0.2
ppm)
cannot
be
determined
based
on
the
available
residue
data.

Summary
of
2,4­
D
Residues
in
Crops
Irrigated
with
2,4­
D
Treated
Water.

Crop
Irrigation
Application
Crop
matrix
#
samples
Sampling
interval
(
days)
2,4­
D
residues
in
crops
(
ppm)
2,4­
D
in
water
(
ppm)
volume
(
acre/
inches)

Alfalfa
0.02­
5.51
2
forage
6
2
or
7
<
0.05­
0.15
hay
6
50­
59
<
0.05­
0.10
Beans
0.02­
5.51
2
succulent
pods
6
2
or
7
<
0.01­
0.03
dry
seed
6
39­
44
<
0.025
hay
6
36­
44
<
0.05
Carrots
0.255
1
roots
2
47
0.02
1.125
1
roots
2
14
0.03,
0.6
Corn
0.22
2
grain
1
4
0.008
0.22
2
forage
1
4
0.09
5.51
2
forage
1
7
0.08
Crop
Irrigation
Application
Crop
matrix
#
samples
Sampling
interval
(
days)
2,4­
D
residues
in
crops
(
ppm)
2,4­
D
in
water
(
ppm)
volume
(
acre/
inches)

13
Cucumbers
0.02­
5.51
2
fruit
12
2­
48
0.01­
0.02
Lettuce
0.225
1
leaves
4
5
or
18
0.11­
0.33
Onions
1.125
1
bulbs
4
10
or
47
<
0.01
Pepper
(
bell)
0.02­
5.51
2
fruit
6
33­
46
<
0.01­
0.05
Potatoes
0.56
1
tuber
3
10
0.03­
0.12
0.02­
5.51
2
tuber
12
2­
40
<
0.01­
0.31
Sorghum
0.225
1
grain
4
10
or
32
<
0.05­
0.12
0.02­
5.51
2
grain
6
62­
69
<
0.05­
0.10
fodder
6
2
or
7
<
0.05­
0.17
Soybean
0.225
1
seeds
4
10
or
71
<
0.05
5.51
2
foliage
1
4
0.05
pods
1
4
0.008
0.22
2
foliage
1
4
0.05
pods
1
4
0.008
2.21
2
foliage
1
4
0.18
pods
1
4
0.05
Sugar
beets
5.51
2
roots
2
7
or
61
0.11,
0.10
1.1
2
1
7
0.08
2.21
2
2
4
or
61
3.8,
0.008
0.02,
0.22
2
2
4
0.7,
0.52
5.51
2
foliage
1
7
0.08
0.02­
2.21
2
3
7
0.01­
0.09
To
support
tolerances
for
inadvertent
residues
of
2,4­
D
in/
on
irrigated
crops,
additional
residue
data
are
required
on
sugar
beet
roots
and
tops
to
represent
field
crops
from
the
root
and
tuber
vegetable
crop
group
and
the
foliage
of
root
and
tuber
vegetable
crop
group.
To
support
tolerances
in
irrigated
perennial
crops,
residue
data
are
also
required
on
strawberry.
The
crops
should
be
irrigated
with
water
containing
2,4­
D
at
0.1
ppm.

Prior
to
conducting
field
trials
on
irrigated
crops,
the
registrants
are
encouraged
to
submit
the
protocols
for
these
studies
to
the
Agency
for
review.

GLN
860.1460:
Food
Handling
2,4­
D
is
not
registered
for
use
in
food­
handling
establishments;
therefore,
no
residue
chemistry
data
are
required
under
this
guideline
topic.
14
GLN
860.1480:
Meat,
Milk,
Poultry,
Eggs
The
reassessed
tolerances
for
residues
of
2,4­
D
in/
on
livestock
feedstuffs
range
from
0.02
ppm
in/
on
soybean
seeds
to
360
ppm
in/
on
grass
forage.
Based
upon
the
established
or
reassessed
tolerances
for
2,4­
D
residues
in/
on
livestock
feedstuffs,
the
maximum
theoretical
dietary
burdens
(
MTDB)
for
livestock
are
calculated
below
in
a
table.
The
MTDB
for
beef
and
dairy
cattle
livestock
is
874
ppm;
the
majority
of
which
is
derived
from
the
tolerance
level
for
grass
forage.
The
MTDB
for
poultry
and
swine
is
1.6
ppm,
based
primarily
on
the
2.0
ppm
tolerance
on
wheat
grain.
Other
livestock
feed
items
and
their
potential
contribution
to
dietary
burden
for
cattle
are
also
listed
below
in
a
separate
table.

Calculation
of
Maximum
Theoretical
Dietary
Burdens
of
Livestock
for
2,4­
D.

Feed
Commodity
%
Dry
Matter
1
%
Diet
1
Established
or
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Dietary
Contribution
(
ppm)
2
Beef
and
Dairy
Cattle
Grass
forage
25
60
360
864
Aspirated
grain
fractions
85
20
40
9.4
Wheat
grain
milled
byproducts
88
5
4.0
0.23
Soybean
meal
92
15
0.02
0.003
TOTAL
BURDEN
874
Poultry
and
Swine
Wheat
grain
NA
80
2.0
1.6
Soybean
meal
NA
20
0.02
0.004
TOTAL
BURDEN
1.6
1
Table
1
(
August
1996).
2
Contribution
=
[
tolerance
/
%
DM
(
if
cattle)]
X
%
diet.

Additional
cattle
feed
items
with
tolerances
for
2,4­
D
residues
Feed
item
%
dry
matter
%
of
dairy/
beef
diet
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Cattle
Dietary
burden
(
ppm)
a
Apple
wet
pomace
40
20/
40
0.05
0.03/
0.05
Citrus
dried
pulp
91
20
3.0
0.66
Corn
forage
40
50/
40
6.0
7.5/
6.0
Corn
grain
88
40/
80
0.05
0.02/
0.05
Corn
stover
83
15/
25
50
9/
15
Grass
hay
88
60
300
205
Potatoes
20
40/
75
0.2
0.4/
0.8
Rice
grain
88
40
0.5
0.4
Rice
hulls
90
10
2.0
0.2
Additional
cattle
feed
items
with
tolerances
for
2,4­
D
residues
Feed
item
%
dry
matter
%
of
dairy/
beef
diet
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Cattle
Dietary
burden
(
ppm)
a
15
Rice
straw
90
10
10
1.1
Sorghum
forage
35
50/
40
0.2
0.29/
0.23
Sorghum
grain
86
40
0.05
0.02
Sorghum
stover
86
15/
25
0.05
0.01/
0.015
Sugarcane
molasses
75
10
0.2
0.03
Wheat
forage
25
60/
25
25
60/
25
Wheat
grain
89
40/
50
2.0
0.90/
1.1
Wheat
straw
88
10
50
5.7
The
submitted
cattle
feeding
study
is
adequate.
Four
groups
of
three
cows
each
were
dosed
orally
with
2,4­
D
at
nominal
rates
of
1500,
3000,
6000,
and
9000
ppm
for
28­
30
days,
equivalent
to
1.7,
3.4,
6.9,
and
10.2x
the
MTDB
for
cattle,
and
were
sacrificed
within
20
hours
of
the
final
dose.
Two
additional
groups
of
cows
were
dosed
at
the
highest
level
(
10.2x)
and
sacrificed
3
or
7
days
after
the
cessation
of
dosing.
Milk,
liver,
kidneys,
composite
muscle
(
round
and
tenderloin),
and
composite
fat
(
perirenal
and
omental)
were
collected.

Residues
in
milk
plateaued
after
7­
11
days
of
dosing.
Maximum
residues
were
0.07
ppm
at
the
low
dose
level
(
1.7x)
and
increased
linearly
(
r2=
0.994)
with
increasing
dose.
At
the
3.4x,
6.9x,
and
10.3x
dose
levels,
maximum
milk
residues
were
0.18,
0.58,
and
0.87
ppm,
respectively.
After
the
3­
and
7­
day
depuration
periods,
residues
in
milk
from
the
10.2x
dose
group
declined
to
<
0.01­
0.02
ppm.

Immediately
following
dosing
(
0­
day
PSI),
maximum
residues
at
the
lowest
dose
level
(
1.7x)
were
0.20
ppm
in
liver,
6.48
ppm
in
kidney,
0.24
ppm
in
muscle,
and
0.51
ppm
in
fat.
Maximum
residues
at
the
highest
dose
level
(
10.2x)
were
3.80
ppm
in
liver,
24.4
ppm
in
kidney,
1.02
ppm
in
muscle,
and
2.30
ppm
in
fat.
After
a
3­
day
depuration
from
dosing
at
10.2x,
residues
declined
to
0.67
ppm
in
liver,
0.1
ppm
in
kidney,
0.06
ppm
in
muscle,
and
0.12
ppm
in
fat.
After
a
7­
day
depuration
period,
residues
were
0.51
ppm
in
liver
and
<
0.05
ppm
in
kidney,
muscle,
and
fat.
HED
notes
that
2,4­
D
is
excreted
rapidly,
as
evidenced
by
the
residue
decline
in
tissues
from
the
high­
dose
animals
following
a
withdrawal
period.
Based
on
residues
on
the
last
day
of
dosing
in
feeding
studies,
the
2,4­
D
tolerance
in
milk
may
be
reduced
from
0.1
ppm
to
0.05
ppm
whereas
the
2.0­
ppm
tolerance
in
kidney
should
be
reassessed
at
4.0
ppm
and
the
0.2­
ppm
tolerances
in
meat,
fat,
and
meat
byproducts
except
kidney
(
of
cattle,
goats,
horses,
and
sheep)
should
be
reassessed
at
0.3
ppm.
A
3­
day
grass
grazing
restriction
was
assumed
to
estimate
the
reassessed
tolerance
for
2,4­
D
residues
in
milk;
this
is
considered
to
be
practical
and
enforceable
because
dairy
cattle
are
typically
grazed
in
fenced
pastures
for
which
there
is
a
high
level
of
farmer
control.
A
grazing
restriction
is
not
practical
or
enforceable
for
beef
catte;
therefore,
a
0­
day
grazing
restriction
was
assumed
to
reassess
2,4­
D
tolerances
in
meat,
fat,
and
meat
byproducts.
16
The
reregistration
requirements
for
studies
pertaining
to
magnitude
of
the
residue
in
poultry
tissues
and
eggs
are
waived.
Based
on
the
results
of
2,4­
D
poultry
metabolism
study,
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
in
poultry
tissues
and
eggs
[
Category
3
of
40
CFR
§
180.6(
a)(
3)]
when
2,4­
D
is
applied
according
to
registered
use
directions.
Therefore,
tolerances
for
residues
of
2,4­
D
in
poultry
commodities
are
not
needed
and
should
be
revoked.
In
addition,
as
the
lowest
feeding
level
for
cattle
was

940x
the
MTDB
for
swine,
the
maximum
expected
residues
in
hog
tissues
would
be
0.007
ppm
(
kidney).
Accordingly,
tolerances
for
residues
in
hog
commodities
are
not
needed
and
should
be
revoked.

GLN
860.1500:
Crop
Field
Trials
For
purposes
of
establishing
new
tolerances,
HED
has
determined
that
the
three
classes
of
2,4­
D
derivatives
represented
in
end­
use
products
(
acid,
amine
salts,
and
esters)
are
not
equivalent
(
DP
Barcode
D258633,
8/
11/
99,
D.
Miller).
Residue
data
are
required
on
each
derivative
class
registered
for
use
on
a
crop,
and
translation
of
residue
data
is
allowed
only
within
a
given
class
(
e.
g.
amine
salt
to
amine
salt
or
ester
to
ester).
However,
the
available
residue
data
for
the
amine
salt
and
ester
forms
will
be
used
to
support
the
existing
registrations
for
the
acid,
amine
salt
(
including
DMA,
TIPA,
IPA,
and
DEA)
and
ester
(
2­
EHE
and
BEE)
forms
of
2,4­
D
on
crops
with
existing
tolerances.

For
any
future
uses
or
registrations
on
new
crops
where
both
amine
salt
and
ester
forms
are
to
be
registered,
residue
data
should
be
generated
with
both
an
amine
salt
and
ester
form
of
2,4­
D
in
sideby
side
field
trials.
If
the
acid
form
is
to
be
registered
in
addition
to
any
amine
salt
and/
or
ester
forms,
the
amine
salt
and/
or
ester
field
trial
results
can
be
translated
to
the
acid.
Otherwise
(
if
only
the
acid
form
is
to
be
registered),
residue
field
trials
should
be
performed
with
the
acid.

Food/
Feed
uses
currently
being
supported
by
the
Task
Force
II,
IR­
4,
and
the
California
Citrus
Quality
Council
(
CCQC)
are
listed
in
Table
A2
as
provided
in
Task
Force
II's
Master
Label.
For
purposes
of
reregistration
and
tolerance
reassessment,
the
adequacy
of
the
existing
crop
field
trials
will
be
assessed
by
comparison
against
the
use
patterns
in
the
Master
Label;
this
has
been
agreed
to
by
SRRD
(
M.
Rice,
3/
18/
03).

Adequate
crop
field
trials
are
available
for
the
following
raw
agricultural
commodities
(
RACs):
almonds
and
almond
hulls;
apples;
asparagus;
aspirated
grain
fractions
(
corn
and
wheat
grain);
blueberries;
cherries;
corn
(
field)
grain,
forage,
and
stover;
corn
(
sweet)
K+
CWHR;
cranberries;
filberts;
grapes;
grapefruit
(
pre­
harvest);
grass
forage
and
hay;
hops,
lemons
(
pre­
and
post­
harvest);
oranges
(
pre
and
post­
harvest);
peaches;
pears;
pecans;
pistachios,
plums/
fresh
prunes;
potatoes;
rice
grain
and
straw;
wild
rice
grain;
sorghum
grain,
forage,
and
stover;
soybean
forage,
hay,
and
seeds;
strawberries;
sugarcane;
and
wheat
grain,
forage,
and
straw.

Residue
data
on
aspirated
grain
fractions
from
field
corn
and
wheat
will
be
sufficient
to
support
the
tolerance
for
aspirated
grain
fractions
as
the
uses
on
soybean
and
sorghum
are
pre­
plant
or
early
17
season
uses
that
are
unlikely
to
result
in
residues
on
the
outer
surfaces
of
the
harvested
soybeans
or
sorghum
grain.

Separate
residue
data
on
sweet
corn
forage
and
stover
are
not
required
as
the
use
on
sweet
corn
is
similar
to
field
corn
except
that
the
PHI
for
sweet
corn
is
much
longer
(
45
days)
than
for
field
corn
(
7
days).
Therefore,
the
residue
data
on
field
corn
forage
and
stover
will
also
be
used
to
conservatively
support
tolerances
in
sweet
corn
forage
and
stover.

Although
no
data
are
available
supporting
the
postharvest
use
of
2,4­
D
in/
on
grapefruit
imported
into
the
U.
S.,
none
are
required
as
postharvest
residue
data
are
available
for
lemons
and
oranges
depicting
this
use.
Given
the
surface
to
volume
ratios
of
these
fruits,
2,4­
D
residues
in/
on
grapefruit
are
unlikely
to
exceed
the
residues
observed
in
lemons
and
oranges
resulting
from
a
postharvest
use.

The
Task
Force
II
has
indicated
that
it
will
not
be
supporting
the
use
of
the
2,4­
D
esters
on
filberts
(
sucker
control),
pistachios,
and
other
tree
nut
crops.
However,
adequate
residue
data
are
available
supporting
the
use
of
2,4­
D
esters
on
these
crops.
Accordingly,
use
directions
for
ester
forms
could
include
these
uses.

The
supported
use
directions
for
stone
fruit,
tree
nut
and
pistachio
orchards
specify
maximum
single
and
seasonal
rates
of
2
and
4
lb
ae/
A,
respectively.
However,
the
available
almond,
pecan,
pistachio,
cherry,
peach,
and
plum
data
only
support
a
maximum
single
application
rate
of
1.4
lb
ae/
A
and
a
maximum
seasonal
rate
of
2.8
lb
ae/
A.

Residue
data
from
the
available
wheat
field
trials
on
grain,
forage,
and
straw
will
be
translated
to
support
tolerances
for
residues
in
the
same
commodities
of
barley,
millet,
oats,
and
rye.

Residue
data
remain
outstanding
on
wheat
hay.
Data
depicting
residues
in/
on
wheat
hay
following
a
single
application
at
1.25
lb
ae/
A
are
required
from
a
total
of
20
trials,
each
including
side­
by­
side
tests
of
an
amine
salt
and
ester
form
of
2,4­
D.
In
addition,
a
PHI
should
be
proposed
for
wheat
hay.
Wheat
hay
data
will
be
translated
to
the
hay
of
barley,
millet,
and
oats.

The
available
residue
data
on
grapefruit,
lemon
and
citrus
are
adequate
to
support
the
preharvest
use
of
2,4­
D
IPE
only
on
citrus
fruits
grown
in
Region
10,
which
includes
production
areas
in
AZ
and
CA.
Therefore,
the
labels
should
be
amended
to
restrict
this
use
to
these
states.
However,
a
regional
restriction
on
the
postharvest
use
on
lemons
is
not
necessary
from
a
residue
chemistry
perspective.

The
supported
use
on
grapes
restricts
the
use
to
only
CA.
However,
sufficient
grape
field
trial
data
are
available
to
support
the
use
on
grapes
throughout
the
U.
S.

GLN
860.1520:
Processed
Food/
Feed
18
The
reregistration
requirements
for
magnitude
of
the
residue
in
the
processed
commodities
of
the
following
crops
have
been
fulfilled:
apples,
barley,
citrus
fruits,
corn,
oats,
potatoes,
plum/
prunes,
rice,
rye,
sorghum,
soybeans,
sugarcane,
and
wheat.
Residues
of
2,4­
D
did
not
concentrate
in
any
regulated
processed
commodities
derived
from
apple,
corn
grain,
plum/
prunes,
and
sorghum
grain.
However,
concentration
of
residues
was
observed
in
regulated
commodities
processed
from
citrus
fruits,
sugarcane,
and
wheat
grain.

The
available
lemon
processing
study
indicates
that
2,4­
D
residues
do
not
concentrate
in
citrus
oil
or
juice,
but
can
concentrate
by
4.6x
in
dried
pulp
derived
from
treated
fruit.
Based
on
HAFT
residues
of
0.487
ppm
from
the
recent
postharvest
treatment
trials
using
lemons
and
oranges,
the
maximum
expected
residues
in
citrus
dried
pulp
would
be
2.24
ppm.
As
this
is
below
the
reassessed
3.0
ppm
tolerance
for
citrus
fruits,
a
separate
tolerance
for
dried
citrus
pulp
is
not
required.
Additionally,
it
is
expected
that
citrus
intended
for
the
fresh
market
is
much
more
likely
to
be
treated
postharvest
than
fruit
for
processing.

The
available
rice
processing
study
indicates
that
2,4­
D
residues
do
not
concentrate
in
rice
bran
and
polished
rice,
but
can
concentrate
by
3.3x
in
hulls
derived
from
treated
rice
grain.
Based
on
HAFT
residues
of
0.425
ppm
in/
on
rice
grain,
the
maximum
expected
residues
in
hulls
would
be
1.4
ppm,
which
supports
a
2.0
ppm
tolerance
for
rice,
hulls.

For
sugarcane,
the
available
processing
studies
indicate
that
2,4­
D
residues
do
not
concentrate
in
refined
sugar,
but
can
concentrate
by
7x
in
molasses
derived
from
treated
sugarcane.
Based
on
HAFT
residues
of
0.015
ppm
in
cane,
the
maximum
expected
residues
in
molasses
would
be
0.105
ppm,
which
supports
a
0.20
ppm
tolerance
in
sugarcane
molasses.

The
available
wheat
processing
study
indicates
that
2,4­
D
residues
do
not
concentrate
in
wheat
flour,
middlings,
or
shorts,
but
can
concentrate
by
3.6x
in
bran
derived
from
treated
grain.
Based
on
HAFT
residues
of
1.08
ppm
in
wheat
grain,
the
maximum
expected
residues
in
bran
would
be
3.88
ppm,
which
supports
a
4.0
ppm
tolerance
in
wheat,
bran.
Data
from
the
wheat
processing
study
will
be
translated
to
oats,
barley,
rye,
and
millet
and
will
support
4.0
ppm
tolerances
for
residues
in
barley
and
rye
bran.

Although
a
potato
processing
study
for
2,4­
D
is
not
available,
the
use
of
2,4­
D
on
potatoes
is
for
enhancing
the
red
color
and
storage
retention
of
red
potatoes
and
is
restricted
to
potatoes
grown
for
"
Fresh
market
only."
As
most
processing
potatoes
are
grown
under
contract
with
the
processor,
who
specifies
the
varieties
and
pesticides
that
can
be
used,
the
label
language
restricting
use
to
fresh
market
potatoes
is
acceptable
for
this
use
of
2,4­
D
(
B.
Schneider,
personal
communication,
6/
5/
03).
Therefore,
the
Agency
will
waive
the
requirement
for
a
potato
processing
study.

A
processing
study
on
soybeans
is
also
not
currently
required
as
2,4­
D
residues
were
<
0.01
ppm
in/
on
all
soybean
seed
samples
harvested
at
maturity
from
seven
tests
in
which
2,4­
D
(
acid,
amine
salt,
and
ester)
was
applied
as
a
preplant
treatment
at
2.8x
the
maximum
label
rate.
19
GLN
860.1650:
Submittal
of
Analytical
Reference
Standards
An
analytical
reference
standard
for
2,4­
D
is
available
from
the
EPA
National
Pesticide
Standards
Repository.

GLN
860.1850
and
860.1900:
Confined/
Field
Accumulation
in
Rotational
Crops
The
reregistration
requirements
for
confined/
field
rotational
crop
studies
are
fulfilled.
The
available
confined
rotational
crop
data
(
summarized
below)
indicate
that
additional
field
trials
are
not
required.
In
addition,
no
rotational
crop
tolerances
are
necessary,
and
no
plantback
intervals
following
2,4­
D
application
are
needed.

Radioactive
residues
in
lettuce,
radishes,
and
wheat
were
<
0.001­
0.06
ppm
and
0.01­
0.084
ppm
from
plantings
made
30
and
139
days,
respectively,
following
an
application
of
[
14C]
2,4­
D
to
a
sandy
loam
soil
at
2.17
lb
ae/
A
(
1.1x
the
maximum
label
rate).
Radioactive
residues
were
adequately
characterized
in
all
crop
matrices.
The
majority
of
the
14C­
residues
were
characterized
as
either
aqueous
soluble
or
unextractable
and
reflected
the
incorporation
of
radioactivity
into
natural
components.
In
wheat
grain,
radioactivity
incorporated
into
starch
accounted
for
69­
81%
of
the
TRR,
and
6­
34.6%
of
the
TRR
was
associated
with
isolated
cellulose
and
lignin
fractions
from
lettuce,
radish
tops,
and
wheat
straw
from
the
30­
day
PBI
and
wheat
forage
and
straw
from
the
139­
day
PBI.
Acidic
organic
fractions,
which
would
have
contained
2,4­
D
residues,
were

0.004
ppm
in
all
matrices
from
both
PBIs
following
either
direct
solvent
extraction
or
acid
hydrolysis
and
solvent
extraction.
Aqueous
EtOH
soluble
residues
were
0.003­
0.017
ppm,
and
were
only
>
0.01
ppm
in
radish
tops
(
30­
day
PBI)
and
wheat
straw
(
30­
and
139­
day
PBIs).
Organosoluble
residues
released
by
hydrolysis
of
solvent
extracted
solids
also
accounted
for
minor
amounts
of
radioactivity
(<
10%
TRR
and
<
0.01
ppm).
The
only
metabolites
detected
in
any
matrix
were
2,4­
D
and
2,4­
dichloroanisole,
which
were
each
detected
at
0.0005
ppm
following
acid
hydrolysis
of
EtOH/
H
2
O­
soluble
residues
from
radish
tops.
20
(
Continued;
footnotes
follow)

Table
A2.
Food/
Feed
and
Aquatic
Use
Patterns
for
2,4­
D
forms
Supported
by
the
Task
Force
II.

Crop
2,
4­
D
AI
1
Formulation
types
2
Application
type,
timing,
and
equipment
Max.

Single
rate
(
lb
ae/
A)
3
Max.

Seasonal
rate
(
lb
ae/
A)
3
Restrictions/
comments
4
Food/
Feed
Crop
Uses
Asparagus
acid,
salts
and
amines
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Broadcast
post­
emergence
2.0
4.0
30­
day
RTI
and
3­
day
PHI
Do
not
exceed
2
applications/
crop.

Blueberry,
low
bush
acid,
salts,

and
amines
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Directed
wiper
or
spot
application
to
weeds
above
crop
0.0375
lb
ae/
gal
Not
specified
(
NS)
Apply
only
in
non­
bearing
year
Directed
spot
application
to
hardwoods
in
row
middles
after
harvest
1
lb
ae/
10
gal
of
oil
Blueberry,
high
bush
acid,
salts,

and
amines
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Directed
post­
emergence
before
and
after
harvest
1.4
2.8
30­
day
PHI
Avoid
herbicide
contact
with
blueberry
foliage
Cereal
grains
(
wheat,
barely,

millet,
oats,
and
rye)
acid,
salts,

amines
and
esters
WP,
EC,

SC/
S,
SC/
L
Broadcast
post­
emergence
(
after
tilling
prior
to
jointing)
1.25
1.75
Do
not
harvest
within
14
days
of
application
Broadcast
preharvest
0.5
Citrus
oranges
and
grapefruit
Isopropyl
ester
only
EC
Broadcast
application
to
increase
fruit
size
when
oranges
are
<
0.75"
in
diameter
and
grapefruit
are
<
1"
in
diameter
0.1
NS
7­
day
PHI
oranges
and
grapefruit
Broadcast
application
to
reduce
pre­
harvest
fruit
drop
(
Sept.­
Jan.)
200
ppm
NS
oranges
and
lemons
Broadcast
application
to
prevent
pre­
harvest
drop
of
fruit
and
leaves
24
ppm
NS
lemons
Post­
harvest
spray
or
dip
in
water
or
water­
wax
emulsion
500
ppm
NS
Table
A2.
Food/
Feed
and
Aquatic
Use
Patterns
for
2,4­
D
forms
Supported
by
the
Task
Force
II.

Crop
2,
4­
D
AI
1
Formulation
types
2
Application
type,
timing,
and
equipment
Max.

Single
rate
(
lb
ae/
A)
3
Max.

Seasonal
rate
(
lb
ae/
A)
3
Restrictions/
comments
4
21
(
Continued;
footnotes
follow)

Corn,
field
and
pop
acid,
salts,

amines
and
esters
WP,
EC,

SC/
S,
SC/
L
Broadcast
preplant
or
preemergence
1.0
3.0
7­
day
PHI
for
grain
and
fodder
No
PHI
is
listed
for
forage
Broadcast
post­
emergence
to
plants
<
8"
in
height
Directed
post­
emergence
to
plants
>
8"
in
height
(
keep
spray
off
foliage)
0.5
Broadcast
preharvest
after
hard
dough
stage
1.5
Corn,
sweet
acid,
salts,

amines
and
esters
WP,
EC,

SC/
S,
SC/
L
Broadcast
preplant
or
preemergence
1.0
1.5
21­
day
RTI
and
45­
day
PHI
No
PHI
is
listed
for
forage
Broadcast
post­
emergence
to
plants
<
8"
in
height
Directed
post­
emergence
to
plants
>
8"
in
height
(
keep
spray
off
foliage)
0.5
Cranberries
acid,
salts,

and
amines
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Directed
wipe
or
spot
applications
to
weeds
above
crop
1.2
lb
ae/
gal
2.4
30­
day
PHI
Make
only
1dormant
and
2
post­
emergence
applications/
crop
esters
G
Broadcast
application
to
dormant
plants
4.0
4.0
Filberts
6
acid,
salts,

and
amines
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Directed
to
suckers
(
6­
8")
at
tree
base
during
growing
season
1.0
lb
ae/
100
gal
NA
30­
day
RTI
and
45­
day
PHI
Do
not
make
more
than
4
applications/
year
Grapes
acid,
salts,

and
amines
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Directed
application
to
weeds
Apply
after
shatter
following
bloom
before
shoots
reach
ground
or
during
dormant
season
1.36
1.36
100­
day
PHI
For
use
only
in
CA
Do
not
apply
to
grape
foliage,

shoots,
or
stems
Table
A2.
Food/
Feed
and
Aquatic
Use
Patterns
for
2,4­
D
forms
Supported
by
the
Task
Force
II.

Crop
2,
4­
D
AI
1
Formulation
types
2
Application
type,
timing,
and
equipment
Max.

Single
rate
(
lb
ae/
A)
3
Max.

Seasonal
rate
(
lb
ae/
A)
3
Restrictions/
comments
4
22
(
Continued;
footnotes
follow)

Grasses
(
pastures
and
rangeland)
acid,
salts,

amines,

esters
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Broadcast
post­
emergence
applications
2.0
4.0
30­
day
RTI
and
7­
day
PHI
for
hay
Grasses
(
grown
for
seed)
acid,
salts,

amines,

esters
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S,

G
Broadcast
post­
emergence
applications
2.0
4.0
21­
day
RTI
and
7­
day
PHI
for
hay
Hops
5
acid
and
amines
SC/
L
Directed
post­
emergence
application
between
rows
0.5
1.5
30­
day
RTI
and
28­
day
PHI
Pistachios
6
acid,
salts,

and
amines
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Directed
post­
emergence
application
to
orchard
floor
2.0
4.0
30­
day
RTI
and
60­
day
PHI
Do
not
make
more
than
2
applications/
year
Do
not
cut
orchard
floor
for
hay
within
7
days
of
application
Pome
Fruits
acid,
salts,

and
amines
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Directed
post­
emergence
application
to
orchard
floor
2.0
4.0
75­
day
RTI
and
14­
day
PHI
Do
not
make
more
than
2
applications/
year
Do
not
cut
orchard
floor
for
hay
within
7
days
of
application
Potatoes
acid,
salts,

amines,
and
esters
7
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Broadcast
post­
emergence
application
begin
at
pre­
bud
stage
(
7­
10"
height)
0.07
0.14
Use
is
restricted
to
potatoes
grown
only
for
the
"
fresh
market"

10­
day
RTI
and
45­
day
PHI
Do
not
exceed
2
applications/
crop
Rice
acid,
salts,

and
amines
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Broadcast
pre­
emergence
2­
4
weeks
prior
to
planting
1.0
1.5
60­
day
PHI
Do
not
apply
after
panicle
initiation
Broadcast
post­
emergence
at
late
tillering
stage
1.5
Table
A2.
Food/
Feed
and
Aquatic
Use
Patterns
for
2,4­
D
forms
Supported
by
the
Task
Force
II.

Crop
2,
4­
D
AI
1
Formulation
types
2
Application
type,
timing,
and
equipment
Max.

Single
rate
(
lb
ae/
A)
3
Max.

Seasonal
rate
(
lb
ae/
A)
3
Restrictions/
comments
4
23
(
Continued;
footnotes
follow)

Rice,
wild
acid,
salts,

and
amines
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Broadcast
post­
emergence
at
1­
2
aerial
leaf
stage
through
early
tillering
stage
0.25
0.25
Use
is
restricted
to
MN
60­
day
PHI
Do
not
apply
at
boot
stage
or
later
Sorghum
acids,
salts,

and
amines
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Broadcast
post­
emergence
when
crop
is
6­
15"
in
height
1.0
1.0
30­
day
PHI
for
grain,
forage,
and
fodder
esters
EC
0.5
0.5
Soybeans
acid,
salts,

amines,
and
esters
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Broadcast
preplant
application
0.5
1.0
Esters:
Apply
not
less
than
7
days
prior
to
planting
soybeans.

Amines,
acid,
salts:
Apply
not
less
than
15
days
prior
to
planting
soybeans.

1.0
1.0
Esters:
Apply
not
less
than
15
days
prior
to
planting
soybeans.

Amines,
acid,
salts:
Apply
not
less
than
30
days
prior
to
planting
soybeans.

Stone
Fruits
acid,
salts,

and
amines
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Directed
post­
emergence
application
to
orchard
floor
2.0
4.0
75­
day
RTI
and
40­
day
PHI
Do
not
make
more
than
2
applications/
year
Do
not
cut
orchard
floor
for
hay
within
7
days
of
application.

Strawberry
acid,
salts,

and
amines
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Broadcast
after
last
harvest
or
during
dormancy
1.5
1.5
Do
not
use
in
CA
or
FL
Sugarcane
acid,
salts
and
amines
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Broadcast
preemergence
and
post­
emergence
(
prior
to
canopy
closure)
2.0
4.0
harvest
at
maturity
Tree
Nuts
6
acid,
salts,

and
amines
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S
Directed
post­
emergence
application
to
orchard
floor
2.0
4.0
30­
day
RTI
and
60­
day
PHI
Do
not
cut
orchard
floor
for
hay
within
7
days
of
application.
Table
A2.
Food/
Feed
and
Aquatic
Use
Patterns
for
2,4­
D
forms
Supported
by
the
Task
Force
II.

Crop
2,
4­
D
AI
1
Formulation
types
2
Application
type,
timing,
and
equipment
Max.

Single
rate
(
lb
ae/
A)
3
Max.

Seasonal
rate
(
lb
ae/
A)
3
Restrictions/
comments
4
24
Aquatic
Uses
Ditch
banks
acid,
salts,

amines,

BEE
ester
WP,
EC,

SC/
L,
SC/
S,

G
(
BEE
ester
only)
Post­
emergence
to
ditch
banks
2.0
4.0
30­
day
RTI
Apply
no
more
than
2
treatments/
season.

Do
not
use
on
small
canals
(<
10
CFS)
used
for
drinking
water.

Allow
no
more
than
2
foot
overspray
into
water
with
an
average
of
<
1
foot
overspray.

Emergent
aquatic
weeds
8
Surface
application
4.0
NS
21­
day
RTI
for
surface
applications.

Do
not
apply
within
1500
ft
of
potable
water
intakes.

Unless
an
approved
assay
indicates
that
2,4­
D
concentration
is

0.07
ppm
do
not
use
for
potable
water.

Unless
an
approved
assay
indicates
that
2,4­
D
concentration
is

0.1
ppm
do
not
use
for
irrigation
unless
crops
or
non­
crop
areas
have
direct
labeled
uses
for
2,4­
D.

Aquatic
weeds8
Surface
application
or
subsurface
injection
10.8
lb
ae/
acre
ft.

1
Lists
the
forms
of
2,4­
D
being
supported
for
each
use;
salts
=
inorganic
salts,
amines
=
amine
salts.

2
Specifies
the
types
of
formulations
being
supported.

3
All
rates
are
listed
in
lb
acid
equivalents
(
a.
e.)
unless
otherwise
noted.

4
RTI
=
minimum
retreatment
intervals;
PHI
=
pre­
harvest
interval.

5
The
use
on
hops
is
a
new
use
being
proposed
by
IR­
4
(
PP#
2E6352).

6
Available
data
also
supports
use
of
ester
forms
of
2,4­
D.

7
Data
from
only
one
test
supports
the
use
of
the
esters
forms.

8
For
use
on
weeds
in
ponds,
lakes,
reservoirs,
marshes,
bayous,
drainage
ditches,
canals,
rivers
and
streams
that
are
quiescent
or
slow
moving,
including
programs
of
the
Tennessee
Valley
Authority.
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)
25
Table
B.
Residue
Chemistry
Science
Assessments
for
Reregistration
of
2,4­
D.

GLN:
Data
Requirements
Current
Tolerances,
ppm
[
40
CFR]
Must
Additional
Data
Be
Submitted?
References
1
860.1200:
Directions
for
Use
Not
applicable
(
N/
A)
Yes
2
860.1300:
Plant
Metabolism
N/
A
No
00004666
00004667
00004669
00004675
00004676
00004677
00004680
00004681
00004682
00004683
00004689
00004693
00004698
00004699
00004715
00004723
00004960
00004996
00074214
00074215
00074216
00074217
00102675
00102676
00102679
00102717
00123973
Blacktop
and
Linscott.
(
1968),
Feung,
et
al.
(
1972)
41991503
3
424231014
42439701
5
42615601
5
43290501
6
43496101
7
860.1300:
Livestock
Metabolism
N/
A
No
00004705
00068891
42605201
5
42749701
8
43160201
9
Table
B.
continued.

GLN:
Data
Requirements
Current
Tolerances,
ppm
[
40
CFR]
Must
Additional
Data
Be
Submitted?
References
1
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)
26
860.1340:
Residue
Analytical
Methods
­
Plant
commodities
N/
A
No
00004720
00033119
00036171
00037169
00042288
00045364
00045365
00046125
00059025
00059026
00059027
00059033
00060113
00060120
00060870
00060872
00060880
00061012
00061014
00061016
00061017
00061018
00061645
00074219
00075198
00075715
00075716
00075719
00088176
00102605
00102710
00102717
00102719
00102737
00102815
00102862
00102865
00109535
00115499
00115509
00120057
00121733
00123269
00126684
00127273
00133938
00136845
00138635
00139511
00139951
00140092
00156264
PP#
6E2606
(
1979)
Aly
and
Faust
(
1964)
Bontoyan
(
1985)
Freed
(
1948)
43289301
10
43691101
11
43893701
12
­
Livestock
commodities
N/
A
No
00004701
00004707
00004719
00037169
00043759
00055485
00066156
00068011
00068892
00068893
00071787
00078237
00102713
00102714
00102760
00102816
00102821
00115509
00115515
00120057
Otto
et
al
(
1982),
44016501
13
44016502
13
Table
B.
continued.

GLN:
Data
Requirements
Current
Tolerances,
ppm
[
40
CFR]
Must
Additional
Data
Be
Submitted?
References
1
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)
27
860.1340:
Residue
Analytical
Methods
(
continued)

­
Water
N/
A
No
00035913
00115509
00121711
00136848
00140032
Otto
et
al
(
1982)

860.1360:
Multiresidue
Methods
N/
A
No
860.1380:
Storage
Stability
Data
­
Plant
commodities
N/
A
No
00136845
00140092
00145248
43809901
14
43870301
15
43879901
16
43879902
16
43879903
16
43879904
16
43879905
16
43886401
17
43886402
17
43886403
17
43886404
17
43886405
17
43886406
17
43943101
17
43963801
17
43963802
17
44211901
18
45245601
19
­
Livestock
commodities
N/
A
No
44024801
18
44967401
19
­
Water
N/
A
No
00035913
00139511
860.1400:
Water,
Fish,
and
Irrigated
Crops
­
Irrigated
Crops
0.1
[
§
180.142(
a)(
3)]
1
[
§
180.142(
a)(
6)]
Yes
20
00052597
00139511
­
Fish
and
Shellfish
1
[
§
180.142(
a)(
6)]
No
00028443
00035913
00043759
00052597
00102760
00115741
43378801
21
44135201
18
44577801
18
­
Water
0.1
[
§
180.142(
a)(
13)]
No
00035913
00038429
00052597
00102788
00115741
00118549
4296850122
42968502
22
860.1460:
Food
Handling
N/
A
N/
A
860.1480:
Meat,
Milk,
Poultry,
Eggs
­
Milk
and
the
Fat,
Meat,
and
Meat
Byproducts
of
Cattle,
Goats,
Hogs,
Horses,
and
Sheep
0.2,
fat,
meat
mbyp
(
except
kidney);
2,
kidney;
0.1,
milk
[
§
180.142(
a)(
8)]
No
00004701
00004707
00004719
00059034
00068892
00068893
00102714
44024801
18
­
Eggs
and
the
Fat,
Meat,
and
Meat
Byproducts
of
Poultry
0.05,
poultry
and
eggs
[
§
180.142(
a)(
8)]
No
23
00102719
Table
B.
continued.

GLN:
Data
Requirements
Current
Tolerances,
ppm
[
40
CFR]
Must
Additional
Data
Be
Submitted?
References
1
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)
28
860.1500:
Crop
Field
Trials
Root
and
Tuber
Vegetables
Group
­
Potatoes
0.2
[
§
180.142
(
a)(
11)]
No
00060876
00102814
00102862
00136845
43886401
17
Legume
Vegetables
(
Succulent
or
Dried)
Group
­
Soybean
seed
0.02,
seed
[
§
180.142
(
a)(
11)]
No
43356301
24
43356302
24
43356303
24
43669801
25
Foliage
of
Legume
Vegetables
Group
­
Soybean
forage
and
hay
None
established
No
43356301
24
43356302
24
43356303
24
43669801
25
Citrus
Fruits
(
Citrus
spp.,
Fortunella
spp.)
Group
5
[
§
180.142
(
a)(
1)
and
[
§
180.142
(
a)(
1)(
ii)]
No
26
00102605
43870303
15
­
Grapefruits
­
Lemons
No
00102879
00115509
43870303
15
45462201
19
­
Oranges
No
00042526
00102605
00102737
00139059
00163903
43870303
15
4546220119
45672201
19
Pome
Fruits
Group
­
Apples
5
[
§
180.142(
a)(
1)]
No
00102824
43943101
17
­
Pears
5
[
§
180.142(
a)(
1)]
No
00102824
43886405
17
­
Quinces
5
[
§
180.142(
a)(
1)]
No
Stone
Fruits
Group
0.2
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
5,
apricots
[
§
180.142(
a)(
1)
and
[
§
180.142(
a)(
1)(
i)]
No
00088176
­
Cherry
No
43879902
16
­
Peach
No
43879901
16
­
Plum/
Fresh
Prune
No
43879903
16
Table
B.
continued.

GLN:
Data
Requirements
Current
Tolerances,
ppm
[
40
CFR]
Must
Additional
Data
Be
Submitted?
References
1
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)
29
Berries
Group
­
Blueberries
0.1
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
00061010
00061012
43886403
17
44268501
27
­
Raspberries
0.1
[
§
180.142(
a)(
10)]
No
28
40881401
29
Tree
Nuts
Group
0.2,
nuts
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
­
Almond
No
00088176
44211901
18
­
Filbert
No
00088176
43963801
17
­
Pecan
No
00088176
43963802
17
­
Walnut
No
00088176
00115509
Cereal
Grains
Group
­
Barley,
grain
0.5,
grain
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
30
00004610
00036168
00036169
00036171
00036169
00059025
00059027
00059029
00060117
00061010
­
Corn,
field,
grain
0.5,
grain
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
00021755
00022329
00025383
00028385
00030697
43676801
31
43686001
31
43693702
31
­
Corn,
sweet
(
K+
CWHR)
0.5,
corn,
fresh,
sweet
(
K+
CWHR)
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
00102865
43886406
17
­
Millet,
grain
0.5,
grain
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
32
00025330
00161187
­
Oats,
grain
0.5,
grain
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
30
00036169
00059028
00102816
­
Rice,
grain
0.1
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
00004594
00120057
43747901
31
43785901
31
­
Rice,
wild,
grain
0.1
[
§
180.142(
b)]
No
43853601
33
­
Rye,
grain
0.5,
grain
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
30
­
Sorghum,
grain
0.5,
grain
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
00102719
00102889
00120057
43697801
31
43718001
31
43718002
31
Table
B.
continued.

GLN:
Data
Requirements
Current
Tolerances,
ppm
[
40
CFR]
Must
Additional
Data
Be
Submitted?
References
1
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)
30
­
Wheat,
grain
0.5,
grain
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
00022622
00036168
00036170
00036171
00045369
00046127
00059029
00060111
00061010
00078482
00090361
00127226
00128778
43665201
31
43665202
31
43676802
31
43797901
34
43797903
34
4419030118
44190302
18
Forage,
Fodder,
and
Straw,
of
Cereal
Grains
Group
­
Barley,
hay
and
straw
None
established
No
30
00036168
00036171
00059025
00059027
­
Corn,
field,
forage,
and
stover
20,
forage
and
fodder
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
00021755
00022622
00025383
00028385
00030697
00073273
00075715
00075724
00102865
00127273
00139511
43676801
31
43686001
31
43693702
31
­
Corn,
sweet,
forage
and
stover
None
established
No
35
­
Millet,
forage,
hay,
and
straw
20,
forage
and
straw
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
32
­
Oat,
forage,
hay,
and
straw
20,
forage
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
30
00059028
­
Rice,
straw
20,
straw
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
00120057
43747901
31
43785901
31
­
Rye,
forage
and
straw
20,
forage
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
30
­
Sorghum,
forage
and
stover
20,
forage
and
fodder
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
00102719
00102889
00120057
43697801
31
43718001
31
43718002
31
­
Wheat,
forage,
hay,
and
straw
20,
forage
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
Yes
36
00004485
00028173
00028200
00042288
00061010
00063507
00090360
00102712
00120057
00138635
00144791
00147047
43665201
31
43665202
31
43676802
31
43797901
34
43797903
34
44190301
18
44190302
18
Table
B.
continued.

GLN:
Data
Requirements
Current
Tolerances,
ppm
[
40
CFR]
Must
Additional
Data
Be
Submitted?
References
1
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)
31
Grass
Forage,
Fodder,
and
Hay
Group
­
Grass
(
pastures
and
rangeland)
forage
and
hay
1,000,
pasture
and
rangeland
grass
300,
grass
hay
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
00004485
00028173
00028200
00042288
00061010
00063507
00090360
00102712
00120057
00138635
00144791
00147047
43592101
31
43610801
31
43610802
31
43665203
31
43665204
31
43665205
31
43779501
31
43779502
31
43779503
31
43779504
31
Miscellaneous
Commodities
­
Asparagus
5
[
§
180.142(
a)(
4)]
No
00025338
00060870
43879905
16
­
Aspirated
Grain
Fractions
None
established
No
37
43693701
31
43709701
31
­
Cranberries
5
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
00061010
00061012
43886402
17
­
Grapes
5
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
00061012
00102833
43947901
38
4524560119
45647101
19
45665801
19
­
Hops
0.1
[
§
180.142(
a)(
3)]
No
4551270139
­
Pistachios
0.2
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
43879904
16
­
Strawberries
0.05
[
§
180.142(
a)(
5)]
No
00102717
00102812
43886404
17
­
Sugarcane
2,
sugarcane
20,
forage
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
No
00030701
00079738
00102640
00102794
00115793
00127823
43736101
31
43736102
31
860.1520:
Processed
Food/
Feed
­
Apples
None
established
No
43943101
17
­
Barley
2,
milled
fractions
(
except
flour)
[
§
180.142(
a)(
13)(
ii)]
2,
milled
fractions
[
§
180.142(
a)(
12)(
ii)]
No
40
­
Citrus
None
established
No
43870302
15
­
Corn,
field
None
established
No
43709701
31
Table
B.
continued.

GLN:
Data
Requirements
Current
Tolerances,
ppm
[
40
CFR]
Must
Additional
Data
Be
Submitted?
References
1
32
­
Grape
None
established
No
45245601
19
45647101
19
­
Oats
2,
milled
fractions
(
except
flour)
[
§
180.142(
a)(
13)(
ii)
2,
milled
fractions
]
[
§
180.142(
a)(
12)(
ii)]
No
40
­
Potato
None
established
No
41
­
Prunes
None
established
No
43879903
16
­
Rice
None
established
No
43755402
31
­
Rye
2,
milled
fractions
(
except
flour)
[
§
180.142(
a)(
13)(
ii)]
2,
milled
fractions
[
§
180.142(
a)(
12)(
ii)]
No
40
­
Sorghum
None
established
No
43709702
31
­
Soybean
None
established
No
­
Sugarcane
5,
molasses
[
§
180.142(
a)(
12)(
i)]
and
[
§
180.142(
a)(
13)(
i)]
5,
bagasse
[
§
180.142(
a)(
12)(
i)]
No
00030701
00068889
43755401
31
­
Wheat
2,
milled
fractions
(
except
flour)
[
§
180.142(
a)(
2)]
2,
milled
fractions
[
§
180.1450]
No
43693701
31
860.1650:
Submittal
of
Reference
Standards
No
860.1850:
Confined
Rotational
Crops
N/
A
No
43356002
24
860.1900:
Field
Rotational
Crops
None
established
No
Table
B.
continued.

33
1.
References
without
endnotes
were
reviewed
in
the
Residue
Chemistry
Science
Chapter
of
the
2,4­
D
Guidance
Document,
dated
2/
16/
88.
Otherwise,
references
were
reviewed
as
noted.

2.
Several
label
amendments
are
required.
Refer
to
the
text
under
OPPTS
GLN
860.1200,
Directions
for
Use.

3.
CBRS
No.
9560,
DP
Barcode
D175452,
6/
30/
92,
W.
Smith.

4.
CBRS
No.
10369,
DP
Barcode
D181459,
8/
26/
92,
W.
Smith.

5.
CBRS
Nos.
10466,
11197,
11219;
DP
Barcodes
D181885,
D186732,
D186927;
4/
6/
93;
R.
Perfetti.

6.
CBRS
14067,
DP
Barcode
D205343,
1/
6/
95,
R.
Perfetti.

7.
CBRS
No.
14901,
DP
Barcode
D210592,
2/
15/
96,
D.
Miller.

8.
CBRS
No.
11842,
DP
Barcode
D191013,
6/
16/
93,
R.
Perfetti.

9.
CBRS
No.
13463,
DP
Barcode
D201016,
8/
4/
94,
R.
Perfetti.

10.
CBRS
No.
14004,
DP
Barcode
D205346,
1/
26/
96,
D.
Miller.

11.
CBRS
No.
15807,
DP
Barcode
D216962,
3/
18/
96,
D.
Miller.

12.
CBRS
No.
16878,
DP
Barcode
D222627,
6/
11/
96,
D.
Miller.

13.
CBRS
No.
17267,
DP
Barcode
D226556,
6/
26/
94,
D.
Miller.

14.
CBRS
No.
16425,
DP
Barcode
D220451,
3/
19/
96,
D.
Miller.

15.
CBRS
No.
16703
and
16688,
DP
Barcode
D221853,
7/
8/
96,
D.
Miller.

16.
CBRS
No.
16765,
DP
D222312,
7/
9/
96,
D.
Miller.

17.
CBRS
Nos.
17090
and
17091,
DP
Barcodes
D224795
and
D224796,
7/
17/
96,
D.
Miller.

18.
DP
Barcode
D276792,
3/
1/
04,
W.
Hazel.

19.
DP
Barcodes
D276792
and
D283959,
3/
1/
04,
W.
Hazel.

20.
To
support
tolerances
for
inadvertent
residues
of
2,4­
D
in/
on
irrigated
crops,
additional
residue
data
are
required
on
sugar
beet
roots
and
tops
to
represent
field
crops
from
the
root
and
tuber
vegetable
crop
group
and
the
foliage
of
root
and
tuber
vegetable
crop
group.
The
treated
crops
should
be
irrigated
with
water
containing
2,4­
D
at
0.1
ppm.
To
support
tolerances
in
irrigated
perennial
crops,
residue
data
are
also
required
for
irrigated
strawberry.

21.
CBRS
No.
14481,
DP
Barcode
D208093,
1/
20/
95,
R.
Perfetti.

22.
CBTS
No.
12765,
DP
Barcode
D192646,
7/
12/
94,
G.
Kramer.
Table
B.
continued.

34
23.
The
reregistration
requirements
for
studies
pertaining
to
magnitude
of
the
residue
in
poultry
tissues
and
eggs
are
waived.
Based
on
the
results
of
2,4­
D
poultry
metabolism
study,
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
in
poultry
tissues
and
eggs
[
Category
3
of
40
CFR
§
180.6(
a)(
3)]
when
2,4­
D
is
applied
according
to
registered
use
directions.
Therefore,
tolerances
for
residues
of
2,4­
D
in
poultry
commodities
are
not
needed
(
CBRS
No.
16643,
DP
Barcode
D221414,
1/
4/
97,
D.
Miller).

24.
CBRS
No.
14458,
DP
Barcode
D207980,
11/
30/
95,
D.
Miller.

25.
MRID
43669801
is
an
amendment
to
the
soybean
field
trial
reported
in
MRID
43356302.
None
of
the
changes
reported
in
MRID
43669801
affect
the
regulatory
conclusions
made
in
the
earlier
review
of
this
study
(
DP
Barcode
D207980,
11/
30/
95,
D.
Miller).

26.
Although
no
data
are
available
supporting
the
postharvest
use
of
2,4­
D
in/
on
grapefruit
imported
into
the
U.
S.,
none
are
required
as
postharvest
residue
data
are
available
for
lemons
and
oranges.
Given
the
surface
to
volume
ratios
of
these
fruits,
2,4­
D
residues
in/
on
grapefruit
are
unlikely
to
exceed
the
residues
observed
in
lemons
and
oranges
resulting
from
a
postharvest
use.

27.
DP
Barcode
D235983,
3/
1/
04,
W.
Hazel.

28.
There
is
no
indication
that
IR­
4
or
the
Task
Force
II
are
supporting
the
use
of
2,4­
D
on
raspberries
(
use
was
formerly
restricted
to
MN).

29.
PP#
9E3704,
CB
No.
4684,
3/
03/
89,
F.
Toghrol.

30.
The
available
residue
data
for
wheat
grain,
forage,
and
straw
may
be
translated
to
barley,
millet,
oats,
and
rye
as
the
uses
on
these
crops
are
identical
to
the
use
on
wheat.

31.
CBRS
Nos.
15334,
15519,
15707,
15733,
15754,
15812,
15884,
15886,
15975,
16021,
16152,
16224,
16226,
and
16238;
DP
Barcodes
D213641,
D214733,
D216364,
D216606,
D216608,
D216939,
D217132,
D217400,
D217790,
D217980,
D218820,
D219399,
D219400,
and
D219402;
6/
3/
96,
D.
Miller.

32.
The
available
wheat
grain,
forage,
and
straw
data
have
been
translated
to
millet
grain,
forage,
and
straw.
The
data
required
herein
for
wheat
hay
will
be
translated
to
millet
hay.

33.
PP#
6E4636,
DP
Barcodes
D221776,
D221777,
and
D22290,
5/
14/
96,
M.
Nelson.

34.
CBRS
No.
16426,
DP
Barcode
D220447,
4/
4/
96,
D.
Miller.

35.
Separate
residue
data
on
sweet
corn
forage
and
stover
are
not
required
as
the
use
on
sweet
corn
is
similar
to
field
corn
except
that
the
PHI
for
sweet
corn
is
much
longer
(
45
days)
than
for
field
corn
(
7
days).
Therefore,
the
residue
data
on
field
corn
forage
and
stover
will
also
be
used
to
conservatively
support
tolerances
in
sweet
corn
forage
and
stover.

36.
Adequate
residue
data
are
available
on
wheat
forage
and
straw
to
support
the
use
on
wheat.
However,
data
are
required
depicting
residues
of
2,4­
D
in/
on
wheat
hay
harvested
following
a
single
broadcast
application
of
2,4­
D
(
amine
salt
and
ester)
at
1.25
lb
ae/
A.
A
total
of
20
trials
should
be
conducted
with
side­
by­
side
tests
using
an
amine
salt
and
ester
form
of
2,4­
D
at
each
location.
A
PHI
should
also
be
proposed
for
hay.

37.
Adequate
data
for
AGF
are
available
from
field
corn
and
wheat,
and
residue
data
on
AGF
from
sorghum
and
soybeans
are
not
required
as
the
uses
on
these
crops
are
either
preplant
or
early
season
applications.
In
addition,
residues
in/
on
all
samples
of
sorghum
grain
and
soybeans
seeds
were
<
0.05
ppm.
Table
B.
continued.

35
38.
The
original
submission
of
this
study
(
MRID
43947901)
was
not
reviewed
(
CBRS
No.
17035,
DP
Barcode
D224228,
4/
24/
96,
D.
Miller).
However,
a
duplicate
of
this
study
(
MRID
45647101)
was
reviewed
under
DP
Barcode
D276792,
3/
1/
04,
W.
Hazel.

39.
Adequate
field
trial
data
supporting
the
use
of
2,4­
D
DMA
on
hops
have
been
submitted
by
IR­
4
in
conjunction
with
a
petition
(
PP#
2E6352,
DP
Barcode
D285505,
3/
1/
04,
W.
Hazel)
proposing
a
0.1
ppm
tolerance
for
2,4­
D
residues
in/
on
hops.

40.
The
available
wheat
processing
study
will
be
translated
to
barley,
oats,
and
rye.

41.
A
potato
processing
study
for
2,4­
D
has
not
been
submitted
yet
is
not
required.
The
use
of
2,4­
D
on
potatoes
is
for
enhancing
the
red
color
and
storage
retention
of
red
potatoes,
and
the
use
is
restricted
to
potatoes
grown
for
"
Fresh
market
only."
As
most
processing
potatoes
are
grown
under
contract
with
the
processor,
who
specifies
the
varieties
and
pesticides
that
can
be
used,
the
label
restriction
to
fresh
market
potatoes
is
acceptable
for
this
use
of
2,4­
D
(
B.
Schneider,
personal
communication,
6/
5/
03).
36
TOLERANCE
REASSESSMENT
SUMMARY
Tolerances
for
residues
of
2,4­
D
in/
on
plant
RACs
and
processed
commodities,
fish,
and
potable
water
are
currently
expressed
in
terms
of
2,4­
D
per
se
[
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
1­
6
and
9­
12)
and
(
b)].
Tolerances
for
residues
in
livestock
commodities
are
currently
expressed
in
terms
of
2,4­
D
and/
or
its
metabolite
2,4­
dichlorophenol
(
2,4­
DCP)
[
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
8)].

The
MARC
has
concluded
that
2,4­
D
is
the
residue
of
concern
and
that
tolerances
listed
in
40
CFR
§
180.142
are
to
be
defined
as
residues
of
2,4­
D,
both
free
and
conjugated,
determined
as
the
acid
(
W.
Hazel
and
L.
Taylor,
12/
3/
03,
D293119,
TXR
No.
0052264).

HED
notes
that
there
are
a
number
of
separate
active
ingredients
in
2,4­
D
Reregistration
Case
No.
0073.
These
are
2,4­
D
in
the
acid
form
as
well
as
the
sodium
salt,
four
amine
salts,
and
three
esters
(
see
Table
A1).
Upon
contact
with
water
and/
or
hydrolytic
enzymes,
all
of
these
forms
are
converted
to
a
single
common
moiety
(
2,4­
D
anion
or
acid
depending
on
pH)
that
is
the
pesticidally­
active
component
serving
as
the
basis
for
tolerance
regulation
(
i.
e.,
2,4­
D
acid).
As
the
available
tolerance
enforcement
methodology
cannot
distinguish
between
which
form
of
the
pesticidally
active
component
was
applied,
HED
recommends
that
the
tolerance
definition
at
CFR
§
180.142
be
revised
to
remove
all
references
to
the
specific
form
of
the
active
ingredient
applied.
We
note
that
most
of
the
salts
and
esters
listed
at
180.142
no
longer
serve
as
active
ingredients
in
a
registered
pesticide
product.
Also,
new
salt
and
ester
forms
of
2,4­
D
may
be
registered
as
active
ingredients
in
the
future.
Language
similar
to
the
following
is
recommended
for
the
2,4­
D
tolerance
expression
at
180.142(
a)
to
cover
applications
of
the
various
forms
of
the
pesticidally
active
component:

"
Tolerances
are
established
for
residues
of
the
herbicide,
plant
growth
regulator,
and
fungicide
2,4­
D
(
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid),
both
free
and
conjugated,
determined
as
the
acid,
in
or
on
the
raw
agricultural
commodities
and
processed
products
listed
below
resulting
from
the
preharvest
and/
or
postharvest
application
of
2,4­
D
or
its
various
salts
and
esters.
A
(
generally
small)
portion
of
the
2,4­
D
residues
comprising
these
tolerances
may
also
be
contributed
inadvertently
by
the
use
of
treated
irrigation
water
during
the
crop
growing
season."

The
listing
for
2,4­
D
tolerances
in
40
CFR
§
180.142
should
be
recodified
into
parts
(
a),
(
b),
(
c),
and
(
d).
Part
(
a)
should
be
reserved
for
commodities
with
permanent
tolerances
reflecting
at
least
a
preharvest
(
field)
or
postharvest
use,
part
(
b)
for
Section
18
emergency
exemptions,
part
(
c)
for
tolerances
with
regional
registrations,
and
part
(
d)
for
commodities
bearing
2,4­
D
residues
solely
inadvertently,
including
irrigated
crops.
A
summary
of
2,4­
D
tolerance
reassessments
and
recommended
recodifications
is
presented
in
Table
C
along
with
any
recommended
changes
in
commodity
definitions.

Note
that
some
commodities
currently
are
the
subject
of
two
or
more
separate
tolerances
depending
on
the
use
pattern,
the
2,4­
D
form
applied,
timing
of
treatment
(
preharvest
or
postharvest),
or
37
degree
of
intent
to
deposit
residues
(
direct
treatment
or
inadvertent).
Direct
treatment
involves
intentional
field
treatment
of
crop
sites
or
postharvest
treatment
of
harvested
commodities
on
registered
labels.
Inadvertent
deposition
involves
the
incidental
exposure
of
crops
when
water
passing
through
2,4­
D­
treated
irrigation
ditchbanks
or
diverted
from
2,4­
D­
treated
bodies
of
water
is
used
to
irrigate
crops.
HED
is
proposing
to
remove
most
such
use­
pattern
or
FIFRA­
related
language
at
180.142.
Due
to
the
complicated
nature
of
the
routes
of
residue
deposition,
we
are
proposing
to
subsume
the
lower
tolerances
in
the
highest
existing
or
reassessed
tolerance
established
in
the
same
commodity
­
even
if
that
results
in
180.142(
a)
containing
some
tolerances
that
reflect
2,4­
D
residues
that
could
potentially
result
from
two
or
more
exposure
routes.
An
example
is
citrus
which
has
tolerances
for
2,4­
D
in
the
RAC
resulting
from
preharvest
use
+
postharvest
use,
irrigation
ditchbank
treatment
(
inadvertent),
and
direct
water
body
treatment
(
also
inadvertent).
If
there
are
no
registered
uses
on
a
given
commodity
and
residues
are
likely
to
occur
on
that
commodity
solely
inadvertently,
i.
e.,
via
irrigation,
then
the
tolerance
in
that
commodity
will
be
located
under
180.142(
d).
In
most
cases,
residues,
and
hence
the
tolerance,
resulting
from
a
direct,
registered
use
are
higher
than
the
residues
(
and
the
tolerance)
resulting
inadvertently.
HED
proposes
these
revisions
because
we
know
that
an
enforcement
agency,
having
detected
2,4­
D
residues
in
a
commodity,
would:
(
i)
not
be
able
to
distinguish
which
form
of
2,4­
D
had
been
applied;
(
ii)
rarely
be
able
to
determine
who
applied
the
pesticide,
when,
or
for
what
purpose;
and
(
iii)
not
know
whether
a
sample
is
violative
if
the
2,4­
D
concentration
falls
between
two
tolerance
levels.

Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
1):

Adequate
data
are
available
to
reassess
the
established
tolerances
for
the
following
commodities:
apple,
apricot,
citrus
fruit,
pear,
potato
and
quince.

The
available
apple
and
pear
residue
data
will
support
a
crop
group
tolerance
at
0.05
ppm
for
pome
fruits
under
the
redesignated
section
180.142(
a).
The
separate
tolerances
on
apple,
pear,
and
quince
should
be
revoked
concomitant
with
establishing
a
new
pome
fruit
crop
group
tolerance.

The
5
ppm
tolerance
on
citrus
fruits
should
be
reassessed
to
3.0
ppm
to
reflect
any
combination
of
the
preharvest
use
on
citrus,
the
postharvest
use
of
2,4­
D
on
lemons
in
the
U.
S.,
a
similar
postharvest
use
on
oranges
imported
into
the
U.
S.,
and
any
inadvertent
(
irrigation)
residues
that
may
be
incurred
as
a
result
of
2,4­
D
use
in
aquatic
sites.
The
tolerances
in
citrus
fruit
of
0.1
ppm
at
180.142(
a)(
3)
and
1.0
ppm
at
180.142(
a)(
6),
both
reflecting
inadvertent
residues,
should
be
revoked
as
they
will
be
subsumed
by
the
reassessed
tolerance
of
3.0
ppm
at
180.142(
a).
Perhaps
a
subsection,
eg.,
180.142(
a)(
i)
could
note
that
the
citrus
fruit
group
tolerance
may
include
residues
resulting
from
preharvest
use
of
2,4­
D
in
citrus
orchards
restricted
to
AZ
and
CA.

The
tolerance
for
residues
in/
on
apricots
should
be
revoked
as
residues
in/
on
apricots
will
be
covered
by
the
tolerance
in
stone
fruits.
38
Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
2):

Adequate
data
are
available
to
reassess
all
the
tolerances
listed
under
180.142(
a)(
2).
All
reassessed
tolerances
should
be
recodified
under
the
revised
section
180.142(
a).

Based
on
the
available
residue
data,
the
current
tolerances
on
grass
hay
and
tree
nuts
are
adequate.
However,
tolerances
can
be
lowered
on
the
following
commodities:
blueberry,
sweet
corn
(
kernel
plus
cob
with
husks
removed),
corn
forage
and
grain,
cranberry,
stone
fruits,
grape,
grass
forage,
pistachio,
rice
straw,
sorghum
forage,
grain
and
stover,
and
sugarcane.
Tolerances
should
be
increased
on
the
following
commodities:
corn
stover,
rice
grain,
and
wheat
grain
and
forage.

The
available
residue
data
for
wheat
commodities
will
be
used
to
reassess
tolerances
on
similar
commodities
from
barley,
millet,
oats,
and
rye.
Tolerances
should
be
increased
accordingly
on:
barley
grain;
millet
grain,
forage
and
straw;
oat
forage
and
grain;
and
rye
forage
and
grain.

The
tolerance
for
residues
in
sugarcane
forage
should
be
revoked
because
it
is
no
longer
considered
a
significant
livestock
feed
item
and
has
been
deleted
from
Table
1
(
OPPTS
GLN
860.1000).

Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
3):

Tolerances
listed
in
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
3)
are
established
for
negligible
residues
of
2,4­
D
in
irrigated
crops
from
application
of
its
dimethylamine
salt
to
irrigation
ditch
banks
in
the
Western
United
States
in
programs
of
the
Bureau
of
Reclamation,
U.
S.
Department
of
Interior;
cooperating
water
user
organizations;
the
Bureau
of
Sport
Fisheries,
U.
S.
Department
of
Interior;
Agricultural
Research
Service,
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture;
and
the
Corps
of
Engineers,
U.
S.
Department
of
Defense.
Where
tolerances
are
established
at
higher
levels
resulting
from
other
uses
of
2,4­
D,
the
higher
tolerance
applies
also
to
residues
in
crops
from
the
irrigation
ditch
bank
use
cited
in
this
paragraph.

The
tolerances
in
crops
or
crop
groups
listed
under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
3)
that
do
not
have
a
direct
treatment
tolerance
under
180.142(
a)
should
be
recodified
as
180.142(
d),
i.
e.,
inadvertent
residue
tolerances.

The
available
irrigated
crop
data
support
tolerances
for
inadvertent
residues
at
0.2
ppm
in
foliage
of
legume
vegetables
(
group
7)
and
nongrass
animal
feed
(
group
18)
and
at
0.05
ppm
in/
on
the
following
crops
groups:
bulb
vegetables
(
group
3),
legume
vegetables
(
group
6),
cucurbit
vegetables
(
group
9),
and
fruiting
vegetables
(
group
8).

In
addition,
tolerances
resulting
from
the
primary
use
of
2,4­
D
on
grasses,
citrus
fruits,
and
tree
nuts
are
high
enough
to
cover
any
inadvertent
residues
in
these
crops
that
may
result
from
the
use
of
2,4­
D
treated
irrigation
water.
Therefore,
separate
tolerances
for
inadvertent
residues
in/
on
these
crops
are
not
required
and
would
be
superfluous.
39
Separate
tolerances
for
inadvertent
residues
are
unnecessary
in
pome
fruits,
stone
fruits,
pistachios,
grapes,
blueberry,
and
strawberry
as
these
crops
all
have
tolerances
resulting
from
the
direct
use
of
2,4­
D.
However,
the
tolerances
in
all
of
these
commodities
have
been
reassessed
at
0.05
ppm,
the
LOQ
of
the
enforcement
method,
to
reflect
only
direct
treatment
at
this
time.
It
is
reasonably
possible
that
inadvertent
residues
resulting
from
irrigation
with
treated
water
could
contribute
concentrations
of
2,4­
D
in
the
commodities
necessitating
tolerances
higher
than
0.05
ppm.
Therefore,
confirmatory
irrigated
crop
residue
data
are
required
for
representative
perennial
crops
(
grape,
an
orchard
fruit,
and
strawberry).
The
field
trial
data
on
irrigated
grapes
will
be
used
to
determine
an
appropriate
contributing
inadvertent
residue
level
in
berries,
and
field
trial
data
on
an
irrigated
tree
fruit
(
e.
g.
apples)
will
be
used
to
determine
an
appropriate
contributing
inadvertent
residue
level
in
all
orchard
crops
having
reassessed
direct­
treatment
tolerances
at
0.05
ppm
under
the
revised
180.142(
a)
as
well
as
the
appropriate
inadvertent
tolerance
in
avocados
under
180.142(
d).
Also,
additional
residue
data
on
sugar
beets
and
tops
irrigated
with
water
containing
2,4­
D
at
0.1
ppm
are
required
to
permit
reassessment
of
the
tolerances
in
the
Root
and
Tuber
Vegetables
Group
and
the
Leaves
of
Root
and
Tuber
Vegetables
Group
resulting
inadvertently
due
to
irrigation
with
2,4­
D­
treated
water.
These
data
may
also
be
used
to
reassess
inadvertent
tolerances
established
at
180.142(
d)
as
a
result
of
the
2,4­
D
RED.

Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
4):

The
established
tolerance
for
residues
in/
on
asparagus
is
reassessed
at
the
current
level
under
the
revised
tolerance
expression
and
is
to
be
recodified
as
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a).

Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
5)

The
established
tolerance
for
residues
in/
on
strawberry
is
reassessed
at
the
current
level
under
the
revised
tolerance
expression
and
is
to
be
recodified
as
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a).

Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
6):

Tolerances
listed
in
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
6)
are
established
for
residues
of
2,4­
D
from
application
of
its
dimethylamine
salt
for
water
hyacinth
control
in
ponds,
lakes,
reservoirs,
marshes,
bayous,
drainage
ditches,
canals,
rivers,
and
streams
that
are
quiescent
or
slow
moving
in
programs
conducted
by
the
Corps
of
Engineers
or
other
Federal,
State,
or
local
public
agencies.
Where
tolerances
are
established
at
higher
levels
from
other
uses
of
the
dimethylamine
salt
of
2,4­
D
on
crops
included
within
these
commodity
groups,
the
higher
tolerances
also
apply
to
residues
from
the
aquatic
uses
cited
in
this
paragraph.

Based
on
the
available
residue
data,
the
current
tolerance
in
shellfish
is
adequate
and
the
tolerance
in
fish
can
be
reduced
to
0.1
ppm.
Both
tolerances
should
be
recodified
under
the
revised
section
180.142(
a).
40
Tolerances
for
residues
in/
on
the
irrigated
crops
and
crop
groups
at
the
current
§
180.142(
a)(
6)
are
set
at
1.0
ppm
whereas
the
tolerances
in/
on
the
identical
crops/
crop
groups
at
§
180.142(
a)(
3)
are
at
0.1
ppm
for
the
irrigation
ditchbank
use.
The
recommended/
reassessed
tolerances
from
§
180.142(
a)(
3)
to
be
recodified
under
sections
§
180.142(
a)
or
§
180.142(
d)
concomitantly
address
the
reassessments/
recodifications
recommended
for
tolerances
at
§
180.142(
a)(
6),
depending
on
whether
residues
are
incurred
directly
and/
or
inadvertently,
as
explained
above.

Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
8):

Tolerances
listed
in
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
8)
are
established
for
residues
of
2,4­
D
and/
or
its
metabolite
2,4­
DCP
in
livestock
commodities.
As
indicated
by
the
MARC,
the
regulated
residue
in
animal
commodities
is
2,4­
D
(
free
and
conjugated).
As
a
result
of
this
residue
definition
change,
all
reassessed
livestock
tolerances
should
be
recodified
to
§
180.142(
a).

Based
upon
the
available
livestock
feeding
study,
the
0.1
ppm
tolerance
in
milk
is
reassessed
at
0.05
ppm
and
the
tolerances
in
cattle,
goat,
horse,
and
sheep
commodities
are
reassessed
at:
0.3
ppm
in
fat,
meat,
and
meat
byproducts
except
kidney
and
4.0
ppm
in
kidney.

The
established
tolerances
for
2,4­
D
residues
in
hog
commodities
may
be
revoked.
Based
on
the
MTDB
for
swine
(
1.6
ppm)
and
the
results
of
the
ruminant
feeding
study,
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
2,4­
D
residues
occurring
in
hog
commodities
[
Category
3
of
40
CFR
§
180.6(
a)(
3)].

In
addition,
the
established
tolerances
for
2,4­
D
residues
in
eggs
and
poultry
tissues
may
be
revoked.
Based
on
the
results
of
the
2,4­
D
poultry
metabolism
study,
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
in
poultry
tissues
and
eggs
[
Category
3
of
40
CFR
§
180.6(
a)(
3)].

Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
9):

Tolerances
listed
in
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
9)
are
established
for
residues
of
2,4­
D
from
applications
of
its
dimethylamine
salt
or
its
butoxyethanol
ester
for
Eurasian
water
milfoil
control
in
programs
conducted
by
the
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
in
dams
and
reservoirs
of
the
TVA
system.

The
tolerance
for
2,4­
D
residues
in
fish
at
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
9)
should
be
revoked
and
this
section
deleted.
There
is
no
need
for
two
2,4­
D
tolerances
in
fish.
It
has
already
been
recommended
that
the
1.0
ppm
tolerance
in
fish
currently
at
§
180.142(
a)(
6)
be
reassessed
at
0.1
ppm
and
that
this
reassessed
tolerance
be
recodified
at
the
new
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a).

Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
10):

The
tolerance
listed
in
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
10)
is
a
regional
registration
as
defined
in
Sec.
180.1(
n)
and
is
established
for
the
residues
of
2,4­
D
in
raspberries.
The
tolerance
includes
residues
from
the
application
of
2,4­
D
and
its
N­
oleyl­
1,3­
propylenediamine
salt.
41
As
the
members
of
Task
Force
II
are
not
supporting
2,4­
D
use
on
this
commodity,
the
tolerance
for
residues
in/
on
raspberries
should
be
revoked
unless
another
party
wishes
to
support
a
use
on
this
crop.
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
10)
should
be
deleted
and
any
tolerances
with
regional
registration
should
be
established
under
the
revised
section
40
CFR
§
180.142(
c).

Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
11):

A
time­
limited
tolerance
of
0.02
ppm
has
been
established
for
residues
of
2,4­
D
resulting
from
the
preplant
use
of
2,4­
D
ester
or
amine
in/
on
soybean
seed
[
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
11)],
expiring
on
December
31,
2004.
Adequate
residue
data
are
available
to
support
permanent
tolerances
on
soybean
commodities.
Section
180.142(
a)(
11)
should
be
deleted,
and
permanent
tolerances
for
2,4­
D
residues
in/
on
soybean
seed,
forage,
and
hay
are
recommended
to
be
established
under
the
revised
section
180.142(
a).

Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
12):

Tolerances
listed
at
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
12)
are
established
for
residues
of
2,4­
D
in
processed
feeds.
Such
residues
may
be
present
therein
only
as
a
result
of
application
to
the
growing
crop
of
the
herbicides
identified
in
this
section.
Tolerances
formerly
listed
at
40
CFR
§
180.1450
were
moved
to
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
12)
(
63
FR
34829,
6/
26/
98).

The
tolerance
for
residues
in
sugarcane
bagasse
should
be
revoked
because
it
is
no
longer
considered
a
significant
livestock
feed
item
and
has
been
deleted
from
Table
1
(
OPPTS
GLN
860.1000).

40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
12)
should
be
deleted.
The
tolerance
for
2,4­
D
residues
in
milled
fractions
derived
from
barley,
oats,
rye,
and
wheat
should
be
revoked
as
the
commodity
definition
will
change
and
the
tolerances
will
be
increased
and
recodified
at
the
revised
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)
for
residues
in
barley
bran,
rye
bran,
and
wheat
bran.
No
tolerances
in
other
processed
products
of
small
grains
are
necessary
because
concentration
of
residues
does
not
occur
in
them.

Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
13):

Tolerances
listed
at
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
13)
are
established
for
residues
of
2,4­
D
in
processed
foods
and
potable
water.

40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)(
13)
should
be
deleted.
The
tolerances
for
2,4­
D
residues
in
sugarcane
molasses
and
in
milled
fractions
derived
from
barley,
oats,
rye,
and
wheat
should
be
revoked
as
tolerances
will
be
recodified
under
the
revised
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a)
for
residues
in
sugarcane
molasses,
barley
bran,
rye
bran,
and
wheat
bran.

The
established
tolerance
for
residues
of
2,4­
D
in
potable
water
should
be
revoked
as
EPA/
OPPTS/
OPP
no
longer
establishes
pesticide
tolerances
in
potable
water.
Instead,
the
EPA
42
Office
of
Water
establishes
Maximum
Contaminant
Levels
(
MCLs).
An
MCL
of
0.07
ppm
has
been
established
for
2,4­
D
in
drinking
water.

Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
b):

The
tolerance
listed
in
40
CFR
§
180.142(
b)
is
a
time­
limited
tolerance
established
for
2,4­
D
in/
on
wild
rice
in
connection
with
use
of
2,4­
D
in
MN
under
a
Section
18
emergency
exemption
granted
by
EPA.
The
tolerance
is
set
to
expire
on
December
31,
2005.
As
adequate
residue
data
are
available
on
wild
rice
grown
in
MN,
a
permanent
tolerance
for
rice,
wild,
grain
should
be
established
at
0.05
ppm
under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
c).

Tolerances
Needed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
a):

The
revised
section
will
include
all
permanent
tolerances
for
residues
of
2,4­
D,
defined
as
residues
of
2,4­
D,
both
free
and
conjugated,
determined
as
the
acid.
The
section
will
include
all
plant
commodities
(
excluding
crop
commodities
exposed
solely
inadvertently),
livestock
commodities,
fish,
and
shellfish
at
reassessed
levels.

In
addition,
the
available
residue
data
indicate
that
new
tolerances
should
be
established
for
2,4­
D
residues
in/
on
the
following
commodities:
almond
hulls;
aspirated
grain
fractions;
barley
bran
and
straw;
oat
straw;
rice
hulls;
rye
bran
and
straw;
soybean
forage,
hay,
and
seeds;
and
wheat
bran
and
straw.

Once
adequate
residue
data
become
available,
new
tolerances
should
also
be
established
for
wheat
hay
(
wheat
hay
data
will
be
translated
to
barley
hay,
millet
hay,
and
oat
hay).

Tolerances
Needed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
c):

Based
on
the
available
residue
data,
tolerances
with
regional
registrations
should
be
established
for
wild
rice
grain
at
0.05
ppm,
reflecting
the
use
of
2,4­
D
on
wild
rice
grown
in
MN.

Tolerances
Needed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142(
d):

Tolerances
for
inadvertent
2,4­
D
residues
in
irrigated
crops
that
have
no
registered,
direct
uses
will
be
moved
from
paragraph
§
180.142(
a)(
3)
to
paragraph
§
180.142(
d)
and
the
commodity
and
crop
group
listings
will
be
revised
to
the
current
EPA
definitions.
43
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)

Table
C.
Tolerance
Reassessment
Summary
for
2,4­
D.

Commodity
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
ppm)
Maximum
Residue
Value
1
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comment
[
Corrected
Commodity
Definition]

Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
a)
(
1)
2
Apple
5
<
0.01
Revoke
A
single
tolerance
should
be
established
at
0.05
ppm
under
180.142(
a)
for
direct
and
inadvertent
residues
in/
on
the
Fruit,
pome,
group
11.

Apricot
5
­­
Revoke
Residues
in/
on
apricots
will
be
covered
by
the
tolerance
for
direct
and
inadvertent
residues
in
stone
fruits
at
180.142(
a).

Fruit,
citrus
5
Grapefruit=
0.079
Orange
=

0.05
Lemon
=
<
0.05
Orange
(
postharvest)
=
0.24
Lemon
(
postharvest)
=
2.5
3.0
A
tolerance
should
be
established
in
Fruit,
citrus,

group
10,
recodified
as
180.142(
a),
that
will
cover
the
preharvest
use
on
citrus,
the
postharvest
use
on
lemons
in
the
U.
S.,
the
postharvest
use
on
citrus
imported
into
the
U.
S.,
and
the
inadvertent
residues
due
to
irrigation
with
treated
water.

Pear
5
<
0.01
Revoke
A
single
tolerance
should
be
established
at
0.05
ppm
under
180.142(
a)
for
direct
and
inadvertent
residues
in/
on
the
Fruit,
pome,
group
11.

Potato
0.2
0.125
(
direct)

0.31
(
irrigation)
0.40
Includes
direct
and
inadvertent
(
irrigation)
residues.

Recodify
as
180.142(
a).

Quince
5
­­
Revoke
Residues
in/
on
quince
will
be
included
under
the
0.05
ppm
tolerance
at
180.142(
a)
for
direct
and
inadvertent
residues
in/
on
the
Fruit,
pome,
group
11.

Tolerances
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
a)
(
2)
2
Barley,
grain
0.5
Not
applicable
(
NA)
2.0
The
submitted
data
for
wheat
grain
may
be
translated
to
barley
grain.
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).

Blueberry
0.1
lowbush
=
<
0.05
highbush
=
0.011
Revoke
To
be
included
under
the
0.2
ppm
Berries
group
13
tolerance
to
be
recodified
as
180.142(
a).

Corn,
fodder
20
49.8
50.0
Residue
data
from
the
7­
day
PHI.
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
Corn,
stover
Table
C.
Continued.

Commodity
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
ppm)
Maximum
Residue
Value
1
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comment
[
Corrected
Commodity
Definition]

44
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)

Corn,
forage
20
5.2
6.0
Residue
data
from
the
7­
day
PHI.
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).

Corn,
fresh,
sweet,

kernel
plus
cob
with
husks
removed
0.5
<
0.05
0.05
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).

Corn,
grain
0.5
0.038
0.05
Residue
data
from
7­
day
PHI.
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).

Cranberry
0.5
0.106
Revoke
To
be
included
under
the
0.2
ppm
Berries
group
13
tolerance
to
be
recodified
as
180.142(
a).

Fruit,
stone
0.2
Cherries
=
<
0.05
Peaches
=
<
0.01
Plums
=
<
0.01
0.05
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
This
tolerance
will
now
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.
Fruit,

stone,
group
12
Grape
0.5
<
0.05
0.05
Residue
data
on
grape
are
available
for
the
entire
U.
S.
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).

Grass,
hay
300
279
300
Residue
data
from
the
7­
day
posttreatment
interval
(
PTI)
for
Grass,
hay.
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).

Grass,
pasture
1,000
358
360
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
Residue
data
from
the
0­

day
PTI.
This
new
tolerance
will
now
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.
Grass,
forage
Grass,
rangeland
1,000
Millet,
forage
20
NA
25
The
data
for
wheat
forage,
grain,
and
straw
may
be
translated
to
millet
forage,
grain,
and
straw.
The
required
wheat
hay
data
will
be
translated
to
millet
hay.
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
This
new
tolerance
will
now
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.

Millet,
grain
0.5
2.0
Millet,
straw
20
50
Nut
0.2
Filbert
=
0.095
Pecan
=
<
0.05
almond
=
0.16
0.2
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
This
new
tolerance
will
now
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.
Nut,

tree,
group
14
Table
C.
Continued.

Commodity
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
ppm)
Maximum
Residue
Value
1
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comment
[
Corrected
Commodity
Definition]

45
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)

Oat,
forage
20
NA
25
The
data
for
wheat
forage
may
be
translated
to
oat
forage.
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
This
new
tolerance
will
now
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.

Oat,
grain
0.5
NA
2.0
The
data
for
wheat
grain
may
be
translated
to
oat
grain.
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
This
new
tolerance
will
now
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.

Pistachio
0.2
<
0.05
0.05
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
This
new
tolerance
will
now
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.

Rice
0.1
0.485
0.5
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
This
new
tolerance
will
now
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.

Rice,
grain
Rice,
straw
20
8.83
10
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
This
new
tolerance
will
now
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.

Rye,
forage
20
NA
25
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
This
new
tolerance
will
now
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.
The
data
for
wheat
forage
may
be
translated
to
rye
forage.

Rye,
grain
0.5
NA
2.0
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
This
new
tolerance
will
now
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.
The
data
for
wheat
grain
may
be
translated
to
rye
grain.

Sorghum,
fodder
20
0.042
0.17
(
irrigated
crop)
0.2
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
This
new
tolerance
will
now
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.

Sorghum,
stover
Sorghum,
forage
20
0.162
0.2
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
This
new
tolerance
will
now
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.

Sorghum,
grain
0.5
0.012
0.2
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
This
new
tolerance
will
now
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.
Table
C.
Continued.

Commodity
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
ppm)
Maximum
Residue
Value
1
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comment
[
Corrected
Commodity
Definition]

46
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)

Sugarcane
2
0.015
0.05
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
Sugarcane,
cane
Sugarcane,
forage
20
­­
Revoke
Sugarcane
forage
is
no
longer
considered
a
significant
livestock
feed
item.

Wheat,
forage
20
24.9
25
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).
This
new
tolerance
will
now
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.
The
14­
day
PHI
residue
data
on
wheat
forage
and
grain
will
be
used
to
support
tolerances
for
residues
in/
on
similar
commodities
of
barley,
millet,
oats,
and
rye.

Wheat,
grain
0.5
1.39
2.0
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
a)(
3)
4
Avocado
0.1(
N)
­­
0.05
Recodify
as
180.142(
d).

Cottonseed
0.1(
N)
­­
0.05
Recodify
as
180.142(
d).
Cotton,
undelinted
seed
Cucurbits
0.1(
N)
­­
0.05
Recodify
as
180.142(
d).
Vegetable,
cucurbit,
group
9
Fruit,
citrus
0.1(
N)
­­
Revoke
Inadvertent
residues
will
be
covered
by
the
crop
group
tolerance
on
citrus
fruit
at
180.142(
a).

Fruit,
pome
0.1(
N)
­­
Revoke
Inadvertent
residues
will
be
covered
by
the
crop
group
tolerance
on
pome
fruit
at
180.142(
a).

Fruit,
stone
0.1(
N)
­­
Revoke
Revocation
of
one
strone
fruit
tolerance
is
necessary
to
avoid
duplication.
Inadvertent
residues
will
be
covered
by
the
stone
fruit
group
tolerance
at
180.142(
a)(
2)
to
be
recodified
as
180.142(
a).
Table
C.
Continued.

Commodity
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
ppm)
Maximum
Residue
Value
1
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comment
[
Corrected
Commodity
Definition]

47
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)

Grain,
crop
0.1(
N)
­­
Revoke
Separate
tolerances
in
RACs
of
each
grain
will
be
individually
established
and
recodified
as
180.142(
a)

in/
on
grain,
forage,
fodder,
stover,
or
hay,
as
applicable,
to
cover
both
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.
Upon
formal
Agency
approval,
a
small
grains
subgroup
tolerance
may
be
established.

Grass,
forage
0.1(
N)
­­
Revoke
Inadvertent
residues
will
be
covered
by
the
grass
forage
tolerance
for
direct
residues
to
be
recodified
as
180.142(
a).

Hop
0.1(
N)
­­
0.2
Inadvertent
residues
will
be
covered
by
the
hop
tolerance
for
direct
residues
upon
establishment
at
180.142(
a)
in
response
to
PP#
2E6352.

Leafy
vegetables
0.1(
N)
0.33
(
irrigated
crop)
0.4
Establish
separate
tolerances
for
inadvertent
residues
in
the
Vegetable,
leafy,
except
brassica,
group
4
and
Vegetable,
brassica,
leafy,
group
5
at
0.4
ppm
under
the
revised
180.142(
d)

Legume,
forage
0.1(
N)
0.15
(
irrigated
crop)
Group
7
­
0.2
Group
18
­
0.2
Establish
separate
tolerances
for
the
Vegetable,

foliage
of
legume,
group
7
and
Animal
feed,

nongrass,
group
18
for
inadvertent
residues
under
180.142(
d).

Nut
0.1(
N)
­­
Revoke
Inadvertent
residues
will
be
covered
by
the
tolerance
in
the
tree
nuts
crop
group
at
180.142(
a)
Table
C.
Continued.

Commodity
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
ppm)
Maximum
Residue
Value
1
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comment
[
Corrected
Commodity
Definition]

48
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)

Root
crop
vegetables
0.1(
N)
­­
Group
1
­
TBD
Group
2
­
TBD
Group
3
­
0.05
Additional
data
are
required
to
determine
inadvertent
residues
in
sugar
beet
roots
and
tops
to
represent
root
and
tuber
vegetables.
Establish
separate
tolerances
in
the
Vegetable,
bulb,
group
3.
When
sugar
beet
data
are
received,
establish
separate
tolerances
in
the
Vegetable,
root
and
tuber,
group
1
and
Vegetable,

leaves
of
root
and
tuber,
group
2.
Recodify
as
180.142(
a).

Seed
and
pod
vegetables
0.1(
N)
­­
0.05
Establish
tolerance
for
inadvertent
residues
at
180.142(
d)
in
the
Vegetable,
legume,
group
6.

Small
fruit
0.1(
N)
­­
0.2
The
0.2
ppm
tolerance
in
the
Berries
group
13,
to
be
recodified
at
§
180.142(
a),
will
also
cover
inadvertent
residues.
Inadvertent
residues
in/
on
blueberry
and
cranberry
will
also
be
covered
by
this
group
tolerance.
Inadvertent
residues
in/
on
grape
and
strawberry
will
be
covered
by
separate
tolerances
for
direct
uses
on
these
crops
§
180.142(
a).

Vegetable,
fruiting
0.1(
N)
­­
0.05
Establish
tolerance
for
inadvertent
residues
at
0.05
ppm
in
the
Vegetable,
fruiting,
group
8
recodified
under
§
180.142(
d).

Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
a)(
4)
2
Asparagus
5
3.44
5.0
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
a)(
5)
2
Strawberry
0.05
<
0.05
0.05
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).
This
tolerance
will
cover
direct
and
inadvertent
residues.

Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
a)(
6)
2
Table
C.
Continued.

Commodity
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
ppm)
Maximum
Residue
Value
1
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comment
[
Corrected
Commodity
Definition]

49
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)

Crops
in
paragraph
(
c)

of
this
section
1.0
Revoke
The
tolerances
to
be
established
under
paragraphs
§
180.142(
a)
and
§
180.142(
d)
will
be
sufficient
to
cover
inadvertent
residues
in
irrigated
crops
under
the
recodified
§
180.142(
a)(
6).

Crop
groupings
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section
1.0
Revoke
The
tolerances
to
be
established
under
paragraphs
§
180.142(
a)
and
§
180.142(
d)
will
be
sufficient
to
cover
inadvertent
residues
in
irrigated
crops
under
the
recodified
§
180.142(
a)(
6).

Fish
1.0
0.07
0.10
Residue
data
for
fish
and
shellfish
are
from
recent
tests
where
fish
and
shellfish
were
exposed
to
2,4­
D
under
static
conditions
at
6.0
ppm
(
1.5x).
Recodify
to
§
180.142(
a).

Shellfish
1.0
1.18
1.0
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
a)(
8)
2
Cattle,
fat
0.2
calculated
for
1x
MTDB
0.3
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Cattle,
kidney
2
4.0
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Cattle,
meat
0.2
0.3
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Cattle,
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney
0.2
0.3
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Egg
0.05
NA
Revoke
Category
3
of
40
CFR
§
180.6(
a)(
3)
applies.

Goat,
fat
0.2
calculated
for
1x
MTDB
0.3
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Goat,
kidney
2
4.0
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Goat,
meat
0.2
0.3
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Goat,
meat
byproducts,

except
kidney
0.2
0.3
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).
Table
C.
Continued.

Commodity
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
ppm)
Maximum
Residue
Value
1
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comment
[
Corrected
Commodity
Definition]

50
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)

Hog,
fat
0.2
NA
Revoke
Category
3
of
40
CFR
§
180.6(
a)(
3)
applies.

Hog,
kidney
2
Hog,
meat
0.2
Hog,
meat
byproducts,

except
kidney
0.2
Horse,
fat
0.2
calculated
for
1x
MTDB
0.3
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Horse,
kidney
2
4.0
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Horse,
meat
0.2
0.3
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Horse,
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney
0.2
0.3
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Milk
0.1
<
0.05,
calculated
for
1x
MTDB
0.05
Residues
in
milk
increased
linearly
with
dose;

therefore,
the
0.05
ppm
tolerance
will
be
adequate
for
the
1x
dose
level.
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Poultry
0.05
NA
Revoke
Category
3
of
40
CFR
§
180.6(
a)(
3)
applies.

Sheep,
fat
0.2
calculated
for
1x
MTDB
0.2
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Sheep,
kidney
2
2.0
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Sheep,
meat
0.2
0.2
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Sheep,
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney
0.2
0.2
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
a)(
9)
2
Fish
1.0
0.067
Revoke
The
reassessed
tolerance
of
0.1
ppm
at
§
180.142(
a)(
6)
will
be
recodified
as
§
180.142(
a).

There
is
no
need
for
duplication
of
tolerances.
Table
C.
Continued.

Commodity
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
ppm)
Maximum
Residue
Value
1
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comment
[
Corrected
Commodity
Definition]

51
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)

Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
a)(
10)
2
Raspberry
1.0
­­
Revoke
Although
there
is
no
indication
that
IR­
4
or
the
Task
Force
II
is
supporting
a
use
on
raspberries,
it
would
be
covered
by
the
0.2
ppm
tolerance
in
the
Berries
group
13
at
§
180.142(
a).

Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
a)(
11)
3
Soybean,
seed
0.02
<
0.01
0.02
Tolerance
expired
on
12/
31/
04.
Residue
data
support
a
permanent
tolerance.
If
established,

recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
a)(
12)
2
Sugarcane
bagasse
5
­­
Revoke
Sugarcane
bagasse
is
no
longer
considered
a
significant
livestock
feed
item.

Sugarcane
molasses
5
0.105
0.20
Maximum
residue
value
is
based
on
HAFT
residues
of
0.015
ppm
in/
on
sugarcane
and
a
7x
concentration
factor
for
molasses.
Recodify
as
§
180.142(
a).

Sugarcane,
molasses
Milled
fractions
derived
from
barley,

oats,
rye,
and
wheat
to
be
ingested
as
animal
feed
or
converted
into
animal
feed
2
­­
Revoke
Tolerances
for
direct
and
inadvertent
residues
of
2,4­

D
in
barley,
bran;
rye,
bran;
and
wheat,
bran
are
to
be
established
under
revised
40
CFR
180.142(
a).

Tolerances
in
other
small
grain
processed
products
are
not
necessary
as
residues
do
not
concentrate
upon
processing.

Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
a)(
13)
2
Sugarcane
molasses
5
0.105
Revoke
The
sugarcane
molasses
reassessed
tolerance
at
§
180.142(
a)(
12)
will
be
recodifed
as
§
180.142(
a).

Duplication
of
tolerances
is
not
necessary.
Table
C.
Continued.

Commodity
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
ppm)
Maximum
Residue
Value
1
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comment
[
Corrected
Commodity
Definition]

52
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)

Milled
fractions
derived
from
barley,

oats,
rye,
and
wheat
to
be
ingested
as
animal
feed
or
converted
into
animal
feed
2
­­
Revoke
Tolerances
for
direct
and
inadvertent
residues
of
2,4­

D
in
barley,
bran;
rye,
bran;
and
wheat,
bran
are
to
be
established
under
revised
40
CFR
180.142(
a).

Tolerances
in
other
small
grain
processed
products
are
not
necessary
as
residues
do
not
concentrate
upon
processing.

Potable
water
0.1
(
N)
­­
Revoke
OPP
no
longer
establishes
tolerances
in
drinking
water.
EPA's
Office
of
Water
has
established
an
MCL
for
2,4­
D
at
0.07
ppm.

Tolerances
Needed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
a);
this
list
does
not
include
recodifications,
etc.
from
above
Almond
hulls
None
0.098
0.10
Almond,
hulls
Aspirated
grain
fractions
None
Corn
AGF
1.48
ppm
Wheat
AGF
36.3
ppm
40
Based
on
HAFT
residues
of
0.038
ppm
for
corn
grain
and
a
39x
concentration
factor,
maximum
expected
residues
would
be
1.48
ppm
in
aspirated
grain
fractions
(
AGF)
derived
from
corn
grain.

Based
on
HAFT
residues
of
3.24
ppm
for
wheat
grain
and
a
11.2x
concentration
factor,
maximum
expected
residues
would
be
36.3
ppm
in
AGF
derived
from
wheat
grain.

As
sorghum
and
soybeans
uses
are
early­
season
uses,

residue
data
on
AGF
were
not
generated
for
these
crops.
Establish
tolerance
in
AGF
at
40
ppm.

Barley,
hay
None
NA
TBD
Data
for
wheat
straw
were
translated
to
barley
straw.

Required
wheat
wheat
hay
data
will
be
translated
to
barley
hay.

Barley,
straw
None
50
Barley,
bran
None
NA
4.0
Data
for
wheat
bran
were
translated
to
barley
bran.

Millet,
hay
None
NA
TBD
Required
wheat
wheat
hay
data
will
be
translated
to
millet
hay.
Table
C.
Continued.

Commodity
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
ppm)
Maximum
Residue
Value
1
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comment
[
Corrected
Commodity
Definition]

53
(
continued;
footnotes
follow)

Oat,
hay
None
NA
TBD
Data
for
wheat
straw
were
translated
to
oat
straw.

Required
wheat
wheat
hay
data
will
be
translated
to
oat
hay.

Oat,
straw
­­
50
Rice,
hulls
None
1.40
2.0
Maximum
residue
value
is
based
on
HAFT
residues
of
0.425
ppm
in/
on
rice
grain
and
a
3.3x
concentration
factor
for
hulls.

Rye,
straw
None
NA
50
Data
for
wheat
straw
were
translated
to
rye
straw.

Rye,
bran
None
NA
4.0
Data
for
wheat
bran
were
translated
to
rye
bran.

Soybean,
forage
None
<
0.01
0.02
Adequate
residue
data
are
available
to
support
permanent
tolerances
on
soybean
commodities.

Soybean,
hay
None
1.13
2.0
Soybean,
seed
None
<
0.01
0.02
Wheat,
hay
None
NA
TBD
Data
are
required
on
wheat
hay
Wheat,
straw
None
40.9
50
Wheat,
bran
None
3.88
4.0
Maximum
residue
value
is
based
on
HAFT
residues
of
1.08
ppm
in/
on
wheat
grain
(
14­
day
PHI)
and
a
3.6x
concentration
factor
for
bran.

Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
b)
5
Wild
rice
0.1
<
0.05
0.05
Tolerance
expires
12/
31/
05.
Adequate
data
are
available
to
establish
a
permanent
tolerance
with
a
regional
registration
to
be
recodified
as
§
180.142(
c)

for
Rice,
wild,
grain
at
0.05
ppm.

Tolerance
Needed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
c)
6
Rice,
wild,
grain
None
<
0.05
0.05
regional
tolerance
with
use
restricted
to
MN
Tolerances
Needed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
d)
7
Commodity
Tolerance
Listed
Under
40
CFR
§
180.142
(
ppm)
Maximum
Residue
Value
1
(
ppm)
Reassessed
Tolerance
(
ppm)
Comment
[
Corrected
Commodity
Definition]

54
Commodities
and
crop
groups
currently
listed
under
paragraph
(
a)(
3)
0.1
(
N)
NA
NA
See
comments
listed
under
§
180.142(
a)(
3)

1
Maximum
residue
of
treated
RAC
sample(
s)
following
application
of
2,4­
D
formulations
according
to
use
patterns
the
Task
Force
II
registrants
intend
to
support
for
reregistration.

2
This
subparagraph
will
be
deleted
and
tolerances
recodified
under
revised
paragraph
(
a).

3
TBD
=
To
be
determined.
Reassessment
of
tolerances(
s)
cannot
be
made
at
this
time
because
additional
data
are
required.

4
Tolerances
listed
under
§
180.142
(
a)(
3)
for
inadvertent
residues
will
be
recodified
as
either
§
180.142(
a)
or
§
180.142(
d).

5
This
paragraph
will
be
reserved
for
future
time­
limited
tolerances
under
Section
18
Emergency
Exemptions.

6
Tolerances
with
regional
registration.

7
Paragraph
(
d)
will
contain
tolerances
for
inadvertent
residues
(
e.
g.,
residues
in
irrigated
crops)
only,
i.
e.,
there
is
no
registration
for
direct
use
in
the
U.
S.

If
residues
may
result
inadvertently
as
well
as
intentionally
(
direct,
labeled
treatment),
the
tolerance
is
codified
at
§
180.142(
a)
55
CODEX
HARMONIZATION
The
Codex
Alimentarius
Commission
has
established
several
maximum
residue
limits
(
MRLs)
for
residues
of
2,4­
D
in/
on
various
plant
and
animal
commodities.
The
Codex
MRLs
are
expressed
in
terms
of
2,4­
D
per
se.
The
expression
of
residues
for
Codex
MRLs
and
U.
S.
tolerances
is
harmonized.
A
numerical
comparison
of
the
Codex
MRLs
and
the
corresponding
reassessed
U.
S.
tolerances
is
presented
in
Table
D.

Table
D.
Codex
MRLs
and
applicable
U.
S.
tolerances
for
2,4­
D.
Recommendations
for
compatibility
are
based
on
conclusions
following
reassessment
of
U.
S.
tolerances
(
see
Table
C).

Codex
Reassessed
U.
S.
Tolerance,
ppm
Recommendation
And
Comments
Commodity,
As
Defined
MRL
(
mg/
kg)
Step
Barley
0.5
CXL
2.0
Blackberries
0.1
CXL
0.20
U.
S.
tolerance
for
Berries
group
13
Citrus
fruits
2.0
CXL
3.0
Eggs
0.05
(*)
1
CXL
Revoked
Maize
0.05
(*)
CXL
0.05
Meat
(
from
mammals
other
than
marine
mammals)
0.05
(*)
CXL
0.30
Meat,
fat,
and
mbyp
except
kidney
4.0
Kidney
Milk
products
0.05
(*)
CXL
0.05
Milks
0.05
(*)
CXL
0.05
Oats
0.5
CXL
2.0
Potato
0.2
CXL
0.40
Raspberries,
Red,
Black
0.1
CXL
0.20
U.
S.
tolerance
for
Berries
group
13
Rice
0.05
(*)
CXL
0.50
Rye
0.5
CXL
2.0
Sorghum
0.05
(*)
CXL
0.20
Forage,
grain,
and
stover=
0.2
Vaccinium
berries,
including
Bearberry
0.1
CXL
0.20
U.
S.
tolerance
for
Berries
group
13
Wheat
0.5
CXL
2.0
1
(*)
=
At
or
about
the
limit
of
detection.
56
DIETARY
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
The
dietary
exposure
assessment
for
the
2,4­
D
RED
is
presented
in
a
separate
memorandum
(
W.
Hazel,
3/
1/
04,
D287661).
57
AGENCY
MEMORANDA
RELEVANT
TO
REREGISTRATION
CB
No.:
4684
DP
Barcode:
None
Subject:
PP#
9E3704.
2,4­
D
(
Geographical
Restriction,
MN
Only)
in
Raspberries.
Evaluation
of
Residue
Data
and
Analytical
Method.
From:
F.
Toghrol
To:
H.
Jamerson
Dated:
3/
3/
89
MRID(
s):
40881400
and
40881401
CBTS
No.:
9026
DP
Barcode:
None
Subject:
EPA
Registration
No.
228­
260;
Riverdale
Solution
TM
Water
Soluble
(
2,4­
D)
­
Evaluation
of
Proposed
Label
Amendment
on
Water
Hyacinth
Control
Dated
November
18,
1991.
From:
G.
Otakie
To:
J.
Miller/
S.
Robbins
Dated:
3/
9/
92
MRID(
s):
None
CBRS
No.:
9560
DP
Barcodes:
D175452
Subject;
Response
to
the
2,4­
D
Reregistration
Standard
Document
(
9/
88)
by
Industry
Task
Force
II:
Nature
of
the
Residue
in
Plants.
From:
W.
Smith
To:
J.
Combs
Dated:
6/
30/
92
MRID(
s):
41991503
CBRS
No.:
10369
DP
Barcodes:
D181459
Subject;
Response
to
the
2,4­
D
Reregistration
Standard
Document
(
9/
88)
by
Industry
Task
Force
II:
Nature
of
the
Residue
in
Potatoes.
From:
W.
Smith
To:
J.
Combs
Dated:
8/
26/
92
MRID(
s):
42423101
58
CB
Nos.:
10466,
11197,
and
11219
DP
Barcodes:
D181885,
D186732,
and
D186927
Subject;
Response
to
the
2,4­
D
Reregistration
Standard:
Metabolism
Studies.
From:
R.
Perfetti
To:
L.
Rossi
and
E.
Saito
Dated:
4/
6/
93
MRID(
s):
43439701,
42615601,
and
42605201
CB
No.:
None
DP
Barcode:
None
Subject:
The
Metabolism
Committee
Meeting
For
2,4­
D
Held
on
June
16,
1993.
From:
R.
Perfetti
To:
The
Metabolism
Committee
Dated:
6/
16/
93
MRID(
s):
None
CB
No.:
11842
DP
Barcode:
D191013
Subject:
Response
to
the
2,4­
D
Reregistration
Standard:
Metabolism
Studies
From:
R.
Perfetti
To:
L.
Rossi,
E.
Saito
Dated:
6/
16/
93
MRID(
s):
42749701
CB
No.:
12851
DP
Barcode:
D197063
Subject:
2,4­
D:
Case
No.
0073:
Chemical
No.
030001
[
acid]:
Residue
of
Concern
and
Tolerance
Expression
in
Plant
and
Animal
Commodities.
From:
W.
Smith
To:
W.
Waldrop/
J.
Coombs
Dated:
12/
10/
93
MRID(
s):
None
CB
No.:
13386
DP
Barcode:
D200368
Subject:
2,4­
D
Isopropyl
Ester.
Preliminary
Lemon
Metabolism
Study.
List
A
Case
No.
0073.
Chemical
ID
No.
030066.
From:
F.
Fort
To:
J.
Coombs/
W.
Waldrop
Dated:
4/
19/
94
MRID(
s):
None
59
CB
No.:
12765
DP
Barcode:
D196246
Subject:
ID#
000264­
00002.
Review
of
label
amendment
for
2,4­
D
(
Weedar
64
Broadleaf
Herbicide).
From:
G.
Kramer
To:
J.
Miller
Dated:
7/
12/
94
MRID(
s):
42968501
through
42968506
CB
No.:
13463
DP
Barcode:
D201016
Subject:
Response
to
the
2,4­
D
Reregistration
Standard:
Supplemental
Metabolism
Information
From:
R.
Perfetti
To:
E.
Saito
Dated:
8/
4/
94
MRID(
s):
43160201
CB
No.:
14067
DP
Barcode:
D205343
Subject:
Response
to
the
2,4­
D
Reregistration
Standard:
Lemon
Metabolism
Study
From:
R.
Perfetti
To:
E.
Saito
Dated:
1/
6/
95
MRID(
s):
43290501
CB
No.:
14481
DP
Barcode:
D208093
Subject:
Response
to
the
2,4­
D
Reregistration
Standard:
Fish
Metabolism
Study
From:
R.
Perfetti
To:
E.
Satio
Dated:
1/
20/
95
MRID(
s):
43378801
CB
No.:
14458
DP
Barcode:
D207980
Subject:
2,4­
D.
(
030001)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
(
soybeans)
and
Confined
Rotational
Field
Trials
(
lettuce,
wheat,
radish).
GDLNs
171(
k),
164­
1.
From:
D.
Miller
To:
J.
Coombs
Dated:
11/
30/
95
MRID(
s):
43356301,
43356302,
and
43356002
60
CB
No.:
14004
DP
Barcode:
D205346
Subject:
2,4­
D.
Enforcement
Analytical
Method
for
Plants.
GDLN
171­
4(
c).
From:
D.
Miller
To:
J.
Coombs
Dated:
1/
26/
96
MRID(
s):
43289301
CB
No.:
14901
DP
Barcode:
D210592
Subject:
2,4­
D.
(
030001)
Nature
of
the
Residue
in
Potatoes.
GDLN
171­
4(
a).
From:
D.
Miller
To:
J.
Coombs
Dated:
2/
15/
96
MRID(
s):
43496101
CB
No.:
15807
DP
Barcode:
D216962
Subject:
2,4­
D.
(
030001)
Independent
Method
Validation.
From:
D.
Miller
To:
J.
Coombs
Dated:
3/
18/
96
MRID(
s):
43691101
CB
No.:
16425
DP
Barcode:
D220451
Subject:
2,4­
D.
(
030001)
Storage
Stability
Study
on
Various
Raw
and
Processed
Agricultural
Commodities.
GDLN
171(
e).
From:
D.
Miller
To:
J.
Coombs
Dated:
3/
19/
96
MRID(
s):
43809901
CB
No.:
16979
DP
Barcode:
D223965
Subject:
2,4­
D.
(
030001)
Request
for
EPA­
Beltsville
Tolerance
Method
Validation.
From:
D.
Miller
To:
D.
Marlow
Dated:
4/
1/
96
MRID(
s):
None
61
CB
No.:
16426
DP
Barcode:
D220447
Subject:
2,4­
D.
(
030001)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
in
Wheat.
GDLN
171(
k).
From:
D.
Miller
To:
J.
Coombs
Dated:
4/
4/
96
MRID(
s):
43797901
and
43797903
CB
No.:
17035
DP
Barcode:
D224228
Subject:
2,4­
D.
(
030001)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
in
Grapes.
GDLN
171(
k).
From:
D.
Miller
To:
P.
Deschamp
Dated:
4/
24/
96
MRID(
s):
43947901
DP
Barcodes:
D221776,
D221777,
and
D222290
Subject:
PP#
6E4636.
IR­
4
Petition
for
Use
of
2,4­
D
on
Wild
Rice.
From:
M.
Nelson
To:
H.
Jamerson
Dated:
5/
14/
96
MRID(
s):
43853601
CB
Nos.:
15334,
15519,
15707,
15733,
15754,
15812,
15884,
15886,
15975,
16021,
16152,
16224,
16226,
and
16238
DP
Barcodes:
D213641,
D214733,
D216364,
D216606,
D216608,
D216939,
D217132,
D217400,
D217790,
D217980,
D218820,
D219399,
D219400,
and
D219420
Subject:
2,4­
D.
(
030001)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
(
field
corn,
rice,
sorghum,
grass,
wheat,
and
sugarcane)
and
Processing
Studies
(
field
corn,
rice,
sorghum,
sugarcane,
and
wheat).
From:
D.
Miller
To:
P.
Deschamp
Dated:
6/
3/
96
MRID(
s):
43592101,
43610801,
43610802,
43686001,
43693702,
43697801,
43718001,
43718002,
43736101,
43736102,
43747901,
43779501,
through
43779504,
43785901,
43665201
through
43665206,
43676801,
43676802,
43693701,
43709701,
43709702,
43755401,
and
43755402
62
CB
No.:
16878
DP
Barcode:
D222627
Subject:
2,4­
D.
(
030066)
Enforcement
Analytical
Method
for
IPE
in
Citrus
Commodities.
GDLN
171­
4(
c).
From:
D.
Miller
To:
P.
Deschamp
Dated:
6/
11/
96
MRID(
s):
43893701
CB
No.:
17267
DP
Barcode:
D226556
Subject:
2,4­
D.
(
030001)
Enforcement
Analytical
Method
for
Ruminant
and
Poultry
Commodities.
GDLN
171­
4(
d).
From:
D.
Miller
To:
P.
Deschamp
Dated:
6/
26/
96
MRID(
s):
44016501
and
44016502
CB
Nos.:
16703
and
16688
DP
Barcode:
D221853
Subject:
2,4­
D
(
030001)
Crop
Field
Trials
and
Processing
Studies
for
Citrus
(
Orange,
Grapefruit,
and
Lemon).
GDLNs
171­
4(
k)
and
171­
4(
l).
From:
D.
Miller
To:
P.
Deschamp
Dated:
7/
8/
96
MRID(
s):
43870301
through
43870303
CB
No.:
16765
DP
Barcode:
D222312
Subject:
2,4­
D.
(
030001)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
on
Asparagus,
Cherry,
Peach,
Pistachio,
and
Plums/
Fresh
Prunes
and
Processing
Study
on
Prunes.
GDLNs
171­
4(
k)
and
171­
4(
l).
From:
D.
Miller
To:
P.
Deschamp
Dated:
7/
9/
96
MRID(
s):
43879901
through
43879905
63
CB
Nos.:
17090
and
17091
DP
Barcodes:
D224795
and
D224796
Subject:
2,4­
D.
(
030001)
Crop
Field
Trials
on
Apple,
Blueberry,
Cranberry,
Filbert,
Pear,
Pecan,
Potato,
Strawberry,
and
Sweet
Corn
and
Processing
Study
on
Apples.
GDLNs
171­
4(
k)
and
171­
4(
l).
From:
D.
Miller
To:
P.
Deschamp
Dated:
7/
17/
96
MRID(
s):
43886401
through
43886406,
43943101,
43963801,
and
43963802
CB
No.:
16643
DP
Barcode:
D221414
Subject:
2,4­
D.
(
030001).
Request
for
Waiver
of
Poultry
Feeding
Study.
GDLN
860.1480.
From:
D.
Miller
To:
J.
Coombs
Dated:
1/
14/
97
MRID(
s):
None
DP
Barcode:
D258633
Subject:
2,4­
D
and
Bioequivalence
of
Forms
From:
D.
Miller
To:
L.
Werrell,
SRRD
Dated:
8/
11/
99
MRID:
None
DP
Barcode:
D235983
Subject:
2,4­
D.
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
in/
on
Blueberries
From:
W.
Hazel
To:
M.
Seaton
and
J.
Miller
Dated:
3/
1/
04
MRID:
44268501
DP
Barcode:
D276792
Subject:
2,4­
D.
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
in
Almonds,
Wheat,
Meat
and
Milk,
and
Fish
and
Shellfish
From:
W.
Hazel
To:
M.
Seaton
and
J.
Miller
Dated:
3/
1/
04
MRIDs:
44135201,
44190301,
44190302,
44211901,
44424801,
44577801
64
DP
Barcode:
D276792
Subject:
Storage
Stability
Data
on
Grape
Matrices
and
Clam
tissues,
and
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
Studies
on
Grapes
and
Citrus
Fruits.
From:
W.
Hazel
To:
M.
Seaton
and
J.
Miller
Dated:
3/
1/
04
MRIDs:
44967401,
45245601,
45462201,
45647101,
45665801,
and
45672201
DP
Barcode:
D285505
Subject:
PP#
2E6352.
2,4­
D.
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
in/
on
Hops
From:
W.
Hazel
To:
M.
Seaton
and
J.
Miller
Dated:
3/
1/
04
MRID:
45512701
65
MASTER
RECORD
IDENTIFICATION
NUMBERS
References
Used
To
Support
Reregistration
00004485
Leng,
M.
L.;
Gentry,
W.
M.
(
1970)
Residue
Data
for
2,4­
D,
2,4,5­
T,
and
Silvex
in
Grass
from
Treatments
with
Various
Formulations
of
the
Herbicides.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
11,
1971
under
9F0761;
prepared
by
Dow
Chemical
Co.,
submitted
by
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Association,
Industry
Task
Force
on
Phenoxy
Herbicide
Tolerances,
Washington,
D.
C.;
CDL:
091313­
B)

00004594
Rhodia,
Incorporated
(
1971)
Phenoxy
Herbicides
on
Stubble
Crop
Rice.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
21,
1973
under
359­
170;
submitted
by
Rhone­
Poulenc,
Inc
Monmouth
Junction,
N.
J.;
CDL:
230485­
B)

00004610
Feeny,
R.
W.;
Higham,
J.
W.;
Snyder,
E.
H.;
Colbert,
D.
R.;
Agamalian,
H.
(
1975)
Avenge
(
CL
84,777):
Determination
of
CL
84,777(
1,2­
Dimethyl
pyrazolium
methyl
sulfate)
and
Bromoxynil
(
3,5­
Dibromo­
4­
hydroxylbenzonitrile)
Residues
in
Barley
Straw
and
Grain
Following
Ground
Application
(
California):
Report
No.
C­
592.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
8,
1975
under
241­
EX­
64;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Lake
Ontario
Environmental
Laboratory,
submitted
by
American
Cyanamid
Co.,
Princeton,
N.
J.;
CDL:
224170­
R)

00004666
Andreae,
W.
A.;
Good,
N.
E.
(
1957)
Studies
on
3­
Indoleacetic
acid
metabolism:
IV.
Conjugation
with
Aspartic
acid
and
Ammonia
as
processes
in
the
metabolism
of
Carboxylic
acids.
Plant
Physiology
32(?
):
566­
572.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
16,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092090­
F)

00004667
Bach,
M.
K.
(
1961)
Metabolites
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
from
bean
stems.
Plant
Physiology
36(?
):
558­
565.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
16,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092090­
G)

00004669
Basler,
E.
(
1964)
The
decarboxylation
of
Phenoxyacetic
acid
herbicides
by
excised
leaves
of
woody
plants.
Weeds
12(?
):
14­
16.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
16,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092090­
K)

00004675
Fang,
S.
C.
(
1958)
Absorption,
translocation
and
metabolism
of
2,
4­
D­
1­
C14
in
pea
and
tomato
plants.
Weeds
6(?
):
179­
186.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
16,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.;
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092090­
S)

00004676
Fang,
S.
C.;
Butts,
J.
S.
(
1954)
Studies
in
plant
metabolism:
III.
Absorption,
translocation
and
metabolism
of
radioactive
2,4­
D
in
corn
and
wheat
plants.
Plant
Physiology
29(?
):
56­
60.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
16,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092090­
T)
66
00004677
Fites,
R.
C.;
Slife,
F.
W.;
Hanson,
J.
B.
(
1964)
Translocation
and
metabolism
of
radioactive
2,4­
D
in
jimsonweed.
Weeds
12(?
):
180­
183.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
16,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092090­
U)

00004680
Holley,
R.
W.
(
1952)
Studies
of
the
fate
of
radioactive
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
in
bean
plants:
II.
A
water­
soluble
transformation
product
of
2,4­
D.
Archives
of
Biochemistry
and
Biophysics
35(?
):
171­
175.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
16,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092090­
X)

00004681
Holley,
R.
W.;
Boyle,
F.
P.;
Hand,
D.
B.
(
1950)
Studies
of
the
fate
of
radioactive
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
in
bean
plants.
Archives
of
Biochemistry
and
Biophysics
27(?):
143­
151.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
16,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092090­
Y)

00004682
Jaworski,
E.
G.;
Butts,
J.
S.
(
1952)
Studies
in
plant
metabolism:
II.
The
metabolism
of
C14
Labeled
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
in
bean
plants.
Archives
of
Biochemistry
and
Biophysics
38
(?
):
207­
218.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
16,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092090­
Z)

00004683
Jaworski,
E.
G.;
Fang,
S.
C.;
Freed,
V.
H.
(
1955)
Studies
in
plant
metabolism:
V.
The
metabolism
of
radioactive
2,4­
D
in
etiolated
bean
plants.
Plant
Physiology
30(?
):
272­
275.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
16,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092090­
AA)

00004689
Morgan,
P.
W.;
Hall,
W.
C.
(
1963)
Metabolism
of
2,4­
D
by
cotton
and
grain
sorghum.
Weeds
11(?
):
130­
135.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
12,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092980­
C)

00004693
Slife,
F.
W.;
Key,
J.
L.;
Yamaguchi,
S.;
Crafts,
A.
S.
(
1962)
Penetration,
translocation,
and
metabolism
of
2,4­
D
and
2,4,5­
T
in
wild
and
cultivated
cucumber
plants.
Weeds
10(?):
29­
35.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
12,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092980­
G)

00004698
Weintraub,
R.
L.;
Yeatman,
J.
N.;
Lockhart,
J.
A.;
Reinhart,
J.
H.;
Fields,
M.
(
1952)
Metabolism
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid:
II.
Metabolism
of
the
side
chain
by
bean
plants.
Archives
of
Biochemistry
and
Biophysics
40(?
):
277­
285.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
12,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092980­
L)
67
00004699
Weintraub,
R.
L.;
Reinhart,
J.
H.;
Scherff,
R.
A.;
Schisler,
L.
C.
(
1954)
Metabolism
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid:
III.
Metabolism
and
persistence
in
dormant
plant
tissue.
Plant
Physiology
29(?
):
303­
304.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
12,
1968
under
8F0676,
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092980­
M)

00004701
Bache,
C.
A.;
Hardee,
D.
D.;
Holland,
R.
F.;
Lisk,
D.
J.
(
1964)
Absence
of
Phenoxyacid
herbicide
residues
in
the
milk
of
dairy
cows
at
high
feeding
levels.
Journal
of
Dairy
Science
XLVII(
3):
298­
299.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
12,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092980­
O)

00004705
Clark,
D.
E.;
Young,
J.
E.;
Younger,
R.
L.;
Hunt,
L.
M.;
McLaran,
J.
K.
(
1964)
The
fate
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
in
sheep.
Journal
of
Agricultural
and
Food
Chemistry
12(
1):
43­
45.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
12,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092980­
S)

00004707
Gutenmann,
W.
H.;
Hardee,
D.
D.;
Holland,
R.
F.;
Lisk,
D.
J.
(
1963)
Residue
studies
with
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
herbicide
in
the
dairy
cow
and
in
a
natural
and
artificial
rumen.
Journal
of
Dairy
Science
XLVI(
11):
1287­
1288.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
12,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092980­
V)

00004715
Erickson,
L.
C.;
Brannaman,
B.
L.;
Coggins,
C.
W.,
Jr.
(
1963)
Residues
in
stored
lemons
treated
with
various
formulations
of
2,4­
D.
Journal
of
Agricultural
and
Food
Chemistry
11(
5):
437­
440.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
12,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092980­
AG)

00004719
Klingman,
D.
L.;
Gordon,
C.
H.;
Yip,
G.;
Burchfield,
H.
P.
(
1966)
Residues
in
the
forage
and
in
milk
from
cows
grazing
forage
treated
with
esters
of
2,4­
D.
Weeds
14(?
):
164­
167.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
12,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092980­
AK)

00004720
Lee,
Y.
N.;
Luh,
B.
S.
(
1968)
Effect
of
Chlorophenoxyacetic
acid
growth­
regulator
sprays
on
residues
in
canned
apricots
and
grapes.
Journal
of
Food
Science
33(?
):
104­
108.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
12,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092980­
AL)

00004723
Morton,
H.
L.;
Robison,
E.
D.;
Meyer,
R.
E.
(
1967)
Persistence
of
2,4­
D,
2,4,5­
T,
and
Dicamba
in
range
forage
grasses.
Weeds
15
(?
):
268­
271.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
12,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092980­
AO)
68
00004960
Primer,
P.
E.
(
1965)
Investigations
into
the
Fate
of
Some
14C
Labeled
Growth
Regulators
of
the
Phenoxy
and
Naphthalenic
Type
in
Apple
Tissue.
Doctoral
dissertation,
Cornell
Univ.,
Dept.
of
Pomology.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Dec
4,
1970
under
1E1094;
submitted
by
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4,
New
Brunswick,
N.
J.;
CDL:
090854­
I)

00004996
Corbett,
J.
R.;
Miller,
C.
S.
(
1966)
The
persistence
of
2,4­
D
in
cotton
when
applied
with
desiccants.
Weeds
14(?
):
34­
37.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep16,
1968
under
8F0676;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
092090­
O)

00021755
Burnside,
I.
(
1975)
Crop
Residue
Report:
FSDS
No.
A­
8647.
(
Unpublished
study
received
May
2,
1975
under
476­
2156;
prepared
by
Univ.
of
Nebraska,
submitted
by
Stauffer
Chemical
Co.,
Richmond,
Calif.;
CDL:
009609­
K)

00022329
Grage,
D.;
Dietz,
B.;
Dietze,
R.;
et
al.
(
1976)
Sequential
Applications
of
Eradicane
6.7­
E
(
PPI)
and
2,4­
D
(
POES):
Summary
of
Crop
Residue
Data
on
Corn.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Apr
20,
1976
under
476­
2157;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Morse
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Stauffer
Chemical
Co.,
Richmond,
Calif.;
CDL:
224614­
E)

00022622
Woofter,
D.;
Appleby,
A.
P.;
Watson,
V.
H.;
et
al.
(
1972)
[
Chemical
Sprays
on
Corn,
Sorghum
and
Wheat].
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
3,
1973
under
876­
25;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Oregon
State
Univ.
and
others,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
005052­
C)

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

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

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

00028173
Hoffman,
C.;
Haas,
R.;
Criswell,
T.;
et
al.
(
1970)
Grass:
Project
No.
404000.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jun
15,
1970
under
87625;
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
004524­
D)

00028200
Tullos,
B.;
Martin,
L.;
Morse,
R.;
et
al.
(
1975)
Weedmaster
Herbicide
Residue
Data.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Oct
2,
1975
under
876­
203;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Kerr
Foundation
and
others,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
195015­
A)
69
00028385
Residue
data
on
corn
from
2,4­
D
Registration
Standard
(
unable
to
locate
citation)

00028443
Duke,
T.
(
1971)
Technical
Report
on
the
Effect
of
2,4­
D
Formulations
on
Estuarine
Organisms.
(
Unpublished
study
received
July
13,
1971
under
1E1046;
prepared
by
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Gulf
Breeze
Laboratory,
submitted
by
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Army,
Office
of
the
Chief
of
Engineers,
Washington,
D.
C.;
CDL:
091865­
H)

00030697
Suzuki,
H.
K.;
Whitacre,
D.
M.;
Anderson,
R.
F.;
et
al.
(
1976)
Residue
Project
75­
1­
D,
Banvel:
Corn­
Harvest
Aid.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Aug
30,
1979
under
876­
25;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
International
Research
and
Development
Corp.
and
ABC
Laboratories,
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
240896­
A)

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

00033119
Washington
State
University
(
1963)
[
Residues
of
2,4D
in
Apples
and
Pears].
(
Unpublished
study
received
Dec
24,
1963
under
264­
37;
submitted
by
Union
Carbide
Agricultural
Products
Co.,
Ambler,
Pa.;
CDL:
001835­
B)

00035913
Gangstad,
E.
O.;
Zimmerman,
P.
W.;
Hitchcock,
A.
E.;
et
al.
(
1974)
Aquatic­
Use
Patterns
for
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
and
Integrated
Control.
By
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Army,
Office
of
the
Chief
of
Engineers,
Aquatic
Plant
Control
Program.
Vicksburg,
Miss.:
U.
S.
Army
Engineer,
Waterways
Experiment
Station.
(
APCP
technical
report
7;
published
study;
CDL:
096474­
C)

00036168
Bjerke,
E.
L.;
Ervick,
D.
K.;
Stymiest,
C.;
et
al.
(
1973)
A
Residue
Study
of
the
Disappearance
of
Picloram
and
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
in
Small
Grain
following
Application
of
Tordon
Herbicide:
GH­
C
683.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jul
3,
1975
under
6171653;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
South
Dakota
State
Univ.
and
others,
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
Co.,
Indianapolis,
Ind.;
CDL:
094498­
C)

00036169
Southwick,
L.;
Hartman,
G.
P.;
Stritzke,
J.;
et
al.
(
1975)
A
Residue
Study
of
Picloram
and
2,4­
D
in
Oats
and
Barley
following
Postemergence
Application
of
Tordon
202
Herbicide:
GHP­
912.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jul
3,
1975
under
6171653;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Univ.
of
Montana
and
others,
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
Co.,
Indianapolis,
Ind.;
CDL:
094498D)

00036170
Southwick,
L.;
Behrens,
R.;
Hartman,
G.
P.
(
1975)
A
Residue
Study
of
Picloram
and
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
in
Wheat
following
One,
Two
and
Three
Years
Use
of
Picloram
and
2,4­
D
(
Tordon
202
Mixture):
GHP­
913.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jul
3,
1975
under
6F1653;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Univ.
of
Minnesota
and
Univ.
of
Montana,
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
Co.,
Indianapolis,
Ind.;
CDL:
094498­
E)
70
00036171
Bjerke,
E.
L.;
Dietrich,
I.;
Baker,
L.
O.;
et
al.
(
1975)
A
Residue
Study
of
Picloram
and
2,4­
D
in
Wheat
and
Barley
following
Post­
emergence
Application
of
Tordon
22K
Weed
Killer
plus
Formula
40
Herbicide:
GH­
C
821.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jul
3,
1975
under
6FI653
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Univ.
of
Montana
and
Montana
State
Univ.,
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
Co.,
Indianapolis,
Ind.;
CDL:
094498­
F)

00037169
Marquardt,
R.
P.;
Luce,
E.
N.
(
1961)
A
new
basic
procedure
for
determining
Phenoxy
acid
herbicides
in
agricultural
products.
Journal
of
Agricultural
and
Food
Chemistry
9(
4):
266­
270.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Dec
6,
1972
under
3G1339;
submitted
by
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4,
New
Brunswick,
N.
J.;
CDL:
093578­
A)

00038429
Smith,
G.
E.;
Isom,
B.
G.
(
1967)
Investigation
of
effects
of
large­
scale
applications
of
2,4­
D
on
aquatic
fauna
and
water
quality.
Pesticides
Monitoring
Journal
1(
3):
16­
21.
(
Also
in
unpublished
submission
received
Jul
11,
1971
under
1E1046;
submitted
by
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Army,
Washington,
D.
C.;
CDL:
093359­
Y)

00042288
Grigsby,
B.
H.;
Farwell,
E.
D.
(
1950)
Some
Effects
of
Herbicides
on
Pasture
and
on
Grazing
Livestock.
Michigan
Agricultural
Experiment
Station
Quarterly
Bulletin
32(
3):
378385.
(
Submitter
ACl>
file
no.
HF­
19;
also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Oct
3,1966
under
unknown
admin.
no.;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
106349A)

00042526
Meagher,
W.
G.;
Phillips,
R.
L.
(
1966)
Physiological
Effects
and
Chemical
Residues
Resulting
from
2,4­
TP
and
2,4,5­
TP
Sprays
used
for
Control
of
Preharvest
Fruit
Drop
in
Pineapple
Oranges.
Progress
rept.,
Jun
30,
1966.
(
Unpublished
study
received
March
4,
1974
under
4E1476;
prepared
by
Univ.
of
Florida,
Citrus
Experiment
Station,
submitted
by
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4,
New
Brunswick,
N.
J.;
CDL:
093925­
D)

00043280
Whitney,
E.
W.;
Montgomery,
A.
B.;
Martin,
E.
C.;
et
al.
(
1968)
The
effects
of
a
2,4­
D
application
on
the
biota
and
water
quality
in
Currituck
Sound,
North
Carolina.
[
Without
title]
?
(?
):
13­
17.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Aug
4,
1976
under
876­
222;
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
242936­
D)

00043759
Sikka,
H.
C.
(
1976)
Fate
of
2,4­
D
in
Fish
and
Blue
Crabs:
Contract
No.
DACW39­
74­
C­
0068.
(
Syracuse
Research
Corp.
for
U.
S.
Army,
Office
of
the
Chief
of
Engineers,
Environmental
Characterization
Branch,
MESL,
Waterways
Experiment
Station,
unpublished
study;
CDL:
099544­
D)

00045364
Swann,
R.
L.;
Pettyjohn,
M.
A.;
Bjerke,
E.
L.
(
1972)
Determination
of
Residues
of
2,4­
D
in
Wheat,
Barley
and
Oat
Green
Forage,
Grain
and
Straw
by
Gas
Chromatography.
Method
ACR
72.8
dated
May
12,
1972.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jul
3,
1975
under
6F1653;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
International
Research
and
Development
Corp.,
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
094500­
B)
71
00045365
Bjerke,
E.
L.
(
1973)
A
Study
of
Extraction
of
Picloram
and
2,4­
D
from
Small
Cereal
Grains:
GH­
C
680.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jul
3,
1975
under
6F1653;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
094500­
C)

00045369
Bjerke,
E.
L.;
Ervick,
D.
K.
(
1975)
A
Residue
Study
of
Picloram
and
2,4­
D
in
Milled
Wheat
Fractions:
GH­
C
798.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jul
3,
1975
under
6F1653;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
094501­
B)

00046125
Yip,
G.
(
1964)
Herbicides
and
plant
growth
regulators:
Determination
of
herbicides
in
oils.
Journal
of
the
Association
of
Official
Analytical
Chemists
47(
6):
1116­
1119.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
on
unknown
date
under
6F0459;
submitted
by
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agriculture,
Agricultural
Research
Service,
unknown
location;
CDL:
098165­
I)

00046127
Phillips,
W.
M.;
Yip,
G.;
Finney,
K.
F.;
et
al.
(
1964)
The
Effects
and
Residue
Status
of
Applications
of
Amine
and
Ester;
Applications
of
2,4­
D
at
Three
Preharvest
Growth
Stages
on
Hard
Red
Winter
Wheat.
(
Unpublished
study
received
on
unknown
date
under
6F0459;
prepared
in
cooperation
with
Kansas
State
Univ.,
Agricultural
Experiment
Station,
Dept.
of
Flour
and
Feed
Milling
Industries
and
others,
submitted
by
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agriculture,
Agricultural
Research
Service,
unknown
location;
CDL:
098165­
L)

00052597
Frank,
P.
A.
(
1969)
Residues
of
2,4­
D
in
Irrigation
Water
and
Irrigated
Crops.
(
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agriculture,
Crops
Protection
Branch,
unpublished
study;
CDL:
091863­
D)

00055485
Khajeh­
Noori,
K.
(
19??)
Method
for
Analysis
of
Residues
of
N,
N­
Dimethyl­
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetamide
on
Whole
Fish.
Undated
method.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
22,
1971
under
16133­
1;
prepared
by
Thornton
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Clearwater
Chemical
Corp.,
Ft.
Myers,
Fla.;
CDL:
015056­
K)

00055755
Whitney,
E.
W.;
Montgomery,
A.
B.;
Martin,
E.
C.;
et
al.
(
19??)
The
effects
of
a
2,4­
D
application
on
the
biota
and
water
quality
in
Currituck
Sound,
North
Carolina.
[
Without
Title]
?
(?
):
13­
17.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
May
19,
1975
under
2E1221;
submitted
by
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Army,
Washington,
D.
C.;
CDL:
094080­
J)

00059025
Glas,
R.
D.
(
1975)
Residues
of
Dowco
290
and
2,4­
D
in
Wheat
and
Barley
following
Postemergence
Application
of
Lontrel
205
Herbicide:
GH­
C
836.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
12,
1980
under
464­
563;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
099735­
D)

00059026
Gardner,
R.
C.;
Bjerke,
E.
L.
(
1975)
Residues
of
Dowco
290,
2,4­
D
and
MCPA
in
Green
Forage,
Straw
and
Grain
of
Wheat
and
Barley
after
Postemergence
Treatment
with
Lontrel
Herbicides:
GH­
C
850.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
12,
1980
under
464­
563;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
099735­
E)
72
00059027
Kutschinski,
A.
H.
(
1979)
Residues
of
Dowco
290
and
2,4­
D
in
Barley
and
Wheat
following
Postemergence
Application
of
Lontrel
205
Herbicide
by
Ground
vs
Aerial
Sprayer:
GHC
1208.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
12,
1980
under
464­
563;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
099735­
F)

00059028
Kutschinski,
A.
H.
(
1979)
Residues
of
Dowco
290
and
2,4­
D
in
Oats
following
Postemergence
Application
of
Lontrel
205
Herbicide:
GH­
C
1217.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
12,
1980
under
464­
563;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
099735­
G)

00059029
Glas,
R.
D.
(
1978)
Residues
of
3,6­
Dichloropicolinic
acid
and
2,4­
D
in
Milling
and
Malting
Fractions
following
Postemergence
Application
of
Lontrel
205
Herbicide
to
Wheat
and
Barley:
GH­
C
977.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
12,
1980
under
464­
563;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
099735­
H)

00059033
Kutschinski,
A.
H.
(
1979)
Determination
of
Residues
of
3,6­
Dichloropicolinic
acid
and
2,4­
D
in
Barley
and
Wheat
by
Gas
Chromatography.
Method
ACR
79.5
dated
Apr
18,
1979.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
12,
1980
under
464­
563;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
099735­
L)

00059034
Miller,
P.
W.
(
1975)
Residues
of
2,4­
D
and
2,4­
Dichlorophenol
in
Milk
from
Cows
Fed
2,4­
D
in
Conjunction
with
Dowco
290:
GH­
C804.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
12,
1980
under
464­
563;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
Mich.;
CDL:
099736­
A)

00060111
American
Cyanamid
Company
(
1977)
General
Summary:
[
Avenge
in
Wheat
Grain
and
Straw].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Apr
26,
1977
under
241­
250;
CDL:
229617­
A)

00060113
Peterson,
R.
P.
(
1976)
CL
84,777
Combination:
Gas
Chromatographic
Procedure
for
the
Determination
of
2,4­
D
Residues
in
Wheat.
Method
M­
733
dated
Oct
8,
1976.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Apr
26,
1977
under
241­
250;
submitted
by
American
Cyanamid
Co.,
Princeton,
N.
J.;
CDL:
229617­
D)

00060117
American
Cyanamid
Company
(
1975)
General
Summary:
[
Studies
to
Determine
Avenge
and
2,4­
D
Residues
in
Barley
Grain
and
Straw].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Apr
26,
1977
under
241250;
CDL:
229616­
A)

00060120
Peterson,
R.
P.
(
1976)
CL
84,777
Combination:
Gas
Chromatographic
Procedure
for
the
Determination
of
2,4­
D
Residues
in
Barley.
Method
M­
738
dated
Oct
8,
1976.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Apr
26,
1977
under
241­
250;
submitted
by
American
Cyanamid
Co.,
Princeton,
N.
J.;
CDL:
229616­
D)
73
00060870
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.
(
1956)
Residue
Study
on
Samples
from
Washington
and
California
Trials:
2,4­
D
for
Weed
Control
in
Asparagus
Culture.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
2,
1958
under
PP0162;
CDL:
090188­
K)

00060872
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.
(
1955?)
Method
of
Analysis
for
2,4­
D
on
Treated
Asparagus.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
2,
1958
under
PP0162;
CDL:
092439­
C)

00060876
Florida
Fruit
&
Vegetable
Association
(
1960)
The
Results
of
Tests
on
the
Amount
of
Residue
Remaining,
Including
a
Description
of
the
Analytical
Method
Used:
(
2,4­
D).
(
Unpublished
study
received
Oct
12,
1963
under
PP0272;
CDL:
090295­
B)

00060880
University
of
California­­
Davis
(
19??)
Analysis
for
Combined
2,4­
D
esters
in
Potatoes.
Undated
method.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Oct
12,
1963
under
PP0272;
prepared
by
Agricultural
Extension
Service,
Dept.
of
Agronomy,
submitted
by
Florida
Fruit
&
Vegetable
Association,
Orlando,
Fla.;
CDL:
090295­
G)

00061010
National
Agricultural
Chemical
Association
(
1965?)
The
Results
of
Tests
on
the
Amount
of
Residue
Remaining,
Including
a
Description
of
the
Analytical
Method
Used:
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid).
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
May
15,
1967
under
8F0670;
CDL:
091172­
AL)

00061012
National
Agricultural
Chemical
Association
(
1967?)
Summary
of
Residues.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
May
15,
1967
under
8F0670;
CDL:
091172­
AN)

00061014
Dow
Chemical
Company
(
1959)
Analytical
Method:
Determination
of
Trace
Amounts
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
in
Sugar
Cane
Juice.
Method
no.
MLE.
59.4
dated
Apr
23,
1959.
(
Unpublished
study
received
May
15,
1967
under
8F0670;
submitted
by
National
Agricultural
Chemical
Association,
unknown
location;
CDL:
091172­
AR)

00061016
Dow
Chemical
Company
(
1964)
Determination
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
in
Peanut
Hay
and
Immature
Peanut
Vines.
Method
no.
MLE.
64.16
dated
Aug
20,
1964.
(
Unpublished
study
received
May
15,
1967
under
8F0670;
submitted
by
National
Agricultural
Chemical
Association,
unknown
location;
CDL:
091172­
AT)

00061017
Dow
Chemical
Company
(
1964)
Analytical
Method:
Determination
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
in
Peanuts.
Method
no.
MLE.
64.21
dated
Apr
17,
1964.
(
Unpublished
study
received
May
15,
1967
under
8F0670;
submitted
by
National
Agricultural
Chemical
Association,
unknown
location;
CDL:
091172­
AU)

00061018
Marquardt,
R.
P.;
Luce,
E.
N.
(
1955)
Determination
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
(
2,4­
D)
in
grain
and
seed.
Agricultural
and
Food
Chemistry
3(
1):
51­
53.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
May
15,
1967
under
8F0670;
submitted
by
National
Agricultural
Chemical
Association,
unknown
location;
CDL:
091172­
AV)
74
00061645
Munro,
H.
E.
(
1972)
Determination
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
and
2,4,5­
Trichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
in
tomato
plants
and
other
commercial
crops
by
microcoulometric
gas
chromatography.
Pesticide
Science
3(
4):
371­
377;
taken
from
Weed
Abstracts,
1973
22(
2):
38.
(
Abstract
no.
376).
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Dec
9,
1974
under
33652­
1;
submitted
by
Chemie
Linz
AG,
Chemie,
Austria;
CDL:
230516­
U)

00063507
Colorado.
Department
of
Agriculture
(
1979)
Residue
Test
No.
1734:
Range
Grass
from
York,
Nebraska.
(
Unpublished
study;
CDL:
244533­
J)

00066156
Duffy,
J.
R.;
Shelfoon,
P.
(
1967)
Determination
of
2,4­
D
and
its
butoxyethanol
ester
in
oysters
by
gas
chromatography.
Journal
of
the
Association
of
Official
Analytical
Chemists
50(
5):
10981102.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Aug
4,
1976
under
876­
222;
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
229171­
E)

00068011
Diamond
Shamrock
Agricultural
Chemicals
(
1975)
Residue
Studies
in
Grass
and
Hay.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study,
including
published
data,
received
Nov
19,
1980
under
unknown
admin.
no.;
CDL:
244821­
A)

00068889
Kutschinski,
A.
H.;
Bates,
T.
W.;
Swann,
R.
L.
(
1971)
Residues
of
2,4­
D
in
Sugarcane
and
Its
Factory
Products
Resulting
from
Applications
of
Am
Applications
of
Amine
or
Ester
Formulations
of
the
Herbicides.
Final
rept.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Oct
9,
1971
under8F0670;
prepared
by
Dow
Chemical
Co.
in
cooperation
with
International
Research
and
Development
Corp.,
submitted
by
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Association,
Industry
Task
Force
on
Phenoxy
Herbicide
Tolerances,
Washington,
D.
C.;
CDL:
091173­
D)

00068891
Miller,
P.
W.;
Jensen,
D.
J.
(
1971)
Identification
of
2,4,6­
Trichlorophenol
and
2,6­
Dichlorophenol
Residues
in
Milk
from
Cows
Fed
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Oct
9,
1971
under
8F0670;
prepared
by
Dow
Chemical
Co.,
submitted
by
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Association,
Industry
Task
Force
on
Phenoxy
Herbicide
Tolerances,
Washington,
D.
C.;
CDL:
091173­
G)

00068892
Miller,
P.
W.;
Jensen,
D.
J.;
Gentry,
W.
M.
(
1971)
Residues
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
and
2,4­
Dichlorophenol
in
Tissues
of
Beef
Calves
Fed
2,4­
D.
Final
rept.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Oct
9,
1971
under
8F0670;
prepared
by
Dow
Chemical
Co.,
submitted
by
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Association,
Industry
Task
Force
on
Phenoxy
Herbicide
Tolerances,
Washington,
D.
C.;
CDL:
091173­
H)

00068893
Jensen,
D.
J.;
Miller,
P.
W.;
Palmer,
J.
S.
(
1971)
Residues
of
2,4Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
and
2,4­
Dichlorophenol
in
Tissues
of
Sheep
Fed
2,4­
D.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Oct
9,
1971
under
8F0670;
prepared
by
Dow
Chemical
Co.
in
cooperation
with
U.
S.
Agricultural
Research
Service,
Animal
Disease
and
Parasite
Research
Div.,
submitted
by
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Association,
Industry
Task
Force
on
Phenoxy
Herbicide
Tolerances,
Washington,
D.
C.;
CDL:
091173­
I)
75
00071787
Toetz,
D.
(
1976)
Residues
of
2,4­
D
in
Flesh
of
Selected
Fish
Species
in
Lake
Fort
Cobb
as
a
Result
of
Herbicide
Use
on
Eurasian
Watermilfoil
Myriophyllum
spicatum.
(
Oklahoma
State
Univ.,
School
of
Biological
Sciences,
Research
Foundation
for
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Interior,
Bureau
of
Reclamation;
unpublished
study;
CDL:
099179­
D)

00073273
Anon.
(
1979)
A
Comparison
of
Dicamba
Dimethylamine
Salt
Emulsifiable
Concentrate
with
Dicamba
Acid
Granules
in
Terms
of
Stand
Reduction
and
Residues.
(
Reports
by
various
sources;
unpublished
study
received
Nov
3,
1980
under
OK
80/
13;
submitted
by
Oklahoma,
Dept.
of
Agriculture,
Oklahoma
City,
Okla.;
CDL:
243740­
A)

00074214
Feung,
C.;
Hamilton,
R.
H.;
Mumma,
R.
O.
(
1975)
Metabolism
of
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid.
VII.
Comparison
of
metabolites
from
five
species
of
plant
callus
tissue
cultures.
Journal
of
Agricultural
and
Food
Chemistry
23(
3):
373­
376.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Apr
14,
1981
under
0F2404;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
Co.,
Indianapolis,
Ind.;
CDL:
070006­
D)

00074215
Feung,
C.;
Hamilton,
R.
H.;
Mumma,
R.
O.
(
1973)
Metabolism
of
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid.
V.
Identification
of
metabolites
in
soybean
callus
tissue
cultures.
Journal
of
Agricultural
and
Food
Chemistry
21(
4):
637­
640.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Apr
14,
1981
under
0F2404;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
Co.,
Indianapolis,
Ind.;
CDL:
070006­
E)

00074216
Feung,
C.;
Hamilton,
R.
H.;
Witham,
F.
H.
(
1971)
Metabolism
of
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
by
soybean
cotyledon
callus
tissue
cultures.
Journal
of
Agricultural
and
Food
Chemistry
19(
3):
475,
479.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Apr
14,
1981
under
0F2404;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
Co.,
Indianapolis,
Ind.;
CDL:
070006­
F)

00074217
Hamilton,
R.
H.;
Hurter,
J.;
Hall,
J.
K.;
et
al.
(
1971)
Metabolism
of
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
and
2,4,5­
trichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
by
bean
plants.
Journal
of
Agricultural
and
Food
Chemistry
19(
3):
480­
483.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Apr
14,
1981
under
0F2404;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
Co.,
Indianapolis,
Ind.;
CDL:
070006­
G)

00074219
Lokke,
H.
(
1975)
Analysis
of
free
and
bound
chlorophenoxy
acids
in
cereals.
Bulletin
of
Environmental
Contamination
&
Toxicology
13(
6):
730­
736.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Apr
14,
1981
under
0F2404;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
Co.,
Indianapolis,
Ind.;
CDL:
070006­
J)

00075198
Carlile,
B.
L.
(
1968)
Degradation
and
Depletion
of
Herbicides
in
Drainage
Waters
and
Accumulation
of
Residues
in
Crops
Irrigated
with
Treated
Water:
Annual
Report­­
2,4­
D
and
Silvex.
(
Battelle
Memorial
Institute
for
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agriculture;
unpublished
study;
CDL:
090913­
D)
76
00075715
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1981)
[
Residues
in
Corn].
Includes
undated
method
AM­
0691.
(
Compilation,
unpublished
study
received
Jun
12,
1981
under
876­
25;
CDL:
245471­
B)

00075716
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1981)
[
Residues
in
Wheat].
Includes
undated
method
AM­
0691.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jun
12,
1981
under
876­
25;
CDL:
245471­
C)

00075719
Velsicol
Chemical
Corporation
(
1981)
[
Determination
of
Banvel
and
Dicamba
in
Sorghum].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jun
12,
1981
under
876­
25;
CDL:
245471­
F)

00075724
Colorado
(
1981)
[
Determination
of
Banvel
and
Dicamba
in
Various
Crops].
Includes
method
AM­
0691
dated
Jul
25,
1979.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jun
22,
1981
under
CO
81/
11;
CDL:
245581­
A)

00078237
Bjerke,
E.
L.;
Herman,
J.
L.;
Miller,
P.
W.;
et
al.
(
1971)
A
Residue
Study
of
Phenoxy
Herbicides
in
Milk
and
Cream.
(
Unpublished
study
received
on
unknown
date
under
1E1123;
prepared
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
submitted
by
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4,
New
Brunswick,
N.
J.;
CDL:
098798­
A)

00078482
Montana,
Department
of
Agriculture
(
1974)
[
Residue
Tests
for
Picloram
in
Grains].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
on
unknown
date
under
4E1489;
CDL:
093948­
F)

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

00088176
Interregional
Research
Project
Number
4
(
1978)
[
Residues
Study
of
Envy
2,4­
D
on
Stone
Fruit].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Nov
18,
1981
under
2E2606;
CDL:
070506­
A)

00090360
Klingman,
D.
L.;
Gordon,
C.
H.;
Yip,
G.;
et
al.
(
1966)
Residues
in
the
forage
and
in
milk
from
cows
grazing
forage
treated
with
esters
of
2,4­
D.
Weeds
14(
2):
164­
167.
(
Also
in
unpublished
submission
received
May
31,
1966
under
6F0459;
submitted
by
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agriculture,
Agricultural
Research
Service,
unknown
address;
CDL:
090505­
A)

00090361
Hilton,
J.
L.;
Phillips,
W.
M.;
Shaw,
W.
C.
(
1960)
A
Summary
of
the
Effects
of
Amine
and
Ester
Formulations
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
[
2,4­
D]
on
Small
Grains,
Including
the
Status
of
Residues
When
2,4­
D
is
Applied
to
the
Crop
at
Various
Stage
of
Growth:
Line
Project
No.
CR
FL­
16.
(
U.
S.
Agricultural
Research
Service,
Crops
Research
Div.;
unpublished
study;
CDL:
090505­
C)

00102605
Phillips,
R.
(
1970)
2,4­
D­­
Oranges
and
Grapefruit­­
CES
(
Lake
Alfred)
1969.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Sep
28,
1970
under
359­
177;
prepared
by
Univ.
of
Florida,
Dept.
of
77
Food
Science,
Pesticide
Research
Laboratory,
submitted
by
Rhone­
Poulenc,
Inc.,
Monmouth
Junction,
NJ;
CDL:
026724­
A)

00102640
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Assoc.
(
1970)
(
2,4­
D:
Residues
in
Sugarcane).
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jan
18,
1971
under
81 
0670;
CDL:
091176­
A)

00102675
Canny,
M.;
Markus,
K.
(
1960)
The
breakdown
of
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
in
shoots
and
roots.
Australian
J.
Biol.
Sci.
13
(
4):
486­
502.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
12,
1968
under
8F0670;
submitted
by
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Assoc.,
Industry
Task
Force
on
Phenoxy
Herbicide
Tolerances,
Washington,
DC;
CDL:
092089­
L)

00102676
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Assoc.
(
1968)
(
Phenoxy
Herbicides:
Residues
in
Various
Crops).
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Sep
12,
1968
under
8F0670;
CDL:
092089­
O)

00102679
Luckwill,
L.;
Lloyd­
Jones,
C.
(
1960)
Metabolism
of
plant
growth
regulators
I.
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
in
leaves
of
red
and
of
black
currant.
II.
Decarboxylation
of
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
in
leaves
of
apple
and
strawberry.
Ann.
Appl.
Biol.
48(
3):
613­
636.
(
Also
In
unpublished
submission
received
Sep
12,
1968
under
8F0670;
submitted
by
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Assoc.,
Industry
Task
Force
on
Phenoxy
Herbicide
Tolerances,
Washington,
DC;
CDL:
092089­
AC)

00102710
Florida
Fruit
&
Vegetable
Assoc.
(
1960)
(
Analyses
for
2,4­
D
Residue
in
Potatoes).
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Sep
26,
1960
under
PP0272;
CDL:
092551­
D)

00102712
Gentry,
W.
(
1971)
Residues
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid,
2,4,5­
Trichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid,
and
2­(
2,4,5­
Trichlorophenoxy)
propionic
Acid
in
Grass
Treated
with
Phenoxy
Herbicides.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Sep
7,
1973
under
8170670;
prepared
by
Dow
Chemical
Co.,
submitted
by
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Assoc.,
Industry
Task
Force
on
Phenoxy
Herbicide
Tolerances,
Washington,
DC;
CDL:
092965­
C)

00102713
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Assoc.
(
1973)
Discussion
of
Analyses
for
Residues
of
2,4­
D
and
2,4­
Dichlorophenol
in
Animal
Tissues,
July
1973.
Summary
of
study
092142­
AD.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Sep
7,
1973
under
8F0670;
CDL:
092965­
D)

00102714
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Assoc.
(
1973)
Discussion
of
Analyses
for
Residues
of
2,4­
D
and
2,4­
Dichlorophenol
in
Milk,
July
1973.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Sep
7,
1973
under
8F0670;
CDL:
092965­
F)

00102717
Crabtrec,
G.;
Sheets,
W.;
Montgomery,
M.;
et
al.
(
1974)
Residue
Study:
2,4­
D
for
Control
of
Broadleaf
Weeds
in
Strawberries.
(
Unpublished
study
received
on
unknown
date
under
5E1544;
prepared
by
Oregon
State
Univ.,
submitted
by
Interregional
Research
Project
No,
4,
New
Brunswick,
NJ;
CDL:
094206­
A)
78
00102719
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Assoc.
(
1975)
Summary
of
Additional
Residue
Data
for
2,4­
D
in
Sorghum,
Poultry
and
Eggs,
and
Discussion
on
Residues
in/
on
Forage
Grasses.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jul
16,
1975
under
8F0670;
CDL:
094530­
A)

00102737
Honse,
C.;
Yoh,
J.;
Moye,
H.;
et
al.
(
1973)
(
Alkanolamine
Salt
of
2,4­
D:
Residues
in
Organs).
(
Unpublished
study
received
Sep
25,
1975
under
6E1678;
prepared
by
Univ.
of
Florida,
Pesticide
Research
Laboratory,
submitted
by
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4,
New
Brunswick,
NJ;
CDL:
097352­
B)

00102760
Rawls,
C.
(
1968)
The
Accumulation
and
Loss
of
Field­
applied
Butoxy­
ethanol
Ester
of
2,4­
dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
in
Eastern
Oysters,
...
and
Soft­
shelled
Clams,
Mya
arenaria.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
5,
1972
under
2E1221;
prepared
by
Univ.
of
Maryland,
Natural
Resources
Institute,
Chesapeake
Biological
Laboratory,
submitted
by
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Army,
Washington,
DC;
CDL:
097882­
Z)

00102788
Bartley,
T.;
Gangstad,
E.
(
1975)
Dissipation
of
Residues
of
2,4­
D
in
Irrigation
Canals.
(
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Interior,
Bureau
of
Reclamation,
Office
of
the
Chief
Engineer,
Division
of
Research
and
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Army,
Office
of
the
Chief
of
Engineers,
Directorate
of
Civil
Works,
Planning
Div.;
unpublished
study;
CDL:
097921­
A)

00102794
Kutschinski,
A.
(
1972)
Residues
of
2,4­
D
in
Louisiana
Sugarcane
Resulting
from
Multiple
Applications
of
Amine
Formulations
Including
a
Late
Summer
Treatment:
GH­
C
512.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Dec
6,
1973
under
464­
1;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
MI;
CDL:
101303­
A)

00102812
Reasor
Hill
Corp.
(
1960)
Residues
of
2,4­
D
in
Strawberries
and
Cranberries.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Feb
27,1961
under
347­
136;
CDL:
120079­
A)

00102814
Zweig,
G.
(
1962)
Letter
sent
to
J.
McLean
dated
Nov
27,
1962
Report
of
analysis
for
2,4­
D
in
potatoes|.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Dec
17,
1962
under
unknown
admin.
no.;
prepared
by
Univ.
of
California­
Davis,
Pesticide
Residue
Research,
submitted
by
Chemical
Machines,
Winnipeg,
Canada;
CDL:
120204­
A)

00102815
Brannock,
D.;
Freed,
V.
(
1965)
Analysis
of
Pears
and
Apples
for
Residues
of
2,4­
D
from
Dacamine­
D.
(
Unpublished
study
received
May
18,
1965
under
677­
200;
prepared
by
Oregon
State
Univ.,
Dept.
of
Agricultural
Chemistry,
submitted
by
Diamond
Shamrock
Agricultural
Chemicals,
Cleveland,
OH;
CDL:
120205­
A)

00102816
Dow
Chemical
Co.
(
1955?)
Studies
on
Raw
Agricultural
Commodities
for
Residues
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
(
2,4­
D).
(
Unpublished
study
received
on
unknown
date
under
unknown
admin.
no.;
CDL:
120208­
A)
79
00102821
Boyce
Thompson
Institute
for
Plant
Research,
Inc.
(
1962)
Residues
of
2,4­
D
in
Milk
from
Cows
Grazing
on
Sprague
Pastures.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Mar
22,
1962
under
unknown
admin.
no.;
submitted
by
Rhone­
Poulenc,
Inc.,
Monmouth
Junction,
NJ;
CDL:
122170­
A)

00102824
Legault,
R.;
Benson,
N.;
Reynolds,
D.;
et
al.
(
1963)
Pesticide
Residue
Analysis.
(
Unpublished
study
received
1964
under
264­
37;
prepared
by
Washington
State
Univ.,
Dept.
of
Agricultural
Chemistry,
submitted
by
Union
Carbide
Agricultural
Products
Co.,
Inc.,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC;
CDL:
122187­
A)

00102833
Rhone­
Poulenc,
Inc.
(
1964)
Use
of
Weedez
Bar
(
2,4­
D)
in
Grape
Vineyards
­
Application
to
USDA
for
Registration
on
no
Residue
Basis.
(
Unpublished
study
received
March
23,
1964
under
359­
EX­
42;
CDL:
125194­
B)

00102862
Chemical
Machines
(
1964)
[
2,4­
D:
Residues
in
Potatoes].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Mar
24,
1964
under
3462­
8;
CDL:
221908­
B)

00102865
Leng,
M.;
Jensen,
D.;
Miller,
P.
(
1973)
Residues
of
2,4­
D
in
Field
Corn
and
Sweet
Corn
from
Preemergence
or
Postemergence
Treatments
with
the
Herbicide.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Mar
4,
1976
under
464­
201;
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
U.
S.
A.,
Midland,
MI;
CDL:
223616­
A)

00102879
Bice,
J.
(
1961)
Physiological
Effect
of
2,4­
D
on
Lemons.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jun
15,
1967
under
5202­
18;
submitted
by
Brogdex
Co.,
Pomona,
CA;
CDL:
230582­
A)

00102889
Wisconsin
Alumni
Research
Foundation
(
1969)
Assay
Report:
W.
A.
R.
F.
No.
8110601­
630.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Oct
5,
1976
under
11275­
2;
submitted
by
Guth
Corp.,
Naperville,
IL;
CDL:
235811­
A)

00109535
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.
(
1982)
[
Dicamba:
Residues
in
Cows
&
Other
Subjects].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Aug
6,
1982
under
876­
168;
CDL:
248024­
A)

00115499
Dow
Chemical
Co.
(
1972)
Amendment
to
PP
1
F
1102
Requesting
Tolerances
for
Residues
of...
(
2,4,5­
T).
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jul
21,
1972
under
1171102;
CDL:
090864­
A)

00115509
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Assoc.
(
1967)
(
Study:
2,4­
D
Residue
in
Crops,
Animal
Tissue
of
Animal
Products).
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Sep
16,
1968
under
8F0669;
CDL:
092964­
Q)

00115515
Dow
Chemical
Co.
(
1971)
[
Study:
2,4,5­
T
Residues
in
Animals
and
Selected
Crops].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Sep
29,
1971
under
1F1102;
CDL:
093415­
A)
80
00115741
Otto,
N.
(
1982)
Letter
sent
to
Chief,
Applied
Sciences
Branch
dated
Sep
8,
1982:
Herbicidal
residues
and
environmental
effects
resulting
from
the
experimental
application
of
two
2,4­
D
formulations
to
control
eurasian
watermilfoil.
(
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Reclamation,
Engineering
and
Research
Center;
unpublished
study;
CDL:
248613­
B)

00115793
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
(
1977)
Residues
of
Ametryn
and
2,4­
D
Amine
in
or
on
Sugarcane
from
Single
and
Multiple
Applications­­
Louisiana.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jan
16,
1978
under
100­
473;
CDL:
232676­
A)

00118549
Amchem
Products,
Inc.
(
1971)
Fenac
Residue
Data
­
Total
Water
Treatment.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jul
7,
1972
under
2F1213;
CDL:
091039­
T)

00120057
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Assoc.
(
1970)
The
Results
of
Tests
on
the
Amount
of
Residue
Remaining,
Including
a
Description
of
the
Analytical
Method
Used:
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid).
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jan
18,
1971
under
8F0670;
CDL:
091174­
A)

00121711
Washington,
Dept.
of
Game
(
1967)
[
DDT:
Residues
in
Seafood].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
1967
under
4F0419;
CDL:
092706­
A)

00121733
Thompson
Chemicals
Corp.
(
19??)
Method:
[
Residues
of
Phenoxyacids
and
Their
Amine
Salts
in
Apples
and
Other
Crops].
(
Unpublished
study
received
Apr
3,
1967
under
7F0589;
CDL:
092877­
A)

00123269
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4
(
1973)
[
2,4­
D
Residues
in
Asparagus
and
Other
Subjects].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Mar
1,
1974
under
4EI475;
CDL:
093923A)

00123973
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
1972)
Metabolism
of
Pesticides:
[
2,4­
D].
(
Unpublished
study
received
1972
under
4G1487;
CDL:
093950­
A)

00126684
PBI­
Gordon
Corp.
(
1982)
[
Ultra­
Sulv
(
2,4­
D)
Residues
in
Wheat
and
Corn
and
Rate
of
Decline
in
Soil].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Apr
1,
1983
under
2217­
703;
CDL:
249863­
G)

00127226
U.
A.
Agricultural
Research
Service
(
1961)
[
Residues:
2,4­
D].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Mar
16,
1964
under
61 
0459;
CDL:
092748­
A)

00127273
PBI­
Gordon
Corp.
(
1982)
Residues:
[
MCPP­­
Soil
and
Other
Subjects].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Apr
1,
1983
under
2271­
EX­
3;
CDL:
071501­
Z)

00127823
Velsicol
Chemical
Co.
(
1981)
Hawaiian
Sugarcane
Residue
Data:
[
Banvel].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Apr
15,
1983
under
876­
25;
CDL:
249983­
A)
81
00128778
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1981)
Residue:
[
2,4­
D
Amine].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jun
27,
1983
under
400­
390;
CDL:
250616­
A)

00133938
Stauffer
Chemical
Co.
(
1976)
Residue
Chemistry
Data:
[
Eradicane
6.7­
E
and
Other
Chemicals
in
Corn].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Apr
20,
1976
under
476­
2157;
CDL:
224095­
A)

00136845
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4
(
1974)
[
Residue
Levels
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
and
2,4­
Dichlorophenol
in
Red
Potato
Tubers].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
1974
under
1E1122;
CDL:
093432­
A)

00136848
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Interior
(
1962?)
Residues:
Method
of
Analysis
of
2,4­
D
in
Water
and
Crop
Plants.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jan
22,
1971
under
1E1136;
CDL:
093444­
A)

00138635
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.
(
1983)
The
Results
of
Tests
on
the
Amount
of
Residue
Remaining,
Including
a
Description
of
the
Analytical
Method
Used:
[
Dicamba
and
5­
Hydroxy
Dicamba
Residue
in
Vegetables,
Forage
Crops,
Legumes,
Cottonseed
and
Cottonseed
Fractions
and
Grains].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Feb
2,
1984
under
876­
449;
CDL:
072332­
A)

00139059
California.
(
1975)
óResidue
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
Isopropyl
Ester
in
Oranges|.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Feb
29,
1984
under
CA
83/
69;
CDL:
252533­
A)

00139511
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Interior
(
1973)
[
Residue
Studies:
2,4­
D:
Crops].
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Apr
21,
1983
under
3E2876;
CDL:
071564­
F)

00139951
International
Research
and
Development
Corporation
(
19??)
Determination
of
Residues
of
2,4
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
(
2,4­
D)
in
Asparagus­
gas
Chromatography.
Undated
method
IRDC
6.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jan
11,
1971
under
1F1131;
submitted
by
Velsicol
Chemical
Corp.,
Chicago,
Ill.;
CDL:
091953­
P)

00140032
Union
Carbide
Agricultural
Products
Company,
Incorporated
(
1965?)
Analytical
Methods.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Apr
19,
1968
under
264­
EX­
303;
CDL:
123220­
E)

00140092
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Assoc.
(
1970)
Residue
Studies
on
Sugarcane.
(
Compilation;
unpublished
study
received
Jul
19,
1973
under
8F0670;
CDL:
092966­
A)

00144791
Uniroyal
Chemical
(
1985)
DED­
WEED
SULV
Residues
in
Pasture
Grass
and
Wheat
Forage.
Unpublished
study.
14
p.

00145248
storage
stability
data??
82
00147047
PBI
Gordon
Corp.
(
1984)
Residue
Analysis.
Unpublished
study.
25
p.
00156264
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4
(
1985)
The
Results
of
Tests
on
the
Amount
of
2,4­
D
Residues
Remaining
in
or
on
Soybeans
Including
a
Description
of
the
Analytical
Method
Used.
Unpublished
compilation.
62
p.

00161187
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4
(
1977)
The
Results
of
Tests
on
the
Amount
of
Residues
2,4­
D
and
its
Metabolite
Remaining
in
or
on
Millet
Including
a
Description
of
the
Analytical
Method
Used.
Unpublished
compilation.
10
p.

00163903
FMC
Corp.
(
1986)
Freshgard
26
Product
Data:
Residue
Chemistry
Data.
Unpublished
compilation.
17
p.

40881401
Baron,
J.
(
1988)
2,4­
D­­
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Raspberry:
Laboratory
Project
ID
IR­
4
PR
2844/
3718.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
North
Dakota
State
University.
34
p.

41991503
Smith,
G.
(
1991)
Metabolism
of
14
Carbon­(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy)
Acetic
Acid,
Dimethylamine
Salt
in
Apples:
Lab
Project
Number:
38072.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
ABC
Laboratories,
Inc.
37
p.

42423101
Puglis,
J.;
Smith,
G.
(
1992)
Metabolism
of
Uniformly
Ring
Labeled
(
carbon
14)
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester
in
Potatoes:
Lab
Project
Number:
38075.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
ABC
Labs,
Inc.
49
p.

42439701
Puvanesarajah,
V.
(
1992)
Metabolism
of
Uniformly
[
carbon
14]­
Ring
Labeled
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester
in
Wheat:
Lab
Project
Number:
38076.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
ABC
Laboratories,
Inc.
121
p.

42605201
Puvanesarajah,
V.;
Bliss,
M.
(
1992)
Metabolism
of
Uniformly
Ring
Labeled
(
carbon
14)
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
in
Poultry:
Lab
Project
Number:
38077.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
ABC
Labs
Inc.
91
p.

42615601
Puvanesarajah,
V.;
Ilkka,
D.
(
1992)
Metabolism
of
Uniformly
(
carbon
14)­
Ring
Labeled
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester
in
Wheat:
A
Supplement:
Lab
Project
Number:
38076­
01.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
ABC
Labs,
Inc.
57
p.

42749701
Industry
Task
Force
II
on
2,4­
D
Research
Data
(
1993)
Submission
of
metabolism
and
environmental
fate
data
in
support
of
the
registration
standard
for
2,4­
D.
Transmittal
of
2
studies.

42968501
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
(
1993)
2,4­
D
Residue
Data
Provided
by
the
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rhone­
Poulenc
Ag
Co.
297
p.

42968502
Rhone­
Poulenc
Ag
Co.
(
1993)
Miscellaneous
Data
on
Residues
and
Persistence
of
2,4­
D
in
Aquatic
Environments.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rhone­
Poulenc
Ag
Co.
160
p.
83
43160201
Guo,
M.;
Stewart,
S.
(
1994)
Supplemental
Data
for
the
Study,
Metabolism
of
Uniformly
(
Carbon
14)­
Ring
Labeled
2,
4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
in
Lactating
Goats:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Nos.
40630­
01;
40630.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
ABC
Labs,
Inc.
26
p.

43289301
James,
J.
(
1994)
Radiovalidation
of
EN­
CAS
Method
ENC­
2/
93
for
the
Determination
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
(
2,4­
D)
in/
on
Wheat
Forage,
Straw,
and
Grain
Treated
with
(
Phenyl
(
U)(
carbon
14))­
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
93­
0018:
ENC­
2/
93.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
211
p.

43290501
Wu,
D.
(
1994)
Metabolism
of
(
carbon
14)­
2,4­
D
IPE
in
Stored
Lemons­
Nature
of
the
Residue
in
Plants:
Lab
Project
Number:
XBL
93012:
RPT00166.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
XenoBiotic
Labs,
Inc.
246
p.

43356002
Burnett,
T.;
Ling,
K.
(
1994)
Confined
Rotational
Crop
Study
on
Uniformly
(
carbon
14)­
Ring­
Labeled
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
(
2,4­
D):
Lab
Project
Number:
92155.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pan­
Agricultural
Labs,
Inc.
184
p.

43356301
Carringer,
R.
(
1994)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Soybeans
Following
Ground
Application
with
2,4­
D
Acid:
Lab
Project
Number:
93­
0022­
0227:
AA930227.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
368
p.

43356302
Carringer,
R.
(
1994)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Soybeans
Following
Ground
Application
with
2,4­
D
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester:
Lab
Project
Number:
93­
0022­
0226:
AA930226.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
450
p.

43356303
Carringer,
R.
(
1994)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Soybeans
Following
Ground
Application
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt:
Lab
Project
Number:
93­
0022­
0225:
AA930225.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
370
p.

43378801
Premkumar,
N.;
Stewart,
S.
(
1994)
Uniformly
(
carbon
14)­
Ring
Labeled
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid:
A
Metabolism
Study
in
Bluegill
Sunfish:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
41116.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
ABC
Laboratories,
Inc.
128
p.

43496101
Premkumar,
N.;
Vengurlekar,
S.
(
1994)
Uniformly
(
carbon
14)
Ring
Labeled
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester:
Nature
of
the
Residue
in
Potato:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
41256:
M­
9149.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
ABC
Labs,
Inc.
203
p.

43592101
Rosemond,
J.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Rangelands
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester:
(
Final
84
Report):
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930220:
93­
0025­
0220.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
labs.
409
p.

43610801
Rosemond,
J.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid),
in
Rangelands
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt:
Lab
Project
Number:
93­
0025­
0219:
AA930219.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Laboratories.
417
p.

43610802
Rosemond,
J.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid)
in
Grass
Pastures
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930217:
93­
0026­
0217.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
484
p.

43665201
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in/
on
Wheat
(
Winter
and
Spring)
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930204:
93­
0019­
1054:
47509.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
En­
Cas
Analytical
Labs.
705
p.

43665202
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in/
on
Wheat
(
Winter
and
Spring)
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Acid:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930205:
93­
0019­
0205:
ENC­
2/
93.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
En­
Cas
Analytical
Labs.
403
p.

43665203
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Grass
Pastures
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930216:
93­
0026­
0216:
ENC­
2/
93.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
En­
Cas
Analytical
Labs.
488
p.

43665204
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Grass
Pastures
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Acid:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930218:
93­
0026­
0218:
ENC­
2/
93.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
En­
Cas
Analytical
Labs.
352
p.

43665205
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Rangelands
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Acid:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930221:
93­
0025­
0221:
ENC­
2/
93.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
En­
Cas
Analytical
Labs.
368
p.

43669801
Carringer,
R.
(
1994)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Soybeans
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Ethylhexyl
Ester:
Amendment
to
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930226:
60635:
60636.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
55
p.
85
43676801
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Field
Corn
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D­
Ethlhexyl
Ester:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930209:
ENC­
2/
93:
93­
0020­
0209.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
708
p.

43676802
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Reside
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Wheat
(
Winter
and
Spring)
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930207:
93­
0019­
0207:
ENC­
2/
93.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
569
p.

43686001
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Field
Corn
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930208:
93­
0020­
0208.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
709
p.

43691101
Zheng,
S.
(
1995)
Independent
Laboratory
Validation
of
EN­
CAS
Method
No.
ENC­
2/
93,
the
Determination
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid
(
2,4­
D)
in/
on
Various
Raw
Agricultural
Commodities
and
Their
Processed
Fractions:
Lab
Project
Number:
011­
03:
94P­
011­
03.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Centre
Analytical
Labs,
Inc.
95
p.

43693701
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid,
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester
in
Processed
Wheat
(
Winter
and
Spring)
Fractions
(
Bran,
Flour,
Middlings,
and
Shorts)
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930206:
93­
0019­
0206.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.;
Texas
A&
M
Univ.;
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
700
p.

43693702
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Field
Corn
Following
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Acid:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930210:
93­
0020­
0210.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
584
p.

43697801
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Grain
Sorghum
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930214:
93­
0021­
0214:
F93196531.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
554
p.

43709701
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester,
2,4­
D
Acid
in
Processed
Field
Corn
Fractions
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930211:
93­
0020­
0211:
ENC­
2/
93.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
658
p.
86
43709702
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Processed
Grain
Sorghum
Fractions
(
Starch
and
Flour)
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930213:
93­
0021­
0213;
ENC­
2/
93.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
539
p.

43718001
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Grain
Sorghum
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930212:
93­
0021­
0212.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
567
p.

43718002
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Grain
Sorghum
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Acid:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930215:
93­
0021­
0215.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
518
p.

43736101
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Sugarcane
Following
Ground
Application
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt:
(
Final
Report):
Lab
Project
Number:
93­
0023­
0201:
AA930201.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Lab.
760
p.

43736102
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Sugarcane
Following
Ground
Application
with
2,4­
D
Acid:
(
Final
Report):
Lab
Project
Number:
93­
0023­
0202:
AA930202.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Lab.
642
p.

43747901
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Rice
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Acid:
(
Final
Report):
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930224:
93­
0024­
0224:
ENC­
2/
93.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
495
p.

43755401
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Processed
Fractions
of
Sugarcane
Following
Ground
Application
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930203:
93­
0023­
0203:
5450.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
Hawaiian
Sugar
Planters
Association.
575
p.

43755402
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Processed
Rice
Fractions
(
Hulls,
Bran,
and
White
Milled
Rice)
Following
Ground
Application
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930223:
93­
00240223:
ENC­
2/
93.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
South
Texas
Ag
Research.
548
p.
87
43779501
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
in
Grass
Pastures
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester:
(
Final
Report):
Lab
Project
Numbers:
AA940503:
6397­
154.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
Hazleton
Wisconsin,
Inc.
383
p.

43779502
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
in
Grass
Pastures
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt:
(
Final
Report):
Lab
Project
Numbers:
AA940504:
6397­
155.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
Hazleton
Wisconsin,
Inc.
383
p.

43779503
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
in
Rangelands
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester:
(
Final
Report):
Lab
Project
Numbers:
AA940505:
6397­
156.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
Hazleton
Wisconsin,
Inc.
360
p.

43779504
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
in
Rangelands
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt:
(
Final
Report):
Lab
Project
Number:
AA940506:
6397­
157:
HWI
6397­
157.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
Hazleton
Wisconsin,
Inc.
360
p.

43785901
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid)
in
Rice
Following
Ground
Application
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt:
Lab
Project
Number:
AA930222:
93­
0024­
0222:
ENC­
2/
93.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
582
p.

43797901
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
in
Wheat
(
Winter
and
Spring)
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester:
(
Final
Report):
Lab
Project
Number:
AA940501:
HWI
6397­
151.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
Hazleton
Wisconsin,
Inc.
630
p.

43797903
Carringer,
S.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
in
Wheat
(
Winter
and
Spring)
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt:
(
Final
Report):
Lab
Project
Number:
AA940502:
HWI
6397­
152.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
Hazleton
Wisconsin,
Inc.
607
p.

43809901
Barker,
W.
(
1995)
Determination
of
Frozen
Storage
Stability
for
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic
Acid
(
2,4­
D)
in/
on
Crops:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
93­
0044:
ENC­
2/
93:
93­
0044
ITFII.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
EN­
CAS
Analytical
Labs.
793
p.

43853601
Kunkel,
D.
(
1995)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Wild
Rice
(
Zizania
palustris
L.):
Lab
Project
Number:
1015.92­
MN01:
1015.92­
NDR09:
PR
1015.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
IR­
4.
246
p.
88
43870301
Johnson,
G.;
Strickland,
M.
(
1995)
Storage
Stability
of
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy)
Acetic
Acid
Residues
in/
on
Raw
Orange,
Grapefruit,
Lemon
Fruit
and
Processed
Lemon
Products:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
101­
006:
8289408:
CCQC
94­
03.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Western
Ecosystems
Technology;
Research
for
Hire;
and
Corning
Hazleton.
205
p.

43870302
Johnson,
G.;
Strickland,
M.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
Residues
in/
on
Products
Processed
from
Lemons
Treated
with
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy)
Acetic
Acid
Isopropyl
Ester:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
101­
005:
8289407:
8289409.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Western
Ecosystems
Technology;
Research
for
Hire;
and
Corning
Hazleton.
267
p.

43870303
Johnson,
G.;
Strickland,
M.
(
1995)
Magnitude
of
Residues
in/
on
California
Citrus
Fruit
after
Growth
Regulator
Treatments
with
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy)
Acetic
Acid
Isopropyl
Ester:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
101­
004:
8289401:
8289402.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Western
Ecosystems
Technology;
Research
for
Hire;
and
Corning
Hazleton.
337
p.

43879901
Barney,
W.;
Kunkel,
D.
(
1995)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
on
Peach:
Lab
Project
Number:
4255.93­
CAR05:
4255.93­
GA08:
4255.93­
NJOI.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Environmental
Technologies
Institute,
Inc.
and
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4.
282
p
43879902
Barney,
W.;
Kunkel,
D.
(
1995)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
on
Cherry:
Lab
Project
Number:
4254.92­
NDR03:
4254.94­
CA49:
4254.92­
MII
U.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Environmental
Technologies
Institute,
Inc.
and
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4.
264
p.

43879903
Barney,
W.;
Kunkel,
D.
(
1995)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
on
Plum:
Lab
Project
Number:
4257.93­
CAR06:
4257.93­
WA01:
4257.93­
MI04.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Environmental
Technologies
Institute,
Inc.
and
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4.
348
p.

43879904
Barney,
W.;
Kunkel,
D.
(
1995)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
on
Pistachios:
Lab
Project
Number:
4301.94­
CAR10:
4301.94­
CA99:
4301.94­
CA08.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Environmental
Technologies
Institute,
Inc.
and
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4.
215
p.

43879905
Kunkel,
D.
(
1995)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Asparagus:
Lab
Project
Number:
04090.94­
YAR14:
04090.92­
YARO1:
4090.92­
WA12.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4.
348
p.

43886401
Barney,
W.;
Kunkel,
D.
(
1995)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
on
Potato
(
Reregistration):
Lab
Project
Number:
04302:.
92­
ND04:.
92­
CA24.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
University
of
Idaho;
University
of
Maine;
and
University
of
Wisconsin.
783
p.

43886402
Barney,
W.;
Kunkel,
D.
(
1995)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Cranberry
(
Reregistration):
Lab
Project
Number:
4297.92­
NDR08:
4297.92­
MA01:
4297.92­
WI07.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
University
of
Massachusetts
and
University
of
Wisconsin.
303
p.
89
43886403
Kunkel,
D.
(
1995)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Blueberry
(
Lowbush):
Lab
Project
Number:
4295.94­
CAR26:
94­
CAR96:
R&
R
520.
XLS.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
University
of
California
and
University
of
Maine.
166
p.

43886404
Kunkel,
D.
(
1995)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Strawberry
(
Reregistration):
Lab
Project
Number:
04179.95­
CAR03:
4179.95­
WA13:
4179.95­
WA14.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Washington
State
University
and
University
of
Wisconsin.
422
p.

43886405
Kunkel,
D.
(
1995)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Pear
(
Reregistration):
Lab
Project
Number:
04256.92­
WA16:
4256.92­
NY18:
4256.92­
CA94.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Cornell
University;
Collins
Ag
Consultant,
Inc.;
and
University
of
California.
515
p.

43886406
Kunkel,
D.
(
1995)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
Residue
on
Corn
(
Sweet):
Lab
Project
Number:
4183.95­
WA29:
4183.95­
SC11:
4183.95­
WI07.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
University
of
Wisconsin;
University
of
Florida;
and
Oregon
State
University.
628
p.

43893701
California
Citrus
Quality
Council
(
1995)
Submission
of
Residue
Data
in
Support
of
the
2,4­
D
Registration
Standard.
Transmittal
of
1
Study.

43943101
Barney,
W.;
Kunkel,
D.
(
1995)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
on
Apple:
Lab
Project
Number:
PR
4182:
4182.94­
CAR25:
4182.92­
NYP06.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Environmental
Technologies
Institute,
Inc.
347
p.

43947901
Kunkel,
D.
(
1996)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
on
Grape:
Lab
Project
Number:
04298.94­
CAR24:
04298.94­
CA70:
04298.94­
CA71.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4.
242
p.

43963801
Kunkel,
D.
(
1996)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
on
Filberts
(
Reregistration):
Lab
Project
Number:
6106.95­
CAR06:
6106.95­
OR16:
6106.95­
OR17.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4.
323
p.

43963802
Kunkel,
D.
(
1996)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
on
Pecan
(
Reregistration):
Lab
Project
Number:
6125.95­
CAR18:
6125.95­
NC11:
6125.95­
NC12.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4.
382
p.

44016501
Industry
Task
Force
II
on
2,4­
D
Research
Data
(
1996)
Submission
of
Residue
Data
in
Support
of
the
Registration
Standard
for
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid.
Transmittal
of
2
Studies.

44016502
Howard,
J.
(
1996)
Development
and
Validation
of
Analytical
Methodology
for
the
Quantitation
of
Residues
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
(
2,4­
D)
in
Beef
Muscle,
Liver,
Kidney,
Fat
and
Milk:
Lab
Project
Number:
912:
1848.
90
44024801
Krautter,
G.;
Downs,
J.
(
1996)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
Residues
in
Meat
and
Milk
of
Lactating
Dairy
Cows:
Lab
Project
Number:
886:
1889:
912.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
PTRL
East,
Inc.
608
p.

44135201
Biever,
R.
(
1996)
A
Freshwater
Fish
and
Shellfish
Magnitude
of
Residues
Study
in
a
Static
Aquatic
System:
Amine
400
2,4­
D
Weed
Killer:
Lab
Project
Number:
3140.0796.6106.395:
96­
9­
6660:
1064.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Labs,
Inc.
and
PTRL
East,
Inc.
167
p.

44190301
Carringer,
S.
(
1996)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
in
Wheat
(
Winter
and
Spring)
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
2­
Ethylhexyl
Ester:
(
Final
Report):
Lab
Project
Number:
AA960501:
CHW
6397­
164:
6397­
164.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
Corning
Hazleton,
Inc.
498
p.

44190302
Carringer,
S.
(
1996)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
Acid
in
Wheat
(
Winter
and
Spring)
Following
Ground
Applications
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt:
(
Final
Report):
Lab
Project
Number:
AA960502:
CHW
6397­
163:
6397­
163.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
American
Agricultural
Services,
Inc.
and
Corning
Hazleton,
lnc.
498
p.

44211901
Kunkel,
D.
(
1997)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
on
Almond:
(
Draft
Report):
Lab
Project
Number:
4306.96­
CAR08:
4306.96­
CA16:
4306.96­
CA17.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4.
539
p.

44268501
Kunkel,
D.
(
1997)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
on
Blueberry
(
High
Bush):
Lab
Project
Number:
3085.93­
NDR03:
3085.93­
ORl
8:
3085.93­
NC04.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Interregional
Research
Project
No.
4.
454
p.

44577801
Biever,
R.
(
1998)
A
Freshwater
Shellfish
Magnitude
of
Residue
Study
in
a
Static
Aquatic
System
with
2,4­
D
Dimethylamine
Salt:
Lab
Project
Number:
3140.1196.6107.395:
1081.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springbom
Laboratories,
Inc.
and
PTRL,
Inc.
l33
p.
{
860.1400}

44967401
Howard,
J.
(
1999)
Determination
of
the
Stability
of
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid
(
2,4­
D)
in
Frozen
Clam
Tissue:
Lab
Project
Number:
1135:
2062.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
PTRL
East,
Inc.
44
p.

45245601
Mester,
T.;
Fischer,
E.
(
2000)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
of
2,4­
D
on
Grape
Raw
Agricultural
Products
and
Processed
Commodities:
Final
Study
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
97677:
44086:
97677­
A.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
ABC
Laboratories
California.
181
p.
{
OPPTS
860.1500}

45462201
Johnson,
G.,
Strickland,
M.
(
2001)
Magnitude
of
Residues
in/
on
Citrus
Fruit
After
Post
Harvest
Treatments
with
(
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy)
acetic
Acid
Isopropyl
Ester:
Lab
Project
Numbers:
101­
014;
6578­
108.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
California
Citrus
Quality
Council.
176
p.
{
860.1500}
91
45512701
Arsenovic,
M.
(
2001)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
on
Hops:
Lab
Project
Number:
A5024:
A5024.99­
CAR22:
A5024.99­
WA48.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
IR­
4
Western
Region
Leader
Laboratory;
WSU,
FEQL;
Western
Biochemical
Consulting,
Inc.
and
University
of
Idaho.
124
p.

45647101
Kunkel,
D.
(
1996)
2,4­
D:
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
on
Grape:
Lab
Project
Number:
04298:
ENC­
2/
93:
4298.94­
CA70.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Rutgers
University.
242
p.

45665801
Tieu,
H.
(
2001)
Magnitude
of
Weedaxe
(
2,4­
D)
Residues
in
Grapes:
Lab
Project
Number:
ERS21075:
CA01:
21­
075.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Primus
Labs.
110
p.
{
OPPTS
860.1500,
860.1000}

45672201
Tieu,
H.
(
2002)
Magnitude
of
Weedaxe
(
2,4­
D)
Residue
in
Citrus:
Lab
Project
Number:
R270206.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Primus
Labs.
95
p.
{
OPPTS
860.1000,
860.1500}
