­
1­

UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON
D.
C.,
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
April
25,
2006
DP
Barcodes:
327645,
313161
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Memorandum
Describing
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Effect
Division's
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
on
Aliphatic
Oils
(
PC
Codes
063502
and
063503)
in
Support
of
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
FROM:
Brian
Anderson,
Biologist
Stephen
Carey,
Biologist
Mark
Corbin,
Senior
Environmental
Scientist
ERB
III
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division,
7507
C
TO:
Mark
Perry
Bentley
Gregg
Special
Review
and
Re­
registration
Division
7505C
THRU:
Daniel
Rieder,
Branch
Chief
ERB
III
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
7507
C
Attached
is
EFED's
ecological
risk
assessment
on
aliphatic
oils.
Although
there
is
much
uncertainty
in
this
assessment,
the
results
suggest
that
there
are
potential
acute
risks
to
aquatic
invertebrates
and
risks
to
eggs
of
egg­
laying
animals
in
or
adjacent
to
the
treated
field.
The
high
application
rates
do
not
allow
for
a
definitive
conclusion
with
respect
to
potential
risks
to
terrestrial
animals
because
the
estimated
concentrations
on
food
items
for
some
application
rates
is
higher
than
levels
tested
in
submitted
studies
in
birds
and
mammals.
In
addition,
no
chronic
or
reproduction
toxicity
data
in
terrestrial
or
aquatic
animals
have
been
submitted,
and
no
plant
toxicity
data
have
been
submitted;
therefore,
definitive
risk
conclusions
cannot
be
made
at
this
time
with
respect
to
these
surrogate
species.

One
issue
EFED
faced
in
trying
to
assess
runoff
with
these
products
is
that
they
are
oils,
and
as
such
are
not
single
molecule
active
ingredients
like
other
pesticides.
As
a
first
tier
approach,
­
2­
EFED
made
conservative
assumptions
about
how
much
might
move
off
with
runoff
and
modeled
the
products
as
a
whole
in
a
water
body
using
GENEEC
in
this
assessment.
This
is
a
relatively
conservative
approach
that
assumes
the
products
move
as
a
unit
with
runoff.
However,
because
mineral
oil
and
other
similar
petroleum
products
used
as
pesticides
are
composed
of
mixtures
of
various
length
carbon
chain
molecules,
it
is
recognized
that
once
applied
the
product
will
not
behave
as
one
molecule.
As
soon
as
the
product
reaches
the
environment,
it
will
be
begin
to
undergo
differential
degradation,
and
each
chemical
within
the
mixture
will
behave
independently.
To
simulate
this
behavior,
a
method
presented
by
Foster
et
al,
2003
was
explored
called
the
block
method.
Generally
this
approach
allows
for
the
assessment
of
individual
components
and
considers
the
risk
each
block
represents
in
a
receiving
water
body
separately.
The
method
further
explored
the
potential
to
add
the
risks
from
the
various
components
together
once
each
has
moved
into
the
receiving
water
body.

The
basis
for
the
block
approach
was
that
representative
chemicals
within
a
given
block
would
be
expected
to
behave
similarly
to
other
chemicals
in
that
block
in
the
environment
because
of
the
similarity
in
structure
and
number
of
carbon
atoms.
The
chemical
properties
and
characteristics
(
log
Kow,
Koc,
halftimes,
acute
toxicity
and
chronic
toxicity)
for
each
chemical
in
a
given
block
could
be
derived
using
structural
activity
relationship
(
SAR).
The
environmental
fate
of
the
block
can
then
be
based
on
the
fate
of
the
chemicals
in
that
group.
The
likely
components
and
their
proportions
for
each
mixture
were
determined
by
analyzing
the
petroleum
refinement
process
by
which
each
would
have
been
produced,
and
identifying
the
various
chemicals
that
were
likely
to
form.

This
method
was
not
used
in
this
chapter
to
assess
these
products
because
of
the
uncertainties
inherent
in
it.
The
uncertainties
with
this
method
are:

1)
Not
knowing
the
constituents
of
the
products
that
are
applied
and
their
relative
proportions.

2)
Basing
all
fate
and
effects
on
structural
activity
relationship
analysis
without
corroboration
of
actual
testing.

This
assessment
could
be
refined
if
this
information
was
available.
­
3­

I.
Problem
Formulation
Summary
This
assessment
summarizes
potential
risks
to
non­
target
surrogate
aquatic
and
terrestrial
organisms
identified
for
the
currently
labeled
uses
of
aliphatic
oils
(
PC
Codes
063502
and
063503)
using
screening
level
methodologies.
The
available
toxicity
and
environmental
fate
data
are
limited;
therefore,
assumptions
were
necessary
to
allow
for
a
completion
of
an
ecological
risk
assessment
as
outlined
in
Table
I­
1
below.
Based
on
the
limitations
in
the
available
data,
a
finding
with
respect
to
the
likelihood
of
adverse
effects
to
endangered
species
may
not
be
possible
for
some
of
the
assessed
surrogate
species.

Table
I­
1.
Effects
of
data
limitations
on
the
screening
level
risk
assessment
of
aliphatic
oils.
Problem
Formulation
Issue
Effect
of
Issue
on
Risk
Assessment.

Twelve
CAS
RNs
representing
numerous
formulated
products
are
included
in
this
assessment.
However,
toxicity
data
were
only
available
for
a
small
subset
of
substances
included
in
these
PC
Codes
Based
on
the
broad
descriptions
of
the
CAS
RNs
outlined
in
Table
I­
2
below,
it
appears
that
the
composition
of
the
oils
are
similar
across
the
two
PC
Codes.
Therefore,
the
toxicological
and
fate
properties
may
be
similar.
However,
the
data
are
insufficient
to
definitively
support
this
conclusion.
Aquatic
toxicity
data
are
limited
and
have
previously
been
considered
invalid.
Limitations
in
the
aquatic
toxicity
data
exist.
However,
EFED
believes
that
the
data
provides
a
weight
of
evidence
regarding
the
toxicity
of
aliphatic
oils
and
approximate
drift
and
direct
application
to
water
exposures.
Composition
of
aliphatic
oils
is
uncertain
Composition
of
six
aliphatic
oils
was
estimated
based
on
the
best
available
information.
Composition
information
is
particularly
important
to
allow
for
an
estimation
of
the
relative
risks
of
the
various
aliphatic
oils
and
potential
aquatic
exposures
and
risks
from
runoff
scenarios.
Also,
EFED
notes
that
these
oils
may
have
polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(
PAH)
present,
which
could
be
persistent,
bioaccumulative,
and
toxic,
and
may
pose
different
additional
risks
than
the
aliphatic
constituents.
Therefore,
clarification
of
the
PAH
content
for
all
of
the
aliphatic
oils
included
in
this
analysis
is
critical
to
ecological
risk
assessment.
Toxicity
studies
in
aquatic
and
terrestrial
plants,
reproduction
toxicity
data
in
birds
and
mammals,
and
chronic
studies
in
aquatic
organisms
have
not
been
submitted.
These
endpoints
cannot
be
fully
evaluated.

Submitted
environmental
fate
data
are
not
available
Aquatic
EECs
from
runoff
are
uncertain
and
are
not
used
to
calculate
risk
quotients.

A.
Chemicals
Included
in
the
Aliphatic
Oils
PC
Codes
Aliphatic
oils
are
complex
mixtures
of
hydrocarbons
obtained
from
refinement
of
crude
oil.
Twelve
CAS
numbers
are
included
under
"
Aliphatic
Oils"
(
PC
Codes
063502
and
063503).
These
substances
are
described
in
Table
I­
2.
­
4­

Table
I­
2.
Description
of
Aliphatic
Oils
Included
in
PC
Codes
063502
and
063503
Name
CAS
No.
Description
PC
Code
063502
Mineral
oil,
and
paraffin
liquid
8012­
95­
1*

8020­
83­
5
In
general,
mineral
oil
and
paraffin
liquid
are
considered
synonymous
and
can
be
characterized
as
containing
primarily
(>
60%)
paraffinic
hydrocarbons
with
low
volatility
(>
C12)
and
low
melting
points
(<
C30
and
liquid
at
ambient
temperatures)
(
TPH
Criteria
Working
Group
1998b;
CONCAWE
1997).

White
mineral
oil,
petroleum
8042­
47­
5
A
highly
refined
petroleum
mineral
oil
consisting
of
a
complex
combination
of
hydrocarbons
obtained
from
the
intensive
treatment
of
a
petroleum
fraction
with
sulfuric
acid
and
oleum,
or
by
hydrogenation,
or
by
a
combination
of
hydrogenation
and
acid
treatment.
Additional
washing
and
treating
steps
may
be
included
in
the
processing
operation.
It
consists
of
saturated
hydrocarbons
having
carbon
numbers
predominantly
in
the
range
of
C15
through
C50.

Lubricating
oils,
petroleum,
C15­
30
72623­
84­
8
A
complex
combination
of
hydrocarbons
obtained
by
treating
light
vacuum
gas
oil,
heavy
vacuum
gas
oil,
and
solvent
deasphalted
residual
oil
with
hydrogen
in
the
presence
of
a
catalyst
in
a
two
stage
process
with
dewaxing
being
carried
out
between
the
two
stages.
It
consists
predominantly
of
saturated
hydrocarbons
having
carbon
numbers
predominantly
in
the
range
of
C15
through
C30.

Lubricating
oils,
petroleum,
C15­
30,
hydrotreated
neutral
oilbased
72623­
86­
0
A
complex
combination
of
hydrocarbons
obtained
by
treating
light
vacuum
gas
oil
and
heavy
vacuum
gas
oil
with
hydrogen
in
the
presence
of
a
catalyst
in
a
two
stage
process
with
dewaxing
being
carried
out
between
the
two
stages.
It
consists
predominantly
of
saturated
hydrocarbons
having
carbon
numbers
predominantly
in
the
range
of
C15
through
C30.

Lubricating
oils,
petroleum,
C20­
50,
hydrotreated
neutral
oilbased
72623­
87­
1
A
complex
combination
of
hydrocarbons
obtained
by
treating
light
vacuum
gas
oil,
heavy
vacuum
gas
oil
and
solvent
deasphalted
residual
oil
with
hydrogen
in
the
presence
of
a
catalyst
in
a
two
stage
process
with
dewaxing
being
carried
out
between
the
two
stages.
It
consists
predominantly
of
saturated
hydrocarbons
having
carbon
numbers
predominantly
in
the
range
of
C20
through
C50.

PC
Code
063503
Solvent­
refined
heavy
paraffinic
distillate
64741­
88­
4
Primarily
saturated
hydrocarbons
from
C20
to
C50;
Solvent
refining
indicates
a
lower
concentration
of
polyaromatic
and
unsaturated
hydrocarbons
when
compared
to
mineral
oil
(
which
is
true
for
all
solvent
refined
substances
in
this
assessment).
This
mixture
includes
a
higher
composition
of
high
molecular
weight
(>
C30)
hydrocarbons
than
the
solvent­
refined
light
paraffinic
petroleum
distillates
(
TPH
Criteria
Working
Group
1998b;
CONCAWE
1997).

Solvent­
refined
light
paraffinic
distillate
64741­
89­
5
The
EPA
substance
registry
system
definition
for
the
CAS
number
is
primarily
saturated
hydrocarbons
from
C15
to
C30.
This
mixture
includes
a
higher
composition
of
low
molecular
weight
(<
C15)
hydrocarbons
than
the
solvent­
refined
heavy
paraffinic
petroleum
distillates
(
TPH
Criteria
Working
Group
1998b;
CONCAWE
1995,
1997).

Hydro­
treated
heavy
paraffinic
distillate
64742­
54­
7*
Primarily
saturated
hydrocarbons
from
C20
to
C50;
The
primary
difference
in
this
mixture
as
compared
to
mineral
oil
is
the
reduced
proportion
of
elemental
sulfur.
Furthermore,
hydro­
treated
distillates
can
be
distinguished
from
other
mixtures
based
on
the
slightly
higher
concentration
of
polyaromatic
hydrocarbons
versus
solvent­
refined
products.
Finally,
this
mixture
includes
a
higher
composition
of
high
molecular
weight
hydrocarbons
than
the
hydro­
treated
light
paraffinic
petroleum
distillates
(
TPH
Criteria
Working
Group
1998b;
CONCAWE
1995).
­
5­

Table
I­
2.
Description
of
Aliphatic
Oils
Included
in
PC
Codes
063502
and
063503
Name
CAS
No.
Description
Hydro­
treated
light
paraffinic
distillate
64742­
55­
8*
This
mixture
is
similar
to
the
description
under
hydro­
treated
heavy
paraffinic
distillates
except
that
the
composition
of
these
mixtures
is
C15
to
C30
hydrocarbons.
Also,
this
mixture
includes
a
higher
composition
of
low
molecular
weight
(<
C15)
hydrocarbons
than
the
hydro­
treated
heavy
paraffinic
petroleum
distillates
(
TPH
Criteria
Working
Group
1998b;
CONCAWE
1995,
1997).
This
mixture
contains
a
higher
composition
of
low
molecular
weight
hydrocarbons
than
the
hydrotreated
heavy
paraffinic
petroleum
distillates
Distillates,
petroleum,

solventdewaxed
light
paraffinic
64742­
56­
9
A
complex
combination
of
hydrocarbons
obtained
by
removal
of
normal
paraffins
from
a
petroleum
fraction
by
solvent
crystallization.
It
consists
predominantly
of
hydrocarbons
having
carbon
numbers
predominantly
in
the
range
of
C15
through
C30
and
produces
a
finished
oil
with
a
viscosity
of
less
than
100
SUS
at
100
degrees
F
(
19cSt
at
40
degrees
C).

Distillates,
petroleum,

solventdewaxed
heavy
paraffinic
64742­
65­
0
A
complex
combination
of
hydrocarbons
obtained
by
removal
of
normal
paraffins
from
a
petroleum
fraction
by
solvent
crystallization.
It
consists
predominantly
of
hydrocarbons
having
carbon
numbers
predominantly
in
the
range
of
C20
through
C50
and
produces
a
finished
oil
with
a
viscosity
not
less
than
100
SUS
at
100.
degree.
F.

Definitions
and
descriptions
were
obtained
from
ChemID
Plus
(
http://
chem.
sis.
nlm.
nih.
gov/
chemidplus/)

*
Denotes
substances
for
which
toxicity
data
are
available
B.
Use
Patterns
Modeled
in
this
Assessment
Aliphatic
oils
may
be
applied
at
extremely
variable
rates
using
diverse
methods
including
foliar
spray
(
ground
or
aerial),
air
blast,
and
direct
application
to
water.
Terrestrial
applications
rates
are
as
high
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre.
Additional
description
of
the
use
patterns
is
in
Appendix
C.
Based
on
the
high
variability
in
the
application
rates
and
methods,
EFED
estimated
exposure
concentrations
of
aliphatic
oils
to
nontarget
terrestrial
and
aquatic
organisms
using
a
range
of
labeled
application
rates
(
i.
e.,
single
applications
of
10,
50,
150,
and
477
lb/
A
using
airblast
applications).
Potential
risks
to
aquatic
organisms
from
direct
application
to
water
were
also
evaluated.
Single
applications
were
modeled.
However,
if
multiple
applications
are
used
at
high
application
rates
such
that
the
total
amount
of
aliphatic
oils
applied
exceeds
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre,
then
risk
may
be
underestimated
in
this
assessment.
In
addition,
use
of
multiple
applications
would
likely
result
in
higher
longer­
term
(
chronic)
average
exposure
concentrations.
Therefore,
when
chronic
toxicity
data
are
obtained
by
EFED,
modeling
of
multiple
application
rates
may
be
needed.

The
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division
(
BEAD)
provided
data
indicating
that
most
applications
are
less
than
60
lbs
a.
i./
Acre;
0.1%
of
the
applications
were
>
100
lbs
a.
i./
Acre.

II.
Effects
Characterization
Summary
This
effects
characterization
discusses
studies
that
have
been
submitted
to
the
Agency
in
support
of
pesticide
registration.
EFED
acknowledges
that
data
have
been
submitted
to
U.
S.
EPA's
High
­
6­
Production
Volume
Challenge
Program.
These
data
were
not
included
in
this
assessment
for
reasons
outlined
in
Appendix
A.

Twelve
petroleum
mixtures
are
included
in
the
aliphatic
oils
category.
However,
toxicity
data
were
not
available
on
all
of
the
mixtures
to
allow
for
an
adequate
assessment
of
risk.
If
the
composition
of
the
aliphatic
oils
with
fate
or
toxicity
data
is
not
representative
of
the
12
oils
included
in
PC
Codes
063502
and
063503,
then
the
risks
presented
in
this
assessment
may
not
be
representative
of
the
aliphatic
oils
category
as
a
whole.
However,
based
on
the
broad
descriptions
of
aliphatic
oils
in
Table
I­
2,
it
appears
that
the
composition
of
the
oils
that
have
been
tested
in
toxicity
studies
may
be
representative
of
the
aliphatic
oils
group.
Table
II­
1
below
summarizes
the
substances
for
which
toxicity
data
has
been
submitted,
and
Table
II­
2
summarized
the
toxicity
data
used
in
risk
estimation.

No
chronic
toxicity
studies
in
any
species
have
been
submitted
to
EFED
for
use
in
this
risk
assessment,
and
no
aquatic
plant
toxicity
studies
have
been
submitted
to
the
Agency.

Table
II­
1.
Summary
of
aliphatic
oils
with
toxicity
data
Effects
Data
Birds
Mammals
Aliphatic
Oil
CAS
No.
Fish,
acute
Daphnids,
acute
Mysid
shrimp
Oyster
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
or
subacute
Acute
PC
Code
063502
8012­
95­
1;
90
Neutral
Oil
S
S
A
A
N65DW
S
A
VHVI­
4
S
S
8020­
83­
5
No
data
8242­
47­
5
No
data
72623­
84­
8
No
data
72623­
86­
0
No
data
72623­
87­
1
No
data
PC
Code
063503
64741­
97­
5
A
64742­
54­
7;
100
Paraffin
Oil
S
S
A
64742­
55­
8;
70­
Orchard
spray
S
A
GB­
1111
S
S
S
A
­
7­

Table
II­
1.
Summary
of
aliphatic
oils
with
toxicity
data
Effects
Data
Birds
Mammals
Aliphatic
Oil
CAS
No.
Fish,
acute
Daphnids,
acute
Mysid
shrimp
Oyster
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
or
subacute
Acute
64741­
88­
4
No
data
64741­
89­
5
No
data
A
=
Acceptable
study
exists
S
=
Supplemental
study
exists.
Most
aquatic
studies
are
currently
being
upgraded
from
invalid
to
supplemental.

Table
II­
2.
Summary
of
toxicity
values
used
in
the
aliphatic
oils
screening
level
ecological
risk
assessment.
Surrogate
Species
Acute
Toxicity
Value
Used
in
Assessmenta
Comment
Data
Source
for
toxicity
value
used
in
assessment
Fish
None
used
No
effects
were
observed
in
multiple
studies
at
the
limit
concentrations
for
these
types
of
studies.
Weight
of
evidence
was
used
to
estimate
potential
risks.
Daphnia
0.02
mg/
L
LC50s
were
0.02,
0.1,
<
0.9,
0.41,
and
2.4
mg/
L.
The
lowest
value
of
0.02
was
used
in
risk
estimation.
41902803
Oysters
6
mg/
L
EC50:
6
mg/
L
44762002
Aquatic
Plants
No
data
None
N/
A
Mammals
22
g/
kg­
bw
Data
obtained
from
secondary
literature;
no
chronic
or
reproduction
toxicity
studies
were
submitted.
NIOSH,
2004
Birds
LD50:
>
2250
mg/
kg­
bw
LC50:
>
5620
ppm
No
chronic
or
reproduction
toxicity
studies
were
submitted.
44608001;
41793202;
41742101;
4780903;
44780902
Terrestrial
Plants
No
data
None
N/
A
a
No
chronic
or
reproduction
studies
have
been
submitted
to
the
Agency.

A.
Aquatic
Species
1.
Fish
Nine
96­
hour
acute
studies
in
various
fish
species
have
been
submitted
to
the
Agency
(
summarized
in
Table
II­
3
below).
No
study
alone
was
considered
adequate
for
risk
estimation
due
primarily
to
the
low
solubility
of
the
oils
and
the
lack
of
analytical
confirmation
of
the
test
solutions;
however,
collectively,
the
data
suggests
that
loading
of
the
aliphatic
oils
at
levels
that
approximate
the
limit
concentration
for
acute
fish
toxicity
studies
(
100
mg/
L)
is
not
expected
to
cause
mortality
in
fish.
Studies
using
N65DW
did
not
observe
mortality
at
up
to
a
50%
mixture
­
8­
(
500,000
mg/
L;
MRID
44637335).
The
available
acute
fish
toxicity
studies
are
summarized
below.

Table
II­
3.
Summary
of
submitted
fish
studies
for
aliphatic
oils
Chemical
CAS
RN
EC50
MRID
100
Paraffine
Oil
64742­
54­
7
>
100
mg/
L
41368834
(
2
studies)
GB­
1111
None
>
120
mg/
L
44708201;
44762003
90
Neutral
Oil
8012­
95­
1
>
100
mg/
L
41902801;
41902802
VHVI­
4
None
>
76
mg/
L
44637336
N65DW
None
>
500,000
mg/
L
44637335;
44660001
2.
Aquatic
Invertebrates
Five
48­
hour
acute
studies
in
daphnids
using
five
different
aliphatic
oils
have
been
submitted
to
the
Agency
(
summarized
in
Table
II­
3
below).

All
of
the
submitted
studies
in
daphnids
were
previously
considered
invalid
primarily
because
the
test
concentrations
were
not
measured
and
evidence
of
dissolution
(
presence
of
oily
sheen
on
the
water
surface)
was
observed.
Although
no
study
alone
was
considered
adequate
for
risk
assessment
purposes,
collectively,
EFED
believes
that
they
inform
the
risk
assessment
because
the
studies
generally
reported
consistent
results
and
suggest
that
the
48­
hour
EC50
in
daphnids
is
likely
less
than
1
mg/
L.
Therefore,
even
though
limitations
in
the
aquatic
toxicity
data
exist,
EFED
believes
that
the
data
provides
a
weight
of
evidence
regarding
the
toxicity
of
aliphatic
oils
and
that
these
studies
approximate
drift
and
direct
application
to
water
exposures.
Therefore,
the
studies
were
upgraded
to
supplemental
and
were
considered
useful
for
risk
assessment
purposes.
The
lowest
reported
EC50
from
these
studies
was
0.02
mg/
L
(
MRID
41902803).

Table
II­
3.
Summary
of
submitted
aquatic
invertebrate
studies
for
aliphatic
oils
Chemical
CAS
RN
EC50
MRID
90
Neutral
Oil
8012­
95­
1
0.02
mg/
L
41902803
GB­
1111
None
reported
0.1
mg/
L
44769301
100
Paraffine
Oil
64742­
54­
7
0.41
mg/
L
41368835
VHVI­
4
None
reported
<
0.9
mg/
L
(
100%
mortality
occurred
at
all
concentrations)
44637337
70
Orchard
Spray
64742­
55­
8
2.4
mg/
L
41368833
It
is
uncertain
if
the
effects
observed
in
the
daphnid
toxicity
studies
submitted
to
the
Agency
were
caused
by
physical
effects
resulting
from
coating
the
organism
or
from
a
different
mode
of
action.
In
some
of
the
studies
(
e.
g.,
MRID
44637337),
daphnids
were
observed
floating
on
top
of
the
containers
within
an
oily
sheen
on
the
surface.
Therefore,
it
would
appear
that
some
daphnids
may
have
been
trapped
in
the
oils.
However,
some
daphnids
were
also
reportedly
immobile
on
the
bottom
or
in
the
middle
of
the
containers.
Therefore,
a
mode
of
action
distinct
from
physical
coating
appears
possible.
EFED
notes
that
risk
would
be
of
concern
regardless
of
the
mode
of
toxicity;
however,
oily
sheens
are
less
likely
to
occur
in
turbid
waters.
Therefore,
entrapment
in
surface
oil
slicks
would
be
less
likely
to
occur
in
turbid
waters
such
as
streams
and
­
9­
rivers,
and
oil
slicks
would
be
a
higher
concern
in
quiescent
waters
such
as
wetlands
and
stagnant
lakes.

In
addition,
a
supplemental
static
acute
study
in
Eastern
oysters
produced
an
EC50
of
6
mg/
L
and
an
acute
NOAEC
of
3
mg/
L.
This
study
suggests
that
aliphatic
oils
are
moderately
toxic
to
oysters.

B.
Terrestrial
Species
Based
on
submitted
studies,
the
mixtures
included
in
this
assessment
do
not
appear
to
be
acutely
toxic
to
birds
or
mammals
when
orally
exposed.
No
mortality
occurred
at
the
limit
dose
for
acute
oral
and
subacute
dietary
studies
in
birds
as
demonstrated
in
Table
II­
4
below.
However,
subacute
studies
in
birds
have
shown
effects
including
reduced
reaction
to
external
stimuli
and
increased
incidence
of
toe
picking
in
bobwhite
quail
at
1000
ppm
90
Neutral
Oil.
No
signs
of
toxicity
were
observed
in
similar
studies
using
the
two
other
oil
products
tested
(
Table
II­
4).
Data
have
not
been
submitted
to
allow
for
a
characterization
of
the
acute
toxicity
of
each
of
the
oils
included
in
this
category.
If
the
composition
is
different
across
the
various
oils
included
in
the
aliphatic
oils
PC
Codes,
then
their
toxicological
properties
may
also
be
different.

The
mammalian
LD50
used
in
this
assessment
was
22,000
mg/
kg­
bw.
However,
the
high
dosing
volumes
needed
to
achieve
this
dose
may
have
contributed
to
the
toxicity
observed
in
this
study.

Sufficient
data
are
not
available
to
determine
if
these
substances
may
affect
reproduction
in
either
birds
or
mammals.
No
reproduction
studies
in
birds
or
mammals
and
no
terrestrial
plant
studies
have
been
submitted
to
OPP
or
were
located
in
EPA's
ECOTOX
database.
Six
incidents
involving
aliphatic
oils
(
063503)
are
in
EFED's
EIIS
(
Ecological
Incidents
Information
System)
database.
All
incidents
involve
plant
damage
(
Appendix
D).
In
addition,
labels
currently
carry
phytotoxicity
warnings.
These
data
support
a
concern
for
potential
risks
to
terrestrial
plants.

Table
II­
4.
Terrestrial
Toxicity
Profile
for
Aliphatic
Oils
Test
Type
Test
Substance
Value
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
Comments
MRID
Rat
acute
oral
LD50
PC
Code
063502
8012­
95­
1
PC
Code
063503
64742­
55­
8
64742­
54­
7
64741­
97­
5
22,000
mg/
kg
(>
5000
to
22,000
mg/
kg­
bw).
At
22,000
mg/
kg­
bw,
it
is
uncertain
if
toxic
effects
are
caused
by
the
test
substance
or
the
high
dosing
volume
needed
to
achieve
this
dose.
RQs
will
not
be
calculated
from
this
study.
No
MRID
available.
Data
from
NIOSH,
2004,
provided
by
the
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
(
SRRD).

Rat
2­
generation
reproduction
No
data
Not
available
In
the
absence
of
data,
risk
estimation
cannot
be
performed,
and
risk
cannot
be
precluded.
However,
some
of
these
substances
are
applied
directly
to
farm
animals;
therefore,
some
of
these
oils
are
not
likely
potent
reproduction
toxicants.
None
available
­
10­

Table
II­
4.
Terrestrial
Toxicity
Profile
for
Aliphatic
Oils
Test
Type
Test
Substance
Value
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
Comments
MRID
Bird
acute
oral
LD50
(
Mallard
Duck,
Bobwhite
Quail)
GB­
1111
PC
Code
(
063503)
90
Neutral
oil
(
063502)
>
2250
mg/
kg­
bw
Acceptable
study.
No
mortality
or
signs
of
toxicity
were
observed.
44608001
41793202
Bird
dietary
LC50
(
Mallard
duck
and
Bobwhite
quail)
90
Neutral
oil
and
N65DW
(
063502)

GB­
1111
(
063503)
>
5620
ppm
NOAEC
for
sublethal
effects
was
1000
ppm
for
90
Neutral
oil
based
on
reduced
reaction
to
external
stimuli
and
increased
incidence
of
toe
picking.
No
effects
were
observed
in
other
dietary
subacute
studies
at
any
concentration.
41742101
44780903
44780902
Reproductive
Toxicity
NOAEL
(
Bobwhite,
mallard
duck)
No
data
Not
available
In
the
absence
of
data,
a
risk
estimation
cannot
be
performed,
and
risk
cannot
be
precluded.
None
Honey
Bee
Contact
LD50
GB­
1111
(
063503)
90
Neutral
Oil
(
063502)
N65DW
(
063502)
>
25
ug/
bee
>
100
ug/
bee
>
1830
ug/
bee
No
treatment­
related
effects
were
observed
in
any
of
these
studies.
44683301
41793201
44676701
Terrestrial
Plants
(
Tier
I)
No
Data
Not
available
In
the
absence
of
data,
a
risk
estimation
cannot
be
performed,
and
risk
cannot
be
precluded.
None
III.
Exposure
Summary
A.
Aquatic
Systems
1.
Aquatic
Exposure
Estimates
from
Spray
Drift
EFED
performed
preliminary
modeling
to
bracket
the
potential
exposures
resulting
from
spray
drift
alone
assuming
9.7%
of
the
mass
applied
to
a
10
hectare
field
drifts
into
a
20,000,000
L
water
body
(
standard
drift
assumption
in
GENEEC2
for
orchard
airblast
applications,
and
EFED's
standard
ecological
water
body
volume).
The
results
of
this
analysis
are
in
Table
III­
1
below.
These
EECs
assume
no
runoff
and
therefore
are
likely
to
under­
estimate
total
exposure.
Runoff
exposure
estimates
are
presented
in
Table
III­
2.
It
is
uncertain
if
the
runoff
EECs
are
toxicologically
comparable
to
the
drift
only
EECs,
the
direct
application
to
water
EECs,
and
the
available
toxicity
data
because
the
various
components
within
the
oil
mixtures
are
expected
to
degrade
and
partition
in
such
a
manner
that
would
preclude
the
oil
mixture
from
running
off
as
an
intact
substance.
Therefore,
the
composition
of
the
individual
components
in
surface
water
from
runoff
is
expected
to
be
different
than
the
composition
of
the
aliphatic
oils
applied
to
terrestrial
environments.
­
11­

Table
III­
1.
Preliminary
Aquatic
EECs
from
Drift
Into
a
Standard
Ecological
Pond
Application
Rate
Preliminary
EEC
Only
from
9.7%
Drift
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
2.6
mg/
L
150
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
0.82
mg/
L
50
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
0.27
mg/
L
10
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
0.05
mg/
L
An
important
uncertainty
is
that
several
of
the
components
of
the
mixtures
included
in
this
assessment
are
expected
to
be
volatile.
However,
the
overall
mixtures
of
the
aliphatic
hydrocarbons
are
expected
to
be
generally
dominated
by
the
longer
chain
hydrocarbons
that
tend
to
be
less
volatile.
Therefore,
exposure
to
some
of
the
components
may
be
lower
than
the
screening
level
drift
only
EECs
would
suggest
although
this
is
not
expected
to
be
significant.
Also,
volatilization
would
also
suggest
that
inhalation
exposure
could
be
an
important
exposure
route
for
terrestrial
organisms,
and
potential
risk
from
inhalation
exposure
cannot
be
estimated
unless
inhalation
toxicity
information
is
available.

2.
Direct
Application
to
Water
For
registered
aliphatic
hydrocarbon
products
(
both
aliphatic
and
mineral
oil
registrations)
there
are
labeled
uses
for
direct
application
to
water
bodies.
In
order
to
address
this
use,
EFED
has
assumed
the
maximum
labeled
application
rate
(
37
lbs/
acre)
of
petroleum
product
will
be
applied
directly
to
the
treated
water
body.
In
order
to
estimate
an
EEC
for
the
ecological
risk
assessment,
EFED
has
assumed
the
application
will
occur
to
EFED's
standard
EXAMS
water
body
of
20,000,000
L.
As
such,
the
acute
concentration,
assuming
instantaneous
equilibrium,
for
petroleum
when
applied
directly
to
the
water
body
is
2.1
ppm.
This
is
obtained
by
converting
the
pounds
applied
per
acre
to
kilograms
per
hectare
(
1
lb/
acre
is
equivalent
to
1.12
kg/
ha),
which
yields
an
application
rate
of
41.4
kg/
ha.
Thus,
the
total
pesticide
load
to
the
pond
is
41.4
kilograms
per
20,000,000
liters
(
the
standard
pond
has
a
one
hectare
surface
area)
which
yields
a
concentration
of
2.1
ppm.
The
equation
follows:

((
37
lbs
per
acre
x
(
1.12
kg
per
hectare/
1
lb
per
acre))
x
1,000
g/
kg
x
1,000
mg/
g)
/
20,000,000
liters
=
2.1
mg/
liter
(
ppm).

There
are
a
number
of
uncertainties
and
assumptions
inherent
in
the
direct
application
scenario
that
may
influence
the
interpretation
of
risk
associated
with
this
use
pattern.
For
example,
the
conceptual
model
of
this
exposure
scenario
assumes
that
the
application
occurs
to
the
standard
water
body
that
has
a
one
hectare
surface
area
and
is
two
meters
deep.
While
the
surface
area
does
not
influence
model
prediction
(
because
of
an
assumption
that
the
pesticide
is
applied
to
the
entire
surface
area)
the
depth
of
the
water
body
does
impact
the
results.
For
example,
a
similar
application
(
maximum
label
rate)
to
a
water
body
of
similar
geometry
but
which
is
only
one
meter
deep
will
yield
an
EEC
twice
the
number
calculated
for
a
1
meter
depth.
Conversely,
an
­
12­
application
to
a
water
body
twice
as
deep
will
yield
an
EEC
half
the
EEC
derived
above.
More
information
about
typical
use
sites
other
than
that
provided
on
the
label
analysis
is
needed
to
determine
what
is
an
appropriate
receiving
water
body.
However,
given
the
screening
level
nature
of
this
assessment
and
the
nature
of
the
exposures
resulting
from
the
agricultural
uses
assessed
(
477
lbs/
acre
to
orchards)
these
estimates
for
the
direct
application
to
water
seem
reasonable,
but
the
nature
of
the
uncertainty
cannot
be
assessed
as
to
whether
exposures
are
overestimating
or
underestimating
risk.

In
addition,
there
is
an
assumption
of
instantaneous
and
uniform
mixing
in
this
scenario.
It
is
possible
that
the
application
of
a
petroleum
product
to
the
surface
of
a
water
body
could
result
in
a
separation
of
phases.
In
other
words,
it
is
possible
that
the
petroleum
may
not
mix
within
the
water
column
and
exposures
could
be
restricted
to
a
higher
concentration
of
a
film,
or
layer,
of
petroleum
on
the
surface
of
the
water
that
would
yield
a
higher
exposure
but
to
a
smaller
proportion
of
the
water
body.

Finally,
as
with
the
standard
runoff
and
drift
estimates,
it
is
expected
that
some
amount
of
volatility
will
occur.
However,
it
is
also
expected,
based
on
the
assumed
physical­
chemical
properties
described
above,
that
the
products
included
in
this
assessment
tend
to
be
heavier
petroleum
products
with
longer
carbon
chains
and
therefore,
volatilization
of
the
product
is
less
likely.
Regardless,
it
is
expected
that
some
proportion
of
the
applied
product
will
be
lost
due
to
drift
and
volatility
and
that
is
not
captured
in
this
estimate.

3.
Aquatic
Exposure
Estimates
from
Runoff
In
order
to
qualitatively
evaluate
the
contribution
of
runoff
to
overall
exposure,
EFED
conducted
a
simple
screening
level
analysis
using
GENEEC.
In
this
instance,
GENEEC
was
run
assuming
aliphatic
hydrocarbons
would
be
applied
by
granular
application
(
not
a
labeled
use)
as
a
convenience
to
minimize
spray
drift
in
the
model
run
to
zero.
In
lieu
of
any
available
environmental
fate
data
EFED
assumed
that
the
relevant
processes
in
GENEEC
(
aerobic
soil
and
aquatic
metabolism,
hydrolysis
and
photolysis)
were
all
stable.
GENEEC
was
then
run
by
varying
the
Koc
across
the
potential
range
of
Koc
that
might
be
expected
for
any
of
the
various
constituents
within
the
aliphatic
hydrocarbons.
Table
III­
2
presents
the
results
of
this
analysis
which
suggests
that
even
with
the
dramatic
variation
in
Koc
used
in
this
screen
the
predicted
EEC
at
the
highest
application
rate
(
477
lbs/
acre)
varies
by
only
a
factor
of
20.
Interestingly,
the
analysis
indicates
that
between
a
Koc
of
0.001
and
100
there
is
very
little
difference
in
resulting
EEC.
As
Koc
increases
beyond
this
range
a
dramatic
drop
in
EEC
is
noted
when
moving
from
a
Koc
of
100
to
Koc
of
1000.
This
is
significant
because
it
is
expected
that
most
of
the
components
which
make
up
the
aliphatic
hydrocarbons
will
be
in
the
high
Koc
range.
Therefore,
if
the
Koc
of
the
majority
of
the
constituents
is
>
1000,
then
the
contribution
to
the
EEC
from
runoff
would
not
be
expected
to
exceed
10
ppm
from
a
single
application
of
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre.

The
Horticultural
Spray
Oil
Task
Force
(
HSOTF)
recently
submitted
two
studies
which
support
EFED's
assessment
of
risk
with
the
aliphatic
hydrocarbons.
First,
the
HSOTF
submitted
a
summary
of
available
data
from
the
open
literature
(
MRID
45945301)
which
reported
that
the
aliphatic
oils
in
general
are
relatively
immobile.
However,
of
the
three
studies
cited,
only
the
­
13­
study
by
Nudelman
et
al
(
2002)
reported
a
Koc,
which
ranged
between
900
and
6600.
In
addition
to
the
open
literature
studies,
the
HSOTF
study
estimated
adsorption/
desorption
using
physicochemical
parameters.
In
this
exercise
the
authors
reported
a
single
estimated
Koc
of
47860.
There
were
no
actual
analytical
data
presented
in
this
summary
and
therefore
the
data
can
only
be
considered
supplemental.
However,
the
weight
of
evidence
of
these
summaries
suggests
that
for
aliphatic
hydrocarbons
a
reasonable
estimate
of
Koc
for
these
complex
mixtures
is
between
1000
and
100000.
Thus,
comparing
these
estimated
Koc
with
the
GENEEC
estimates
provided
above
suggest
that
the
higher
Koc
EEC
approximated
by
10000
may
be
a
reasonable
assumption
of
exposure
due
to
runoff.

Also
the
HSOTF
submitted
a
spray
drift
exercise
(
MRID
46042801)
intended
to
confirm
that
the
application
of
aliphatic
hydrocarbons
will
not
pose
a
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
and
thus
no
spray
drift
data
are
needed
to
support
this
registration.
Unfortunately,
the
exercise
relies
on
unknown
assumptions
of
application
rate
(
57
lbs
per
acre)
as
well
as
degradation
rates
which
are
unsupported
by
data.
The
authors
also
compare
the
predicted
EEC
estimated
in
this
exercise
with
aquatic
toxicity
data
which
excludes
the
most
sensitive
value
available.
In
addition,
in
determining
that
there
is
no
risk
to
aquatic
species
the
authors
rely
only
on
the
Acute
Risk
Level
of
Concern
while
ignoring
the
Acute
Restricted
Use
LOC
and
the
Endangered
Species
LOC.
Interestingly,
the
exercise
does
provide
EEC,
which,
if
it
had
been
is
modeled
at
the
maximum
label
rate
(
477
lbs/
acre)
used
in
EFED's
assessment,
would
generally
confirm
that
magnitude
of
exposure
predicted
in
EFED's
modeling.
Because
this
study
represents
a
non­
GLP
exercise
the
data
can
only
be
considered
supplemental
and
the
analysis
does
not
support
the
contention
of
no
risk.

Both
of
these
studies
are
under
review
and
Data
Evaluation
Records
(
DER)
will
be
created
for
each
study
separate
from
this
assessment.

Table
III­
2.
EECs
Predicted
Using
GENEEC
Assuming
No
Spray
Drift
and
Stability
to
All
Dissipation
Processes
Application
Rate
Koc
EEC
(
ppm)

477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
0.001
26.79
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
0.01
26.79
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
0.1
26.79
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
1
26.76
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
10
26.35
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
100
22.79
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
1000
10.04
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
10000
2.51
­
14­

Table
III­
2.
EECs
Predicted
Using
GENEEC
Assuming
No
Spray
Drift
and
Stability
to
All
Dissipation
Processes
Application
Rate
Koc
EEC
(
ppm)

477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
100000
1.41
B.
Terrestrial
Systems
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
on
terrestrial
systems
were
calculated
using
the
application
rates
of
10,
50,
150,
and
477
lbs/
acre
(
single
application)
using
the
Tier
I
exposure
model,
T­
REX
(
Version
1.2.3.).
This
analysis
indicates
that
aliphatic
oils
may
be
found
on
dietary
food
items
at
extremely
high
concentrations
(
up
to
114,000
ppm).
The
resulting
EECs
used
in
risk
assessment
are
in
Table
III­
3.
These
dietary
concentrations
were
converted
to
doses
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
for
15­,
35­,
and
1000­
gram
mammals
and
20­,
100­,
and
1000­
gram
birds.
Body
weight
adjusted
EECs
for
10,
150,
and
477
lbs/
acre
applications
for
birds
and
mammals
are
in
Appendix
B.

Table
III­
3.
Estimated
Aliphatic
Oil
Concentrations
on
Selected
Terrestrial
Animal
Food
Items
After
Applications
of
10
to
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre.

EEC
(
ppm)
from
application
rates
of
10
to
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
Food
Item
10
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
50
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
150
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
Short
grass
2400
12,000
36,000
114,000
Tall
grass
1100
5500
17,000
52,000
Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
1350
6800
20,000
64,000
Fruits,
seeds,
pods,
large
insects
150
750
2300
7200
In
addition
to
contamination
of
potential
food
items
of
terrestrial
species,
aliphatic
oils
may
be
deposited
onto
eggs
of
terrestrial
organisms.
Potential
risks
from
this
exposure
route
are
further
discussed
in
Section
IV.

IV.
Preliminary
Risk
Estimation
A.
Aquatic
Systems
Table
IV­
1
below
presents
preliminary
risk
quotients
for
aquatic
invertebrates
based
on
the
drift
only
and
direct
application
to
water
EECs
and
the
lowest
EC50
in
daphnids
of
0.02
mg/
L.
Contribution
of
runoff
to
the
EEC
is
discussed
qualitatively
because
the
composition
of
the
runoff
component
may
or
may
not
be
toxicologically
similar
to
the
composition
of
oils
that
enters
water
via
spraydrift
or
that
were
used
in
the
available
toxicity
studies.
­
15­

Table
IV­
1.
Preliminary
Aquatic
Invertebrate
(
daphnids)
EECs
from
Drift
Into
a
Standard
Ecological
Pond
Application
Rate
Drift
EEC
from
9.7%
Drift
into
a
20,000,000
L
ecological
pond
Daphnid
RQ
based
on
an
EC50
of
0.02
mg/
L
Oyster
RQ
based
on
an
EC50
of
6
mg/
L
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
2.6
mg/
L
130
0.43
150
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
0.82
mg/
L
41
0.14
50
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
0.27
mg/
L
14
0.045
10
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
0.05
mg/
L
2.5
<
0.01
Direct
Application
EEC
2.1
mg/
L
105
0.35
EFED
has
conducted
a
simple
analysis
of
the
extent
of
a
spray
drift
buffer
that
would
be
needed
to
reduce
the
EEC
at
the
various
single
application
rates
to
below
the
most
sensitive
level
of
concern
(
1
ppb
for
endangered
aquatic
invertebrates;
lowest
EC50
of
0.02
mg/
L
x
endangered
species
LOC
of
0.05
=
0.001
mg/
L
=
1
ppb).
Using
the
Tier
I
module
within
AgDrift
for
orchard
airblast
applications,
EFED
has
determined
that
for
the
range
of
application
rates
allowable
on
current
labels
the
buffers
needed
to
reduce
drift
to
levels
below
the
endangered
species
LOC
are
either
at
or
beyond
the
limits
of
the
model
and
is
177
feet
at
the
lowest
modeled
application
rate
of
10
lbs/
acre.
This
analysis
is
based
on
a
single
application
rate;
the
effect
of
multiple
applications
was
not
evaluated.
The
results
of
this
analysis
are
presented
in
Table
IV­
2.
This
analysis
is
not
applicable
to
the
direct
application
to
water
scenario.

Table
IV­
2.
Spray
drift
buffer
distances
needed
to
reduce
the
EECs
in
Table
IV­
1
to
1
ppb,
which
is
the
highest
level
that
would
not
exceed
the
Aquatic
Invertebrate
Endangered
Species
Level
of
Concern
(
LOC)
based
on
the
currently
available
data.

Application
Rate
Buffer
Distance
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
>
1000
feet*

150
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
>
1000
feet*

50
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
902
feet
10
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
177
feet
*
­
1000
feet
equals
the
limit
of
the
Tier
I
model
within
AgDrift
As
noted
above,
the
estimates
for
spray
drift
only
EEC
and
the
estimate
of
buffer
width
to
reduce
EEC
are
both
limited
in
that
the
spray
drift
only
estimates
do
not
account
for
the
potential
impact
of
runoff.
However,
given
the
high
expected
Koc,
buffer
zones
expected
to
reduce
EECs
to
levels
that
are
protective
from
drift
exposure
are
expected
to
be
protective
from
runoff
exposures
as
well.
­
16­

B.
Terrestrial
Animals
The
available
data
for
acute
risk
to
terrestrial
organisms
is
difficult
to
use
because
no
mortality
was
observed
at
the
limit
dose
in
acute
and
subacute
bird
studies.
However,
the
test
levels
were
not
as
high
as
the
potential
exposures
from
the
high
application
rates.
For
example,
the
avian
LC50
is
>
5620
ppm.
Any
applications
at
23
lb
ai/
acre
or
higher
will
result
in
estimated
residues
on
food
items
greater
than
5620
ppm.
Ground
spray,
air
blast,
chemigation,
or
aerial
applications
may
apply
up
to
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre.
At
that
rate,
concentrations
on
terrestrial
organism
food
items
were
estimated
at
up
to
114,000
ppm,
which
is
well
above
any
concentration
tested
in
the
available
toxicity
studies.
Table
IV­
3
below
presents
application
rates
associated
with
key
toxicity
endpoints
in
terrestrial
organisms.

Table
IV­
3.
Application
rates
associated
with
key
toxicity
endpoints
in
terrestrial
organisms
Application
Rate
Toxicity
Endpoint
Comment
Birds
4
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
Application
rate
associated
with
lowest
dietary
concentration
that
produced
a
toxic
effect
in
birds
(
1000
ppm;
MRID
1742101).
Toxic
effects
included
reduced
reaction
to
external
stimuli
and
increased
incidence
of
toe
picking
in
bobwhite
quail.

6
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
Application
rate
associated
with
highest
body
weight
adjusted
dose
tested
in
available
acute
oral
gavage
bird
studies
(
1620
mg/
kg­
bw;
adjusted
from
2250
mg/
kg­
bw
for
a
20­
gram
bird).
No
mortality
occurred
at
this
dose.

23
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
Application
rate
associated
with
highest
dietary
concentration
tested
in
available
bird
studies
(
5620
ppm).
No
mortality
occurred
at
this
concentration.

Mammals
10
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
Application
rate
associated
with
concentrations
on
short
grass
that
is
1/
10th
of
the
LD50
in
mammals
of
22,000
mg/
kg­
bw.
Data
from
NIOSH,
2004
In
addition,
oils
such
as
corn
oils
and
mineral
oils
are
used
to
prevent
hatching
of
undesirable
birds
by
applying
the
oils
directly
onto
the
eggs.
The
oils
may
block
pores
in
the
eggshells,
which
prevents
oxygen
from
entering
the
egg.
Therefore,
the
developing
embryo
effectively
suffocates.
Limited
dose­
response
data
are
available
to
allow
for
an
estimation
of
the
proportion
of
unhatched
eggs
associated
with
a
given
amount
of
applied
oil;
however,
APHIS
(
2003)
indicates
that
2
mL
of
egg
oil
causes
nearly
100%
prevention
of
hatching
birds
in
gulls
and
that
7
mL/
egg
is
effective
for
goose
egg
treatment.
In
addition,
Hoffman
et
al.
(
2003)
estimated
an
LD50
for
GB­
1111,
which
is
a
pesticide
within
the
PC
Code
063503,
of
approximately
10
gallons/
acre
(
approximately
75
lbs/
Acre,
assuming
a
specific
gravity
0.875
to
0.905
for
mineral
oil;
as
cited
in
http://
sis.
nlm.
nih.
gov/
enviro.
html).
This
rate
reportedly
corresponds
to
approximately
20
uL/
egg.
Aliphatic
oils
may
be
applied
at
rates
considerably
higher
than
75
lbs
a.
i./
Acre;
therefore,
there
is
presumably
risk
to
bird
eggs
either
on
or
adjacent
to
the
treated
field.
There
would
also
presumably
be
risk
to
other
terrestrial
organisms
that
lay
eggs
on
or
near
treated
fields.
­
17­

Some
oils,
such
as
crude
oil,
have
been
shown
to
be
considerably
more
potent
than
oils
used
to
prevent
hatching
of
pest
birds.
Literature
data
suggests
that
treatment
of
an
egg
with
1
to
5
microliters
prevents
hatching,
which
suggests
that
some
oils
have
a
mode
of
action
other
than
coverage
of
an
egg
to
prevent
gas
exchange
(
Hoffman,
1979).
Because
the
composition
of
the
oils
being
assessed
is
uncertain,
it
is
possible
that
the
oils
included
in
this
assessment
may
also
possess
additional
modes
of
action.

1.
Risk
to
Endangered
and
Threatened
Species
a.
Potential
Direct
Effects
to
Aquatic
Organisms
Endangered
species
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
aquatic
invertebrates.
Toxicity
data
were
not
available
to
allow
for
an
assessment
of
risk
to
aquatic
plants
or
chronic
risk
to
fish
or
aquatic
invertebrates.
Therefore,
a
finding
of
not
likely
to
adversely
affect
endangered
species
is
not
possible
for
these
surrogate
species
at
this
time.

b.
Potential
Risk
to
Endangered
and
Threatened
Birds
and
Mammals
Risks
to
endangered
birds
and
mammals
remain
uncertain.
Aliphatic
oils
do
not
appear
to
be
acutely
toxic
to
birds
or
mammals;
however,
the
high
application
rates
of
these
oils
would
result
in
potential
exposure
levels
that
exceed
the
highest
doses
tested
in
the
available
toxicity
studies.
No
reproduction
studies
in
birds
or
mammals
were
available
for
use
in
risk
assessment.
However,
direct
deposition
of
oils
onto
eggs
in
close
proximity
to
the
use
area
would
presumably
put
them
at
risk
because
coating
of
eggs
by
oils
can
result
in
suffocation
of
the
developing
organism
(
Hoffman
et
al.,
2004;
Albers
et
al.,
2003).

c.
Potential
Risk
to
Endangered
and
Threatened
Plants
in
Terrestrial
and
Semi­
aquatic
Environments
Potential
risks
to
terrestrial
plants
were
not
assessed
because
no
toxicity
data
were
available
for
use
in
risk
assessment.
Six
incidences
of
plant
damage
are
in
EFED's
Ecological
Incidence
Information
System
(
EIIS)
database
for
PC
Code
063503
at
the
time
this
analysis
was
prepared,
which
would
support
a
concern
for
potential
risks
to
non­
target
plants.
­
18­
d.
Indirect
Effect
Analyses
The
Agency
acknowledges
that
pesticides
have
the
potential
to
exert
indirect
effects
upon
the
listed
organisms
by,
for
example,
perturbing
forage
or
prey
availability,
altering
the
extent
of
nesting
habitat,
etc.
In
conducting
a
screen
for
indirect
effects,
direct
effect
LOCs
for
each
taxonomic
group
are
used
to
make
inferences
concerning
the
potential
for
indirect
effects
upon
listed
species
that
rely
upon
non­
endangered
organisms
in
these
taxonomic
groups
as
resources
critical
to
their
life
cycle.
Based
on
the
data
limitations,
this
analysis
suggests
that
risk
of
direct
effects
from
use
of
aliphatic
oils
cannot
be
precluded
for
any
of
the
surrogate
species
considered
in
this
assessment,
although
acute
risk
to
fish
was
presumably
lower
than
the
Agency's
concern
level.
Therefore,
there
may
be
a
potential
concern
for
indirect
effects
to
organisms
that
depend
on
species
at
risk
for
survival,
habitat,
or
reproduction.

The
Agency
uses
the
dose­
response
relationship
from
the
toxicity
studies
used
for
calculating
the
RQ
to
estimate
the
probability
of
acute
effects
associated
with
an
exposure
equivalent
to
the
endangered
species
LOC.
However,
based
on
limitations
of
the
toxicity
data,
EFED
did
not
calculate
probabilities
of
acute
effects
based
on
the
dose­
response
from
the
available
toxicity
studies.
However,
using
EFED's
default
probit
slope
of
4.5
with
lower
and
upper
ranges
of
2
to
9,
the
range
of
estimates
of
probabilities
of
individual
effects
would
be
extremely
variable.

This
information
serves
as
a
guide
to
establish
the
need
for
and
extent
of
additional
analysis
that
may
be
performed
using
Services­
provided
"
species
profiles"
as
well
as
evaluations
of
the
geographical
and
temporal
nature
of
the
exposure
to
ascertain
if
a
"
not
likely
to
adversely
affect"
determination
can
be
made.
The
degree
to
which
additional
analyses
are
performed
is
commensurate
with
the
predicted
probability
of
adverse
effects
from
the
comparison
of
the
doseresponse
information
with
the
EECs.
The
greater
the
probability
that
exposures
will
produce
effects
on
a
taxa,
the
greater
the
concern
for
potential
indirect
effects
for
listed
species
dependent
upon
that
taxa,
and
therefore,
the
more
intensive
the
analysis
on
the
potential
listed
species
of
concern,
their
locations
relative
to
the
use
site,
and
information
regarding
the
use
scenario
(
e.
g.,
timing,
frequency,
and
geographical
extent
of
pesticide
application).

e.
Critical
Habitat
In
the
evaluation
of
pesticide
effects
on
designated
critical
habitat,
consideration
is
given
to
the
physical
and
biological
features
(
constituent
elements)
of
a
critical
habitat
identified
by
the
U.
S
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
National
Marine
Fisheries
Services
as
essential
to
the
conservation
of
a
listed
species
and
which
may
require
special
management
considerations
or
protection.
The
evaluation
of
impacts
for
a
screening
level
pesticide
risk
assessment
focuses
on
the
biological
features
that
are
constituent
elements
and
is
accomplished
using
the
screening­
level
taxonomic
analysis
(
risk
quotients,
RQS)
and
listed
species
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
that
are
used
to
evaluate
direct
and
indirect
effects
to
listed
organisms.

The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
has
identified
potential
concerns
for
indirect
effects
for
all
surrogate
species.
Further
analysis
on
potential
impacts
on
critical
habitat
is
not
possible
until
uncertainty
in
this
assessment
is
addressed.
If
additional
data
are
submitted,
and
the
Agency's
­
19­
LOCs
remain
exceeded,
then
the
next
step
for
EPA
and
the
Service(
s)
would
be
to
identify
which
listed
species
and
critical
habitat
are
potentially
implicated.
Analytically,
the
identification
of
such
species
and
critical
habitat
can
occur
in
either
of
two
ways.
First,
the
agencies
could
determine
whether
the
action
area
overlaps
critical
habitat
or
the
occupied
range
of
any
listed
species.
If
so,
EPA
would
examine
whether
the
pesticide's
potential
impacts
on
non­
endangered
species
would
affect
the
listed
species
indirectly
or
directly
affect
a
constituent
element
of
the
critical
habitat.
Alternatively,
the
agencies
could
determine
which
listed
species
depend
on
biological
resources,
or
have
constituent
elements
that
fall
into,
the
taxa
that
may
be
directly
or
indirectly
impacted
by
the
pesticide.
Then
EPA
would
determine
whether
use
of
the
pesticide
overlaps
the
critical
habitat
or
the
occupied
range
of
those
listed
species.
At
present,
the
information
reviewed
by
EPA
does
not
permit
use
of
either
analytical
approach
to
make
a
definitive
identification
of
species
that
are
potentially
impacted
indirectly
or
critical
habitats
that
is
potentially
impacted
directly
by
the
use
of
the
pesticide.
EPA
and
the
Service(
s)
are
working
together
to
conduct
the
necessary
analysis.

This
screening­
level
risk
assessment
for
critical
habitat
provides
a
listing
of
potential
biological
features
that,
if
they
are
constituent
elements
of
one
or
more
critical
habitats,
would
be
of
potential
concern.
These
correspond
to
the
taxa
identified
above
as
being
of
potential
concern
for
indirect
effects
and
include
all
surrogate
species
assessed.
This
list
should
serve
as
an
initial
step
in
problem
formulation
for
further
assessment
of
critical
habitat
impacts
outlined
above,
should
additional
work
be
necessary.

f.
Co­
occurrence
Analysis
The
goal
of
the
analysis
for
co­
location
is
to
determine
whether
sites
of
pesticide
use
are
geographically
associated
with
known
locations
of
listed
species.
A
co­
occurrence
analysis
was
not
performed
at
this
time
due
to
the
large
amount
of
uncertainty
identified
in
this
assessment.
Based
on
the
risks
currently
identified
in
this
assessment
and
the
large
number
of
labeled
uses
of
aliphatic
oils,
the
co­
occurrence
analysis
would
include
virtually
all
endangered
species.

g.
Summary
of
Taxa
Potentially
at
Risk
Potential
risks
to
endangered
species
are
summarized
in
Table
IV­
4
below.
­
20­
Table
IV­
4.
Listed
species
risks
associated
with
direct
or
indirect
effects
due
to
applications
of
aliphatic
solvents
for
terrestrial
uses.
Listed
Taxon
Direct
Effects
Indirect
Effects
Terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
plants
 
monocots
and
dicots
Yes1
Yes
1,7
Insects
Yes2
Yes
2,7
Birds
Reproduction3
Yes1,2,3,6,8
Terrestrial
phase
amphibians
Yes4
Yes1,2,3,4,5,8,9
Reptiles
Yes4
Yes1,2,3,4,5,6,8
Mammals
None
identified10
Yes1,2,3,4,5,6,8
Aquatic
vascular
plants
Yes5
Yes5,7
Freshwater
fish
None
identified11
Yes5,6
Aquatic
phase
amphibians
None
identified11
Yes5,6
Freshwater
crustaceans
Yes6
Yes5,6
Mollusks
Yes6
Yes5,6
Marine/
estuarine
fish
None
identified11
Yes5,6
Marine/
estuarine
crustaceans
Yes6
Yes5,6
1
No
terrestrial
plant
data
available,
effects
to
terrestrial
plants
are
unknown.
However,
aliphatic
solvent
labels
indicate
phytotoxic
effects
to
plants,
and
incidences
have
been
reported
of
crop
damage
from
use
of
aliphatic
oils.
2
Aliphatic
solvents
are
registered
as
an
insecticide
and
miticide,
some
risk
to
nontarget
insects
is
anticipated.
3
Oils
such
as
mineral
oils
are
used
to
prevent
hatching
of
undesirable
egg­
laying
animals
by
applying
the
oils
directly
onto
the
eggs,
there
is
presumably
risk
to
eggs
either
on
or
adjacent
to
the
treated
field.
4
Birds
are
used
as
surrogate
for
terrestrial­
phase
reptiles
and
amphibians.
5
Effects
to
aquatic
plants
are
unknown;
aliphatic
solvent
labels
indicate
phytotoxic
effects
to
plants.
6
Endangered
species
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
aquatic
invertebrates.
7
Potential
concerns
for
indirect
effects
on
plants
that
require
birds
or
insects
as
pollinators
or
seed
dispersers.
8
Potential
concerns
for
indirect
effects
on
animals
that
eat
birds.
9
Potential
concerns
for
indirect
effects
on
animals
that
require
reptile
burrows
as
habitat.
10
Residue
levels
may
be
higher
than
levels
tested
in
acute
studies,
and
risk
of
reproduction
effects
were
not
quantified
due
to
lack
of
available
toxicity
data.
Therefore,
potential
risks
to
mammals
could
not
be
precluded.
11
Chronic
studies
were
not
submitted;
therefore,
a
chronic
risk
assessment
was
not
conducted.
­
21­
References
Albers
P.
H.,
D.
J.
Hoffman,
D.
M.
Buscemi,
M.
J.
Melancon.
2003.
Effects
of
the
mosquito
larvicide
GB­
1111
on
red­
winged
blackbird
embryos.
Environmental
Pollution
125
(
2003)
447 
451.

CONCAWE.
1995.
Product
Dossier
No.
94/
106,
Kerosines/
Jet
Fuels.
Prepared
by
European
Oil
Company
Organization
for
Environment,
Health
and
Safety
(
Belgium).
Report
dated
April
1995.

CONCAWE.
1996.
Report
No.
96/
52,
Environmental
Risk
Assessment
of
Petroleum
Substances:
The
Hydrocarbon
Block
Method.
Prepared
by
European
Oil
Company
Organization
for
Environment,
Health
and
Safety
(
Belgium).
Report
dated
February
1996.

CONCAWE.
1997.
Product
Dossier
No.
97/
108,
Lubricating
Oil
Basestocks.
Prepared
by
European
Oil
Company
Organization
for
Environment,
Health
and
Safety
(
Belgium).
Report
dated
June
1997.

CONCAWE.
1999.
Product
Dossier
No.
99/
110,
Petroleum
Waxes
and
Related
Products.
Prepared
by
European
Oil
Company
Organization
for
Environment,
Health
and
Safety
(
Belgium).
Report
dated
December
1999.

CONCAWE.
2001.
Report
No.
01/
54,
Environmental
Classification
of
Petroleum
Substances
­
Summary
Data
and
Rationale.
Prepared
by
CONCAWE
Petroleum
Products
Ecology
Group
(
Belgium).
Report
dated
October
2001.

Foster
K,
Mackay
D,
Milford
L,
and
Webster
E.
2003.
Multimedia
Modeling
and
Exposure
Assessment
for
Gasoline.
Canadian
Environmental
Modelling
Centre,
Trent
University,
Peterborough,
Ontario,
Canada.
Report
dated
July
2003.

Foster
K,
Mackay
D,
Parkerton
TF,
Webster
E,
and
Milford
L.
2005.
Five­
Stage
Environmental
Exposure
Assessment
Strategy
for
Mixtures:
Gasoline
as
a
Case
Study.
Environ.
Sci.
Technol.
39:
2711­
2718.

GENEEC.
2001.
Generic
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations,
Version
2.0.
August
1,
2001.
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.
Available
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
water/
geneec2_
description.
htm
Hoffman
D.
J.,
P.
H.
Albers,
M.
J.
Melancon,
A.
K.
Miles.
2004.
Effects
of
the
mosquito
larvicide
GB­
1111
on
bird
eggs.
Environmental
Pollution
127
(
2004)
353 
358.

Hoffman
D.
J.
1979.
Embryotoxic
and
teratogenic
effects
of
crude
oil
on
mallard
embryos
on
day
one
of
development.
Bull
Env
Contam
Toxicol
22:
632­
637.
­
22­

TPH
(
Total
Petroleum
Hydrocarbon)
Criteria
Working
Group.
1997a.
Volume
3:
Selection
of
Representative
TPH
Fractions
Based
on
Fate
and
Transport
Considerations.
Report
dated
July
1997.
Amherst
Scientific
Publishers,
Amherst,
Massachusetts.

TPH
(
Total
Petroleum
Hydrocarbon)
Criteria
Working
Group.
1997b.
Volume
4:
Development
of
Fraction
Specific
Reference
Doses
(
RfDs)
and
Reference
Concentrations
(
RfCs)
for
Total
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
(
TPH)
Amherst
Scientific
Publishers,
Amherst,
Massachusetts.

TPH
(
Total
Petroleum
Hydrocarbon)
Criteria
Working
Group.
1998a.
Volume
1:
Analysis
of
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
in
Environmental
Media.
Report
dated
March
1998.
Amherst
Scientific
Publishers,
Amherst,
Massachusetts.

TPH
(
Total
Petroleum
Hydrocarbon)
Criteria
Working
Group.
1998b.
Volume
2:
Composition
of
Petroleum
Mixtures.
Report
dated
May
1998.
Amherst
Scientific
Publishers,
Amherst,
Massachusetts.

TPH
(
Total
Petroleum
Hydrocarbon)
Criteria
Working
Group.
1999.
Volume
5:
Human
Health
Risk­
Based
Evaluation
of
Petroleum
Release
Sites:
Implementing
the
Working
Group
Approach.
Report
dated
June
1999.
Amherst
Scientific
Publishers,
Amherst,
Massachusetts.

U.
S.
EPA/
ORD
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency/
Office
of
Research
and
Development).
2000.
Supplementary
Guidance
for
Conducting
Health
Risk
Assessment
of
Chemical
Mixtures.
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
U.
S.
EPA,
Washington,
DC.
EPA/
630/
R­
00/
002.
Report
dated
August2000.
Available
at
www.
epa.
gov/
ncea.
­
23­
Appendix
A.
Rationale
for
not
including
High
Production
Volume
summary
aquatic
toxicity
data
in
this
ecological
risk
assessment
°
Most
studies
were
conducted
using
water
accommodated
fractions
(
WAFs).
WAFs
are
prepared
by
loading
the
test
system
with
a
nominal
concentration
that
is
above
the
solubility
of
the
test
substance,
mixing
the
solution,
then
allowing
the
mixture
to
equilibrate.
The
resulting
aqueous
fraction
is
the
WAF.
Results
of
analytical
confirmation
of
the
concentrations
in
the
WAF
were
not
reported;
therefore,
the
concentration
or
the
composition
of
the
WAF
is
uncertain.

°
Original
study
reports
were
not
submitted
to
the
Agency;
therefore,
EFED
has
not
performed
an
independent
evaluation
of
data
adequacy.
In
some
cases,
LC50
and
EC50
values
were
reported
that
did
not
have
accompanying
robust
summaries;
therefore,
data
quality
could
not
be
independently
verified
by
EFED.

°
Water
hardness
in
the
daphnid
studies
was
high
and
ranged
from
174
to
274
mg
CaCO3/
L.
High
water
hardness
reduces
solubility
of
petroleum
oils.
Therefore,
exposure
to
daphnids
in
these
studies
may
have
been
lower
relative
to
potential
environmental
concentrations.

°
Although
aquatic
toxicity
tests
with
aliphatic
oils
with
the
same
CAS
Nos.
or
with
similar
descriptions
as
those
included
in
PC
Codes
063502
and
063503
were
conducted,
it
is
uncertain
if
the
substances
tested
were
equivalent
to
the
substances
used
as
biocides.

For
these
reasons,
the
summaries
submitted
to
the
HPV
program
were
not
used
quantitatively
in
this
assessment.
Nonetheless,
numerous
studies
were
reported
that
produced
apparently
consistent
results;
therefore,
together
with
the
studies
submitted
to
EFED,
they
may
provide
some
insight
into
the
toxicity
of
aliphatic
oils
from
nominal
loading
(
e.
g.,
direct
application
to
water
and
drift)
into
an
aqueous
environment.
­
24­
Appendix
B­
1.
Methodology
used
to
convert
dietary
concentration
to
dose
(
mg/
kg­
day).

EECs
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
for
various
size
classes
of
mammals
and
birds
may
be
calculated
based
on
the
dietary
residue
concentrations
derived
using
the
methods
described
above.
To
allow
for
this
type
of
analysis,
the
EECs
and
toxicity
values
are
adjusted
based
on
food
intake
and
body
weight
differences
so
that
they
are
comparable
for
a
given
weight
class
of
animal.
Size
classes
assessed
include
20­,
100­,
and
1000­
gram
birds
and
15­,
35­,
and
1000­
gram
mammals.
Dietary
concentrations
presented
in
Table
III­
5
above
along
with
estimated
food
intake
levels
are
used
to
calculate
daily
doses
for
the
size
of
bird
or
mammal
being
assessed.
These
calculations
are
presented
below.

Daily
food
intake
(
g/
day)
is
assumed
to
correlate
with
body
weight
using
the
following
empirically
derived
equation
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1993):

Avian
food
consumption
(
g/
day)

where:

F
=
food
intake
in
grams
of
fresh
weight
per
day
(
g/
day)

BW
=
body
mass
of
animal
(
g)

W
=
mass
fraction
of
water
in
the
food
(
EFED
value
=
0.8
for
birds
and
herbivorous
mammals)

Based
on
this
equation,
a
20­
gram
bird
would
consume
22.8
grams
of
food
daily
(
114%
of
its
body
weight),
a
100­
gram
bird
would
consume
65
grams
of
food
daily
(
65%
of
its
body
weight
daily),
and
1000­
gram
bird
would
consume
290
grams
of
food
daily
(
29%
of
its
body
weight).
These
data,
together
with
the
dietary
residue
concentrations
(
mg/
kg­
food
item)
on
selected
food
items
(
Table
III­
5),
are
used
to
estimate
the
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
of
residue
consumed
by
the
three
size
classes
of
birds
assessed.
Using
a
small
(
20­
gram)
bird
as
an
example,
a
dietary
concentration
of
100
mg/
kg­
diet
(
ppm)
x
1.14
kg
diet/
kg
bw
(
114%)
would
result
in
an
equivalent
dose­
based
EEC
of
114
mg/
kg­
bw.

A
similar
relationship
between
body
weight
and
food
intake
has
been
derived
for
mammals
(
U.
S.
EPA
1993):

Mammalian
food
consumption
(
g/
day)
F
BW
W
=
 
0648
1
0
651
.
*

(
)
.
­
25­

where:

F
=
food
intake
in
grams
of
fresh
weight
per
day
(
g/
day)
BW
=
body
mass
of
animal
(
g)
W
=
mass
fraction
of
water
in
the
food
(
EFED
value
=
0.8
for
herbivorous
mammals,
0.1
for
granivorous
mammals)

The
scaling
factors
result
in
the
following
percent
body
weight
consumed
for
each
weight
class
of
mammal:
F
BW
W
=
 
0
621
1
0
564
.
*

(
)
.
­
26­
°
15­
gram
mammal:
14
grams
of
food
consumed
daily
(
95%
of
its
body
weight)
°
35­
gram
mammal:
23
grams
of
food
consumed
daily
(
66%
of
its
body
weight
daily)
°
1000­
gram
mammal:
150
grams
of
food
consumed
daily
(
15%
of
its
body
weight).

These
values
are
used
in
the
same
manner
described
for
birds
to
calculate
dose­
based
EECs
(
mg/
kg­
bw).
Using
a
small
(
15­
gram)
mammal
as
an
example,
aliphatic
oil
concentrations
on
a
dietary
food
item
of
100
mg/
kg­
diet
(
ppm)
x
0.95
kg
diet/
kg
bw
(
95%)
would
result
in
an
equivalent
dose­
based
EEC
of
95
mg/
kg­
bw.
Dose
based
EECs
are
presented
in
Tables
III­
6
and
III­
7
below
for
birds
and
mammals,
respectively.
­
27­
Appendix
B­
2.
Dose
based
EECs
from
application
of
10,
150
and
477
lbs
a.
i./
Acre
in
birds
and
mammals
477
lbs/
Acre,
mammals
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Dose­
Based
EECs
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
109147.91
75435.81
17490.06
Tall
Grass
50026.13
34574.75
8016.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
61395.70
42432.64
9838.16
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
6821.74
4714.74
1093.13
477
lbs/
Acre,
birds
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
Dose­
based
EECs
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
130381.26
74348.91
33287.00
Tall
Grass
59758.08
34076.59
15256.54
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
73339.46
41821.26
18723.94
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
8148.83
4646.81
2080.44
150
lbs/
Acre,
mammals
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Dose­
Based
EECs
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
34323.24
23721.95
5500.02
Tall
Grass
15731.49
10872.56
2520.84
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
19306.82
13343.60
3093.76
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
2145.20
1482.62
343.75
150
lbs/
Acre,
birds
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
Dose­
based
EECs
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
41000.40
23380.16
10467.61
Tall
Grass
18791.85
10715.91
4797.65
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
23062.72
13151.34
5888.03
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
2562.52
1461.26
654.23
­
28­

10
lbs/
Acre,
mammals
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Dose­
Based
EECs
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
2288.22
1581.46
366.67
Tall
Grass
1048.77
724.84
168.06
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
1287.12
889.57
206.25
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
143.01
98.84
22.92
10
lbs/
Acre,
birds
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
Dose­
based
EECs
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
2733.36
1558.68
697.84
Tall
Grass
1252.79
714.39
319.84
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
1537.51
876.76
392.54
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
170.83
97.42
43.62
­
29­
Appendix
C.
Summary
of
Registered
Aliphatic
oils
Uses
Table
C­
1.
Overview
of
Aliphatic
oil
Uses
Crop
Grouping
Representative
Use
Terrestrial
food
and
feed
crop
Acerola
(
West
Indies
Cherry),
alfalfa,
almond,
amaranth­
Chinese,
apple,
apricots,
artichoke­
Chinese,
asparagus,
atemoya,
avocado,
balm,
banana,
basil,
beans,
beans­
succulent
(
lima),
beans­
succulent
(
snap),
beets,
blackberries,
blueberries,
boysenberries,
broccoli,
broccoli­
Chinese,
brussels
sprouts,
bushberries,
cabbage,
cabbage­
Chinese,
caneberries,
carambola
(
jalea),
cauliflower,
celery,
cherry,
citron
(
citrus),
citrus,
citrus
hybrids,
coffee,
cole
crops,
collards,
corianders,
corn
(
general),
field
corn,
sweet
corn,
popcorn,
cotton,
cranberries,
cucumber,
cucurbit
vegetables,
currant,
deciduous
fruit
trees,
dewberries,
eggplant,
fig,
flavoring/
spice
crops,
ginger,
ginseng
(
medicinal),
gourd
(
wax)­
Chinese,
grapefruit,
grapes,
grasses
grown
for
seed,
honeycomb,
hops,
kiwi
fruit,
lemon,
lettuce,
lime,
loganberry,
macadamia
nut
(
bushnut),
mango,
marjoram/
oregano,
melons,
melons­
bitter
(
balsam
pear),
melonscantaloupe
melons­
citron,
melons­
water,
mint/
peppermint/
spearmint,
mustard,
nectarines,
okra,
olives,
onions,
oranges,
papaya,
pastures,
peas­
southern,
peach,
peanuts,
pear,
pecan,
pepper,
pepper
(
chili
type),
persimmon,
pineapple,
pistachio,
plantains,
plum,
potato­
white/
irish,
prune,
pumpkin,
radish,
radish­
Chinese,
rambutan,
raspberries,
small
fruits,
sorghum,
soybean,
spinach,
squash,
stone
fruits,
strawberry,
sugar
beets
(
include
tops),
sweet
potato,
tangelo,
tangerines,
taro,
tomato,
turnips
and
walnut
(
black/
English).

Terrestrial
non­
food
crop
Christmas
tree
plantations,
non­
agricultural
right­
of­
way/
fence
rows
/
hedgerows,
non­
agricultural
uncultivated
areas,
ornamentals,
shade
trees,
herbaceous
plants,
woody
shrubs
and
vines,
recreational
areas,
tobacco,
urban
areas,
wide
areas/
general
outdoor
treatment
(
public
health
use),
citrus,
commercial
/
institutions
/
industrial
premises/
equipments
(
outdoor),
deciduous
fruit
trees
and
pears.

Aquatic
non­
food
industrial
Drainage
systems,
lakes/
ponds/
reservoirs
(
without
human/
wildlife
use)
and
sewage
systems.

Aquatic
non­
food
outdoors
Intermittently
flooded
areas,
salt
water
sites,
swamps,
marshes,
wetlands
and
stagnant
water
areas.

Aquatic
food
crop
Agricultural
drainage
systems,
intermittently
flooded
areas,
salt
water
sites,
swamps,
marshes,
wetlands,
stagnant
water
areas
and
lakes/
ponds/
reservoirs
(
without
human/
wildlife
use).

Greenhouse
non­
food
Ornamentals,
shade
trees,
herbaceous
plants,
non­
flowering
plants,
woody
shrubs
and
vines
and
tobacco.

Greenhouse
food
crop
Asparagus,
balm,
basil,
beans,
beets,
cabbage,
cauliflower,
corn,
citrus,
cucurbit
vegetables,
eggplant,
fig,
flavoring/
spice
crops,
grapefruit,
lettuce,
marjoram/
oregano,
melons,
mint/
peppermint/
spearmint,
pepper,
potatowhite
irish,
radish,
squash,
sweet
potato,
tomato,
cole
crops,
popcorn,
sweet
corn,
cotton,
cucumber,
lemon,
macadamia
nut
(
bushnut),
mango,
nectarine,
onions,
oranges,
peach,
pears,
pecans,
plum,
prunes,
pumpkins,
strawberry,
sugar
beets
and
walnuts
(
black/
English).
­
30­

Table
C­
1.
Overview
of
Aliphatic
oil
Uses
Crop
Grouping
Representative
Use
Outdoor
residential
Household/
domestic
dwelling
contents/
outdoor
premises,
ornamentals,
shade
trees,
herbaceous
plants,
woody
shrubs
and
vines
and
urban
areas.

Indoor
residential
Ornamentals,
shade
trees,
herbaceous
plants,
non­
flowering
plants,
woody
shrubs
and
vines,
dogs/
canines,
household/
domestic
dwelling
contents/
indoor
premises,
human
bedding/
mattresses,
human
clothing
(
for
mildew/
mold
control)
and
pets
living/
sleeping
quarters.

Indoor
non­
food
Ornamentals,
shade
trees,
herbaceous
plants,
non­
flowering
plants,
woody
shrubs
and
vines,
animal
kennels/
sleeping
quarters
(
commercial),
birdseed
(
processed),
commercial
storage/
warehouse
premises,
commercial
/
institutions
/
industrial
premises/
equipments
(
indoor),
eating
establishments,
horses,
pets
and
specialized
animals.

Indoor
food
Agricultural/
farm
premises,
barley,
barns,
barnyards,
auction
barns,
beef/
range/
feeder
cattle
(
meat),
buckwheat,
commercial
storage/
warehouse
premises,
commercial
transportation
facilities­
feed/
food­
empty,
corn
(
unspecified),
dairy
cattle,
dairy
farm
milk
handling
facilities/
equipments,
dairy
farm
milk
storage
rooms/
houses/
sheds,
dairy
farm
milking
stalls/
parlors,
eating
establishments,
food
handling
areas,
egg
handling
areas,
feed/
food
treatmentstorage
processing/
handling
equipments,
food
and
feed
products
(
processed),
food
processing
plant
premises/
equipments,
food
stores/
markets/
supermarket
premises,
food/
grocery/
marketing/
storage/
distribution
facility
premises,
fruits
(
dried/
dehydrated),
grain/
cereal/
flour
bins­
empty
or
full,
grain/
cereal/
flour
elevators­
empty
or
full,
grain/
cereal/
flour
storage
areas­
full,
hog/
pig/
swine
(
meat),
household/
domestic
dwelling
indoor
food
handling
areas,
meat
processing
plants
premises,
poultry
(
egg/
meat),
poultry
processing
plants
premises,
rice,
rye
and
seeds.

Indoor
medicinal
Hospitals/
medicinal
institutions
premises.
­
31­

TABLE
C­
2.
Selected
Registered
Uses
of
Aliphatic
oils
Use
Product
Formulation
Description
Application
Rate
Max
#

Appl/
Yr
Application
Methods
PURESPRAY
Spray
Oil
10E
Oil
(
98%
petroleum
oil)
0.1103
lb/
gal
­
469.2
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Spray
Oil
13E
Oil
(
98%
petroleum
oil)
0.1103
lb/
gal
­
469.2
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Mist
blower
Spray
Oil
15E
Oil
(
98%
petroleum
oil)
0.1103
lb/
gal
­
469.2
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
Crop
/
Greenhouse
/

Outdoor
Residential
Spray
Oil
22E
Oil
(
98%
petroleum
oil)
0.1103
lb/
gal
­
469.2
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Dip
tank
treatment
Mist
blower
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Red­
Top
Superior
Spray
Oil
N.
W.
Oil
(
99%
oil)
7.0191
lb/
100
gal
­
14.04
lb/
100
gal
Not
specified
Ground
and
air­
blast
spray
Terrestrial
Red­
Top
Superior
Spray
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
99%
oil)
14.04
­
84.23
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial,
Indoors
and
Greenhouse
Summit
Horticultural
Spray
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98.8%
oil)
0.0685
­
0.274
lb/
gal
When
necessary
Ground
and
air­
blast
spray.

Terrestrial
Britz
Citrus
Supreme
Oil
Spray
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
99%
oil)
3.47
lb/
A
­
41.64
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground
and
air­
blast
spray.

Terrestrial
Gavicide
Super
90
New
Superior
Spray
for
Deciduous
Fruits
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
99%
oil)
50.24
lb/
A
­
57.42
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
First
Choice
Narrow
Range
415
Spray
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98%
oil)
0.7
­
50
gal/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial,

Greenhouse
and
Indoor
Super­
Fine
Spray
Oil
Oil
(
98.8%
oil)
2.5
­
7.5
Tbsp
(
L)
Not
specified
Ground
and
air­
blast
spray
­
32­

TABLE
C­
2.
Selected
Registered
Uses
of
Aliphatic
oils
Use
Product
Formulation
Description
Application
Rate
Max
#

Appl/
Yr
Application
Methods
Terrestrial
BAC
HI
Supreme
Spray
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98%
petroleum
oil)
6.958
lb/
100
gal
­
139.16
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Mist
sprayer
Terrestrial,

Indoor/
Outdoor
Residential
and
Greenhouse
Volck
Oil
Spray
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
97%
oil)
1
Tbsp/
L
­
0.2856
lb/
gal
(
spray)

and
0.0268
lb/
gal
(
tank)
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Supreme
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
99%
oil)
7.0191
­
56.15
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
Supreme
Oil
98
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98%
oil)
13.9
lb/
100
gal
­
55.59
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Sim­
Chem
Superior
Spray
oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98.84%
oil)
7.018
lb/
100
gal
­
35.09
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray.

Terrestrial
Gavicide­
C
Narrow
Range
440
Spray
Oil
for
Citrus
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
99.7%
mineral
oil)
10.12
lb/
100
gal
­

216.8
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray.

BioCover
SS
Oil
(
98%
petroleum
oil)
0.1397
lb/
gal
­
475.8
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Dip
tank
treatment
Mist
blower
Terrestrial,

Outdoor
Residential
and
Greenhouse
BioCover
UL
Oil
(
98%
petroleum
oil)
0.1397
lb/
gal
­
475.8
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Dip
tank
treatment
Mist
blower
Terrestrial,

Greenhouse
and
Indoor
Glacial
Spray
Fluid
Oil
(
98.4%
petroleum
oil)
0.1122
lb/
gal
­
477.7
lb/
A
When
necessary
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Mist
blower
Indoor
Residential
Heartland
Auto­
Mist
3
Insect
Killer
Pressurized
Liquid
(
13.12%
oil)
1
­
­
(
L)
When
necessary
Ground
spray
(
automatic
aerosol
dispenser)
­
33­

TABLE
C­
2.
Selected
Registered
Uses
of
Aliphatic
oils
Use
Product
Formulation
Description
Application
Rate
Max
#

Appl/
Yr
Application
Methods
Indoor
Residential
Heartland
Auto­
Mist
2
Insect
Killer
Pressurized
Liquid
(
13.66%
oil)
1
­
(
L)
When
necessary
Ground
spray
(
automatic
aerosol
dispenser)

Indoor
Heartland
Farm
&

Dairy
Insecticide
Pressurized
Liquid
(
2%
oil)
2
­
3
sec
1K
cu.
ft/
L
and
1
­
5
sec
animal
Not
specified
Sprayer
Enclosed
premise
treatment
Animal
treatment
Terrestrial,

Indoor/
Outdoor
Residential
and
Greenhouse
Sunspray
6E
Plus
Oil
(
98.8%
paraffinic
oil
with
emulsifier)
7.0148
lb/
100
gal
­
168.4
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Helen
Florida­
FLO
90
Oil
Emulsion
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
90%
oil)
6.39
lb/
99
gal
­
38.34
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Supreme
Spray
Insecticide­
Miticide
Liquid
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98%
oil)
10.437
lb/
100
gal
­
55.664
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Drexel
Damoil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98%
oil)
1.7395
lb/
100
gal
­
42.22
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Volck
Supreme
Spray
Oil
(
97.95%
petroleum
oil)
6.925
lb/
100
gal
­
103.9
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Mist
blower
Terrestrial,

Outdoor
Residential
and
Greenhouse
Oil­
I­
Cide
Spray
Oil
Emulsion
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
80%
oil)
11.92
lb/
100
gal
Not
specified
Ground
and
air­
blast
spray
­
34­

TABLE
C­
2.
Selected
Registered
Uses
of
Aliphatic
oils
Use
Product
Formulation
Description
Application
Rate
Max
#

Appl/
Yr
Application
Methods
Terrestrial,

Outdoor
Residential
and
Greenhouse
JMS
Stylet­
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
97.1%
oil)
0.1612
lb
K
sq.
ft
­
30.67
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground
and
air­
blast
spray
Terrestrial
Dragon
Horticultural
Spray
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98%
oil)
2.4
Tbsp/
L
­
7.5
Tbsp/
L
Not
specified
Ground
and
air­
blast
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Lilly/
Miller
Superior
Type
Spray
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
99%
oil)
7.029
lb/
100
gal
­
70.29
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
Sunspray
11C
Oil
(
100%
oil)
21.6
lb/
A
Not
specified
Chemigation
Sprinkler
irrigation
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Sunoco
Sunspray
11E
Oil
(
98.8%
refined
petroleum
distillate
with
emulsifier)
14.17
lb/
A
­
157
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Sunspray
6E
Oil
(
98.8%
refined
petroleum
distillate
with
emulsifier)
3
gal/
L
­
155.7
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
Sunspray
6C
Oil
(
100%
oil)
21.3
lb/
A
Not
specified
Chemigation
Sprinkler
irrigation
Terrestrial
Sunspray
7E
Oil
(
98.8%
oil)
6
gal/
L
­
82.65
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Sunspray
9E
Oil
(
98.8%
oil)
2
gal/
L
­
70.54
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
Sunspray
9C
Oil
(
100%
oil)
21.6
lb/
A
Not
specified
Chemigation
Sprinkler
irrigation
­
35­

TABLE
C­
2.
Selected
Registered
Uses
of
Aliphatic
oils
Use
Product
Formulation
Description
Application
Rate
Max
#

Appl/
Yr
Application
Methods
Terrestrial,

Outdoor
Residential
and
Greenhouse
Sunspray
Ultra­
Fine
Year
Round
Pesticidal
Oil
Oil
(
98.8%
oil)
0.0685
lb/
gal
­
52.611
lb/
gal
Not
specified
Ground
and
air­
blast
spray
Terrestrial
Sunspray
6E
Western
Oil
(
98.8%
paraffinic
petroleum
oil
with
emulsifier)
7.0148
lb/
100
gal
­
210.4
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
Leffingwell
Supreme
415
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
96.7%
oil)
13.73
­
304.4
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
Par
F
70
Soluble
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
99%
oil)
9.951
lb/
100
gal
­
28.15
lb/
A
Not
specified
Sprayer
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
415
OIL
98
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98%
petroleum
oil)
6.958
lb/
A
­
20.874
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
415
OIL
98.8
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98.8%
oil)
7.0148
lb/
A
­
105.2
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
435
OIL
98
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98%
oil)
7.056
lb/
A
­
70.56
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
435
OIL
98.8
Oil
(
98.8%
oil)
10.67
lb/
A
­
106.7
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
455
OIL
98
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98%
oil)
7.056
lb/
A
­
70.56
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
455
OIL
98.8
Oil
(
98.8%
oil)
10.67
lb/
A
­
71.136
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
­
36­

TABLE
C­
2.
Selected
Registered
Uses
of
Aliphatic
oils
Use
Product
Formulation
Description
Application
Rate
Max
#

Appl/
Yr
Application
Methods
Terrestrial,

Outdoor
Residential
and
Greenhouse
Drexel
8020
I
Oil
(
80%
oil)
11.2
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Drexel
F0­
70
Oil
(
98%
oil)
1.5
gal/
L
­
12
gal/
L
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Mist
blower
Terrestrial
Dormant
Flowable
Emulsion
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
80%
oil)
12.224
lb/
100
gal
­
87.31
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground
and
air­
blast
spray
Terrestrial
Niagara
Dormant
Quik­
Mix
Heavy
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98%
oil)
14.82
lb/
100
gal
­
85.49
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground
and
air­
blast
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Niagara
Supreme
Oil
Code
30497
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98%
oil)
8.8935
lb/
98.5
gal
­
56.92
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
Summer
Flowable
Emulsion
Light­

Medium
Insecticide­

Miticide
Oil
(
80%
oil)
8.76
lb/
100
gal
­
11.68
lb/
100
gal
Not
specified
Sprayer
Terrestrial
Niagara
Summer
Quik
Mix;
Light
Medium
Code
R­
292
Oil
(
98%
oil)
10.731
­
17.885
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground
spray
Terrestrial
Niagara
Citrus
Soluble
Oil
(
Heavy
Medium)
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
99.3%
oil)
14.14
lb/
100
gal
­
70.7
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground
spray
Sprayer
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Niagara
Citrus
Sol
Oil
Light
Medium
Code
30390
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
99.3%
oil)
7.2489
lb/
100
gal
Not
specified
Ground
spray
Dip
tank
treatment
­
37­

TABLE
C­
2.
Selected
Registered
Uses
of
Aliphatic
oils
Use
Product
Formulation
Description
Application
Rate
Max
#

Appl/
Yr
Application
Methods
Terrestrial
Super
94
Spray
Oil
Oil
(
98%
oil)
9.7412
lb/
100
gal
­
69.58
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
415
Spray
Oil
Oil
(
98%
oil)
9.931
lb/
100
gal
­
113.3
lb/
A
Not
specified
Sprayer
Terrestrial,

Greenhouse
and
Outdoor
Residential
BioCover
LS
Oil
(
98%
petroleum
oil)
7.154
lb/
100
gal
­
125
lb/
100
gal
Not
specified
Ground
spray
Sprayer
Terrestrial,
Greenhouse,

Indoor/
Outdoor
Residential
Fasco
Fascocol­
97
Prod.
No.
908
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
99%
petroleum
oil)
0.137
lb/
gal
­
141.2
lb/
80
gal
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
SK
Enspray
99
Oil
(
99%
petroleum
oil
with
surfactant)
6.831
lb/
100
gal
­
453.3
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Mist
blower
Indoor
Residential
Perfumed
Up
and
At
EM
Water
Based
Insecticide
Liquid­
Ready
To
Use
(
0.48%
oil)
3.131E­
04
­
0.0534
lb
1K
cu.
ft/
L
When
necessary
Enclosed
premise
treatment
Ground
spray
Indoor
Residential
Bear­
Cat
Concentrate
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
12%
oil)
1
part/
L
When
necessary
Ground
spray
Animal
treatment/
Dip
tank
Fogger/
Mist
blower
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Rockland
"
Dormant
Oil
Spray"
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98.8%
oil)
2.6
fl.
oz/
L
­
1
gal/
L
Not
specified
Hose­
end
sprayer
Sprayer
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Parsons
Dormant
Oil
Spray
Emulsion
for
Fruit
Trees
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98.8%
oil)
28.652
lb/
100
gal
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
­
38­

TABLE
C­
2.
Selected
Registered
Uses
of
Aliphatic
oils
Use
Product
Formulation
Description
Application
Rate
Max
#

Appl/
Yr
Application
Methods
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Supreme
Oil
70
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98%
oil)
1
gal/
L
­
2
gal/
L
and
1
quart/
L
Not
specified
Sprayer
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Pratt's
6N
Superior
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98.75%
oil)
2
gal/
L
­
3
gal/
L
Not
specified
Sprayer
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Agrisect
Superior
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98%
oil)
10.437
­
20.874
lb/
50
gal
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial,

Indoor/
Outdoor
Residential
S
A
50
Brand
Soluble
Oil
Spray
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98%
oil)
0.0551
lb/
gal
­
0.2205
lb/
gal
Not
specified
Sprayer
Wipe­
on
treatment
(
cloth/
sponge)

Wiper
treatment
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Green
Light
Dormant
Spray
also
Summer
Spray
Oil
(
97%
oil)
0.1353
lb/
gal
­
0.2705
lb/
gal
Not
specified
Sprayer
Terrestrial,

Outdoor
Residential
and
Greenhouse
Unico
Superior
Miscible
Spray
Oil
60
Seconds
Viscosity
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98.8%
oil)
14.17
lb/
100
gal
­
0.0553
lb/
gal
Not
specified
Ground
and
air­
blast
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Supreme
Oil
Insecticide
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98.8%
oil)
7.0148
lb/
99
gal,
21.04
lb/
97
gal
or
14.03
lb/
98
gal
Not
specified
Ground
and
air­
blast
spray
Terrestrial
and
Indoor/
Outdoor
Residential
Royal
70
Superior
Spray
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
97%
oil)
2
Tbsp/
L
­
4
Tbsp/
L
Not
specified
Ground
and
air­
blast
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Ferti­
Lome
Dormant
Spray
and
Summer
Oil
Spray
Oil
(
99%
oil)
0.0824
lb/
gal
­
0.1647
lb/
gal
Not
specified
Sprayer
­
39­

TABLE
C­
2.
Selected
Registered
Uses
of
Aliphatic
oils
Use
Product
Formulation
Description
Application
Rate
Max
#

Appl/
Yr
Application
Methods
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Ferti
Lome
Scale
Insect
Spray
Oil
(
97%
oil)
1
quart/
L
Not
specified
Sprayer
Terrestrial
Hi­
Yield
Dormant
Spray
Oil
(
97%
oil)
0.0807
lb/
gal
­
0.1614
lb/
gal
Not
specified
Ground
and
air­
blast
spray
Terrestrial,

Outdoor
Residential
and
Greenhouse
Scalecide
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98.8%
oil)
2.5
fl.
oz/
L
­
3.8
fl.
oz/
L
Not
specified
Ground
and
air­
blast
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Riverside
Dormant
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98.8%
oil)
14.03
lb/
A
­
21.04
lb/
A
and
7.0148
lb/
4
gal
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Tropic
Supreme
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
90%
oil)
7.228
lb/
A
­
21.68
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Lesco
Horticultural
Oil
Insecticide
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98.8%
refined
petroleum
distillate)
44.19
lb/
A
­
107.92
lb/
A
Not
specified
Sprayer
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Security
Ornamental
and
Fruit
Spray
Oil
Oil
(
98%
oil)
3
Tbsp/
L
­
9
Tbsp/
L
Not
specified
Sprayer
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Acme
Dormant
Oil
Spray
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
97%
oil)
0.5
cup/
L
to
1
cup/
L
Not
specified
Hose­
end
sprayer
/
sprayer
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Superior
70
Oil
Oil
(
97%
oil)
20.66
lb/
100
gal
­
10.33
lb/
A
Not
specified
Sprayer
Mist
blower
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Amoco
Superior
Dormant
Spray
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
99%
oil)
21.32
lb/
97
gal,
14.22
lb/
98
gal
and
28.43
lb/
96
gal
Not
specified
Mist
blower
Ground
spray
­
40­

TABLE
C­
2.
Selected
Registered
Uses
of
Aliphatic
oils
Use
Product
Formulation
Description
Application
Rate
Max
#

Appl/
Yr
Application
Methods
Terrestrial
and
Outdoor
Residential
Standard
Brand
435
Soluble
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
97%
oil)
0.2155
lb/
gal
to
68.967
lb/
A
Not
specified
Sprayer
Indoor
and
Terrestrial
Ford's
Pyre­
Dust
Roach
Powder
Dust
(
1.9%
oil)
1
(
L)
­
0.57
lb/
A
and
0.004
lb
cwt
When
necessary
Duster/
Shovel
Seed
treatment
Indoor
Ford's
Multipurpose
Aerosol
Pressurized
Liquid
(
4.3%
oil)
1
sec
1K
cu.
ft/
L,
6
sec
animal/
L,
1
sec
1K
cu.
ft/
L
to
10
sec
1K
cu.
ft/
L
Not
specified
Ground
spray
Indoor
Universal
Quick­
Tox
Fog
Spray
Liquid­
Ready
to
Use
(
10%
oil)
7
fl.
oz.
1K
cu.
ft/
L
Not
specified
Fogger/
Mist
blower
Enclosed
premise
treatment
Surface
treatment
Indoor
Mercomist
Aerosol
Insect
Killer
Pressurized
Liquid
(
12.5%
oil)
2
sec
1K
cu.
ft/
L
to
20
sec
100
sq.
ft/
L
Not
specified
Ground
spray
Terrestrial
and
Indoor/
Outdoor
Residence
Black
Leaf
Dormant
Spray
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
98.8
oil)
2
Tbsp/
L,
0.0829
lb/
gal
to
0.2763
lb/
gal
Not
specified
Ground,
air­
blast
and
aerial
spray
Greenhouse
treatment
Terrestrial
Citrus
Soluble
Oil
­

Medium
Code
30143
Oil
(
99.3%
oil)
14.14
lb/
100
gal
­
70.7
lb/
A
Not
specified
Ground
spray
Terrestrial
Growers
455
Soluble
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
97%
oil)
69.937
­
70.713
lb/
A
Not
specified
Sprayer
Terrestrial
Tide
Citri
Oil
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
99%
oil)
24.6
lb/
100
gal
­
56.232
lb/
A
Not
specified
Sprayer
Aquatic
and
Industrial
Bonide
Mosquito
Larvicide
Oil
(
98%
mineral
oil
with
emulsifier)
27.28
(
aerial)

34.104
(
ground)
When
necessary
Direct
to
water
(
ground
and
aerial
spray)

Aquatic
and
Terrestrial
Mosquito
Larvicide
GB­
1111
Oil
(
98.7%
oil
with
surfactant)
36.67
lb/
A
When
necessary
Direct
to
water
(
ground
and
aerial
spray)
­
41­

TABLE
C­
2.
Selected
Registered
Uses
of
Aliphatic
oils
Use
Product
Formulation
Description
Application
Rate
Max
#

Appl/
Yr
Application
Methods
Aquatic
B.
A.
2
Larvicide
Liquid­
ready
to
use
(
97%
oil
with
surfactant)
34.435
lb/
A
When
necessary
Direct
to
water
(
ground
and
aerial
spray)

Aquatic
and
Indoor
Residential
Kamikaze
Insecticide
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
94%
petroleum
distillate,
1%
pyrethrin,

2%
piper
only
but
oxide
and
2.94%
n­
octal
bicycloheptene
dicarboximide)
0.3684
lb/
A
(
sprayer),
1.0
part/
L
(
ground)
and
0.2462
lb
1K
cu.
ft
(
ultra
low
volume)
When
necessary
Direct
to
water
(
ground
and
aerial
spray)
Animal
treatment
Fogger
Vaporizer
Enclosed
premise
treatment
Aquatic/
Terrestrial
and
Indoor/
Outdoor
Residence
Insectaway
Multi­

Purpose
Insecticide
II
Emulsifiable
concentrate
(
5%
oil,
12.5%

Piperonyl
but
oxide
and
1.25%
Pyrethrin)
0.001
lb1K
sq
ft
to
0.0416
lb1K
sq.
ft,

0.0017
lb1K
cu.
ft,

0.4
lb/
11.5
gal
and
0.0005
lb/
animal
When
necessary
Direct
to
water
(
ground
spray)

Fogger
Ground
broadcast
Animal
treatment
Spot
treatment
Surface
treatment
­
42­
­
43­

Appendix
D.
Summary
of
Ecological
Incidence.

To
comply
with
6(
a)
2
regulations,
Sunoco
reported
a
controversy
regarding
some
deleterious
effects
of
SUN
SPRAY
ULTRA­
FINE
YEAR
ROUND
PESTICIDAL
OIL.
A
resident
of
Idaho
Springs,
CO,
wrote
a
letter
to
the
publication
""
Hobby
Greenhouse""
alleging
that
the
product
killed
all
the
cucmber
plants
and
several
varieties
of
tomatoes,
and
damaged
or
outright
killed
several
greens.
Sunoco
responded
to
the
letter
and,
according
to
a
researcher
at
Cornell
U.,
foliar
burn
may
have
occurred
but
he
questioned
the
fact
that
the
product
killed
the
plants.

Homeowner
had
arborist
perform
routine
maintenance
on
2
very
large,
old
ornamental
beech
trees
in
fall
1993.
The
trees
were
sprayed
with
dormant
oil
product
(
Scalecide)
which
allegedly
caused
tree
damage
and
death.
According
to
the
report
the
MI
Ag.
Dept.
stated
that
dormant
oil
should
not
be
used
on
beech
trees,
but
registered
sites
did
include
ornamental
shade
and
deciduous
trees.
Analysis
of
the
tree
leaves
and
branches
revealed
no
detectable
disease.

To
comply
with
6(
a)
2
regulations,
Sunoco
reported
a
complaint
from
Venice,
FL,
that
Sunspray
6E
Plus
had
ruined
21
rosebushes.
It
was
the
first
time
that
the
complainant
had
used
this
product.
Allegedly,
the
temperature
and
relative
humidity
appeared
OK
for
spraying.

"
The
California
Dept.
of
Pesticide
Regulations
reported
an
incident
in
which
a
total
of
380
acres
of
kiwifruits
were
damaged.
One
firm
owns
the
kiwifruits
but
they
are
located
in
several
areas
and
were
not
all
sprayed
at
the
same
time.
Dormex
was
applied
during
January
and
February,
2004,
as
was
Valent
Volck
Supreme
Oil
Spray
more
than
three
weeks
apart.
A
burning
of
buds
was
observed
on
the
kiwi
vines
where
both
products
were
applied.
Damage
amounted
to
about
a
20%
loss
of
crop.
A
label
for
Dormex
use
on
kiwifruit
in
Australia
states
""
dormant
sprays
containing
oil
should
not
be
made
closer
than
14
days
before
or
after
Dormex
application.""
This
would
suggest
that
the
combination
of
the
two
products
is
potentially
harmless.","
USA","
I016036­

To
comply
with
6(
a)
2
regulations,
Sunoco
reported
a
complaint
it
received
from
Dundee,
FL
alleging
that
there
had
been
burn
on
leaves
and
twigs,
and
fruit
drop,
on
50­
year
old
early
mid­
round
oranges.
This
was
allegedly
the
result
of
using
Sunspray
9E.

To
comply
with
6(
a)
2
regulations,
Sunoco
reported
an
incident
in
California
in
which
an
olive
grove
exhibited
problems
of
pitting,
slight
burn,
and
leaf
drop.
The
application
was
made
from
August
19
to
31,
1999.
The
rate
used
was
1.5
gallons
Sunspray
6E/
100
gallons
water,
and
9
1/
3
lb.
Sevin
80W/
acre
applied
dilute.
