II. E. 2  Page 1 of 46 II. E. 2 Residential Exposure Scenarios Appendix The Preliminary NMC CRA considered a variety of exposure scenarios for consumer applicator and post application residential exposures. The data from multiple studies that measured various exposure values have been used in the residential portion of the residential risk assessment. In some cases, statistical distributions have been fitted to the datasets. For such datasets, exposure estimates were based on the fitted distributions. Brief descriptions of the studies and statistical details of the datasets used in the residential portion of the risk assessment are provided below.

1. Lawn Care Exposure Scenarios Unit Exposure Data Study Summaries MRID 449722 01 ( ORETF Turf Handler Studies): A report was submitted by the ORETF ( Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force) that presented data in which the application of various products used on turf by homeowners and lawncare operators ( LCOs) was monitored. All of the data submitted in this report were completed in a series of studies. The two studies that monitored homeowner exposure using a granular spreader ( ORETF Study OMA003) and a hose end sprayer ( ORETF Study OMA004) are summarized below.

OMA003: A total of 30 volunteer test subjects were monitored using passive dosimetry ( inner and outer whole body dosimeters, hand washes, face/ neck wipes, and personal inhalation monitors). Each test subject carried, loaded, and applied two 25 lb bags of fertilizer ( 0.89% active ingredient) with a rotary type spreader to a lawn ( a turf farm in North Carolina) covering 10,000 ft2 ( one bag to each of the two 5000 ft2 test plots). Application to each subplot continued until the hopper was empty. Each participant also disposed of the empty bags at the end of the replicate. The target application rate was 2 lb ai/ acre ( actual rate achieved was about 1.9 lb ai/ acre). The average application time was 22 minutes, including loading the rotary push spreader and disposing of the empty bags. Approximately 0.45 lb ai was handled in each replicate. Dermal exposure was measured using inner and outer whole body dosimeters, hand washes, face/ neck washes, and personal air monitoring devices with OVS tubes. Overall, residues were highest on the upper and lower leg portions of the dosimeters.

OMA004: Dermal and inhalation exposures were estimated using passive dosimetry techniques ( biological monitoring data were not collected). A total of 60 replicates were monitored using 30 test subjects ( two replicates each) during applications to residential lawns in Frederick, Maryland. Thirty applicator replicates were monitored using a ready to use ( RTU) product ( Bug B Gon) packaged in a 32 fl. oz. screw on container. These containers were attached to II. E. 2  Page 2 of 46 garden hose ends. An additional 30 mixer/ loader/ applicator replicates were monitored using Diazinon Plus also packaged in 32 fl. oz. plastic bottles. This product required the test subjects to pour the product into dial type sprayers ( DTS) that were attached to garden hose ends.

A nominal application rate of 4 lb ai/ acre was used for all replicates. Each replicate monitored the test subject treating 5,000 ft 2 of turf and handling a total of 0.5 lb ai/ replicate. The average time per replicate was 75 minutes. Dermal and inhalation exposure were measured using inner and outer whole body dosimeters ( long pants and long sleeved shirt over long underwear), hand washes, face/ neck washes, and personal air monitoring devices.

MRID 44459801 ( Applications Of Carbaryl To Vegetable Gardens): The data collected reflect the dermal and respiratory exposure of homeowners mixing, loading and applying RP 2 Liquid ( 21%), a carbaryl end use product. Applications were made by volunteers to two 18 foot rows of tomatoes and one 18 foot row of cucumber. The only test field was located in Florida. For this study, RP 2 Liquid ( 21%) exposures were monitored using hose end sprayers and low pressure hand wand sprayers. Exposures to Sevin ® 10 Dust, using a separate duster device that required transfer from the package and Sevin ® Ready To Use Insect Spray ( RTU) in a trigger sprayer package were also monitored. Exposure for each spray method/ product combination was monitored using 40 handlers ( replicates). Of the 40 replicates per spray method/ product combination, 20 wore household latex gloves and 20 performed tasks without gloves. The 20 dust product replicates loaded the dusters and applied without gloves only.

Each replicate opened the end use product, added it to the application implement ( except the RTU product), adjusted the setting and applied it to the vegetable rows. After application to the vegetable rows, dosimeters were collected. Inhalation exposure was monitored with personal air sampling pumps with OVS tubes attached to the shirt collar in the breathing zone. Dermal exposure was assessed by extraction of carbaryl from inner and outer 100 percent cotton dosimeters, face/ neck wipes, and glove and hand washes. The inner and outer dosimeters were segmented into: lower and upper arms, lower and upper legs, front and back torso.

Dermal exposure was determined by adding the values from the bare hand rinses, face/ neck wipes to the outer dosimeter lower legs and lower arms plus the inner dosimeter front and rear torso, upper legs, lower legs, lower arms, and upper arms. This accounts for the residential handlers with barehands wearing short sleeved shirt and short pants. II. E. 2  Page 3 of 46 Statistical Details Distributional parameters were estimated for the dermal and inhalation unit exposure ( UE) values for the granular ( Table II. E. 2 1), dust ( Table II. E. 2 2), and liquid sprayable ( Table II. E. 2 3) formulations of Carbaryl. All dermal and inhalation UE values represent milligrams exposure per pound of active ingredient of a pesticide handled. All UEs were assumed to be lognormally distributed ( i. e. fitted with a lognormal distribution). For each dataset, the shape (  ) and scale (  ) lognormal parameters were estimated by calculating the mean and standard deviation of the natural logarithms ( base e) of the UEs. Parametric estimates of the arithmetic mean ( µ ) and standard deviation (  ) of the lognormal distribution were then calculated based on the shape and scale parameter estimates. The formulae used to calculate the mean and standard deviation are given below.

)   exp(   µ 2 2 1 + =

1 ) exp(   µ   2   =

Shapiro Wilk ( S W) normality test statistics were used to assess the lognormal assumption implicit in the parametric calculations of the mean and standard deviation. The means, standard deviations, and p values of the S W statistics are provided in Table II. E. 2 4. A small p value indicates that logarithms of the UEs are not normally distributed, or equivalently, that the UEs are not lognormally distributed. Both the granular inhalation UE and dust inhalation UE datasets resulted in S W statistics with p values less than 0.05. II. E. 2  Page 4 of 46 Table II. E. 2 1 Granular Rotary Spreader UE Data ( OMA003) Used for Lawn Care Scenario Dermal UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) 0.529 0.0001 0.392 0.0008 0.668 0.0011 0.692 0.0027 0.329 0.0001 0.373 0.0007 0.363 0.0007 0.595 0.0014 0.339 0.0007 0.563 0.0014 0.712 0.0026 0.253 0.0006 0.787 0.0035 0.514 0.0033 0.999 0.0015 0.412 0.0008 0.427 0.0007 0.917 0.0011 0.757 0.0010 0.827 0.0008 0.620 0.0006 0.730 0.0003 0.551 0.0006 2.104 0.0011 1.363 0.0032 0.915 0.0025 0.522 0.0007 6.980 0.0008 0.462 0.0007 1.022 0.0003 II. E. 2  Page 5 of 46 Table II. E. 2 2 Dust Shaker/ Powder UE Data ( MRID 44459801) Used for Lawn Care Scenarios Dermal UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) 673 2.27 588 0.60 276 1.38 129 2.23 176 0.30 94 0.61 236 4.87 229 0.01 85 2.11 69 0.38 82 2.14 258 0.66 51 1.99 1388 14.27 40 0.13 280 1.09 43 1.40 36 0.57 219 2.28 59 0.26 Table II. E. 2 3 Hose End Sprayer on Turf UE Data ( OMA004) Used for Lawn Care Scenarios Dermal UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) 0.21 0.019 6.76 0.026 32.61 0.065 1.84 0.013 3.09 0.030 3.16 0.037 1.22 0.027 1.36 0.030 1.29 0.003 0.99 0.019 9.38 0.034 1.16 0.006 3.20 0.021 9.69 0.045 5.42 0.061 12.89 0.005 1.92 0.002 8.93 0.004 3.68 0.017 11.05 0.008 0.08 0.001 23.03 0.001 4.51 0.003 0.22 0.015 2.83 0.029 1.20 0.003 8.60 0.007 0.41 0.003 23.66 0.014 0.17 0.004 II. E. 2  Page 6 of 46 Table II. E. 2 4 Lognormal Distributions of UEs Used for Lawn Care Scenarios Additionally, probability plots were used to qualitatively assess the appropriateness of the lognormal assumptions. Generally a probability plot displays the actual values of a dataset ( represented as points) and their expected values ( represented as a line) for the specified distribution. The closer the actual values are to their expected values ( i. e. the more the actual values approximate a straight line), the more likely the dataset is of the specified distribution. The probability plots for the UE datasets are provided in Figures II. E. 2 1 through 6. For the granular dermal UE dataset, the probability plot indicates that the small S W p value is due to one very high value; whereas for the dust inhalation UE dataset, one very low value results in a small S W p value. The other datasets are reasonably approximated by lognormal distributions.

Figure II. E. 2 1 Lognormal Probability Plot of Granular Rotary Spreader Dermal UE Data ( OMA003)

ln_ rot_ sprdr_ SSSP 5 6 7 8 9 10 .01 .05 .10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Figure II. E. 2 2 Lognormal Probability Plot of Granular Rotary Spreader Inhalation UE Data ( OMA003)

ln_ rot_ sprdr_ inhal  2  1.5  1  0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 .01 .05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Application Method Exposure Route Unit Exposure Distribution ( mg/ lb ai) Shapiro Wilk p value Dermal LN( 0.809, 0.570) 0.0011 Granular Rotary Spreader Inhalation LN( 0.0013, 0.0013) 0.0511 Dermal LN( 247, 333) 0.3691 Dust Shaker/ Powder Inhalation LN( 2.94, 9.54) 0.0354 Dermal LN( 8.44, 26.2) 0.3630 Hose End Sprayer ( RTU) on Turf Inhalation LN( 0.022, 0.040) 0.1890 NOTES:

LN( µ ,  ) represents a lognormal distribution with mean= µ and standard deviation=  .

For lawn scenarios, information was derived from chemical specific data and studies conducted by the ORETF ( Outdoor Residential Exposure Task). II. E. 2  Page 7 of 46 Figure II. E. 2 3 Lognormal Probability Plot of Dust Shaker/ Powder Dermal UE Data ( MRID 44459801)

ln_ dust_ garden 3 4 5 6 7 8 .01 .05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90.95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Figure II. E. 2 4 Lognormal Probability Plot of Dust Shaker/ Powder Inhalation UE Data ( MRID 44459801)

ln_ dust_ gard_ inh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .01 .05 .10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Figure II. E. 2 5 Lognormal Probability Plot of HES Sprayer on Turf Dermal UE Data ( OMA004)

ln_ OMA004_ SSSP 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .01 .05 .10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Figure II. E. 2 6 Lognormal Probability Plot of Hose End Sprayer on Turf Inhalation UE Data ( OMA004)

ln_ OMA004_ inh  1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 .01 .05 .10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Residue Data Study Summaries MRID 451143 01 ( Carbaryl Turf Transferable Residue Study): A TTR study was conducted at individual sites in three states using the ORETF roller sampling method. The data used in this assessment was from the Georgia site. Bermudagrass was the variety of turfgrass treated at the Georgia site. Field work took place over three week intervals at each site. Applications were made and II. E. 2  Page 8 of 46 samples were collected essentially in October of 1998 Georgia. Two applications were made 7 days apart at each site. All applications in this study were completed at a rate of 8.17 lb ai/ acre. Applications were made with typical groundboom sprayers using approximately 55 and 31 gallons of water per acre, respectively. All applications were made using Dragon Sevin Liquid which is a flowable concentrate formulation that contains carbaryl at a nominal concentration of 21 percent by weight or 2 lb ai/ gallon.

There was approximately from 1 inch up to 2.7 inches of irrigation water on the day of the final application. Additionally, on the day of the final application, rain was noted that ranged in accumulations of 0.36 inches. Mowing events were not noted in the data from the Georgia site. Triplicate TTR samples were collected using the ORETF roller method at 8 intervals out to 14 days after the last application. All but two samples were collected during the 1st week of the study. In all cases, residue levels exceeded the LOQ at 14 days after application.

Statistical Details Turf transferable residues ( TTR) values are assumed to degrade exponentially over time ( i. e. degrade by a constant proportion for any given time interval). In order to estimate the initial TTR value ( i. e. TTR value at day zero) and the halflife of the liquid formulation of carbaryl, the natural logarithms of the 27 ( 3 samples X 9 days) individual TTR samples ( Table II. E. 2 5) from the Georgia site were linearly regressed on the day of sample collection. The form of the linear regression is given below.

t     ln( y) 1 0 + =

The linear regression parameters were then used to calculate initial DFR value ( A0) and the half life ( T1/ 2) using formulae given below.

0 0   A =

1   ln( 2) T 2 1   = II. E. 2  Page 9 of 46 Table II. E. 2 5 Liquid Formulation TTR Data ( MRID # 451143 01, Georgia site) Used for Lawn Care Scenario Day TTR Values ( mg/ cm2)

0.00130 0.00122 0 0.00152 0.00067 0.00073 0.5 0.00147 0.00041 0.00042 1 0.00047 0.00020 0.00028 2 0.00023 0.00014 0.00027 3 0.00050 0.00040 0.00023 5 0.00010 0.00011 0.00013 7 0.00031 0.00003 0.00015 10 0.00022 0.00007 0.00002 14 0.00015 Transfer Coefficient Data Study Summaries Black, 1993: A study by Black ( 1993), which investigated dermal exposure values of young children who were exposed to a non toxic substance, was used to represent the spray application scenario. In this study, children performed unscripted activities on turf treated with a non toxic substance used as a whitening agent in fabrics. The subjects of the study were 14 children aged four to nine years old. In this study, children were provided toys and their activities were recorded as they performed unscripted activities for a period of one half hour. Activities recorded were grouped into the following classifications:

Upright ( standing, walking, jumping and running) II. E. 2  Page 10 of 46

Sitting ( straight up, cross legged, kneeling, crouching and crawling)

Lying ( prone or supine)

Dermal exposure was measured by fluorescent measurement technology described in Fenske et al., ( 1986). Measurements on various body parts were expressed as ug/ body part ( e. g., hand, face, etc.) and as concentration ( ug/ cm2).

Vaccaro, 1993: In a second study ( Vaccaro, 1993) in which a liquid formulation was used, eight adults performed structured activities intended to mimic a child's activities ( including walking/ running, sleeping, crawling, and sitting on turf). The subjects performed these activities for a period of four hours beginning four hours after the turf had dried. Turf had been treated earlier with a sprayable form of chlorpyrifos and exposure was estimated in the study by monitoring the amount of a chlorpyrifos metabolite   excreted over the following period of 6 days. This method directly measured internal dose and was used to back calculate a generic " to the skin" transfer coefficient by using chemical specific dermal absorption data for chlorpyrifos ( Nolan et al., 1984).

Statistical Details Distributional parameters were estimated for the combined children transfer coefficient ( TC) values from the Black and Vaccaro studies and the adult TC values from the Vaccaro study ( Table II. E. 2 6). All TC values were expressed as square centimeters per hour ( cm2/ hr). Both children and adult TCs were assumed to be lognormally distributed ( i. e. fitted with a lognormal distribution). For each dataset, the shape (  ) and scale (  ) lognormal parameters were estimated by calculating the mean and standard deviation of the natural logarithms ( base e) of the TCs. Parametric estimates of the arithmetic mean ( µ ) and standard deviation (  ) of the lognormal distribution were then calculated based on the shape and scale parameter estimates. The formulae used to calculate the mean and standard deviation are given below.

)   exp(   µ 2 2 1 + =

1 ) exp(   µ   2   =

Shapiro Wilk ( S W) normality test statistics were used to assess the lognormal assumption implicit in the parametric calculations of the mean and standard deviation. The means, standard deviations, and p values of the S W statistics are provided in Table II. E. 2 7. A small p value indicates that logarithms of the TCs are not normally distributed, or equivalently, that the TCs are not lognormally distributed. For both children and adult TC datasets, the S W p values are greater than 0.05. II. E. 2  Page 11 of 46 Table II. E. 2 6 Liquid Formulation TC Data Used for Lawn Care Scenarios Population Study TC Values ( cm2/ hr)

1240 2507 2673 3251 3665 4164 4877 Vaccaro 4905 2844 3594 3776 4051 4103 4357 4902 6812 8395 8746 9119 9885 10713 Children Black 16008 3348 6770 7217 8779 9895 11243 13169 Adult Vaccaro 13243 Table II. E. 2 7 Lognormal Distributions of TCs Used for Lawn Care Scenarios Application Method Exposure Route Population Transfer Coefficient Distribution ( cm2/ hr) Shapiro Wilk p value Dermal Children LN( 5709, 3634) 0.6127 Hose End Sprayer* Dermal Adult LN( 9445, 4509) 0.2035 NOTES: LN( µ ,  ) represents a lognormal distribution with mean= µ and standard deviation=  .

* Liquid formulation data was used for granular exposure scenarios. II. E. 2  Page 12 of 46 Additionally, probability plots were used to qualitatively assess the appropriateness of the lognormal assumptions. Generally a probability plot displays the actual values of a dataset ( represented as points) and their expected values ( represented as a line) for the specified distribution. The closer the actual values are to their expected values ( i. e. the more the actual values approximate a straight line), the more likely the dataset is of the specified distribution. The probability plots for the TC datasets are provided in Figures II. E. 2 7 and 8. The probability plots indicate the both children and adult TC datasets are reasonably approximated by lognormal distributions.

Figure II. E. 2 7 Lognormal Probability Plot of Liquid Formulation Child TC Data liq_ lawn_ TC_ child 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 .01 .05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Figure II. E. 2 8 Lognormal Probability Plot of Liquid Formulation Adult TC Data ln_ liq_ lawn_ adult 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 .01 .05 .10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile 2. Vegetable Garden Exposure Scenarios Unit Exposure Data Study Summaries MRID 444598 01 ( Carbaryl Applications To Vegetables Gardens): The data collected reflect the dermal and respiratory exposure of homeowners mixing, loading and applying RP 2 Liquid ( 21%), a Carbaryl end use product. Applications were made by volunteers to two 18 foot rows of tomatoes and one 18 foot row of cucumber. The only test field was located in Florida. For this study, RP 2 Liquid ( 21%) exposures were monitored using hose end sprayers and low pressure hand wand sprayers. Exposures to Sevin ® 10 Dust, using a separate duster device that required transfer from the package and Sevin ® Ready To Use Insect Spray ( RTU) in a trigger sprayer package were also monitored. Exposure for each spray method/ product combination was monitored using 40 handlers ( replicates). Of the 40 replicates per spray method/ product combination, 20 wore household latex gloves and 20 performed tasks without II. E. 2  Page 13 of 46 gloves. The 20 dust product replicates loaded the dusters and applied without gloves only.

Each replicate opened the end use product, added it to the application implement ( except the RTU product), adjusted the setting and applied it to the vegetable rows. After application to the vegetable rows, dosimeters were collected. Inhalation exposure was monitored with personal air sampling pumps with OVS tubes attached to the shirt collar in the breathing zone. Dermal exposure was assessed by extraction of carbaryl from inner and outer 100 percent cotton dosimeters, face/ neck wipes, and glove and hand washes. The inner and outer dosimeters were segmented into: lower and upper arms, lower and upper legs, front and back torso.

Dermal exposure was determined by adding the values from the bare hand rinses, face/ neck wipes to the outer dosimeter lower legs and lower arms plus the inner dosimeter front and rear torso, upper legs, lower legs, lower arms, and upper arms. This accounts for the residential handlers with barehands wearing short sleeved shirt and short pants.

Statistical Details Distributional parameters were estimated for the dermal and inhalation unit exposure ( UE) values for dust ( Table II. E. 2 8), trigger pump sprayer ( Table II. E. 2 9), and liquid hose end sprayer ( Table II. E. 2 10) applications of Carbaryl. All dermal and inhalation UE values represent milligrams exposure per pound of active ingredient of a pesticide handled. All UEs were assumed to be lognormally distributed ( i. e. fitted with a lognormal distribution). For each dataset, the shape (  ) and scale (  ) lognormal parameters were estimated by calculating the mean and standard deviation of the natural logarithms ( base e) of the UEs. Parametric estimates of the arithmetic mean ( µ ) and standard deviation (  ) of the lognormal distribution were then calculated based on the shape and scale parameter estimates. The formulae used to calculate the mean and standard deviation are given below.

)   exp(   µ 2 2 1 + =

1 ) exp(   µ   2   =

Shapiro Wilk ( S W) normality test statistics were used to assess the lognormal assumption implicit in the parametric calculations of the mean and standard deviation. The means, standard deviations, and p values of the S W statistics are provided in Table II. E. 2 11. A small p value indicates that logarithms of the UEs are not normally distributed, or equivalently, that the UEs are not lognormally distributed. Both the dust inhalation UE and trigger pump inhalation UE datasets resulted in S W statistics with p values less than 0.05. II. E. 2  Page 14 of 46 Table II. E. 2 8 Dust Shaker/ Powder UE Data ( MRID 44459801) Used for Vegetable Garden Scenarios Dermal UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) 673 2.27 588 0.60 276 1.38 129 2.23 176 0.30 94 0.61 236 4.87 229 0.01 85 2.11 69 0.38 82 2.14 258 0.66 51 1.99 1388 14.27 40 0.13 280 1.09 43 1.40 36 0.57 219 2.28 59 0.26 Table II. E. 2 9 Trigger Pump Sprayer UE Data ( MRID 44459801) Used for Vegetable Garden Scenarios Dermal UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) 129 0.275 59 0.255 250 0.104 132 0.168 145 0.180 91 0.032 165 0.180 77 0.200 24 0.033 50 0.032 24 0.033 100 0.086 23 0.032 24 0.110 20 0.035 218 0.032 9 0.032 18 0.032 41 0.032 23 0.032 II. E. 2  Page 15 of 46 Table II. E. 2 10 Hose End Sprayer UE Data ( MRID44459801) for Vegetable Garden Scenarios Dermal UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) 31 0.0022 47 0.0009 21 0.0016 77 0.0028 58 0.0014 76 0.0030 25 0.0032 31 0.0044 19 0.0017 17 0.0013 33 0.0010 84 0.0041 24 0.0023 56 0.0009 8 0.0027 199 0.0044 163 0.0014 11 0.0007 21 0.0044 7 0.0028 Table II. E. 2 11 Lognormal Distributions of UEs Used for Vegetable Garden Scenarios Additionally, probability plots were used to qualitatively assess the appropriateness of the lognormal assumptions. Generally a probability plot displays the actual values of a dataset ( represented as points) and their expected values ( represented as a line) for the specified distribution. The closer the actual Application Method Exposure Route Unit Exposure Distribution ( mg/ lb ai) Shapiro Wilk p value Dermal LN( 247, 333) 0.3691 Dust Shaker/ Powder Inhalation LN( 2.94, 9.54) 0.0354 Dermal LN( 86, 107) 0.2191 Trigger Pump Sprayer Inhalation LN( 0.104, 0.137)* 0.0003 Dermal LN( 51, 58) 0.8266 Hose End Sprayer Inhalation LN( 0.0024, 0.0015) 0.2075 NOTES: LN( µ ,  ) represents a lognormal distribution with mean= µ and standard deviation=  . * The mean and standard deviation represent MLE based estimates. II. E. 2  Page 16 of 46 values are to their expected values ( i. e. the more the actual values approximate a straight line), the more likely the dataset is of the specified distribution. The probability plots for the UE datasets are provided in Figures II. E9 through 14. For the dust inhalation UE dataset, the probability plot indicates that the small SW p value is due to one very low value; whereas for the trigger pump inhalation UE dataset, several low values account for the small S W p value. The other datasets are reasonably approximated by lognormal distributions.

F igure II. E. 2 9 Lognormal Probability Plot of Dust Shaker/ Powder Dermal UE Data ( MRID 44459801)

ln_ dust_ garden 3 4 5 6 7 8 .01 .05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90.95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Figure II. E. 2 10 Lognormal Probability Plot of Dust Shaker/ Powder Inhalation UE Data ( MRID 44459801)

ln_ dust_ gard_ inh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .01 .05 .10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Figure II. E. 2 11 Lognormal Probability Plot of Trigger Pump Sprayer UE Dermal Data ( MRID 44459801)

ln_ RTU_ garden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .01 .05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90.95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Figure II. E. 2 12 Lognormal Probability Plot of Trigger Pump Sprayer UE Inhalation Data ( MRID 44459801)

ln_ RTU_ gard_ inh 3 4 5 6 .01 .05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90.95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile II. E. 2  Page 17 of 46 Figure II. E. 2 13 Lognormal Probability Plot of Hose End Sprayer Dermal UE Data ( MRID44459801)

ln_ hose_ garden 1 2 3 4 5 6 .01 .05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90.95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Figure II. E. 2 14 Lognormal Probability Plot of Hose End Sprayer Inhalation UE Data ( MRID44459801)

ln_ hose_ gard_ inh  1  0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 .01 .05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile For the trigger pump inhalation UE dataset, 11 out of 20 samples were reported as approximately the same value. All 11 samples from the inhalation monitors were reported as 0.07 µ g with slightly different amounts of active ingredient handled by the study subjects, which resulted in slightly different UE ( mg/ lb ai) values. The value 0.07 µ g was assumed to be half the LOQ. The mean and standard deviation estimated for the trigger pump inhalation UE dataset are based on maximum likelihood estimation ( MLE) procedures assuming the dataset represents a sample from a censored lognormal distribution.

Residue Data Study Summaries MRID 450059 09 ( Carbaryl Sunflower DFR Study): The field phase of this study was conducted at a single site near Northwood, North Dakota. The field phase of the study was conducted during the period from July 20 to August 25, 1998. Sample analyses were completed by December 1998. A fixed wing aircraft was used to make 2 applications of Sevin XLR Plus, a liquid flowable formulation, 7 days apart at an application rate of 1.5 lb ai/ acre. Spray volume was 3 gallons of water per acre. The sunflower plants were approximately 4 feet tall and were spaced approximately 0.5 feet within each row while the rows were spaced 2.5 feet apart ( i. e., ~ 35000 plants/ acre). No significant precipitation was observed in this study until at least 14 days after application.

DFR samples were collected out to 28 days after the last application using the Iwata method ( i. e., a total surface area sampled of 400 cm2/ sample collected with a 1 inch diameter Birkestrand leaf punch and dislodged with a 0.01 percent Aerosol solution). There were still measurable residues 28 days after II. E. 2  Page 18 of 46 application. The percent transferability of the 0 day sample was 32 percent of the application rate.

Statistical Details Dislodgeable foliar residue ( DFR) values are assumed to degrade exponentially over time ( i. e. degrade by a constant proportion for any given time interval). In order to estimate the initial DFR value ( i. e. DFR value at day zero) and the halflife of the liquid formulation of Carbaryl, the natural logarithms of the 30 ( 3 samples X 10 days) individual DFR samples ( Table II. E. 2 12) from the sunflower study were linearly regressed on the day of sample collection. The form of the linear regression is given below.

t     ln( y) 1 0 + =

The linear regression parameters were then used to calculate initial DFR value ( A0) and the half life ( T1/ 2) using formulae given below.

0 0   A =

1   ln( 2) T 2 1   = II. E. 2  Page 19 of 46 Table II. E. 2 12 Liquid Formulation DFR Data ( MRID 45005909) Used for Vegetable Garden Scenarios Day DFR Values ( mg/ cm2)

0.00503 0.00615 0 0.00488 0.00425 0.00515 1 0.00508 0.00415 0.00295 2 0.00380 0.00393 0.00330 3 0.00483 0.00498 0.00463 4 0.00418 0.00241 0.00205 5 0.00310 0.00308 0.00308 6 0.00320 0.00283 0.00213 7 0.00288 0.00139 0.00116 14 0.00108 0.00020 0.00010 28 0.00005 Transfer Coefficient Data Study Summaries MRID 45344501 ( Chrysanthemum Pinching): This study was conducted with volunteer workers pinching buds from greenhouse chrysanthemums after two treatments with the active ingredient ( ai) diazainon, formulated as an emulsifiable concentrate called Diazinon AG600 WBC ® . Dermal and inhalation data were collected, together with concurrent dislodgeable foliar residue ( DFR) data. Potential exposures were measured using whole body dosimeters ( outer and inner dosimetry), hand washes, and face/ neck wipes for dermal exposure and personal sampling pumps for inhalation exposure. Transfer coefficients were calculated for potential and total dermal exposure. II. E. 2  Page 20 of 46 MRID 451917 01 ( Cabbage Weeding Study): This study was conducted with volunteer workers weeding commercially grown cabbage after two treatments with the active ingredient ( ai) carbaryl, formulated as the emulsifiable concentrate Sevin ® XLR Plus. The potential dermal and respiratory exposure during reentry was assessed at an established commercial cabbage field in San Joaquin Valley of California by using whole body dosimetry, hand washes, face/ neck wipes, and a personal air sampling pump. Transfer coefficients for potential and total dermal exposure were calculated.

3. Ornamental Plants and Shrubs Exposure Scenarios Unit Exposure Data Study Summaries MRID 444598 01 ( Carbaryl Applications To Vegetable Gardens): The data collected reflect the dermal and respiratory exposure of homeowners mixing, loading and applying RP 2 Liquid ( 21%), a Carbaryl end use product. Applications were made by volunteers to two 18 foot rows of tomatoes and one 18 foot row of cucumber. The only test field was located in Florida. For this study, RP 2 Liquid ( 21%) exposures were monitored using hose end sprayers and low pressure hand wand sprayers. Exposures to Sevin ® 10 Dust, using a separate duster device that required transfer from the package and Sevin ® Ready To Use Insect Spray ( RTU) in a trigger sprayer package were also monitored. Exposure for each spray method/ product combination was monitored using 40 handlers ( replicates). Of the 40 replicates per spray method/ product combination, 20 wore household latex gloves and 20 performed tasks without gloves. The 20 dust product replicates loaded the dusters and applied without gloves only.

Each replicate opened the end use product, added it to the application implement ( except the RTU product), adjusted the setting and applied it to the vegetable rows. After application to the vegetable rows, dosimeters were collected. Inhalation exposure was monitored with personal air sampling pumps with OVS tubes attached to the shirt collar in the breathing zone. Dermal exposure was assessed by extraction of carbaryl from inner and outer 100 percent cotton dosimeters, face/ neck wipes, and glove and hand washes. The inner and outer dosimeters were segmented into: lower and upper arms, lower and upper legs, front and back torso.

Dermal exposure was determined by adding the values from the bare hand rinses, face/ neck wipes to the outer dosimeter lower legs and lower arms plus the inner dosimeter front and rear torso, upper legs, lower legs, lower arms, and upper arms. This accounts for the residential handlers with barehands wearing short sleeved shirt and short pants. II. E. 2  Page 21 of 46 MRID 445185 01 ( Carbaryl Applications To Trees And Shrubs Study): Applications of Sevin Liquid ® Carbaryl insecticide [ RP 2 liquid ( 21%)] were made by volunteers to two young citrus trees and two shrubs in each replicate that was monitored in the study. The test field was located only in Florida. Twenty ( 20) replicates were monitored using hose end sprayer ( Ortho ® DIAL or Spray ® hose end sprayer), and 20 replicates were monitored using hand held pump sprayers ( low pressure hand wands).

Each replicate opened the end use product, added it to the hose end sprayer or hand held pump and then applied it to the trees and shrubs. After application to two trees and two shrubs dosimeters were collected. Inhalation exposure was monitored with personal air sampling pumps with OVS tubes attached to the shirt collar in the breathing zone. Dermal exposure was assessed by extraction of Carbaryl from inner and outer 100 percent cotton dosimeters. The inner and outer dosimeters were segmented into: lower and upper arms, lower and upper legs, front and back torso. No gloves were worn therefore hand exposure was assessed with 400 ml handwash with 0.01 percent Aerosol OT 75 sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate ( OTS). One hundred ( 100) percent cotton handkerchiefs wetted with 25 ml OTS were used to wipe face and neck to determine exposure.

The dermal exposure was calculated by adding the values from the hand rinses, face/ neck wipes to the outer dosimeter lower legs and lower arms plus the inner dosimeter front and rear torso, upper legs, lower legs, lower arms, and upper arms. This accounts for the residential handlers with barehands wearing shortsleeved shirt and short pants.

Statistical Details Distributional parameters were estimated for the dermal and inhalation unit exposure ( UE) values for dust ( Table II. E. 2 13), trigger pump sprayer ( Table II. E. 2 14), and liquid hand wand sprayer ( Table II. E. 2 15) applications of carbaryl. All dermal and inhalation UE values represent milligrams exposure per pound of active ingredient of a pesticide handled. All UEs were assumed to be lognormally distributed ( i. e. fitted with a lognormal distribution). For each dataset, the shape (  ) and scale (  ) lognormal parameters were estimated by calculating the mean and standard deviation of the natural logarithms ( base e) of the UEs. Parametric estimates of the arithmetic mean ( µ ) and standard deviation (  ) of the lognormal distribution were then calculated based on the shape and scale parameter estimates. The formulae used to calculate the mean and standard deviation are given below.

)   exp(   µ 2 2 1 + =

1 ) exp(   µ   2   = II. E. 2  Page 22 of 46 Shapiro Wilk ( S W) normality test statistics were used to assess the lognormal assumption implicit in the parametric calculations of the mean and standard deviation. The means, standard deviations, and p values of the S W statistics are provided in Table II. E. 2 16. A small p value indicates that logarithms of the UEs are not normally distributed, or equivalently, that the UEs are not lognormally distributed. The dust inhalation UE, trigger pump inhalation UE, and hand wand UE datasets resulted in S W statistics with p values less than 0.05.

Table II. E. 2 13 Dust Shaker/ Powder UE Data ( MRID 44459801) Used for Ornamental Plants and Shrubs Scenarios Dermal UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) 673 2.27 588 0.60 276 1.38 129 2.23 176 0.30 94 0.61 236 4.87 229 0.01 85 2.11 69 0.38 82 2.14 258 0.66 51 1.99 1388 14.27 40 0.13 280 1.09 43 1.40 36 0.57 219 2.28 59 0.26 Table II. E. 2 14 Trigger Pump Sprayer UE Data ( MRID # 44459801) Used for Ornamental Plants and Shrubs Scenarios Dermal UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) 129 0.275 59 0.255 250 0.104 132 0.168 145 0.180 91 0.032 165 0.180 77 0.200 24 0.033 50 0.032 24 0.033 100 0.086 23 0.032 24 0.110 20 0.035 218 0.032 9 0.032 18 0.032 41 0.032 23 0.032 II. E. 2  Page 23 of 46 Table II. E. 2 15 Hand Wand Sprayer UE Data ( MRID 44518501) Used for Ornamental Plants and Shrubs Scenarios Dermal UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) 25 0.004 52 0.005 129 0.004 27 0.004 348 0.005 56 0.005 118 0.004 176 0.016 44 0.009 41 0.016 46 0.004 15 0.004 36 0.004 83 0.004 78 0.025 78 0.012 46 0.004 36 0.022 25 0.004 63 0.018 Table II. E. 2 16 Lognormal Distributions of UEs Used for Ornamental Plants and Shrubs Scenarios Additionally, probability plots were used to qualitatively assess the appropriateness of the lognormal assumptions. Generally a probability plot displays the actual values of a dataset ( represented as points) and their expected values ( represented as a line) for the specified distribution. The closer the actual Application Method Exposure Route Unit Exposure Distribution ( mg/ lb ai) Shapiro Wilk p value Dermal LN( 247, 333) 0.3691 Dust Shaker/ Powder Inhalation LN( 2.94, 9.54) 0.0354 Dermal LN( 86, 107) 0.2191 Trigger Pump Sprayer Inhalation LN( 0.104, 0.137)* 0.0003 Dermal LN( 74, 64) 0.7478 Hand Wand Sprayer Inhalation LN( 0.0089, 0.0102)* 0.0005 NOTES: LN( µ ,  ) represents a lognormal distribution with mean= µ and standard deviation=  . * The mean and standard deviation represent MLE based estimates. II. E. 2  Page 24 of 46 values are to their expected values ( i. e. the more the actual values approximate a straight line), the more likely the dataset is of the specified distribution. The probability plots for the UE datasets are provided in Figures II. E. 2 15 through 20. For the dust inhalation UE dataset, the probability plot indicates that the small SW p value is due to one very low value; whereas for the trigger pump inhalation and hand wand inhalation UE datasets, several low values account for the small S W p values. The other datasets are reasonably approximated by lognormal distributions.

Figure II. E. 2 15 Lognormal Probability Plot of Dust Shaker/ Powder Dermal UE Data ( MRID 44459801)

ln_ dust_ garden 3 4 5 6 7 8 .01 .05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90.95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Figure II. E. 2 16 Lognormal Probability Plot of Dust Shaker/ Powder Inhalation UE Data ( MRID 44459801)

ln_ dust_ gard_ inh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .01 .05 .10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Figure II. E. 2 17 Lognormal Probability Plot of Trigger Pump Sprayer Dermal UE Data ( MRID # 44459801)

ln_ RTU_ garden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .01 .05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90.95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Figure II. E. 2 18 Lognormal Probability Plot of Trigger Pump Sprayer Inhalation UE Data ( MRID # 44459801)

ln_ RTU_ gard_ inh 3 4 5 6 .01 .05 .10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile II. E. 2  Page 25 of 46 Figure II. E. 2 19 Lognormal Probability Plot of Hand Wand Sprayer Dermal UE Data ( MRID 44518501)

ln_ hw_ trees 2 3 4 5 6 7 .01 .05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90.95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Figure II. E. 2 20 Lognormal Probability Plot of Hand Wand Sprayer Inhalation UE Data ( MRID 44518501)

ln_ hw_ trees_ inh 1 2 3 4 .01 .05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90.95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile For the trigger pump inhalation and hand wand inhalation UE datasets, 11 and 13 ( respectively) out of 20 samples were reported as approximately the same value. All 24 samples from the inhalation monitors were reported as 0.07 µ g with slightly different amounts of active ingredient handled by the study subjects, which resulted in slightly different UE ( mg/ lb ai) values. The value 0.07 µ g was assumed to be half the LOQ. The means and standard deviations estimated for the trigger pump inhalation UE and hand wand inhalation UE datasets are based on maximum likelihood estimation ( MLE) procedures assuming the datasets represent samples from censored lognormal distributions.

Transfer Coefficient Data Study Summaries MRID 45344501 ( Chrysanthemum Pinching): This study was conducted with volunteer workers pinching buds from greenhouse chrysanthemums after two treatments with the surrogate active ingredient ( ai) diazainon, formulated as an emulsifiable concentrate called Diazinon AG600 WBC ® . Dermal and inhalation data were collected, together with concurrent dislodgeable foliar residue ( DFR) data. Potential exposures were measured using whole body dosimeters ( outer and inner dosimetry), hand washes, and face/ neck wipes for dermal exposure and personal sampling pumps for inhalation exposure. Transfer coefficients were calculated for potential and total dermal exposure.

MRID 454695 01 ( Pruning in Nursery Stock): This study was conducted with volunteer workers pruning in a citrus nursery stock after one treatment with the surrogate active ingredient ( ai) malathion, formulated as the emulsifiable concentrate. The potential dermal and respiratory exposure during reentry was II. E. 2  Page 26 of 46 assessed at a citrus nursery in Arizona by using whole body dosimetry, hand washes, face/ neck wipes, and a personal air sampling pump. Dermal and inhalation data were collected, together with concurrent dislodgeable foliar residue ( DFR) data. Transfer coefficients were calculated for both potential and total dermal exposure.

Residue Data Study Summaries MRID 450059 09 ( Carbaryl Sunflower DFR Study): The field phase of this study was conducted at a single site near Northwood, North Dakota. The field phase of the study was conducted during the period from July 20 to August 25, 1998. Sample analyses were completed by December 1998. A fixed wing aircraft was used to make 2 applications of Sevin XLR Plus, a liquid flowable formulation, 7 days apart at an application rate of 1.5 lb ai/ acre. Spray volume was 3 gallons of water per acre. The sunflower plants were approximately 4 feet tall and were spaced approximately 0.5 feet within each row while the rows were spaced 2.5 feet apart ( i. e., ~ 35000 plants/ acre). No significant precipitation was observed in this study until at least 14 days after application.

DFR samples were collected out to 28 days after the last application using the Iwata method ( i. e., a total surface area sampled of 400 cm2/ sample collected with a 1 inch diameter Birkestrand leaf punch and dislodged with a 0.01 percent Aerosol solution). There were still measurable residues 28 days after application. The percent transferability of the 0 day sample was 32 percent of the application rate.

Statistical Details Dislodgeable foliar residue ( DFR) values are assumed to degrade exponentially over time ( i. e. degrade by a constant proportion for any given time interval). In order to estimate the initial DFR value ( i. e. DFR value at day zero) and the halflife of the liquid formulation of carbaryl, the natural logarithms of the 30 ( 3 samples X 10 days) individual DFR samples ( Table II. E. 2 17) from the sunflower study were linearly regressed on the day of sample collection. The form of the linear regression is given below.

t     ln( y) 1 0 + =

The linear regression parameters were then used to calculate initial DFR value ( A0) and the half life ( T1/ 2) using formulae given below.

0 0   A =

1   ln( 2) T 2 1   = II. E. 2  Page 27 of 46 Table II. E. 2 17 Liquid Formulation DFR Data ( MRID # 45005909) Used for Ornamental Plants and Shrubs Scenarios Day DFR Values ( mg/ cm2)

0.00503 0.00615 0 0.00488 0.00425 0.00515 1 0.00508 0.00415 0.00295 2 0.00380 0.00393 0.00330 3 0.00483 0.00498 0.00463 4 0.00418 0.00241 0.00205 5 0.00310 0.00308 0.00308 6 0.00320 0.00283 0.00213 7 0.00288 0.00139 0.00116 14 0.00108 0.00020 0.00010 28 0.00005 4. Fruit Tree Exposure Scenarios Unit Exposure Data Study Summaries MRID 445185 01 ( Carbaryl Applications To Trees And Shrubs): Applications of Sevin Liquid ® Carbaryl insecticide [ RP 2 liquid ( 21%)] were made by volunteers to two young citrus trees and two shrubs in each replicate that was monitored in the study. The test field was located only in Florida. Twenty ( 20) II. E. 2  Page 28 of 46 replicates were monitored using hose end sprayer ( Ortho ® DIAL or Spray ® hose end sprayer), and 20 replicates were monitored using hand held pump sprayers ( low pressure hand wands).

Each replicate opened the end use product, added it to the hose end sprayer or hand held pump and then applied it to the trees and shrubs. After application to two trees and two shrubs dosimeters were collected. Inhalation exposure was monitored with personal air sampling pumps with OVS tubes attached to the shirt collar in the breathing zone. Dermal exposure was assessed by extraction of Carbaryl from inner and outer 100 percent cotton dosimeters. The inner and outer dosimeters were segmented into: lower and upper arms, lower and upper legs, front and back torso. No gloves were worn therefore hand exposure was assessed with 400 ml handwash with 0.01 percent Aerosol OT 75 sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate ( OTS). One hundred ( 100) percent cotton handkerchiefs wetted with 25 ml OTS were used to wipe face and neck to determine exposure.

The dermal exposure was calculated by adding the values from the hand rinses, face/ neck wipes to the outer dosimeter lower legs and lower arms plus the inner dosimeter front and rear torso, upper legs, lower legs, lower arms, and upper arms. This accounts for the residential handlers with barehands wearing shortsleeved shirt and short pants.

Statistical Details Distributional parameters were estimated for the dermal and inhalation unit exposure ( UE) values for liquid hand wand sprayer ( Table II. E. 2 18) applications of Carbaryl. Dermal and inhalation UE values represent milligrams exposure per pound of active ingredient of a pesticide handled. All UEs were assumed to be lognormally distributed ( i. e. fitted with a lognormal distribution). For each dataset, the shape (  ) and scale (  ) lognormal parameters were estimated by calculating the mean and standard deviation of the natural logarithms ( base e) of the UEs. Parametric estimates of the arithmetic mean ( µ ) and standard deviation (  ) of the lognormal distribution were then calculated based on the shape and scale parameter estimates. The formulae used to calculate the mean and standard deviation are given below.

)   exp(   µ 2 2 1 + =

1 ) exp(   µ   2   =

Shapiro Wilk ( S W) normality test statistics were used to assess the lognormal assumption implicit in the parametric calculations of the mean and standard deviation. The means, standard deviations, and p values of the S W statistics are provided in Table II. E. 2 19. A small p value indicates that logarithms of the UEs are not normally distributed, or equivalently, that the UEs are not lognormally distributed. The hand wand UE dataset resulted in an S W statistic with a p value less than 0.05. II. E. 2  Page 29 of 46 Table II. E. 2 18 Hand Wand Sprayer UE Data ( MRID # 44518501) Used for Fruit Tree Scenarios Table II. E. 2 19 Lognormal Distributions of UEs Used for Fruit Tree Scenarios Additionally, probability plots were used to qualitatively assess the appropriateness of the lognormal assumptions. Generally a probability plot displays the actual values of a dataset ( represented as points) and their expected values ( represented as a line) for the specified distribution. The closer the actual values are to their expected values ( i. e. the more the actual values approximate a straight line), the more likely the dataset is of the specified distribution. The probability plots for the UE datasets are provided in Figures II. E. 2 21 and 22. For the hand wand inhalation UE dataset, several low values result in a small SW p value. The other dataset is reasonably approximated by a lognormal distribution. Dermal UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) Inhalation UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) 25 0.004 52 0.005 129 0.004 27 0.004 348 0.005 56 0.005 118 0.004 176 0.016 44 0.009 41 0.016 46 0.004 15 0.004 36 0.004 83 0.004 78 0.025 78 0.012 46 0.004 36 0.022 25 0.004 63 0.018 Application Method Exposure Route Unit Exposure Distribution ( mg/ lb ai) Shapiro Wilk p value Dermal LN( 74, 64) 0.7478 Hand Wand Sprayer Inhalation LN( 0.0089, 0.0102)* 0.0005 NOTES: LN( µ ,  ) represents a lognormal distribution with mean= µ and standard deviation=  . * The mean and standard deviation represent MLE based estimates. II. E. 2  Page 30 of 46 Figure II. E. 2 21 Lognormal Probability Plot of Hand Wand Sprayer Dermal UE Data ( MRID # 44518501)

ln_ hw_ trees 2 3 4 5 6 7 .01 .05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90.95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Figure II. E. 2 22 Lognormal Probability Plot of Hand Wand Sprayer Inhalation UE Data ( MRID # 44518501)

ln_ hw_ trees_ inh 1 2 3 4 .01 .05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90.95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile For the hand wand inhalation UE dataset, 13 out of 20 samples were reported as approximately the same value. All 13 samples from the inhalation monitors were reported as 0.07 µ g with slightly different amounts of active ingredient handled by the study subjects, which resulted in slightly different UE ( mg/ lb ai) values. The value 0.07 µ g was assumed to be half the LOQ. The mean and standard deviation estimated for hand wand inhalation UE dataset are based on maximum likelihood estimation ( MLE) procedures assuming the dataset represents a sample from a censored lognormal distribution.

Residue Data Study Summaries MRID 451751 02 ( Carbaryl Olive DFR Study): The field phase of this study was conducted at a single site near Terra Bella, California which is in a major growing region for olives. The field phase of the study was conducted during the period from November 2 to November 17, 1998. Sample analyses were completed by January, 1999. A typical airblast sprayer was used to make a single application of Sevin XLR Plus, a liquid flowable formulation, at an application rate of 7.65 lb ai/ acre. Spray volume was 758 gallons of water per acre. The olive trees were approximately 20 feet tall and were spaced approximately 28 feet within each row while the rows were spaced 28 feet apart ( i. e., ~ 56 trees/ acre). No significant precipitation was observed in this study until at least 7 days after application.

Triplicate DFR samples were collected out to 14 days after application using the Iwata method ( i. e., a total surface area sampled of 400 cm2/ sample collected with a 1 inch diameter Birkestrand leaf punch and dislodged with a 0.01 percent Aerosol solution). There were still measurable residues 14 days after II. E. 2  Page 31 of 46 application. The percent transferability of the 0 day sample was 3.6 percent of the application rate.

Statistical Details Dislodgeable foliar residue ( DFR) values are assumed to degrade exponentially over time ( i. e. degrade by a constant proportion for any given time interval). In order to estimate the initial DFR value ( i. e. DFR value at day zero) and the halflife of the liquid formulation of carbaryl, the natural logarithms of the 30 ( 3 samples X 10 days) individual DFR samples ( Table II. E. 2 20) from the olive study were linearly regressed on the day of sample collection. The form of the linear regression is given below.

t     ln( y) 1 0 + =

The linear regression parameters were then used to calculate initial DFR value ( A0) and the half life ( T1/ 2) using formulae given below.

0 0   A =

1   ln( 2) T 2 1   = II. E. 2  Page 32 of 46 Table II. E. 2 20 Liquid Formulation DFR Data ( MRID 45175102) Used for Fruit Tree Scenarios Day DFR Values ( mg/ cm2)

0.0035 0.0027 0 0.0030 0.0028 0.0023 1 0.0028 0.0027 0.0024 2 0.0025 0.0042 0.0029 3 0.0027 0.0028 0.0024 4 0.0028 0.0023 0.0019 5 0.0018 0.0026 0.0023 6 0.0022 0.0028 0.0023 7 0.0020 0.0012 0.0010 10 0.0010 0.0009 0.0008 14 0.0007 Transfer Coefficient Data Study Summaries MRID 45480302 ( Hand Pruning Apples): This study was conducted with volunteer workers pruning commercially grown apple trees after two treatments with the surrogate active ingredient ( ai) carbaryl, formulated as the flowable insecticide Sevin ® XLR PLUS. Dermal and inhalation data were collected, together with concurrent dislodgeable foliar residue ( DFR) data. Potential exposures were measured using whole body dosimeters ( outer and inner dosimetry), hand washes, and face/ neck wipes for dermal exposure and personal II. E. 2  Page 33 of 46 sampling pumps for inhalation exposure. Transfer coefficients for potential and total dermal exposure were calculated.

Statistical Details Distributional parameters were estimated for the adult TC transfer coefficient ( TC) values ( Table II. E. 2 21) from the apple pruning study. TC values were expressed as square centimeters per hour. Adult TCs were assumed to be lognormally distributed ( i. e. fitted with a lognormal distribution). For the TC dataset, the shape (  ) and scale (  ) lognormal parameters were estimated by calculating the mean and standard deviation of the natural logarithms ( base e) of the TCs. Parametric estimates of the arithmetic mean ( µ ) and standard deviation (  ) of the lognormal distribution were then calculated based on the shape and scale parameter estimates. The formulae used to calculate the mean and standard deviation are given below.

)   exp(   µ 2 2 1 + =

1 ) exp(   µ   2   =

Shapiro Wilk ( S W) normality test statistics were used to assess the lognormal assumption implicit in the parametric calculations of the mean and standard deviation. The mean, standard deviation, and p value of the S W statistic are provided in Table II. E. 2 22. A small p value indicates that logarithms of the TCs are not normally distributed, or equivalently, that the TCs are not lognormally distributed. For the adult TC dataset, the S W p value is greater than 0.05.

Table II. E. 2 21 Liquid Formulation TC Data ( MRID 45480302) Used for Fruit Tree Scenarios TC Values ( cm2/ hr)

1119 920 903 787 534 1421 1316 940 1217 740 821 928 831 1020 606 II. E. 2  Page 34 of 46 Table II. E. 2 22 Lognormal Distribution of TCs Used for Fruit Tree Scenarios Additionally, a probability plot was used to qualitatively assess the appropriateness of the lognormal assumption. Generally a probability plot displays the actual values of a dataset ( represented as points) and their expected values ( represented as a line) for the specified distribution. The closer the actual values are to their expected values ( i. e. the more the actual values approximate a straight line), the more likely the dataset is of the specified distribution. The probability plot for the TC dataset is provided in Figure II. E. 2 23. The probability plot indicates that the TC dataset is reasonably approximated by a lognormal distribution.

Figure II. E. 2 23 Lognormal Probability Plot of Liquid Formulation TC Data ( MRID 45480302)

ln_ ap_ TC 6 6.5 7 7.5 .01 .05.10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile 5. Ornamental Garden Snail and Slug Bait Scenario Unit Exposure Data Study Summaries MRID 453334 01 ( Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to Disulfoton Resulting from Residential Application to Shrubs and Flower Beds): The purpose of this study was to quantify potential dermal ( forearm and hand) and inhalation exposure for residential applicators a granular disolfoton formulation, which contains 1.04 percent disulfoton as the active ingredient. The maximum Application Method Exposure Route Population Transfer Coefficient Distribution ( cm2/ hr) Shapiro Wilk p value Hand Wand Sprayer Dermal Adult LN( 943, 258) 0.9300 NOTES: LN( µ ,  ) represents a lognormal distribution with mean= µ and standard deviation=  . II. E. 2  Page 35 of 46 application rate for flower beds ( 4 ounces formulated product per 12 square feet) and for shrubs, which includes rosebushes, ( 4 ounces formulated product per 1 foot shrub height) was used in this study.

The field study was conducted at the Bayer Corporation Research Farm, Vero Beach, Florida. A total of 15 volunteers were monitored using passive dosimetry ( hand/ forearm wash solutions and personal air monitors). Application of the product was made by pouring the granules into the measuring cup/ lid attached to the product package, and then distributing the granules onto the soil around the base of a shrub or onto a flower bed. The granules were then soil incorporated with a garden rake. Each volunteer applied granular disulfoton around shrubs while wearing gloves and then again without gloves. A total of 60 ( i. e., 15 volunteers x 4 exposure scenarios) replicates were monitored. Only exposure data from the 30 replicates who did not wear gloves were reported. The test site was a fallow test field, approximately 1 acre in size. Two sets of sub plots were established: ( 1) shrub test plots, each containing 10 oleander shrubs ( approximately 48 inches high); and ( 2) flower bed sub plots, each containing simulated plants, ( e. g., 12 to 14 inch high stakes placed on approximately 24 inch centers).

Each volunteer applied approximately 10 pounds of formulated product per application. Shrubs were treated by spreading 16 ounces of granules ( i. e., 4 ounces per 1 foot of shrub) in a circle around each shrub's base. The granules were then incorporated into the top 1 2 inches of soil using a new garden rake. Flower beds were treated by sprinkling 4 ounces of granules to each 12 square feet of a total 480 square feet area, and incorporating the product into the top 1 2 inches of soil using a new garden rake.

All of the inhalation exposure data were either non detect or less than the limit of quantitation ( LOQ). Most of the hand/ forearm dermal washing samples returned results greater than the LOQ. The author reported that the time it took to treat shrubs ranged between 18 and 29 minutes. The time that it took to treat flowerbeds ranged between 20 and 40 minutes.

Statistical Details Distributional parameters were estimated for the dermal unit exposure ( UE) values ( Table II. E. 2 23) for the granular formulation of chemical H based on surrogate chemical data. Dermal UE values represent milligrams exposure per pound of active ingredient of a pesticide handled. All UEs were assumed to be lognormally distributed ( i. e. fitted with a lognormal distribution). For the dataset, the shape (  ) and scale (  ) lognormal parameters were estimated by calculating the mean and standard deviation of the natural logarithms ( base e) of the UEs. Parametric estimates of the arithmetic mean ( µ ) and standard deviation (  ) of the lognormal distribution were then calculated based on the shape and scale II. E. 2  Page 36 of 46 parameter estimates. The formulae used to calculate the mean and standard deviation are given below.

)   exp(   µ 2 2 1 + =

1 ) exp(   µ   2   =

The Shapiro Wilk ( S W) normality test statistic was used to assess the lognormal assumption implicit in the parametric calculations of the mean and standard deviation. The mean, standard deviation, and p value of the S W statistic are provided in Table II. E. 2 24. A small p value indicates that logarithms of the UEs are not normally distributed, or equivalently, that the UEs are not lognormally distributed. The granular dermal UE dataset resulted in an S W statistic with a pvalue less than 0.05.

Table II. E. 2 23 Granular UE Data ( MRID 45333401) Used for Ornamental Garden Scenarios Table II. E. 2 24 Lognormal Distribution of UEs Used for Ornamental Garden Scenarios Dermal UE Values ( mg/ lb ai) 0.001 0.029 0.019 0.206 0.085 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.042 0.050 0.012 0.032 0.119 0.001 0.082 Application Method Exposure Route Unit Exposure Distribution ( mg/ lb ai) Shapiro Wilk p value Granular Dermal LN( 0.23, 5.8)* 0.0087 NOTES: LN( µ ,  ) represents a lognormal distribution with mean= µ and standard deviation=  . * The mean and standard deviation represent MLE based estimates. II. E. 2  Page 37 of 46 Additionally, a probability plot was used to qualitatively assess the appropriateness of the lognormal assumption. Generally a probability plot displays the actual values of a dataset ( represented as points) and their expected values ( represented as a line) for the specified distribution. The closer the actual values are to their expected values ( i. e. the more the actual values approximate a straight line), the more likely the dataset is of the specified distribution. The probability plot for the UE dataset is provided in Figure II. E. 2 24. For the granular dermal UE dataset, several low values result in a small S W p value.

Figure II. E. 2 24 Lognormal Probability Plot of Granular Dermal UE Data ( MRID 45333401)

ln_ dis_ gran_ fb  1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 .01 .05 .10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile For the granular dermal UE dataset, 5 out of 15 samples were reported as half the LOQ. The mean and standard deviation estimated for hand wand dermal UE dataset are based on maximum likelihood estimation ( MLE) procedures assuming the dataset represents a sample from a censored lognormal distribution. Since all inhalation samples were either non detect or less than the LOQ, half the LOQ ( 0.00001 mg/ lb aihandled) was used as an estimate of inhalation UE.

6. Indoor Crack and Crevice Scenario Unit Exposure Data Study Summaries MRID 410547 05 ( Exposures of Applicators to Propoxur during Residential Application of an Aerosol Spray Containing 1% Propoxur): Applicators in the study each applied one 16 ounce aerosol can in each of the 15 residences situated in Vero Beach, Florida. The entire contents were applied to each house. The volunteers sprayed to cracks, crevices along baseboards and other II. E. 2  Page 38 of 46 woodwork, under sinks and behind appliances. The majority of the exposure was to the hands, neck and head (~ 85).

Statistical Details Distributional parameters were estimated for the ( dermal) transferable residue ( Table II. E. 2 25) and ( inhalation) air concentration ( Table II. E. 2 26) values for pressurized can sprayer applications of Chemical G. Transferable residue ( TR) values represent milligrams exposure per square centimeter and air concentration ( AC) values represent milligrams per cubic meter. The average TR values across houses were assumed to be lognormally distributed ( i. e. fitted with a lognormal distribution); whereas the individual AC values within a house were assumed to be lognormally distributed. For TR and AC datasets, the shape (  ) and scale (  ) lognormal parameters were estimated by calculating the mean and standard deviation of the natural logarithms ( base e) the TR and AC values, respectively. Parametric estimates of the arithmetic mean ( µ ) and standard deviation (  ) of the lognormal distribution were then calculated based on the shape and scale parameter estimates. The formulae used to calculate the mean and standard deviation are given below.

)   exp(   µ 2 2 1 + =

1 ) exp(   µ   2   =

Shapiro Wilk ( S W) normality test statistics were used to assess the lognormal assumption implicit in the parametric calculations of the mean and standard deviation. The means, standard deviations, and p values of the S W statistics are provided in Table II. E. 2 27. A small p value indicates that logarithms of the TRs ( or the ACs) are not normally distributed, or equivalently, that the TRs ( or ACs) are not lognormally distributed. For both TR ( dermal) and AC ( inhalation) pressurized can datasets, the S W p values are greater than 0.05. II. E. 2  Page 39 of 46 Table II. E. 2 25 Deposition Data ( MRID 41054705) Used for Crack and Crevice Scenarios Hard Surfaces Deposition Values ( mg/ cm2) 0.590 0.414 0.020 0.002 0.080 Table II. E. 2 26 Air Concentration Data ( MRID 41054705) Used for Crack and Crevice Scenarios Air Concentration Values ( mg/ m3) 5.3 5.8 5.3 5.4 4.2 3.4 3.9 2.4 4.0 2.4 6.5 5.7 7.5 6.9 5.4 6.2 8.6 8.6 2.5 4.4 Table II. E. 2 27 Lognormal Distributions of Surface Deposition and Air Concentrations Used for Crack and Crevice Scenarios Additionally, probability plots were used to qualitatively assess the appropriateness of the lognormal assumptions. Generally a probability plot displays the actual values of a dataset ( represented as points) and their expected values ( represented as a line) for the specified distribution. The closer the actual values are to their expected values ( i. e. the more the actual values approximate a straight line), the more likely the dataset is of the specified distribution. The probability plots for the TR and AC datasets are provided in Figures II. E. 2 25 and 26. The probability plots indicate that both datasets are reasonably approximated by lognormal distributions. Application Method Exposure Route Deposition ( mg/ cm2) and Air Concentration ( mg/ m3) Distributions Shapiro Wilk p value Dermal LN( 0.0010, 0.0185) 0.5962 Handheld Compression Sprayer Inhalation LN( 0.0053, 0.0021) 0.1770 NOTES: LN( µ ,  ) represents a lognormal distribution with mean= µ and standard deviation=  . II. E. 2  Page 40 of 46 Figure II. E. 2 25 Lognormal Probability Plot of Deposition Data ( MRID 41054705)

ln_ propx_ hard_ avg  7  6  5  4  3  2  1 0 1 .01 .05 .10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Figure II. E. 2 26 Lognormal Probability Plot of Air Concentration Data ( MRID 41054705)

ln_ propx_ hard_ inh 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 .01 .05 .10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Residue Data Study Summaries MRID 410547 03 ( Exposure to Propoxur for Residents of Homes Treated with BAYGON 70% WP): A formulation of Propoxur, BAYGON 70WP, was applied as a coarse spray to cracks and crevices, baseboards, and other small areas commonly treated for insect control using a handheld compression sprayer. An average of 1.2 ounces ( 0.7  1.8 ) of ai was applied to each of the five houses monitored. Applications took 2 to 34 minutes to complete.

Surface residues and air levels of propoxur were measured at intervals of up to 48 hours after treatment. Five types of surfaces were evaluated. The media were distributed in the rooms prior to treatment. Triplicate samples of each medium were collected, before treatment, immediately after applications, and at intervals of 6, 12, 24 and 48 hours post application. In the kitchens, vinyl tile squares were placed on the floor and on counter tops. The living rooms and bedrooms were sampled using squares of nylon carpet with a 1 cm nap placed on the floor and fabric squares were located on the furniture. These samples were used for total residue analysis. Air concentrations of propoxur were determined by drawing air, at a rate of 1 L/ minute, through a sampling apparatus whose inlet was located 12 inches above the floor. All sampling periods were at least one hour. II. E. 2  Page 41 of 46 7. Pet Collar Exposure Residue Data Study Summaries MRID # 45792201 ( Carbaryl Pet Flea Collar Study): Sixteen dogs were fitted with 16% carbaryl flea collars. The dogs were of various breeds and sizes. All dogs that had previously worn any type of flea collar or had been in contact with any flea killing material were thoroughly washed prior to placement of the collars. All dogs were allowed to follow their normal daily habits. The dogs were petted at 24 hours, 96 hours and 1 week. During each petting session, each dog was petted for one 10 minute period followed by another 10 minute period, each time petters wore a new pair of pre washed white cotton gloves. All dogs were petted in such a manner that contact with all portions of their bodies resulted. The four gloves from each 20 minute session were considered a single sample and were placed in individual plastic bags for analysis.

Transfer Coefficient Data Study Summaries MRID 446584 01 ( Carbaryl Dog Groomer Study): The data collected reflect the dermal and respiratory exposure of commercial pet groomers applying the end use product, Adams ® Carbaryl Flea and Tick Shampoo containing 0.50 percent carbaryl. In this study, applications of Adams ® Carbaryl Flea and Tick Shampoo were made by professional pet groomers to 8 dogs at 2 sites in Georgia. A total of 16 replicates were monitored for dermal and inhalation exposure. Eight dogs of various sizes and hair lengths were shampooed during each replicate. Dermal exposure was monitored with face and neck swabs, 100 percent cotton union suit dosimeter worn underneath a short sleeved t shirt, long pants and a 65/ 35 polyester cotton long sleeved smock ( i. e., represents a short sleeved shirt under a long sleeved coat/ smock). Hand exposure was quantified using handwash rinses ( no protective gloves were worn). Inhalation exposure was monitored using personal air pumps with XAD2 resin tubes.

The dogs were wetted, shampooed to a lather ( lather remained on dogs for 5 minutes) and rinsed. After completing 8 dog shampoos the dosimeters were collected. Face/ neck swabs and 2 hand rinses were performed along with collection of the 100 percent cotton union suit. II. E. 2  Page 42 of 46 Table II. E. 2 28 TC Data Used for Pet Collar Scenario ( Empirical Distribution) 1 Groomer µ g exposure Duration: hours µ g/ hour ai deposited µ g/ cm2* Dislodged: 2.97 % efficiency assumed µ g/ cm2 Transfer Coefficient ( adults) cm2/ hour Transfer Coefficient ( children) cm2/ hour / 3 8796 2.88 3054 37.5 1.114 2742 1016 6199 2.58 2403 31.0 0.921 2610 967 1408 3.07 459 18.6 0.552 831 308 2914 2.48 1175 36.4 1.081 1087 403 5667 3.08 1840 32 0.950 1936 717 2527 3.18 795 19 0.564 1409 522 2,348 2.93 801 15.9 0.472 1696 628 2961 2.72 1089 7.75 0.230 4731 1752 1135 4.03 282 14.8 0.440 642 238 14872 3.88 3833 28.8 0.855 4481 1660 1026 3.17 324 16.6 0.493 657 243 13490 4.05 3331 56.98 1.692 1968 729 4275 4.92 869 25 0.743 1170 433 4461 3.45 1293 42.25 1.255 1030 382 1511 3.03 499 8.87 0.263 1894 702 777 3.00 259 48.6 1.443 179 66 Average 1817 673 1 Source Carbaryl Groomer Exposure Study ( activity  wash/ dip/ groom). Each vet tech treated/ handled 8 dogs: held small dogs w/ arms and torso; some dogs climbed on person's shoulders while grooming etc. 2 Average transfer efficiency 2.97% =( powder ( 0.62%) + aerosol ( 3.3%) + pump spray ( 5%))/ 3; . 3 The transfer coefficients derived from this study were adjusted by an allometric scaling factor based on the relative size of children to adults to derive an appropriate transfer coefficient for children Adult: Child surface area ratio  2.7: 1 ( avg. Adult 3169: avg child 1174) * The amount ai per dog was measured in the study along with the animal's weight. The suface areas of the dogs were estimated using an equation for estimating mammal surface area described in the Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook.

8. Golf Course Exposure Residue Data Study Summaries MRID 451143 01 ( Carbaryl Turf Transferable Residue Study): A TTR study was conducted at individual sites in three states using the ORETF roller sampling method. The data used in this assessment was from the Georgia site. Bermudagrass was the variety of turfgrass treated at the Georgia site. Field work took place over three week intervals at each site. Applications were made and samples were collected essentially in October of 1998 Georgia. Two applications were made 7 days apart at each site. All applications in this study were completed at a rate of 8.17 lb ai/ acre. Applications were made with typical groundboom sprayers using approximately 55 and 31 gallons of water per acre, respectively. All applications were made using Dragon Sevin Liquid which is a II. E. 2  Page 43 of 46 flowable concentrate formulation that contains carbaryl at a nominal concentration of 21 percent by weight or 2 lb ai/ gallon.

There was approximately from 1 inch up to 2.7 inches of irrigation water on the day of the final application. Additionally, on the day of the final application, rain was noted that ranged in accumulations of 0.36 inches. Mowing events were not noted in the data from the Georgia site. Triplicate TTR samples were collected using the ORETF roller method at 8 intervals out to 14 days after the last application. All but two samples were collected during the 1st week of the study. In all cases, residue levels exceeded the LOQ at 14 days after application.

Statistical Details Turf transferable residues ( TTR) values are assumed to degrade exponentially over time ( i. e. degrade by a constant proportion for any given time interval). In order to estimate the initial TTR value ( i. e. TTR value at day zero) and the halflife of the liquid formulation of Carbaryl, the natural logarithms of the 27 ( 3 samples X 9 days) individual TTR samples ( Table II. E. 2 29) from the Georgia site were linearly regressed on the day of sample collection. The form of the linear regression is given below.

t     ln( y) 1 0 + =

The linear regression parameters were then used to calculate initial TTR value ( A0) and the half life ( T1/ 2) using formulae given below.

0 0   A =

1   ln( 2) T 2 1   = II. E. 2  Page 44 of 46 Table II. E. 2 29 Liquid Formulation TTR Data ( MRID # 45114301) Used for Carbaryl Golf Scenarios Transfer Coefficient Data Study Summaries Ballee, 1990 ( chlorothalonil TC data) and Moran et al., 1987 ( flurprimidol TC data): The data used to derive transfer coefficients were based on two measurements of four individuals playing golf on two golf courses treated with chlorothalonil ( Ballee, 1990), and the exposure of golfers ( four volunteers) to flurprimidol ( Moran et al., 1987). For both studies, an assumed transfer efficiency of 1% was used to calculate the transfer coefficients, since the studies were conducted using sprayable formulations. Day TTR Values ( mg/ cm2)

0.00130 0.00122 0 0.00152 0.00067 0.00073 0.5 0.00147 0.00041 0.00042 1 0.00047 0.00020 0.00028 2 0.00023 0.00014 0.00027 3 0.00050 0.00040 0.00023 5 0.00010 0.00011 0.00013 7 0.00031 0.00003 0.00015 10 0.00022 0.00007 0.00002 14 0.00015 II. E. 2  Page 45 of 46 Statistical Details Distributional parameters were estimated for the adult TC transfer coefficient ( TC) values ( Table II. E. 2 30) from the Ballee and Moran studies. TC values were expressed as square centimeters per hour. Adult TCs were assumed to be lognormally distributed ( i. e. fitted with a lognormal distribution). For the TC dataset, the shape (  ) and scale (  ) lognormal parameters were estimated by calculating the mean and standard deviation of the natural logarithms ( base e) of the TCs. Parametric estimates of the arithmetic mean ( µ ) and standard deviation (  ) of the lognormal distribution were then calculated based on the shape and scale parameter estimates. The formulae used to calculate the mean and standard deviation are given below.

)   exp(   µ 2 2 1 + =

1 ) exp(   µ   2   =

The Shapiro Wilk ( S W) normality test statistic was used to assess the lognormal assumption implicit in the parametric calculations of the mean and standard deviation. The mean, standard deviation, and p value of the S W statistic are provided in Table II. E. 2 31. A small p value indicates that logarithms of the TCs are not normally distributed, or equivalently, that the TCs are not lognormally distributed. For the adult TC dataset, the S W p value is greater than 0.05.

Table II. E. 2 30 Liquid Formulation TC Data Used for Golf Scenarios TC Values ( cm2/ hr)

391 329 561 547 592 533 385 508 756 522 264 278 II. E. 2  Page 46 of 46 Table II. E. 2 31 Lognormal Distribution of TCs Used for Golf Scenarios Additionally, a probability plot was used to qualitatively assess the appropriateness of the lognormal assumption. Generally a probability plot displays the actual values of a dataset ( represented as points) and their expected values ( represented as a line) for the specified distribution. The closer the actual values are to their expected values ( i. e. the more the actual values approximate a straight line), the more likely the dataset is of the specified distribution. The probability plot for the TC dataset is provided in Figure II. E. 2 27. The probability plot indicates that the TC dataset is reasonably approximated by a lognormal distribution.

Figure II. E. 2 27 Lognormal Probability Plot of Liquid Formulation TC Data Used for Golf Scenarios ln_ golf_ TC 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 .01 .05 .10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99  3  2  1 0 1 2 3 Normal Quantile Application Method Exposure Route Population Transfer Coefficient Distribution ( cm2/ hr) Shapiro Wilk p value Liquid Broadcast Dermal Adult LN( 475, 158) 0.4068 NOTES: LN( µ ,  ) represents a lognormal distribution with mean= µ and standard deviation=  .


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13155-13156]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04382]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2001-9717]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated February 22, 2011, the Little Kanawha River Railroad (LKRR), a
division of Marietta Industrial Enterprises, Inc., has petitioned the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations regarding safety glazing contained at 49 CFR Part 223. FRA
assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2001-9717.
    LKRR seeks to extend a waiver of compliance for one locomotive,
specifically, one 1955 General Motors' Electro-Motive Division Model
SW-1200, Number LKRR 1205, from 49 CFR Section 223.11, Requirements for
existing locomotives. FRA issued the initial waiver that granted LKRR
relief on May 20, 2002, and FRA extended the waiver on August 7, 2006.
    The current glazing that is installed in the locomotive has no
identifying marks. LKRR states that it operates on 1.75 miles of level
track at speeds not exceeding 10 mph, as a yard-type system. LKRR
interchanges directly with the CSX Corporation (CSX), and it is a
shortline operation that only moves CSX cars for loading and unloading.
LKRR states that it operates in a secure area and there have been no
known incidents of broken windows as a result of vandalism and,
therefore, no resulting worker injuries have occurred due to broken
glass from the locomotive's windows. LKRR is requesting an extension of
relief on account of the prohibitive cost involved in retrofitting the
locomotive with certified glazing.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by April 12, 2013 will be considered by FRA

before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 21, 2013.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-04382 Filed 2-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 61282]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27905]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ18-5-000]

Notice of Filing; City of Banning, California

    Take notice that on December 14, 2017, City of Banning, California
submitted its tariff filing: City of Banning 2018 TRBAA/ETC Update to
be effective 1/1/2018.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 4, 2018.

    Dated: December 20, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27905 Filed 12-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILEING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

Docket ID No.:  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0730

EPA Registration Division Contact: Sidney Jackson<PHONE_NUMBER>)

Pesticide Petition #: 8E7419

ved pesticide petition (PP) 8E7419 from Interregional Research Project
No. 4 (IR-4), Rutgers University, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 and United
Phosphorus, Inc., 630 Freedom Business Center, Suite 402, King of
Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR part 180.293 by establishing tolerances for the residues of
the aquatic herbicide, Endothall, mono(N,N-dimethylalkylamine) salt of
endothall, and the dipotassium salt of endothall in or on the raw
agricultural commodities in Vegetable Root, and Tuber Group 1 at 2
ppm(parts per million); Vegetable, Leaves of Root and Tuber, Group 2 at
3.5 ppm; Vegetable, Bulb, Group 3-07 at 2 ppm; Vegetable, Leafy, except
Brassica, Group 4 at 3.5 ppm;  Vegetable, Brassica, Leafy, Group 5 at
0.1 ppm; Turnip, greens at 0.1 ppm; Vegetable, Legume, Group 6 at 3 ppm;
Vegetable, Fruiting, Group 8 at 0.05 ppm; Okra at 0.05 ppm; Vegetable,
Cucurbit, Group 9 at 1.1 ppm; Fruit, Citrus, Group 10 at 0.05 ppm;
Fruit, Pome, Group 11 at 0.05 ppm; Fruit, Stone, Group 12 at 0.25 ppm;
Berry and Small Fruit Group 13-07 at 0.6 ppm; Nut, Tree, Group 14, at
0.05 ppm; Pistachio at 0.05 ppm; Almond, hulls at 10 ppm; Grain, Cereal,
Group 15 at 2.5 ppm; Grain, Cereal, Forage, Fodder and Hay, Group 16,
forage at 3.5 ppm, Grain, Cereal, Forage, Fodder and Hay, Group 16, hay
at 5 ppm, Grain, Cereal, Forage, Fodder and Hay, Group 16, stover at 11
ppm, Grain, Cereal, Forage, Fodder and Hay, Group 16, straw at 6 ppm,
Grain, aspirated fractions at 24 ppm; Grass, Forage, Fodder, and Hay,
Group 17, forage at 3 ppm, Grass, Forage, Fodder and Hay, hay at 19 ppm;
Nongrass Animal Feed, Group 18 forage at 3.5 ppm, Nongrass Animal Feed,
Group 18 hay at 8 ppm; Grape at 0.9 ppm, Peppermint, tops at 7 ppm,
Spearmint, tops at 7 ppm; and Rice, grain at 1.7 ppm and Rice, straw at
4.5 ppm.   EPA has determined that the petitions contain data or
information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the
FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the
petitions.  Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

. The metabolism of endothall was examined in three crop types: alfalfa,
cotton, and sugarbeet.  All three studies were conducted using C-2 and
C-3-(14C) endothall and showed the same pattern of metabolic breakdown.
The parent compound endothall accounted for the majority of the total
radioactive residue (85 - 110%).

.

An adequate method for purposes of enforcement of the proposed endothall
tolerances is available.  The method uses an HPLC/MS/MS system.
Separation is achieved using a reversed phase column.  The molecular
ions formed in negative ion mode were fragmented by collision with
neutral gas.  The method is capable of analyzing for residues of
endothall on different crop matricies.

.  Residue studies support the requested tolerances.  Six applications
were made to the following crops with fortified irrigation water, with
5ppm dipotassium salt of endothall.  The application rate was 1 acre
inch of irrigation water or 27,154 gallons per acre. The 6th application
was made at 0 days prior to harvest of the raw agricultural commodity.

i.  Vegetable Root and Tuber Group:

ii.  Vegetable, Leaves of Root and Tuber Group:

iii.  Vegetable, Bulb Group:

iv.  Vegetable, Leafy, except Brassica Group:

v.  Vegetable, Brassica, Leafy Group:

vi.  Vegetable, Legume Group:

vii.  Vegetable, Fruiting Group:

viii.  Vegetable, Cucurbit Group:

ix.  Fruit, Citrus Group:

x.  Fruit, Pome Group:

xi.  Fruit, Stone Group:

xii.  Berry Group:

xiii.  Nut, Tree Group:

xiv. Grain, Cereal Group:

xv.  Grain, Cereal, Forage, Fodder and Hay Group:

xvi. Grass, Forage, Fodder and Hay Group:

xvii.  Nongrass Animal Feed Group:

xviii. Grape:

xix.  Mint:

xx.   Rice:

B. Toxicological Profile

.  Endothall acid and the dipotassium salt of endothall are moderately
toxic by oral ingestion and inhalation (Toxicity Category II), slightly
toxic by dermal exposure (Toxicity Category III) and severely irritating
to the eye.  The diamine salt of endothall is moderately toxic by oral,
dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure (Toxicity Category II) and is
severely irritating to the eyes and skin.

.   A full battery of genetic toxicology studies were conducted for
endothall.  Endothall was not mutagenic.

. In a teratology and postnatal behavioral study, pregnant Sprague
Dawley rats were dosed via oral gavage on gestation days 6 through 15
with endothall doses of 0, 10, 20, or 30 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg)
/day.  The maternal no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was 20
mg/kg/day due to mortality seen at 30 mg/kg/day.  The developmental
NOAEL was 30mg/kg/day.  In a subsequent developmental toxicity study,
pregnant Sprague Dawley rats were orally dosed with 0, 6.25, 12.5, or
25.0 mg/kg/day from gestation day 6 through 15.  The NOAEL for maternal
toxicity was 12.5 mg/kg/day.  The developmental NOAEL was 25.0
mg/kg/day.

	A developmental toxicity study was conducted in female CD-1 mice.
Groups of pregnant mice were orally dosed with 0,5,20, or 40 mg/kg/day
on days 6 through 16 of gestation.  The NOAEL for maternal toxicity was
5mg/kg/day based on mortality seen at 20 mg/kg/day.  The developmental
NOAEL was 20 mg/kg/day.  Developmental changes seen at 40 mg/kg/day were
related to the severe maternal toxicity at that dose.  A developmental
toxicity study was conducted in New Zealand white rabbits by oral
exposure.  Preliminary studies indicated that the rabbit was extremely
sensitive to endothall.  Groups of pregnant rabbits were dosed with 0,
0.3, 1.0, or 3.0 mg/kg/day on gestation days 6 through 19.  The fetal
and maternal toxicity NOAELs were 1.0 mg/kg/day.  A 2-generation
reproduction study was conducted in rats.  In this study, groups of rats
received dietary doses of 0, 30, 150 and 900 ppm (0, 1.9, 9.5, or 58.9
mg/kg/day for male and 0, 1.9-3.4, 9.6-18.5, or 59.0-106.5 mg/kg/day for
female F0 animals; 0, 2.1, 10.9, or 77.1 for male and 0,1.8-3.1,
9.5-17.3, or 63.5-107.7 for female F1 animals).  The NOAEL for parental
effects was 30 ppm based on dose related body weight effects.  The NOAEL
for reproductive toxicity was 900 ppm.

Subchronic toxicity.  Male and female Sprague Dawley rats were exposed
dermally to 0, 30, 100, and 300 mg/kg/day for 21 days.  The lowest
observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) was 30 mg/kg/day based on
decreased body weight gain and dermal irritation.  A NOAEL was not
established.  Male and female Sprague Dawley rats were exposed to oral
concentrations of 0, 150, 600, or 1,800 ppm (0, 10, 39, or 118 mg/kg/day
for males; 0,12,51,or 153 mg/kg/day for females respectively)  for 13
weeks.  The LOAEL was 1,800 ppm based on decreases in body weight gain
and food intake.  The NOAEL was 600 ppm.  Male and female Beagle dogs
were exposed to oral concentrations of 0, 100, 400, or 1,000 ppm (0,
3.2, 11.7, or 27.5 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 3.2, 13.0, or 28.9
mg/kg/day for females respectively) for 13 weeks.  The LOAEL was 1,000
ppm based on decreases in body weight gain and food intake.  The NOAEL
was 400 ppm.

.  In a combined chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study, male and
female Sprague Dawley rats were fed endothall dietary concentrations of
0, 150, 300, 900, and 1,800 ppm for 104 weeks.  No evidence of
carcinogenicity was seen in this study.  The NOAEL was 150 ppm.  The
incidence of acanthosis and hyperkeratosis of the stomach was slightly
higher than control for the 150 ppm males.  This finding was not
considered an adverse effect since the incidence of this finding in the
300 ppm males was similar to control.  Beagle dogs were fed diets
containing 0, 100, 300, or 800 ppm disodium endothall (equivalent to 0,
2,6,or 16 mg/kg/day endothall) for 24 months.  No clinical sign of
toxicity were seen at any dose level.  The 100 ppm dietary concentration
(2 mg/kg/day) was the NOAEL.

	In a 52-week oral toxicity study, groups of 4 male and 4 female Beagle
dogs were fed diets containing 0, 150, 450, or 1,350/1,000 ppm (0, 5.7,
17.1, and 35.8 mg/kg/day for males; 0, 6.4, 18.8 and 36 mg/kg/day for
females).  The 1,350 ppm dietary level had to be 1,000 ppm after 6 weeks
of treatment due to marked reductions in body weight, food consumption,
and subsequent sacrifice of 5 animals from this group. Minimal to very
mild gastric epithelial effects were seen in some of the dogs receiving
150 ppm.  This effect was considered as a low grade reaction to chronic
epithelial irritation and 150 ppm is considered a NOAEL.  IN an 18-month
oncogenicity study, Swiss Albino mice were fed in the diet at
concentrations of 0, 50, 100,and 300 ppm (0, 8.1, 16.7, and 50 mg/kg/day
for males; 0, 10.8, 22.4, and 68 mg/kg/day for females)  for 92 weeks.
The systemic NOAEL was 100 ppm based on decreased mean body weight in
300 ppm males.  No evidence of carcinogenicity was seen in this study.

	In a second 18-month dietary oncogenicity study, groups of 50 males and
50 females Swiss Albino mice were fed the disodium salt of endothall at
dietary concentrations of 0, 750, and 1,500 ppm (0, 122, and 258
mg/kg/day for males; 0, 152, and 319 mg/kg/day for females).  Toxicity
results for the 1,500 ppm dietary level clearly show that the maximum
tolerance dose (MTD) was exceeded.  At 750 ppm, compound-related effect
consisted of decreased body weight gain, rectal prolapse and an increase
in the incidence and severity of mucosal hyperplasia of the glandular
stomach.  Endothall was not considered carcinogenic in this study.

.   Following a single oral administration of 14C-endothall to males and
female rats, the majority of the radioactivity was excreted within 24
hours.  The majority of the radioactivity was found in the feces.
Chromatographic analysis of extracts of urine, feces, cecum, and large
intestine of both male and female rats gave a single radioactive
component corresponding to unchanged endothall.

.   NA/REMOVE

. Evaluation of the results from 2-generation reproduction studies does
not demonstrate any effects suggestive of disruption of hormonal stasis
in the rat.  Further, histopathologic evaluation of hormone sensitive
tissues from chronically exposed rats, mice, and dogs did not reveal any
changes suggestive of an endocrine-related effect.

C. Aggregate Exposure

.

.  Endothall exposure via the diet will occur from treated potatoes and
hops (adults).  Secondary residues are expected in meat, milk, and eggs,
as well as shellfish, fish, catfish, and crayfish.

.  Drinking water exposure to endothall may be expected.  However this
exposure is not considered to be significant due to the seasonal
intermittent use of the product for aquatic weed control, its low
mobility in surface waters and rapid degradation.

. There are no registered and proposed uses for endothall products which
would result in non-occupational exposure.

D. Cumulative Effects

United Phosphorus has reviewed chemical structure data to determine if
any other pesticide products are chemically similar to endothall and
produce gastrointestinal changes specific to endothall.  Endothall
appears to be chemically and toxicologically dissimilar to existing
chemical substances.  Therefore, cumulative risk should not be an issue
for this chemical.

E. Safety Determination

.  For chronic dietary risk, two scenarios were used.  Scenario 1 used
tolerance values on all registered and proposed crops, as well as
secondary residues in meat, milk, and eggs, shellfish, fish, catfish,
and crayfish.  Under this scenario, less than 5% of the reference dose
(RfD) for the total U.S. population was utilized.  Because of the highy
milk consumption by children ages 1-6, this group represents the highest
exposed subgroup.  For children ages 1-6, approximatelt 12.4% of the RfD
is utilized.  In the second scenario, which included the above food
exposure from above plus tap water and non-food based water, 28.3% of
the RfD was utilized for the total U.S. population.  Because of high
water consumption likely from reconstituted formula, all infants
utilized 103.7% of the RfD and non-nursing infant utilized 130.7% of the
RfD.  This scenario, however, is not considered realistic estimate of
risk.  It is unlikely that endothall residues would be significant in
water considering its intermittent and seasonal use pattern, lack of
movement in surface water, rapid degradation and label restriction for
application within 600 feet of a potable water intake.  The acute
dietary risk analysis has been performed using TAS-Exposure software
which gives a distributional analysis of exposure.  For the total U.S.
population, children aged 7-12, women aged 13-50 all margins of exposure
(MOE) exceeded 1,000 at the 95th percentile of exposure for the first
scenario (excluding water).  Under this scenario, all infants,
non-nursing infants <1-year and children ages 1-6 had MOEs of 935, 852,
and 988 respectively.  When tap water and non-food based water are
included in the analysis at tolerance level (0.2 ppm), the highest
exposed subpopulation is again non-nursing infants with a MOE of 98 at
the 95th percentile of exposure. For the total U.S. population the 95th
percentile of exposure results in an MOE of 373.  This analysis included
all commodities, including water, at theoretical “worse case” levels
resulting in an extreme over estimation of acute risk from dietary
exposure to potential endothall residues.  This analysis has not
included estimates of anticipated residues, percent of crop treated, or
the likelihood of residues in water accounting for endothall’s use
pattern, movement and degradation.  Additionally, processing effects on
residue levels have not been considered.  Despite all of the worst case
assumptions, the dietary exposure analysis for the U.S. population, and
all population subgroups except all infants and non-nursing infants <1
year results in acceptable MOE, i.e., >100.  The MOE for all infants and
non-nursing infants <1 year were 99 and 98, respectively.  Clearly these
MOEs in this worst case assessment would exceed 100 if adjustments
described above were applied.

F. International Tolerances.

No international tolerances have been established for endothall.

 PAGE  1

{<HD1>}

{<P>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}