II.
E.
1
­
Page
1
of
37
Appendix
II.
E.
1.
Residential
Pesticide
Use
Inputs
from
REJV
Survey
Data
Pesticide
Use
and
Aggregating
Residential
Exposures
The
probabilistic
models
require
residential
pesticide
use
inputs
to
aggregate
exposure
from
multiple
use
scenarios.
The
percent
of
households
applying
the
various
products,
and
the
timing
of
those
applications
directly
impact
US
per
capita
estimates
of
aggregate
exposure.
1
The
REJV
data
can
be
used
to
generate
empirically­
based
estimates
to
address
those
needs.

Figure
II.
E.
1­
1:
Co­
occurrent
Use
for
Household­
User
Figure
II.
E.
1­
1
depicts
the
application
scenarios
(
sites
and
dates)
for
a
particular
REJV
Household
(
1516840).
The
top
row
represents
carbaryl
use
on
Trees
(`
Fruit/
Nut
trees'),
the
middle
row
represents
carbaryl
use
on
Gardens
(`
Vegetable
Gardens'),
and
the
bottom
row
represents
carbaryl
use
on
Ornamentals
(`
Ornamental
flowers',

1
The
pesticide
use
data
enables
the
models
to
account
for
users
(
any
NMC
scenario)
and
non­
users.
The
models
differ
in
how
pesticide
use
data
are
utilized
to
account
for
users
and
to
account
for
cooccurrent
use
(
multiple
NMC
scenarios)
among
users.
The
duration
(
time
spent)
in
treated
areas
also
directly
impacts
estimates
of
per
capita
exposure.
Lifeline
differs
from
Calendex
and
CARES
since
the
NHAPS
time
use
diaries
are
empirically
built
into
the
model;
therefore,
individuals
have
a
probability
of
not
spending
any
time
in
treated
areas
on
any
given
day;
in
contrast
to
the
time
spent
distributions
used
in
Calendex
and
CARES
that
reflect
only
`
doers'.
II.
E.
1
­
Page
2
of
37
`
Shrubs/
Bushes').
The
horizontal
axis
reflects
the
Julian
dates
(
Day
1=
Jan
1st,
Day
365=
Dec
31st),
and
each
dot
indicates
that
a
carbaryl
product
was
applied
to
that
site
on
that
day.
The
REJV
application
records
indicate
that
Household
1516840
applied
5
different
carbaryl
products
to
these
three
sites
on
15
different
dates:
Day
127,
129,
134,
141,
146,
150,
167,
174,
180,
186,
196,
198,
202,
204,
and
257.

This
household
made
co­
occurrent
applications
(
treated
multiple
sites)
on
four
dates:
(
1)
Day
127,
a
61
yr
old
female
applied
carbaryl
(
Sevin
5%
Dust,
codewlabel=
008)
to
both
her
Garden
and
to
Ornamentals
(
flowers),
on
(
2)
Day
180
she
applied
another
carbaryl
product
(
Garden
Tech
Sevin
10%,
codewlabel=
016)
to
her
Garden
and
Ornamentals
(
shrubs/
bushes),
on
(
3)
Day
257
she
applied
a
third
product
('
GARDEN
SEVEN­
10
BUG
KILLER',
codewlabel=
033)
to
Garden
and
Trees,
and
(
4)
on
Day
174,
another
household
member
(
72
yr
old
male)
applied
carbaryl
(
Garden
Tech
Sevin
10%,
codewlabel=
016)
to
Ornamentals
(
shrubs/
bushes)
and
Trees.
This
anecdotal
example
suggests
that
household­
users
often
apply
carbaryl
to
multiple
sites
on
the
same
day.
However,
the
data
also
indicate
that
other
homeowners
may
also
treat
multiple
sites,
but
on
different
dates
(
e.
g.,
HHID=
0709697
made
five
applications
of
SEVIN
DUST
10%
to
their
lawn,
and
two
applications
to
their
Garden
on
separate
dates),
while
many
other
users
make
only
one
application
of
either
carbaryl
or
propoxur
to
only
one
site
(
e.
g.,
HHID=
1607484
made
one
application
of
Sevin
to
their
lawn).

The
timing
of
each
application
event
directly
affects
the
modeled
surface
and
air
residues
available
for
post­
application
exposure.
In
the
example
above,
the
household
member
that
applied
carbaryl
to
ornamentals
and
trees
on
Day
174,
may
also
receive
post­
application
exposure
while
tending
to
the
garden
that
day
­
to
the
extent
that
residues
are
still
available
from
the
previous
application,
a
week
earlier
(
Day
167).
Similarly,
toddlers
may
obtain
exposure
while
spending
time
in
a
kitchen
that
just
received
a
crack
and
crevice
treatment,
and
obtain
additional
exposure
while
playing
on
a
lawn
that
was
treated
the
previous
week.
2
The
REJV
data
was
collected
to
provide
refined
estimates
of
both
the
percent
of
households
affected
by
various
permutations
of
use
scenarios,
and
the
timing
of
the
corresponding
application
events.
Ideally,
it
would
be
desirable
to
empirically
utilize
the
REJV
diaries
in
the
exposure
models
to
fully
capture
the
variability
in
residential
use
patterns
reported
among
these
households.
Since
the
probabilistic
risk
assessment
models
currently
are
unable
to
utilize
the
REJV
data
in
that
manner,
descriptive
statistics
were
extracted
­
tailored
to
the
specific
models
 
and
utilized
for
this
preliminary
risk
assessment.
3
The
residential
use
patterns
differ
across
the
models
to
the
extent
that
these
models
imperfectly
mimic
the
residential
use
patterns
depicted
in
the
REJV
diaries.
The
next
section
provides
a
brief
overview
of
the
REJV
data.
The
following
sections
describe
the
pesticide
use
inputs
compiled
from
the
REJV
data
and
used
in
the
respective
models.

2
There
was
no
co­
occurrent
use
(
same
day
application)
of
Propoxur
Crack
and
Crevice
&
Carbaryl
Lawn
in
the
REJV
(
1217
Households)
3
The
REJV
companies
have
been
working
to
match
the
CARES
Reference
Population
with
the
REJV
households.
The
Calendex
developer
(
S.
Peterson)
has
also
been
working
to
incorporate
REJV
type
data
into
his
model.
Lifeline
already
has
pesticide
use
diaries
(
II.
G.
e.,
NHGPUS),
built
into
the
model;
several
modifications
would
be
required
to
empirically
incorporate
REJV
data.
II.
E.
1
­
Page
3
of
37
Residential
Exposure
Joint
Venture
(
REJV)
Data4
The
Residential
Exposure
Joint
Venture
(
REJV)
enlisted
households
to
collect
pesticide
use
data
over
a
12
month
period.
An
initial
screening
survey
was
sent
to
over
100,000
panel
members
maintained
by
the
market
research
firm,
National
Family
Opinion
(
NFO)
Research.
The
NFO
previously
collected
demographic
data
for
these
panel
members
(
e.
g.,
age,
gender)
as
well
as
information
on
other
household
members,
the
location
and
type
of
home,
pet
(
dog/
cat/
other)
ownership,
etc.
Of
the
70,427
individuals
that
returned
the
screening
survey,
about
47,274
(
67%)
reported
applying
pesticides
during
the
past
year.
A
subset
of
respondents
(
users)
whom
indicated
an
interest
in
participating
in
the
pesticide
use
survey
were
recruited
to
maintain
pesticide
use
diaries.
Approximately
6,102
households
provided
one
or
more
monthly
pesticide
use
diaries,
and
a
total
of
1,217
households
provided
diaries
for
the
entire
12
month
study
period,
May
2001
 
April
2002.

At
the
beginning
of
the
12
month
survey
period,
these
participants
were
asked
to
locate
all
pesticide
products
stored
around
their
homes
­
both
indoors
(
kitchen,
bathroom)
and
outdoors
(
garage,
shed),
and
to
record
the
product's
name
and
EPA
Registration
number.
The
respondents
were
provided
numerically
labeled
stickers,
and
were
asked
to
affix
one
sticker
to
each
product
so
that
each
product
had
a
unique
identification
number
(
e.
g.,
two
cans
of
Raid
might
be
identified
as
products
#
1
and
#
2,
respectively).
A
monthly
inventory
sheet
also
was
provided
so
that
respondents
could
update
their
pesticide
product
inventory
with
any
new
purchases.
5
The
REJV
consultants
(
Infoscientific)
used
the
EPA
Registration
Number
to
identify
all
active
ingredients
contained
in
the
product,
and
the
corresponding
percentages
from
the
EPA
Pesticide
Product
Inventory
System
(
PPIS)
data
base.
This
information
was
appended
to
the
appropriate
records
in
the
REJV
Inventory
and
Application
Tables.

4
The
REJV
consist
of
approximately
8
member
companies
who
sponsored,
and
oversaw
the
residential
pesticide
use
study.
5
On
three
occasions,
the
initial
inventory
(
5/
1/
01),
after
six
months
(
11/
1/
01)
and
at
end
of
the
study
period
(
4/
30/
02),
the
respondents
were
also
asked
to
provide
an
estimate
of
how
full
each
of
the
products
were:
(
1)
Have
Not
Used
Yet,
(
2)
76%­
99%,
(
3)
51%­
75%,
(
4)
26%­
50%,
(
5)
1%­
25%.
This
information
can
be
used
to
get
a
rough
estimate
on
the
average
amount
of
product
applied
over
all
of
the
applications
made
during
the
preceding
interval.
II.
E.
1
­
Page
4
of
37
At
the
end
of
each
of
month,
the
respondents
were
asked
to
fill
out
and
send
a
monthly
pesticide
product
application
diary
to
NFO.
6
The
application
records
contain
the
following
information:


Application
Date

Name
of
Pesticide
Product

Pesticide
ID

Where/
On
Whom
The
Product
Was
Applied
(
Site)


Who
Applied
The
Pesticide
Product

Method
of
Application

If
the
Product
was
Used
Up

If
the
Product
was
Disposed
of
After
Use
The
Application
Table
contains
approximately
30,000
valid
application
records.
A
valid
application
is
defined
as
an
application
that
was
made
by
a
homeowner
with
a
pesticide
product
that
was
in
the
product
inventory
table
(
linked
by
the
unique
product
identification
number
from
the
sticker).
This
application
table
provides
the
primary
source
of
use
data
for
the
exposure
models.

Assigning
REJV
Application
Events
to
NMC
Scenarios
The
first
task
for
using
REJV
data
to
model
pesticide
exposure
is
to
assign
each
relevant
application
record
(
event)
to
a
corresponding
NMC
Scenario.
The
data
from
the
following
three
fields
in
the
application
table
were
used
to
make
these
assignments:
(
i)
chemical,
(
ii)
application
site,
and
(
iii)
application
method.
For
this
preliminary
NMC
CRA,
only
application
records
with
products
containing
NMC
chemicals
used
by
homeowners
(
carbaryl
and
propoxur)
were
used.
The
list
of
REJV
sites
is
more
detailed
than
the
list
NMC
modeled
scenarios.
For
example,
there
were
695
application
events
with
a
product
containing
carbaryl
to
`
Ornamentals',
of
which,
444
application
events
were
to
`
Ornamental
Flowers',
248
events
to
Shrubs/
Bushes,
and
3
events
to
an
Aquatic
Garden/
Pond.
While
some
respondents
reported
applying
carbaryl
to
two
or
more
of
these
sites
on
a
given
day,
such
events
were
considered
as
one
application
to
`
Ornamentals'.
Similarly,
if
an
individual
reported
applying
a
product
containing
propoxur
to
their
bathroom,
their
kitchen,
or
to
both
locations
(
as
well
as
other
`
Indoor'
locations),
then
that
application
event
was
considered
as
one
`
Indoor
Crack
and
Crevice'
application
for
the
Calendex
and
CARES
inputs
(
the
following
section
describes
the
construction
of
Lifeline
inputs).
The
decision
to
group
these
application
sites
(
Ornamentals,
Indoors)
was
based
on
the
fact
that
the
REJV
did
not
collect
any
information
on
the
areas
treated
nor
the
application
rates,
therefore,
limiting
the
ability
to
utilize
such
refined
estimates.

6
The
respondents
were
also
asked
to
fill
out
and
send
a
pesticide
product
purchase
sheet
to
record
any
new
products
purchased
that
month.
II.
E.
1
­
Page
5
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
1:
Decision
Rules
for
Assigning
Application
Events
to
NMC
Scenarios
in
REJV
Data
Lawn
Garden
Ornamentals
Trees
Pet
Indoor
C&
C
Carbaryl
Carbaryl
Carbaryl
Carbaryl
Carb
Prop
Propoxur
Other
(
Carbl
&

Prop)
Total
Site
Code
APPMETHOD
Scena
rio
N
Scena
rio
N
Scenario
N
Scenario
N
Scenario
N
N
Scenario
N
N
N
50
Aerosol
spray
HES
3
RTU
9
RTU
21
HES
7
Collar
2
Indoor
C&
C
601
440
1,083
51
Bait
box
(
bait
station/
traps)
Dust
1
Dust
1
Indoor
C&
C
80
33
115
53
Direct
pour
(
liquid)
HES
1
RTU
1
RTU
2
2
6
54
Foam/
Gel
1
1
55
Fogger,
outdoor
area
HES
2
HES
1
3
58
Granular
­
broadcast/
rotary
spreader
GPS
5
Dust
1
Dust
7
2
15
59
Granular
­
drop
spreader
GPS
1
Dust
1
Dust
2
4
60
Granular
­
handheld
rotary
spreader
Dust
6
Dust
4
HES
1
1
12
61
Granular/
Dust/
Powder
­

pour
spout,
shaker
can
Dust
65
Dust
395
Dust
378
HES
25
Collar
42
Indoor
C&
C
5
175
1,085
63
Pellets
GPS
2
Dust
3
Dust
19
HES
3
2
29
64
Pet
collar
Dust
1
Collar
5
3
Indoor
C&
C
11
3
23
65
Spot­
on
RTU
2
RTU
5
HES
1
Indoor
C&
C
1
9
67
Sprayer,
hose­
end
HES
11
HES
9
HES
23
HES
10
Indoor
C&
C
3
15
71
68
Sprayer,
hand
wand/
pump/
tank
HES
24
HES
136
HES
141
HES
130
Indoor
C&
C
6
46
483
69
Sprayer,
backpack
RTU
3
RTU
2
5
70
Sprayer,
spritz
HES
1
RTU
2
RTU
10
HES
1
Collar
2
Indoor
C&
C
15
18
49
71
Sprayer,
hand
trigger
HES
5
RTU
22
RTU
55
HES
23
Indoor
C&
C
29
20
154
72
Other
HES
7
RTU
9
RTU
11
HES
3
Collar
5
6
Indoor
C&
C
10
14
65
­
2
Check
verbatims
Dust
5
Dust
5
HES
1
5
16
­
3
Bad
data
Dust
1
Dust
3
Indoor
C&
C
4
1
9
<
blank>
GPS
1
Dust
6
Dust
4
Indoor
C&
C
6
13
30
Grand
Total
12
6
614
695
205
54
11
771
791
3,267
Site
Groupings:
Ornamentals
(
695)
=
Ornamental
flowers
(
444),
Shrubs/
Bushes
(
248),
Aquatic
Garden/
Pond
(
3);
Trees
=
Fruit/
Nut
trees
(
142),

Ornamental/
Other
type
of
trees
(
63);
Indoor
C&
C
(
N=
771)
=
Indoor
Sites
include
Bath
(
N=
157),
Bedroom
(
62),
Child's
play
room
(
4),
Dining
room
(
29),
Family
game
room
(
4),
Indoor
enclosed
porch/
Sun
room
(
8),
Kitchen
(
352),
Living
room
(
65),
Office/
Study/
Den
(
7),
Utility/
Laundry
room
(
61);

Pet
Collar,
Carbaryl
=
Dog
(
30),
Cat
(
22),
Other
Pet
(
2);
II.
E.
1
­
Page
6
of
37
Since
carbaryl
products
are
available
in
several
formulations
(
dust,
liquid,
granules),
the
application
method
was
used
to
assign
all
events
within
the
modeled
sites
to
the
appropriate
NMC
Scenario.
As
Table
II.
E.
1­
1
indicates,
the
REJV
respondents
reported
applying
carbaryl
to
turf
via
several
application
methods,
including:
Granular/
Dust/
Powder
­
pour
spout,
shaker
can
(
65
application
events),
Sprayer,
hand
wand/
pump/
tank
(
24
events),
and
Granular
­
broadcast/
rotary
spreader
(
5
events).
The
Sprayer,
hand
wand/
pump/
tank
scenario
was
assigned
to
Hose­
End
Spray
due
to
recent
regulatory
decisions
affecting
the
product
labels.
Other
application
methods
that
did
not
fit
into
the
scenarios
developed
for
this
preliminary
assessment
were
assigned
to
the
`
closest'
scenario
for
that
site,
or
to
a
scenario
that
was
conservative
with
respect
to
post­
application
exposure.
For
example,
the
application
method
for
carbaryl
applied
to
lawn
was
blank
for
one
record,
and
that
event
was
assigned
to
Granular
Push
Spreader
to
capture
post­
application
to
toddlers.
Applications
to
other
sites
were
not
considered
in
this
assessment
(
e.
g.,
carbaryl
and/
or
propoxur
use
around
the
house
perimeter,
wasp/
hornet
nests,
etc.).

There
were
no
reported
applications
of
methiocarb
in
the
REJV
data
base.
However,
4
homeowners
reported
having
one
or
more
products
containing
methiocarb
on
hand
(
ORTHO
SLUG­
GETA
BAIT,
EPA
REG
NO:
239­
2416­
AA;
INV_
ID=
065277,
096753,
096761,
096761,
100479).
Similarly,
the
REJV
survey
did
not
capture
professional
applications
of
carbaryl
to
lawns
by
Lawn
Care
Operators
(
LCOs),
nor
Indoor
Crack
and
Crevice
applications
by
Pest
Control
Operators
(
PCOs)
with
products
containing
propoxur.
The
available
marketing
data
suggest
relatively
low
use
of
these
carbamates
to
residential
settings.
OPP/
BEAD
estimated
LCOs
applied
between
40,000
lbs
ai
 
125,000
lbs
ai
of
carbaryl,
less
than
1%
of
all
insecticides
(
lbs
ai)
applied
to
residential
lawns;
and
no
reported
use
of
propoxur
by
PCOs.
7
The
two
professional
use
scenarios
were
not
included
in
this
assessment
since
there
is
relatively
low
residential
use
of
carbaryl
and
propoxur
by
LCOs
and
PCOs
respectively
­
and
since
homeowners
do
not
obtain
(
applicator)
exposure
from
those
scenarios.

7
Estimates
of
the
Non­
Agricultural
Usage
of
Carbaryl
and
Propoxur,
Jenna
Carter/
T.
Kiely,
OPP/
BEAD.
II.
E.
1
­
Page
7
of
37
REJV
Weights
For
economical
and
practical
purposes,
only
`
users'
were
enlisted
to
maintain
pesticide
use
diaries
during
the
data
collection
phase.
Since
`
non­
users'
were
not
enlisted
in
this
survey,
the
REJV
projects
total
use
for
the
US
population
by
adjusting
the
use
estimates
among
the
1,217
completed
diaries
(
users)
by
multiplying
estimates
(
Percent
of
Total
US
Households)
by
0.76
to
account
for
the
24%
of
`
non­
users'.
8
Equivalently,
the
1,217
households
may
be
considered
to
represent
approximately
1,603
households
(
1,603
=
1,217
users
+
386
non­
users).
The
REJV
(
NFO)
also
developed
sampling
weights
for
each
of
the
1,217
households;
with
those
weights
summing
up
to
78,855,307
8
The
REJV
recalculated
sampling
weights
for
the
respondents
to
the
Screening
Survey
(
N=
70,427)
to
determine
the
extent
of
residential
pesticide
use
among
homeowners.
Approximately
76%
of
all
households
were
estimated
to
make
one
or
more
pesticide
applications
­
indoors
and/
or
outdoors
­
during
any
given
year
(
slightly
higher
than
the
unweighted
count/
pct
of
67%
=
47,274/
70,427).
The
NFO
developed
the
weights
for
the
1217
households
that
provided
12
months
of
pesticide
use
diaries
to
ensure
that
the
ending
sample
was
representative
of
the
overall
U.
S.
population
on
the
following
criteria:
(
1)
geographical
region,
(
2)
household
income,
(
3)
household
size,
(
4)
Age
of
head
of
household,
(
5)
Market
Size
(
e.
g.,
MSA)
of
city/
township,
(
6)
presence
of
kids.
The
weights
range
from
0.3
to
3.0,
and
sum
up
to
1200.
Black
and
Hispanic
populations
are
known
to
be
under­
represented
in
NFO
panel;
which
the
NFO
took
into
account
when
developing
these
weights.
Box
II.
E.
1­
1:
Possible
Approach
for
Modeling
Professional
Use
While
there
are
few
professional
applications
(
LCO,
PCO)
of
carbaryl
and
propoxur
to
residential
settings,
use
estimates
(
Tables
II.
G.
4,
1.13,
1.14)
for
such
scenarios
could
be
developed
in
the
following
manner.
As
noted
above,
a
total
of
70,427
NFO
panel
members
responded
to
the
screener
survey.
Of
this
total,
62,611
(
89%)
reported
having
a
private
lawn,
13,834
(
19.6%)
reported
hiring
a
PCO
during
the
last
12
months,
and
8,705
(
12.3%)
reported
hiring
an
Lawn
Care
Operator
(
LCO).
Those
responses
may
be
used
to
generate
application
events
for
these
three
scenarios.
Specifically,
only
respondents
with
a
yard
(
lawn)
would
be
allowed
to
apply
methiocarb
to
control
for
snails/
slugs;
such
households
may
be
assumed
to
have
a
one
percent
chance
of
applying
methiocarb
to
ornamental
plants.
Similarly,
and
only
people
that
hired
a
LCO
during
the
last
12
months
would
be
allowed
to
hire
an
LCO
to
apply
carbaryl
to
their
lawn;
such
households
may
be
assumed
to
have
a
10
percent
chance
of
hiring
an
LCO
to
apply
carbaryl
to
their
lawn.
And
finally,
respondents
that
reported
hiring
a
PCO
during
the
last
12
months
may
have
a
10
percent
chance
of
having
a
PCO
to
make
an
Indoor
Crack
and
Crevice
application
of
propoxur.
Applying
such
percentages
(
conditional
probabilities)
to
the
NMC­
Scenario­
user­
application
events
makes
an
implicit
assumption
that
these
3
scenario­
users
are
a
subset
of
the
NMC­
Scenariousers
and
that
the
application
dates
occurred
on
the
same
dates
as
other
NMC­
Scenario
applications.
This
approach
would
be
conservative
in
the
sense
that
it
is
likely
to
overestimate
co­
occurrence;
e.
g.,
it
would
allow
a
homeowner
to
treat
his
lawn,
as
well
as
hire
an
LCO
to
treat
the
lawn
on
the
same
day
(
similar
for
crack
and
crevice
applications).
II.
E.
1
­
Page
8
of
37
households,
or
approximately
76%
of
all
households
in
the
US
(
Table
II.
E.
1­
2).
For
this
preliminary
NMC
CRA,
pesticide
use
statistics
were
calculated
using
two
methods:
(
1)
a
simple
count
of
the
number
of
households,
and
(
2)
using
the
sampling
weights
for
these
1217
households.
Since
these
two
application
methods
produced
similar
results,
we
use/
present
the
statistics/
results
using
the
simple
count
method.

Table
II.
E.
1­
2:
Total
&
Projected
Number
of
Households
in
REJV
Survey
Region
Number
of
Households
with
12
Month
Diaries
Proj
Number
of
Households
(
users+
non­
users)/
1
Proj
Number
of
Households
w/
12
Month
Diaries
Proj
Total
Number
of
Household
(
Users+
Nonusers)
US
1,217
1,603
78,855,307
103,885,440
East
171
225
13,500,548
17,785,871
Midwest
261
344
17,983,445
23,691,723
South
501
660
30,237,128
39,834,951
West
284
374
17,134,187
22,572,895
There
are
high
confidence
intervals
around
the
REJV
estimates
due
to
the
infrequent
nature
of
residential
pesticide
use.
This
is
especially
true
for
the
Calendex
inputs
where
use
statistics
were
calculated
for
each
`
User
type'
 
as
determined
by
the
total
number
of
applications
per
year,
and
further
compounded
by
regional
breakouts.
The
regional
statistics
are
intended
to
provide
additional
perspective
on
the
degree
of
variability
in
regional
use
patterns.
The
primary
concern
was
to
capture
high­
end
use
patterns
as
reported
by
REJV
respondents.
Concerns
regarding
statistical
reliability
may
be
better
addressed
with
appropriate
sensitivity
analyses.

As
Table
II.
E.
1­
3
indicate,
the
three
models
(
Calendex,
CARES
and
Lifeline)
require
slightly
different
set
of
pesticide
use
inputs.
The
following
discussion
is
meant
to
highlight
similarities/
differences
across
the
three
models;
further
details
regarding
these
models
can
be
found
on
the
internet
sites
when
each
of
these
models
were
brought
to
the
SAP.
The
REJV
statistics
for
the
various
pesticide
use
inputs
can
be
found
in
the
Appendix­
Tables
as
indicated
in
the
corresponding
cells.

In
Calendex,
all
modeled
scenarios
are
`
custom'
 
the
exposure
factors
and
the
pesticide
use
inputs
are
not
constrained
based
on
any
label
assigned
to
that
scenario.
Distributions
need
to
be
specified
for
all
exposure
factors
in
each
applicable
routes,
and
the
percent
of
households
and
all
application
timing
data
are
specified
in
that
scenario
input
file.
CARES
and
Lifeline
require
the
users
to
assign
each
modeled
scenario
to
a
pre­
defined
category.
For
any
modeled
scenario,
several
common
exposure
factors
(
e.
g.,
area
treated,
application
rate,
and
duration)
apply
to
all
exposure
routes
within
the
scenario.
In
CARES,
the
total
percent
of
households
apply
to
all
products
within
that
scenario
(
e.
g.,
4%
of
all
Households
may
make
an
application
to
the
Garden
­
that
figure
includes
applications
made
with
any
of
the
3
modeled
scenario­
products:
RTU,
dust­
hand,
liquid
Hose­
End
Spray).
For
Lifeline,
the
percent
of
households
is
indirectly
determined
by
the
various
Target
Pest
Use
Factors
(
II.
E.
e.,
market
shares)
discussed
in
further
detail
below.
II.
E.
1
­
Page
9
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
3:
Residential
Pesticide
Use
Inputs
for
Models
Pesticide
Use
Input
Calendex
CARES
Lifeline
Scenario
Selection
All
Scenarios
are
`
Custom'
17
Scenarios
Affect
PHT,
available
algorithms,
and
possibly
co­
occurrence
85
Scenarios
Affect
PHT,
potential
area
treated
(
AHS/
NGS)
&
duration
(
NHAPS)

Pct
of
Households
(
Product­
Scenario)
Apply
to
Scenario
(
Table
II.
E.
1­
4)
Apply
to
all
uses
within
Scenario
(
Tables
II.
E.
1­
4
&
II.
E.
1­
8)
Target
Pest
Use
Factors
via
NHGPUS
diaries
(
Table
II.
E.
1­
15)
Professional
vs
Homeowner
Applicator
Option
Available
Option
Available
Option
Available
User
Type
Defined
by
Number
of
Applications
&
Application
Schedules
Single
Type
for
Each
Product­
Scenario
(
need
multiple
`
products')
Types
Defined
by
NHGPUS
Diaries
(
Table
II.
E.
1­
15)

Day
of
Week
(
Sun­
Sat)
Distribution
1st
App
(
Table
II.
E.
1­
5)
Distribution
All
Apps
(
Table
II.
E.
1­
10)

Month
or
Julian
Date
(
Day/
Week
of
Year)
Apply
distribution
(
CDF)
to
1st
Application
(
Table
II.
E.
1­
6)
Apply
to
All
Applications
(
Table
II.
E.
1­
11)
Number
of
Applications
&
Interval
(
Days)
Between
Applications
Apply
to
2nd
and
subsequent
Applications
(
Table
II.
E.
1­
7)
Variable
 
indirectly
related
to
existing
applications
(
Table
II.
E.
1­
9)
All
Application
Events
Randomly
determined
based
on
NHGPUS
(#
Apps/
Yr)
&
Region.
Independent
daily
Probabilities
for
North
(=#
apps/
182.5)
and
South
(=#
apps/
365)

Co­
occurrent
Use/
Exposure
Across
Scenarios
Four
sequential
(
pair­
wise)
Links
(
Table
II.
E.
1­
12)
Co­
occurrence
(
Conditional
Probability)
Matrix
(
Tables
II.
E.
1­
13b
&
14b)
NHGPUS
Diaries
(
Partially
Independent
wrt
Daily
Probabilities)

The
scenario
selection
has
a
definitive
impact
in
the
Lifeline
model
since
several
data
bases
are
empirically
built
into
Lifeline.
For
example,
post­
application
exposure
from
`
Indoor
Crack
and
Crevice'
applications
are
a
function
of
the
probability
that
the
various
rooms
were
treated
on
a
given
day
(
National
Home
and
Garden
Pesticide
Use
Survey),
the
areas
treated
(
based
on
data
from
the
American
Housing
Survey),
and
the
time
spent
and
activities
(
Transfer
Coefficient)
engaged
in
while
in
the
treated
rooms
(
National
Human
Activity
Pattern
Survey).
9
The
three
models
provide
an
option
to
account
for
use
by
professional
applicators.
In
all
cases,
the
modeled
individuals
obtain
only
post­
application
exposure
from
such
uses.

The
Calendex
model
allows
for
multiple
`
user
types'.
For
this
assessment,
Calendex
user
types
were
developed
based
on
the
total
number
of
applications
made
over
the
year.
Calendex
requires
a
cumulative
distribution
for
the
date
of
the
first
application
(
by
day
of
year
or
by
week
of
year,
and
day
of
week).
If
there
are
multiple
user
types,
then
Calendex
also
requires
inputs
on
the
number
of
days
between
successive
applications
for
each
type.
The
CARES
model
can
be
specified
using
either
a
general
Scenario
category,
or
using
the
general
Sceanrio
cateogory
and
specifying
`
user
groups'.
The
first
approach
assumes
a
representative
user
type,
and
therefore,
average
values
would
9
Similarly
for
applicator
exposure,
the
amount
applied
is
a
function
of
area
treated.
Lifeline
has
built­
in
distributions
for
Lawn
size
(
American
Housing
Survey,
Lot
size
­
footprint),
garden
sizes
(
National
Gardening
Survey),
and
size
of
Indoor
rooms
(
National
Realtors
Study).
The
entire
area
is
generally
assumed
to
be
treated
in
the
Lifeline
`
Broadcast'
scenarios,
while
a
fraction
of
that
total
potential
area
is
treated
for
`
Spot'
scenarios.
II.
E.
1
­
Page
10
of
37
be
inputted
for
all
application
schedule
inputs,
in
particular,
the
average
number
of
applications,
average
days
between
applications,
distributions
for
day
of
week
and
month
of
year
apply
to
all
applications.
These
application
schedules
are
applied
to
all
products­
application
methods
modeled
within
a
particular
scenario
(
i.
e.,
dust,
RTU
and
liquid
hose­
end
spray
applications
to
a
Garden
share
the
same
application
schedule).
In
the
latter
approach,
separate
application
schedules
(
i.
e.,
day
of
week,
month,
number
of
applications,
interval
between
applications,
and
co­
occurrence)
are
inputted
for
each
Scenario­
user
group.

The
Lifeline
model
utilizes
the
US
EPA
National
Home
and
Garden
Pesticide
Use
(
NHGPUS)
`
diaries'
to
model
residential
pesticide
use;
there
are
as
many
user
types
as
distinct
diaries.
10
A
modeled
individual
is
first
(
stochastically)
determined
to
be
a
user
or
a
non­
user
based
on
the
Target
Pests
Use
Factors
inputted
for
the
various
products.
Table
II.
E.
1­
15
presents
these
inputs
for
the
Lifeline
model.
For
example,
carbaryl
has
8.6%
of
the
market
(
total
applications)
made
to
control
`
plant­
chewing
insects'
on
lawn;
if
10%
of
all
households
applied
some
insecticide
to
lawn
to
control
`
plant­
chewing
insects',
then
an
individual
may
have
approximately
0.86%
(=
0.1
x
0.086)
of
applying
carbaryl
to
lawns
for
this
purpose.
Once
an
individual
has
been
determined
to
be
a
user,
Lifeline
calculates
a
probability
of
use
on
any
given
day
based
on
the
total
number
of
applications
made
during
the
past
12
months,
and
the
region
in
which
that
individual
resides.
If
the
NHGPUS
diary
indicates
that
two
applications
were
made
to
lawns
over
the
12
month
period
and
that
individual
resides
in
a
Southern
state,
then
the
probability
of
an
application
on
any
given
day
is
0.8%
(
0.0082=
2/
365).
All
application
events
are
randomly
(
independently)
determined
for
each
simulated
day.

The
three
models
have
different
approaches
to
account
for
co­
occurrent
use
patterns.
In
Calendex,
all
scenarios
are
listed
in
an
`
AGM'
file,
and
the
user
may
specify
one
of
four
types
of
linkages:
3
pair­
wise
numeric
links
and
alphabetical
type
of
link.
The
numeric
links
define
correlations
between
the
application(
s)
of
one
scenario
with
the
application(
s)
of
the
preceding
scenario:
Code
`
2'
forces
a
scenario
to
have
identical
application
date(
s)
as
the
preceding
scenario
­
this
linkage
requires
both
scenarios
to
have
the
same
application
schedules;
Code
`
3'
is
similar
to
Code
`
2',
but
forces
the
same
date
only
for
the
first
application;
and
Code
`
4'
forces
the
application
of
that
scenario
when
the
previous
scenario
was
used,
but
application
schedules
(
number
of
applications
and
dates)
may
be
different.
Alphabetical
codes
are
used
to
model
`
mutually
independent'
events
(
e.
g.,
may
want
to
have
users
affix
only
one
of
two
potential
pet
collars
to
a
pet).
The
alphabetical
links
may
be
assigned
to
two
or
more
scenarios
(
e.
g.,
select
1
of
2
pet
collars).
Table
II.
E.
1­
12
presents
alternative
links
for
a
Calendex
simulation
based
on
the
conditional
probabilities
in
the
co­
occurrence
matrix
(
further
discussion
below).

10
The
Lifeline
model
randomly
assigns
a
(
12
month
recall)
NHGPUS
diary
to
each
modeled
individual
based
on
several
demographic
characteristics.
The
diary
applies
to
that
individual
as
long
as
s/
he
remains
in
the
same
residence.
If
s/
he
moves,
then
a
new
diary
is
randomly
selected
from
the
appropriate
bin.
II.
E.
1
­
Page
11
of
37
CARES
uses
a
`
co­
occurrence
matrix'
to
account
for
correlations
across
residential
use
scenarios.
11
Table
II.
E.
1­
13b
presents
the
Co­
occurrence
matrix
based
on
the
various
scenario­
sites.
The
matrix
contains
conditional
probabilities,
and
is
read
by
row,
as
follows:
"
For
a
modeled
individual
that
treated
both
their
lawn
and
garden,
for
each
lawn
application
event,
there
is
a
36%
(=
28/
78)
chance
that
the
ornamental
plants
were
treated
on
the
same
day,
a
9%
chance
that
trees
were
treated
on
the
same
day,
an
8%
chance
that
the
garden
was
treated
on
the
same
day,
and
a
0%
chance
that
pets
were
treated
on
the
same
day."
12
Table
II.
E.
1­
12b
provides
a
more
refined
co­
occurrence
by
scenario.

Table
II.
E.
1­
14b
presents
a
co­
occurrence
matrix
that
was
generated
for
the
various
scenarios
(
product­
site­
application
method).
This
co­
occurrence
matrix
may
provide
stronger
correlations
across
products.
For
example,
an
individual
that
treated
his/
her
lawn
with
a
dust
formulation
is
more
likely
to
continue
applying
that
same
product
to
their
ornamental
plants,
garden
and/
or
trees,
than
selecting
another
product
(
such
as
a
liquid
concentrate
applied
using
a
hand
wand)
to
treat
those
sites.
That
anecdotal
practice
is
reflected
in
this
co­
occurrence
matrix.
In
order
to
utilize
these
inputs,
the
CARES
scenarios
need
to
be
individually
grouped
by
each
modeled
scenario
(
formulation­
application
method).
The
conditional
probabilities
in
this
co­
occurrence
matrix
can
also
be
used
as
a
general
guide
for
setting
Calendex
linkages.
A
cursory
review
of
this
table
indicates
that
between
22%
and
25%
of
the
time,
individuals
that
applied
a
carbaryl
product
(
dust
or
liquid)
to
their
garden
also
treated
their
ornamental
plants
on
the
same
day.
Based
on
similar
figures
for
other
product­
site
combinations,
the
25%
figure
was
provided
in
the
Calendex
links
(
Type
4
 
1st
application
on
the
same
date)
for
products
applied
to
different
sites.

As
noted
above,
Lifeline
empirically
utilizes
the
NHGPUS
diaries.
A
modeled
individual
may
apply
one
or
more
products
to
multiple
sites
on
a
given
day
based
upon
the
probabilities
calculated
for
each
product(
s)
to
the
various
sites.
Continuing
with
the
example
above,
if
the
diary
indicates
two
applications
were
made
to
lawn
and
two
applications
are
made
to
garden,
then
the
probability
of
applying
carbaryl
each
of
these
sites
on
any
given
day
is
0.8%
(
0.0082=
2/
365).
While
there
is
a
good
chance
that
the
individual
will
make
at
least
one
application
to
both
sites
at
some
point
during
the
year,
the
probability
that
a
modeled
individual
will
treat
both
sites
on
the
same
day
is
very
low
since
applications
to
each
site
are
independently
determined.

11
For
each
modeled
individual,
CARES
determines
the
permutation
of
use
scenarios
affecting
that
modeled
individual
during
some
time
during
the
year;
each
scenario
is
independently
determined
based
on
the
scenario
probabilities
(
Table
II.
G.
4).
If
multiple
scenarios
are
affected,
a
dominant
scenario
is
selected
and
an
application
date
determined
based
on
the
seasonal
use
patterns
(
Table
II.
G.
10,
1.11).
The
co­
occurrence
matrix
(
Table
II.
G.
13b
or
II.
G.
14b)
provide
conditional
probabilities
of
treating
the
other
scenario(
s)­
site(
s)
on
that
same
date.
Subsequent
applications
for
the
dominant
scenario
are
determined
based
on
the
seasonal
use
patterns,
and
the
Interval
between
applications
(
Table
II.
G.
9).
12
The
`
1s'
on
the
diagonals
indicate
that
use
occurred
on
that
site;
CARES
requires
the
user
to
enter
`
0'
instead
of
`
1'.
II.
E.
1
­
Page
12
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
4:
Total
Number
of
Households
in
REJV
that
applied
N­
Methyl
Carbamates
Total
Number
of
Households
Applying
Product
(
1+
Apps),
Among
1,217
Households
Percent
of
Households
Applying
Product
(
1+
Apps),
Among
Projected
1603
Households
Scenario_
NMC
US
East
Midwest
South
West
US
East
Midwest
South
West
Garden_
All
97
10
26
46
15
6%
4%
8%
7%
4%

Carbaryl_
GardenDust
82
8
25
37
12
5%
4%
7%
6%
3%

Carbaryl_
GardenHES
24
4
4
12
4
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%

Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
11
2
3
6
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%

Lawn_
All
33
4
6
21
2
2%
2%
2%
3%
1%

Carbaryl_
LawnDust
18
2
1
15
1%
1%
0%
2%
0%

Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
2
2
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%

Carbaryl_
LawnHES
16
2
4
8
2
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%

Carbaryl_
Lawn_
LCO
/
1
15
2
5
4
4
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%

Ornamentals_
All
107
10
26
52
19
7%
4%
8%
8%
5%

Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
70
3
20
35
12
4%
1%
6%
5%
3%

Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
25
4
5
10
6
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%

Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
21
2
3
12
4
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%

Methiocarb_
Ornamental
/
1
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%

Pet_
All
15
3
1
8
3
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%

Carbaryl_
PetCollar
12
1
8
3
1%
0%
0%
1%
1%

Propoxur_
PetCollar
3
3
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%

Carbaryl_
TreeHES
36
7
7
17
5
2%
3%
2%
3%
1%

IndoorC&
C
All
84
16
14
34
20
5%
7%
4%
5%
5%

Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
69
15
10
26
18
4%
7%
3%
4%
5%

Prpxur_
IndrC&
C_
PCO
/
1
15
1
4
8
2
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
II.
E.
1
­
Page
13
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
5a:
Distribution
of
1st
Application,
by
Day
of
Week
Distribution
of
1
st
Application
(
Pct),
By
DayOfWeek
Region
NMC
Scenario
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
East
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
25
13
25
13
25
East
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
25
25
25
25
East
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
50
50
East
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
50
50
East
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
50
50
East
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
33
33
33
East
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
25
25
25
25
East
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
50
50
East
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
14
29
14
43
East
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
13
7
13
13
40
13
East
Propoxur_
PetCollar
33
33
33
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
12
28
20
8
12
4
16
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
50
50
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
33
33
33
Midwest
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
100
Midwest
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
50
50
Midwest
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
100
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
15
15
10
15
25
15
5
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
60
20
20
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
33
33
33
Midwest
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
100
Midwest
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
29
29
29
14
Midwest
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
10
10
10
30
20
20
South
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
11
19
19
8
19
3
22
South
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
25
8
17
25
25
South
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
17
33
17
33
South
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
20
20
27
20
13
South
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
13
13
38
38
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
17
14
14
9
17
14
14
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
30
50
20
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
17
17
17
25
17
8
South
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
63
13
13
13
South
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
6
24
12
6
35
12
6
South
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
8
15
20
15
15
12
15
West
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
17
17
17
8
17
25
II.
E.
1
­
Page
14
of
37
Distribution
of
1
st
Application
(
Pct),
By
DayOfWeek
Region
NMC
Scenario
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
West
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
25
50
25
West
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
50
50
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
25
17
25
17
8
8
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
17
17
17
33
17
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
50
25
25
West
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
33
67
West
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
20
20
20
40
West
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
6
11
6
33
17
11
17
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
11
5
18
21
20
10
16
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
21
25
13
13
8
21
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
9
36
9
27
18
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
22
22
11
17
22
6
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
50
50
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
31
25
6
6
31
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
19
13
10
11
14
13
20
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
4
16
8
16
12
8
36
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
14
10
5
29
14
14
14
US
Total
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
8
8
42
8
8
25
US
Total
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
8
17
14
14
17
8
22
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
7
13
13
12
13
19
23
US
Total
Propoxur_
PetCollar
33
33
33
II.
E.
1
­
Page
15
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
6:
Distribution
of
Date
of
1st
Application
CDF
for
1st
Application
(
All
User
Types)

Region
Scenario_
NMC
n
mean
Pct_
0_
1
Pct_
1
Pct_
10
Pct_
20
Pct_
30
Pct_
40
Pct_
50
Pct_
60
Pct_
70
Pct_
80
Pct_
90
Pct_
100
East
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
8
186
147
147
147
160
160
166
169
172
186
238
255
255
East
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
4
183
146
146
146
146
148
148
181
213
213
226
226
226
East
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
2
213
177
177
177
177
177
177
213
248
248
248
248
248
East
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
2
217
203
203
203
203
203
203
217
230
230
230
230
230
East
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
2
193
160
160
160
160
160
160
193
226
226
226
226
226
East
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
3
176
123
123
123
123
123
147
147
147
258
258
258
258
East
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
4
133
105
105
105
105
132
132
134
135
135
159
159
159
East
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
2
233
190
190
190
190
190
190
233
276
276
276
276
276
East
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
7
152
109
109
109
113
124
124
130
139
139
149
303
303
East
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
15
124
5
5
19
46
102
124
140
146
151
173
223
238
East
Propoxur_
PetCollar
3
154
121
121
121
121
121
166
166
166
174
174
174
174
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
25
180
124
124
129
135
137
160
181
196
199
207
248
277
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
4
167
129
129
129
129
135
135
157
178
178
226
226
226
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
3
212
184
184
184
184
184
188
188
188
263
263
263
263
Midwest
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
1
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
Midwest
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
2
110
108
108
108
108
108
108
110
112
112
112
112
112
Midwest
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
4
162
107
107
107
107
150
150
161
171
171
220
220
220
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
20
182
109
109
124
139
157
167
179
201
213
223
235
264
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
5
163
125
125
125
138
150
161
171
178
184
185
185
185
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
3
222
188
188
188
188
188
220
220
220
259
259
259
259
Midwest
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
1
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
Midwest
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
7
149
108
108
108
111
133
133
137
176
176
184
197
197
Midwest
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
10
113
44
44
61
83
96
104
106
112
118
133
187
228
South
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
37
155
100
100
110
125
132
137
144
149
164
186
241
267
South
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
12
159
96
96
108
127
130
134
148
162
172
201
205
275
South
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
6
136
103
103
103
123
123
133
134
135
158
158
163
163
South
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
15
164
29
29
64
99
109
125
147
161
234
248
276
343
South
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
8
153
66
66
66
103
110
135
142
149
166
188
310
310
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
35
153
69
69
87
125
129
133
135
154
170
190
196
343
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
10
141
54
54
60
85
115
137
152
164
171
173
209
244
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
12
160
103
103
109
125
133
140
147
166
171
192
221
270
South
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
8
177
107
107
107
129
136
144
157
170
195
248
283
283
South
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
17
147
93
93
103
106
114
117
140
169
172
179
204
237
South
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
26
112
2
2
10
59
82
98
115
124
140
148
186
345
West
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
12
155
116
116
117
122
123
134
139
143
156
186
236
253
II.
E.
1
­
Page
16
of
37
CDF
for
1st
Application
(
All
User
Types)

Region
Scenario_
NMC
n
mean
Pct_
0_
1
Pct_
1
Pct_
10
Pct_
20
Pct_
30
Pct_
40
Pct_
50
Pct_
60
Pct_
70
Pct_
80
Pct_
90
Pct_
100
West
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
4
181
145
145
145
145
162
162
172
181
181
237
237
237
West
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
2
211
181
181
181
181
181
181
211
240
240
240
240
240
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
12
138
48
48
56
87
89
95
117
133
145
181
242
345
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
6
172
152
152
152
162
162
167
169
171
181
181
196
196
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
4
152
141
141
141
141
143
143
147
150
150
172
172
172
West
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
3
134
33
33
33
33
33
138
138
138
230
230
230
230
West
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
5
200
100
100
100
124
148
165
181
217
253
286
319
319
West
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
18
162
22
22
67
120
131
141
145
150
160
228
301
307
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
82
165
100
100
122
129
135
142
149
166
186
198
241
277
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
24
168
96
96
127
130
145
146
156
172
181
213
226
275
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
11
170
103
103
123
133
135
158
163
177
184
188
248
263
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
18
171
29
29
64
100
124
147
161
176
230
246
276
343
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
2
110
108
108
108
108
108
108
110
112
112
112
112
112
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
16
168
66
66
103
110
135
150
163
171
188
220
240
310
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
70
160
48
48
88
122
129
134
147
167
184
201
234
345
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
25
152
54
54
103
126
135
151
159
168
171
178
185
244
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
21
174
103
103
125
140
142
150
166
172
190
220
259
276
US
Total
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
12
162
33
33
107
126
129
136
141
170
195
230
248
283
US
Total
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
36
156
93
93
103
109
114
133
140
149
176
184
237
319
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
69
128
2
2
29
67
98
117
125
140
147
160
228
345
US
Total
Propoxur_
PetCollar
3
154
121
121
121
121
121
166
166
166
174
174
174
174
II.
E.
1
­
Page
17
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
7:
Distribution
of
Date
of
2nd
and
Subsequent
Applications
Average
Days
Between
Applications
Region
Scenario_
NMC
Apps
/
Yr
NHH
PCT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
East
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
1
4
50.0
East
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
2
3
37.5
19
East
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
5
1
12.5
1
4
8
11
East
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
1
1
25.0
East
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
3
2
50.0
12
41
East
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
8
1
25.0
11
8
14
14
10
21
39
East
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
1
1
50.0
East
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
2
1
50.0
8
East
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
1
2
100.0
East
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
2
1
50.0
77
East
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
4
1
50.0
8
2
4
East
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
1
2
66.7
East
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
3
1
33.3
35
9
East
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
1
3
75.0
East
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
4
1
25.0
36
31
77
East
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
1
1
50.0
East
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
3
1
50.0
25
10
East
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
1
3
42.9
East
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
4
2
28.6
17
41
34
East
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
5
1
14.3
48
31
9
14
East
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
6
1
14.3
30
24
22
10
28
East
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
1
6
40.0
East
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
3
3
20.0
14
92
East
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
4
1
6.7
45
38
21
East
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
5
1
6.7
1
6
22
3
East
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
9
1
6.7
3
2
4
3
3
2
3
4
East
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
12
1
6.7
4
23
40
24
168
5
3
6
10
12
6
East
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
14
1
6.7
9
80
13
18
30
1
18
1
20
24
17
16
69
East
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
31
1
6.7
1
3
1
2
94
10
2
5
3
3
4
2
2
1
1
19
5
9
3
6
6
2
23
8
2
3
3
1
2
5
East
Propoxur_
PetCollar
1
1
33.3
East
Propoxur_
PetCollar
2
1
33.3
40
East
Propoxur_
PetCollar
6
1
33.3
31
30
31
31
30
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
1
10
40.0
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
2
5
20.0
14
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
3
2
8.0
20
14
II.
E.
1
­
Page
18
of
37
Average
Days
Between
Applications
Region
Scenario_
NMC
Apps
/
Yr
NHH
PCT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
4
2
8.0
33
12
13
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
5
1
4.0
25
16
9
44
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
6
3
12.0
22
4
6
7
25
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
9
1
4.0
12
12
6
3
5
13
8
4
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
11
1
4.0
6
23
16
10
6
2
3
20
5
20
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
1
3
75.0
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
4
1
25.0
5
5
61
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
1
2
66.7
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
2
1
33.3
6
Midwest
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
2
1
100.0
3
Midwest
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
1
2
100.0
Midwest
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
1
2
50.0
Midwest
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
2
1
25.0
33
Midwest
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
7
1
25.0
18
5
16
13
9
6
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
1
10
50.0
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
2
6
30.0
23
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
3
1
5.0
40
35
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
4
1
5.0
56
3
7
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
5
1
5.0
5
61
14
27
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
7
1
5.0
3
5
3
5
10
8
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
1
1
20.0
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
2
2
40.0
9
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
3
1
20.0
1
32
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
7
1
20.0
18
5
16
13
9
6
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
1
3
100.0
Midwest
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
1
1
100.0
Midwest
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
1
3
42.9
Midwest
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
2
3
42.9
9
Midwest
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
3
1
14.3
12
10
Midwest
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
1
3
30.0
Midwest
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
2
3
30.0
24
Midwest
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
3
2
20.0
33
19
Midwest
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
4
1
10.0
77
18
90
Midwest
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
9
1
10.0
23
23
1
83
19
13
17
40
South
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
1
13
35.1
South
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
2
10
27.0
20
II.
E.
1
­
Page
19
of
37
Average
Days
Between
Applications
Region
Scenario_
NMC
Apps
/
Yr
NHH
PCT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
South
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
3
8
21.6
12
24
South
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
4
1
2.7
107
11
68
South
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
5
3
8.1
17
13
15
14
South
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
7
2
5.4
22
8
3
13
8
9
South
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
1
6
50.0
South
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
3
1
8.3
10
3
South
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
4
1
8.3
4
11
33
South
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
5
1
8.3
14
96
14
14
South
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
6
1
8.3
11
26
7
9
21
South
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
7
1
8.3
5
4
16
1
2
21
South
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
8
1
8.3
2
5
7
5
4
17
13
South
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
1
2
33.3
South
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
2
2
33.3
15
South
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
3
1
16.7
13
8
South
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
8
1
16.7
17
32
15
7
12
23
18
South
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
1
9
60.0
South
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
2
2
13.3
14
South
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
3
1
6.7
74
7
South
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
4
1
6.7
1
6
4
South
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
5
1
6.7
115
14
20
6
South
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
16
1
6.7
26
21
7
5
2
6
5
44
39
17
45
18
5
12
9
South
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
1
6
75.0
South
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
2
1
12.5
43
South
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
3
1
12.5
128
45
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
1
13
37.1
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
2
10
28.6
41
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
3
5
14.3
20
26
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
4
3
8.6
8
18
15
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
5
1
2.9
50
5
31
113
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
6
2
5.7
27
12
6
11
21
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
7
1
2.9
61
31
25
15
14
5
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
1
2
20.0
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
2
2
20.0
38
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
3
2
20.0
9
13
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
4
4
40.0
41
35
19
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
1
8
66.7
II.
E.
1
­
Page
20
of
37
Average
Days
Between
Applications
Region
Scenario_
NMC
Apps
/
Yr
NHH
PCT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
4
3
25.0
36
8
23
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
11
1
8.3
19
11
8
9
6
10
16
9
12
15
South
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
1
5
62.5
South
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
2
2
25.0
58
South
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
6
1
12.5
11
2
14
9
1
South
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
1
9
52.9
South
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
2
4
23.5
45
South
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
4
2
11.8
5
8
21
South
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
7
1
5.9
6
24
8
21
11
24
South
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
8
1
5.9
17
14
18
15
7
12
58
South
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
1
9
34.6
South
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
2
7
26.9
87
South
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
3
2
7.7
108
95
South
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
4
1
3.8
62
11
75
South
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
5
1
3.8
5
11
6
12
South
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
7
2
7.7
69
39
21
17
25
20
South
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
8
1
3.8
24
5
45
46
10
29
26
South
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
9
1
3.8
15
19
53
6
12
3
9
72
South
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
22
1
3.8
5
4
4
2
4
4
4
96
8
6
5
2
67
4
3
7
1
1
1
5
1
South
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
30
1
3.8
12
9
2
4
3
19
4
4
28
33
17
11
13
3
35
2
8
36
1
4
5
14
8
14
10
22
10
8
13
West
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
1
6
50.0
West
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
2
2
16.7
12
West
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
3
4
33.3
31
25
West
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
1
2
50.0
West
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
2
1
25.0
34
West
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
4
1
25.0
39
18
21
West
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
1
1
50.0
West
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
2
1
50.0
47
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
1
5
41.7
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
2
4
33.3
78
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
4
1
8.3
13
34
4
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
5
2
16.7
51
33
34
30
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
1
3
50.0
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
3
1
16.7
10
11
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
4
1
16.7
39
18
21
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
6
1
16.7
7
9
14
10
8
II.
E.
1
­
Page
21
of
37
Average
Days
Between
Applications
Region
Scenario_
NMC
Apps
/
Yr
NHH
PCT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
1
3
75.0
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
2
1
25.0
109
West
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
1
2
66.7
West
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
6
1
33.3
28
33
161
1
5
West
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
1
3
60.0
West
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
2
1
20.0
68
West
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
3
1
20.0
39
18
West
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
1
10
55.6
West
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
2
3
16.7
104
West
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
4
2
11.1
83
2
91
West
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
5
1
5.6
1
131
35
1
West
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
11
1
5.6
6
70
2
3
2
8
2
2
3
2
West
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
28
1
5.6
45
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
16
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
4
2
1
2
1
7
7
1
1
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
1
33
40.2
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
2
20
24.4
17
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
3
14
17.1
18
23
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
4
3
3.7
57
11
31
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
5
5
6.1
15
12
12
19
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
6
3
3.7
22
4
6
7
25
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
7
2
2.4
22
8
3
13
8
9
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
9
1
1.2
12
12
6
3
5
13
8
4
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
11
1
1.2
6
23
16
10
6
2
3
20
5
20
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
1
12
50.0
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
2
1
4.2
34
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
3
3
12.5
11
28
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
4
3
12.5
16
11
38
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
5
1
4.2
14
96
14
14
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
6
1
4.2
11
26
7
9
21
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
7
1
4.2
5
4
16
1
2
21
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
8
2
8.3
7
7
11
10
7
19
26
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
1
5
45.5
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
2
4
36.4
11
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
3
1
9.1
13
8
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
8
1
9.1
17
32
15
7
12
23
18
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
1
11
61.1
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
2
3
16.7
10
II.
E.
1
­
Page
22
of
37
Average
Days
Between
Applications
Region
Scenario_
NMC
Apps
/
Yr
NHH
PCT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
3
1
5.6
74
7
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
4
1
5.6
1
6
4
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
5
1
5.6
115
14
20
6
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
16
1
5.6
26
21
7
5
2
6
5
44
39
17
45
18
5
12
9
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
1
2
100.0
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
1
9
56.3
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
2
4
25.0
50
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
3
1
6.3
128
45
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
4
1
6.3
8
2
4
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
7
1
6.3
18
5
16
13
9
6
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
1
30
42.9
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
2
20
28.6
43
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
3
7
10.0
25
25
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
4
5
7.1
19
18
11
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
5
4
5.7
39
33
28
50
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
6
2
2.9
27
12
6
11
21
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
7
2
2.9
32
18
14
10
12
7
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
1
9
36.0
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
2
4
16.0
24
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
3
4
16.0
7
17
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
4
6
24.0
40
32
29
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
6
1
4.0
7
9
14
10
8
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
7
1
4.0
18
5
16
13
9
6
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
1
15
71.4
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
2
1
4.8
109
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
3
1
4.8
25
10
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
4
3
14.3
36
8
23
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
11
1
4.8
19
11
8
9
6
10
16
9
12
15
US
Total
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
1
8
66.7
US
Total
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
2
2
16.7
58
US
Total
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
6
2
16.7
20
18
88
5
3
US
Total
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
1
18
50.0
US
Total
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
2
8
22.2
34
US
Total
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
3
2
5.6
26
14
US
Total
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
4
4
11.1
11
24
27
US
Total
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
5
1
2.8
48
31
9
14
II.
E.
1
­
Page
23
of
37
Average
Days
Between
Applications
Region
Scenario_
NMC
Apps
/
Yr
NHH
PCT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
US
Total
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
6
1
2.8
30
24
22
10
28
US
Total
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
7
1
2.8
6
24
8
21
11
24
US
Total
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
8
1
2.8
17
14
18
15
7
12
58
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
1
28
40.6
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
2
13
18.8
76
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
3
7
10.1
46
72
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
4
5
7.2
70
14
74
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
5
3
4.3
2
49
21
5
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
7
2
2.9
69
39
21
17
25
20
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
8
1
1.4
24
5
45
46
10
29
26
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
9
3
4.3
14
15
19
31
11
6
10
39
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
11
1
1.4
6
70
2
3
2
8
2
2
3
2
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
12
1
1.4
4
23
40
24
168
5
3
6
10
12
6
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
14
1
1.4
9
80
13
18
30
1
18
1
20
24
17
16
69
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
22
1
1.4
5
4
4
2
4
4
4
96
8
6
5
2
67
4
3
7
1
1
1
5
1
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
28
1
1.4
45
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
16
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
4
2
1
2
1
7
7
1
1
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
30
1
1.4
12
9
2
4
3
19
4
4
28
33
17
11
13
3
35
2
8
36
1
4
5
14
8
14
10
22
10
8
13
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
31
1
1.4
1
3
1
2
94
10
2
5
3
3
4
2
2
1
1
19
5
9
3
6
6
2
23
8
2
3
3
1
2
5
US
Total
Propoxur_
PetCollar
1
1
33.3
US
Total
Propoxur_
PetCollar
2
1
33.3
40
US
Total
Propoxur_
PetCollar
6
1
33.3
31
30
31
31
30
II.
E.
1
­
Page
24
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
8:
Market
Shares
for
each
CARES'
Scenario,
By
NMC
Scenario
Total
Number
of
Applications
(
1217
HHs)
Market
Share­
Applications
(
1217
HHs)

Scenario_
NMC
US
East
Midwest
South
West
US
East
Midwest
South
West
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
204
15
77
90
22
69%
45%
88%
62%
73%

Carbaryl_
GardenHES
69
15
7
39
8
23%
45%
8%
27%
27%

Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
24
3
4
17
8%
9%
5%
12%
0%

Carbaryl_
LawnDust
45
2
2
41
58%
25%
13%
79%
0%

Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
2
2
3%
0%
13%
0%
0%

Carbaryl_
LawnHES
31
6
11
11
3
40%
75%
73%
21%
100%

Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
157
5
41
84
27
59%
31%
69%
59%
56%

Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
66
7
15
28
16
25%
44%
25%
20%
33%

Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
43
4
3
31
5
16%
25%
5%
22%
10%

Carbaryl_
PetCollar
24
1
15*
8
73%
0%
100%
100%
100%

Carbaryl_
TreeHES
82
22
12
40
8
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
307
90
28
121
68
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Propoxur_
PetCollar
9
9
27%
100%
0%
0%
0%

Total
Applications
1406
240
247
656
263
The
total
number
of
applications
(
N=
1406)
is
based
on
the
1217
households
that
provided
12
months
of
pesticide
use
diaries;
the
households
that
provided
less
than
12
months
of
pesticide
use
diaries
made
a
total
of
N=
1190.
The
total
number
of
applications
(
By
Scenario_
NMC)
is
still
less
than
the
number
suggested
in
Table
B.
1.2
(
N=
3307);
since
an
application
to
multiple
REJV
sites
within
a
NMC
Scenario
group
is
considered
one
application
to
that
site
(
per
discussion
above);
e.
g.,
someone
treating
both
ornamental
flowers,
and
shrubs/
bushes
on
a
single
day
is
considered
to
have
made
one
application
to
`
Ornamental'
plants.
II.
E.
1
­
Page
25
of
37
Table
II.
E.
9
Average
Number
of
Applications/
Year
&
Interval
Between
Applications
Average
Number
of
Applications/
Yr/
HH
Average
Days
Between
Applications
Scenario_
NMC
East
Midwest
South
West
US
Total
East
Midwest
South
West
US
Total
Garden­
All
Scenarios
2
3
3
2
3
16
14
17
25
17
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
2
3
2
2
2
11
14
18
24
16
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
4
2
3
2
3
20
24
14
28
17
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
2
1.3
3
2
8
6
16
15
Lawn­
All
Scenarios
2
2
2
2
2
23
13
26
47
24
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
1.0
2
3
3
3
21
20
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
1.0
1.0
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
3
3
1.4
2
2
23
14
72
47
30
Ornamental­
All
Scenarios
2
2
3
2
2
32
17
24
35
25
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
2
2
2
2
2
22
20
26
44
28
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
2
3
3
3
3
48
12
28
15
22
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
2
1.0
3
1.3
2
18
17
109
21
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
3
2
2
2
2
27
10
21
42
23
Pet­
All
Scenarios
3
1.0
2
3
2
32
22
46
32
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
1.0
2
3
2
22
46
32
Propoxur_
PetCollar
3
3
32
32
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
6
3
5
4
4
18
32
27
21
23
II.
E.
1
­
Page
26
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
10:
Distribution
of
All
Applications,
by
Day
of
Week
Distribution
of
All
Applications
(
Pct),
By
DayOfWeek
Region
NMC
Scenario
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
East
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
10
21
3
21
21
10
14
East
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
9
11
18
16
9
7
30
East
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
14
14
29
14
29
East
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
33
67
East
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
100
East
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
20
10
30
40
East
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
22
13
9
9
17
9
22
East
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
5
16
21
21
16
21
East
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
50
7
7
14
7
14
East
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
100
East
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
11
9
26
15
13
9
17
East
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
13
12
17
12
9
13
25
East
Propoxur_
PetCollar
18
9
9
9
9
27
18
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
12
12
15
16
18
10
17
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
11
11
21
32
16
11
Midwest
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
25
13
13
25
13
13
Midwest
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
33
33
33
Midwest
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
33
33
33
Midwest
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
19
19
6
25
19
13
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
17
11
12
16
16
9
17
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
20
10
7
13
23
13
13
Midwest
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
10
20
20
10
40
Midwest
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
29
43
29
Midwest
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
9
11
9
16
27
14
14
Midwest
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
14
17
19
21
7
12
10
South
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
13
13
18
13
14
11
19
South
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
4
22
10
13
17
14
21
South
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
13
10
13
19
13
16
16
South
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
20
14
8
14
10
24
10
South
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
50
50
South
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
10
5
19
5
19
24
19
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
16
14
10
14
15
14
18
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
4
10
19
8
13
15
31
South
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
14
8
14
15
14
22
14
South
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
16
7
3
27
13
7
27
II.
E.
1
­
Page
27
of
37
Distribution
of
All
Applications
(
Pct),
By
DayOfWeek
Region
NMC
Scenario
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
South
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
9
14
14
14
8
22
20
South
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
13
14
17
13
16
11
16
West
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
12
12
22
16
9
20
8
West
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
30
10
20
20
20
West
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
100
West
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
60
20
20
West
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
67
33
West
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
40
20
40
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
14
13
17
14
10
17
13
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
33
11
17
11
11
17
West
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
29
14
43
14
West
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
11
11
22
22
33
West
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
35
18
12
12
6
18
West
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
15
11
17
12
12
20
13
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
12
13
17
15
15
12
16
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
8
17
13
17
11
12
22
US
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
10
10
13
19
15
17
17
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
23
13
6
11
10
24
13
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
22
33
11
22
11
US
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
17
10
17
10
8
15
23
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
17
13
12
14
14
13
17
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
13
11
13
13
13
14
23
US
Total
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
12
17
10
17
12
17
16
US
Total
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
15
11
4
23
13
11
23
US
Total
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
12
12
14
14
14
15
18
US
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
14
13
17
14
12
14
16
US
Total
Propoxur_
PetCollar
18
9
9
9
9
27
18
II.
E.
1
­
Page
28
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
11:
Distribution
of
All
Applications,
by
Month
Scenario
REGION
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
East
0
0
0
0
5
13
6
4
1
0
0
0
29
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
Midwest
0
0
0
0
25
37
39
17
9
3
0
0
130
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
South
0
1
0
6
64
47
37
18
7
1
1
2
184
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
West
1
0
0
2
24
16
13
8
8
2
0
0
74
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
Total
1
1
0
8
118
113
95
47
25
6
1
2
417
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
Total­
Pct
0.2%
0.2%
0%
2%
28%
27%
23%
11%
6%
1%
0.2%
0.5%
100%

Carbaryl_
GardenHES
East
0
0
0
0
3
15
17
7
2
0
0
0
44
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
Midwest
0
0
0
0
5
6
5
3
0
0
0
0
19
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
South
0
0
0
2
20
18
20
7
4
1
0
0
72
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
West
0
0
0
0
2
3
1
3
1
0
0
0
10
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
Total
0
0
0
2
30
42
43
20
7
1
0
0
145
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
Total­
Pct
0%
0%
0%
1%
21%
29%
30%
14%
5%
1%
0%
0%
100%

Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
East
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
7
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
Midwest
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
1
0
0
0
8
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
South
0
0
0
2
6
12
9
2
0
0
0
0
31
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
West
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
Total
0
0
0
2
8
17
16
2
3
0
0
0
48
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
Total­
Pct
0%
0%
0%
4%
17%
35%
33%
4%
6%
0%
0%
0%
100%

Carbaryl_
LawnDust
East
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
Midwest
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
South
1
1
6
9
8
3
2
5
6
3
4
3
51
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
South
2%
2%
12%
17%
16%
6%
4%
10%
12%
6%
8%
6%
100%

Carbaryl_
LawnDust
West
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
Total
1
1
6
9
11
9
3
6
6
3
4
3
62
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
Total­
Pct
2%
2%
10%
15%
18%
15%
5%
10%
10%
5%
6%
5%
100%

Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
East
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
Midwest
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
South
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
West
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
Total
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
9
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
Total­
Pct
11%
0%
0%
22%
11%
11%
11%
0%
11%
22%
0%
0%
100%

Carbaryl_
LawnHES
East
0
0
0
0
1
5
2
1
0
1
0
0
10
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
Midwest
0
0
0
1
2
4
4
5
0
0
0
0
16
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
South
0
0
1
2
8
1
4
3
0
1
1
0
21
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
West
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
5
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
Total
0
0
1
3
11
12
11
10
0
3
1
0
52
II.
E.
1
­
Page
29
of
37
Scenario
REGION
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
Total­
Pct
0%
0%
2%
6%
21%
23%
21%
19%
0%
6%
2%
0%
100%

Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
East
0
0
0
0
8
7
4
2
2
0
0
0
23
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
Midwest
0
0
0
1
19
29
29
14
4
2
0
0
98
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
South
1
0
4
1
66
27
27
19
6
3
0
1
155
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
West
1
2
3
6
22
9
10
9
4
1
1
1
69
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
Total
2
2
7
8
115
72
70
44
16
6
1
2
345
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
Total­
Pct
1%
1%
2%
2%
33%
21%
20%
13%
5%
2%
0%
1%
100%

Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
East
0
0
0
1
3
5
5
3
1
1
0
0
19
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
Midwest
0
0
0
0
8
3
14
5
0
0
0
0
30
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
South
0
1
1
2
15
13
9
3
4
0
0
0
48
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
West
0
0
0
0
0
9
6
2
1
0
0
0
18
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
Total
0
1
1
3
26
30
34
13
6
1
0
0
115
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
Total­
Pct
0%
1%
1%
3%
23%
26%
30%
11%
5%
1%
0%
0%
100%

Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
East
0
0
0
0
1
6
1
5
0
1
0
0
14
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
Midwest
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
4
1
0
0
0
10
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
South
0
0
0
2
9
14
17
10
4
2
1
0
59
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
West
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
7
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
Total
0
0
0
2
14
23
22
19
6
3
1
0
90
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
Total­
Pct
0%
0%
0%
2%
16%
26%
24%
21%
7%
3%
1%
0%
100%

Carbaryl_
PetCollar
East
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
Midwest
0
0
0
0
4
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
7
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
South
0
0
0
2
10
9
3
3
1
2
0
0
30
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
South
0%
0%
0%
7%
33%
30%
10%
10%
3%
7%
0%
0%
100%

Carbaryl_
PetCollar
West
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
9
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
Total
0
1
1
3
16
11
5
4
1
5
0
0
47
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
Total­
Pct
0%
2%
2%
6%
34%
23%
11%
9%
2%
11%
0%
0%
100%

Carbaryl_
TreeHES
East
0
0
0
2
11
10
13
7
2
1
0
0
46
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
Midwest
0
0
0
3
9
12
12
4
2
2
0
0
44
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
South
0
0
0
8
23
19
15
5
4
0
0
0
74
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
West
0
0
0
1
6
2
2
3
1
0
2
0
17
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
Total
0
0
0
14
49
43
42
19
9
3
2
0
181
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
Total­
Pct
0%
0%
0%
8%
27%
24%
23%
10%
5%
2%
1%
0%
100%

Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
East
4
9
4
4
21
17
13
10
10
0
8
2
102
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
Midwest
0
1
4
9
13
9
8
5
4
1
4
0
58
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
South
13
6
6
12
49
16
20
18
10
6
4
7
167
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
South
8%
4%
4%
7%
28%
10%
12%
11%
6%
4%
2%
4%
100%

Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
West
1
0
2
1
24
12
29
33
23
8
4
0
137
II.
E.
1
­
Page
30
of
37
Scenario
REGION
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
Total
18
16
16
26
107
54
70
66
47
15
20
9
464
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
Total­
Pct
4%
3%
3%
6%
23%
12%
15%
14%
10%
3%
4%
2%
100%

Propoxur_
PetCollar
East
0
0
0
0
1
4
2
2
1
1
0
0
11
Propoxur_
PetCollar
Total
0
0
0
0
1
4
2
2
1
1
0
0
11
Propoxur_
PetCollar
Total­
Pct
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
36%
18%
18%
9%
9%
0%
0%
100%
II.
E.
1
­
Page
31
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
12:
Calendex
Links
to
Account
for
Co­
occurrence
Use
Across
Scenarios1
Baseline
Assumptions
Alternative
Assumption
Index
Scenario_
NMC
Link
Type
Link
Type
Link
Percent
1
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
2
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
4
25%

3
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
4
25%

4
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
5
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
4
25%

6
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
4
25%

7
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
4
25%

8
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
9
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
10
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
4
25%

11
Methiocarb_
OrnamentalDust
12
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
A
A
13
Propoxur_
PetCollar
A
A
14
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
1
Co­
occurrence
across
scenarios
was
not
incorporated
into
the
current
assessment.
II.
E.
1
­
Page
32
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
13a:
Total
Applications
on
a
Given
Date,
By
Site
Total
Number
of
Applications
Garden
Ornamental
Lawn
Pet
IndoorC&

C
Tree
Lawn_

LCO
IndoorC&

C_

PCO
Diag
Garden
297
69
6
4
0
26
4
6
297
Ornamental
69
271
28
1
3
27
2
7
271
Lawn
6
28
78
0
0
7
1
2
78
Pet
4
1
0
33
1
1
0
0
33
IndoorC&
C
0
3
0
1
307
0
3
6
307
Tree
26
27
7
1
0
82
0
1
82
Lawn_
LCO
4
2
1
0
3
0
15
1
15
IndoorC&
C_
PCO
6
7
2
0
6
1
1
17
17
Null
297
271
78
33
307
82
15
17
Table
II.
E.
1­
13b:
Co­
occurrence
Matrix,
By
Site
Scenario_
NMC
Garden
Ornamental
Lawn
Pet
IndoorC&

C
Tree
Lawn_

LCO
IndoorC&

C_

PCO
Garden
1.00
0.23
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.09
0.01
0.02
Ornamental
0.25
1.00
0.10
0.00
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.03
Lawn
0.08
0.36
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.01
0.03
Pet
0.12
0.03
0.00
1.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
IndoorC&
C
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.003
1.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
Tree
0.32
0.33
0.09
0.01
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.01
Lawn_
LCO
0.27
0.13
0.07
0.00
0.20
0.00
1.00
0.07
IndoorC&
C_
PCO
0.35
0.41
0.12
0.00
0.35
0.06
0.06
1.00
II.
E.
1
­
Page
33
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
14a:
Total
Number
of
Application­
Events,
By
Scenario_
NMC
Scenario_
NMC
Carbaryl_

GardenDust
Carbaryl_

GardenHES
Carbaryl_

GardenRTU
Carbaryl_

LawnDust
Carbaryl_

LawnGPS
Carbaryl_

LawnHES
Carbaryl_

OrnamentalDust
Carbaryl_

OrnamentalHES
Carbaryl_

OrnamentalRTU
Carbaryl_

PetCollar
Carbaryl_

TreeHES
Propoxur_

IndoorC&

C
Propoxur_

PetCollar
Carbaryl_

LawnHES_

LCO
Propoxur_

IndoorC&

C_

PCO
Methiocarb_

OrnamentalDust
Diag
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
204
0
0
4
0
0
45
1
0
3
6
0
0
3
4
0
204
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
0
69
0
0
0
2
0
17
0
0
14
0
0
1
0
1
69
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
0
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
6
0
0
0
2
0
24
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
4
0
0
45
0
0
8
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
45
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
0
2
0
0
0
31
0
18
2
0
5
0
0
1
2
0
31
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
45
0
0
8
0
0
157
1
0
1
5
0
0
2
4
2
157
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
1
17
0
0
0
18
1
66
0
0
19
0
0
0
2
0
66
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
43
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
43
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
3
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
24
1
0
0
0
0
0
24
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
6
14
6
2
0
5
5
19
3
1
82
0
0
0
1
0
82
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
307
1
3
6
3
307
Propoxur_
PetCollar
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
9
0
0
0
9
Carbaryl_
LawnHES_
LCO
3
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
15
1
0
15
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C_
PCO
4
0
2
0
0
2
4
2
1
0
1
6
0
1
17
0
17
Methiocarb_
OrnamentalDust
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
8
8
II.
E.
1
­
Page
34
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
14.
b
Co­
occurrence
Matrix,
By
Scenario_
NMC
Scenario_
NMC
Carbaryl_

GardenDust
Carbaryl_

GardenHES
Carbaryl_

GardenRTU
Carbaryl_

LawnDust
Carbaryl_

LawnGPS
Carbaryl_

LawnHES
Carbaryl_

OrnamentalDust
Carbaryl_

OrnamentalHES
Carbaryl_

OrnamentalRTU
Carbaryl_

PetCollar
Carbaryl_

TreeHES
Propoxur_

IndoorC&

C
Propoxur_

PetCollar
Carbaryl_

LawnHES_

LCO
Propoxur_

IndoorC&

C_

PCO
Methiocarb_

OrnamentalDust
Carbaryl_
GardenDust
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.00
Carbaryl_
GardenHES
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
Carbaryl_
GardenRTU
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.04
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
Carbaryl_
LawnDust
0.09
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Carbaryl_
LawnGPS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Carbaryl_
LawnHES
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.58
0.06
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.00
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalDust
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.01
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalHES
0.02
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.02
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
Carbaryl_
OrnamentalRTU
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
Carbaryl_
PetCollar
0.13
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Carbaryl_
TreeHES
0.07
0.17
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.06
0.06
0.23
0.04
0.01
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.01
Propoxur_
PetCollar
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Carbaryl_
LawnHES_
LCO
0.20
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
1.00
0.07
0.00
Propoxur_
IndoorC&
C_
PCO
0.24
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.24
0.12
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.35
0.00
0.06
1.00
0.00
Methiocarb_
OrnamentalDust
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
II.
E.
1
­
Page
35
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
15
Lifeline
Target
Pests
Use
Factors
Chemical/
Site
Carbaryl
Carbaryl
Carbaryl
Carbaryl
Propoxur
Propoxur
Methiocarb
PESTNAME
Lawn
Garden
Orn
/
Tree
Pet
Indoor
Pet
Orn
/
Tree
ANY
OTHER
ANTS
1.2%
23.9%
6.7%
15.7%
29.6%

BEES,
HORNETS,
WASPS
2.3%
15.7%
9.6%

BROADLEAF
WEEDS
8.7%
5.0%

COCKROACHES
12.1%
14.4%

FABRIC
INSECT
PESTS
2.9%

FIRE
ANTS
3.1%
34.4%
15.3%
13.6%

FLEAS
6.7%
63.7%
24.7%
6.5%
1.8%
1.8%

FLIES,
GNATS,
WIDGETS
2.8%
4.4%
2.3%

GRASS­
LIKE
WEEDS
16.4%
5.4%
18.0%

MICE,
RATS
2.9%

MILDEW,
MOLD,
BACTERIS,
VIRUS
3.9%
0.0%
1.4%

MOSQUITOES
1.8%
4.1%

OTHER
MAMMALS
50.1%

OTHER
PEST
7.0%

OTHER
WOOD­
DESTROYING
INSECTS
24.6%
13.6%
29.1%

PLANT
DISEASES
5.5%
7.3%
8.0%
5.6%

PLANT­
CHEWING
INSECTS
8.6%
24.3%
19.6%
100%
7.0%

PLANT­
CHEWING
OR
PLANT
SUCKING
INSECTS
4.8%
32.4%
8.4%
75.2%

PLANT­
SUCKING
INSECTS
AND
MITES
6.7%
18.8%
11.3%
34.7%
1.6%
17.2%

SLUGS,
SNAILS
13.4%
9.2%
15.8%
4.6%

SOIL­
DWELLING
INSECTS,
NEMATODES
1.3%
13.1%
13.8%

SPIDERS,
CRICKETS,
SOWBUGS/
PILLBUGS,
MILLIPIDES,

CENTIPIDES
4.1%
29.3%
6.5%
10.6%
6.5%

STORED
FOOD
INSECT
PESTS
10.2%

TERMITES
5.9%

TICKS,
CHIGGERS
5.5%
8.1%
2.2%
1.9%
II.
E.
1
­
Page
36
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
16
Estimated
Carbaryl
Usage
on
Golf
Courses
Statistic
National
Northeast
South
West
Midwest
Percent
of
Golf
Courses
Using
Carbaryl
10%
­
15%
10%
­
15%
15%
­
25%
1%
­
5%
5%
­
15%

Pounds
of
Carbaryl
Applied
90,000
lbs
 
280,000
lbs
15,000
lbs
 
30,000
lbs
50,000
lbs
 
225,000
lbs
<
500
lbs
 
5,000
lbs
15,000
lbs
 
75,000
lbs
/
1
Three
year
average
based
on
EPA
proprietary
data
(
1998,
1999,
2001).
II.
E.
1
­
Page
37
of
37
Table
II.
E.
1­
16
presents
the
estimated
percent
of
golf
courses
that
applied
carbaryl.
As
the
table
indicates,
golf
courses
in
the
Southern
states
account
for
most
of
the
estimated
total
use
of
carbaryl
­
many
as
25%
of
all
golf
courses
in
the
South
applied
between
50,000
lbs
ai
and
225,000
lbs
ai
of
carbaryl
per
year.
