[Federal Register: April 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 18120-18122]
[DOCID:fr10ap06-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53589; File No. 4-516]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing of Options Regulatory
Surveillance Authority Plan by the American Stock Exchange LLC, Boston
Stock Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated,
International Securities Exchange, Inc., Pacific Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a
NYSE Arca, Inc.) and Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.

April 4, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On January 31, 2006, pursuant to Rule 608 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ the American Stock Exchange LLC,
Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE''), International Securities Exchange, Inc.,
Pacific Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a NYSE Arca, Inc.) \2\ and Philadelphia
Stock Exchange, Inc. (collectively, ``Exchanges'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the Options
Regulatory Surveillance Authority Plan, a plan providing for the joint
surveillance, investigation and detection of insider trading on the
markets maintained by the Exchanges (``ORSA Plan'').\3\ Pursuant to
Rule 608(b)(1),\4\ the Commission is publishing this notice of, and
soliciting comments on, the ORSA Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 240.608.
    \2\ On March 6, 2006, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX''),
filed with the Commission a proposed rule change, which was
effective upon filing, to change the name of PCX, as well as several
other related entities, to reflect the recent acquisition of PCX
Holdings, Inc., the parent company of PCX, by Archipelago Holdings,
Inc. (``Archipelago'') and the merger of the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc. with Archipelago. See File No. SR-PCX-2006-24. All
references herein have been changed to reflect these transactions.
    \3\ The Exchanges initially filed the ORSA Plan with the
Commission on May 5, 2005. The Exchanges filed revised versions of
the ORSA Plan on July 6, 2005 and September 29, 2005.
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.608(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the ORSA Plan is to permit the Exchanges to act
jointly in the administration, operation, and maintenance of a
regulatory system for the surveillance, investigation, and detection of
the unlawful use of undisclosed, material information in trading on one
or more of their markets. By sharing the costs of these regulatory
activities and by sharing the regulatory information generated under
the ORSA Plan, the Exchanges believe they will be able to enhance the
effectiveness and efficiency with which they regulate their respective
markets and the national market system for options. The Exchanges also
believe that the ORSA Plan will avoid duplication of certain regulatory
efforts on the part of the Exchanges.
    A summary of the ORSA Plan is provided below. The full text of the
ORSA Plan is available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov
, at the principal offices of the Exchanges, and at the

Commission.

II. Description of the ORSA Plan

A. Policy Committee

    The ORSA Plan provides for the establishment of a Policy Committee,
on which each Exchange will have one representative and one vote. The
Policy Committee is responsible for overseeing the operation of the
ORSA Plan and for making all policy decisions pertaining to the ORSA
Plan, including, among other things, the following:
    1. Determining the extent to which regulatory, surveillance, and
investigative functions will be conducted on behalf of the Exchanges;
    2. Making all determinations pertaining to contracts with (i)
persons who provide goods and services under the ORSA Plan, including
parties to the ORSA Plan who provide such goods and services, and (ii)
parties to the ORSA Plan and other self-regulatory organizations who
engage in regulatory, surveillance, or investigative activities under
the ORSA Plan;
    3. Reviewing and approving surveillance standards and other
parameters to be used by self-regulatory organizations who perform
regulatory and surveillance functions under the ORSA Plan; and
    4. Determining budgetary and financial matters.
    All decisions by the Policy Committee, except as otherwise
indicated, will be by majority vote, subject to any required approval
of the Commission. Regular meetings of the Policy Committee may be
attended by one or more nonvoting representatives of the Exchanges.

B. Delegation of Functions

    The ORSA Plan permits the Exchanges, as and to the extent
determined by the Policy Committee, to delegate all or part of the
regulatory and surveillance functions under the ORSA Plan (other than
the Policy Committee's own functions) to one or more Exchanges or other
self-regulatory organizations. The Policy Committee has determined to
delegate the operation of the surveillance and investigative facility
contemplated by the ORSA Plan to CBOE. The Exchanges have entered into
a Regulatory Services Agreement (``RSA'') with CBOE, as service
provider, pursuant to which CBOE will perform certain regulatory and
surveillance functions under the ORSA Plan and use its automated
insider trading surveillance system to perform these functions on
behalf of the Exchanges. The Exchanges have not filed the RSA for
Commission approval.
    Although CBOE will be delegated responsibility for these
activities, the ORSA Plan specifically provides that each Exchange will
remain responsible for the regulation of its market and for bringing
enforcement proceedings whenever it appears that persons subject to its
regulatory jurisdiction may have violated the Exchange's own rules, the
Act, or the rules of the Commission thereunder.

C. Review of Service Provider

    The ORSA Plan provides that the Policy Committee must periodically,
but not less frequently than annually, review the performance of
persons to whom regulatory and surveillance activities have been
delegated under the ORSA Plan. The Policy Committee must evaluate
whether such activities have been performed by the service provider in
a reasonably acceptable manner consistent with any contract governing
the performance of such services and whether the costs of such services
are reasonable. The ORSA Plan also provides that, if the Policy
Committee determines that the performance of delegated activities is
not reasonably acceptable or that the costs are unreasonable, the
Policy Committee may terminate the delegation of activities to such
persons subject to applicable contractual terms.

D. Potential Insider Trading Violations

    When in the course of performing regulatory and surveillance
functions the Exchanges acting under the ORSA Plan, or a self-
regulatory organization to whom such functions have been delegated,
obtain information indicating that there may have been an insider
trading violation by members or associated persons of one or more of
the Exchanges, the Exchanges or such delegatee will promptly inform all
such parties of the relevant facts. The Exchanges acting jointly will
not have authority to take disciplinary action against members or
associated persons of any individual Exchange. All such authority will
remain that of the Exchanges acting in their individual capacities.

E. Dispute Resolution

    Disputes arising in connection with the operation of the ORSA Plan
will be resolved by the Policy Committee acting by majority vote. As
stated above, each Exchange will have one representative and one vote
on the Policy Committee.

F. Other Regulatory or Surveillance Functions

    The ORSA Plan permits the Exchanges to provide for the joint
performance of any other regulatory or surveillance functions or
activities that the Exchanges determine to bring within the scope of
the ORSA Plan, but any determination to expand the functions or
activities under the ORSA Plan would be an amendment to the ORSA Plan
subject to the requirements for amendments described below.

G. Allocation of Costs

    The costs under the ORSA Plan to be allocated among the Exchanges
will consist of all costs duly incurred by any Exchange as a direct
result of its performing regulatory or surveillance functions under the
ORSA Plan, together with any amounts charged under the ORSA Plan (or
charged to any Exchange authorized to incur such charges under the ORSA
Plan) by any other person for goods or services provided under the ORSA
Plan. The costs incurred by CBOE in developing the insider trading
surveillance system to be used by CBOE as the ORSA Plan service
provider will be borne by CBOE without reimbursement. Costs incurred by
CBOE in maintaining and upgrading its system going forward will be
allocated among the Exchanges, provided that such costs have been
authorized by the Exchanges.
    Costs in each calendar quarter will be allocated among the
Exchanges in accordance with a three element formula: (i) Fifty percent
of costs will be allocated equally among the Exchanges (with a pro rata
adjustment for any exchange that was not an Exchange for the entire
calendar quarter); (ii) twenty-five percent of costs will be allocated
among the Exchanges in accordance with their respective contract volume
market shares during the calendar quarter; and (iii) twenty-five
percent of costs will be allocated among the Exchanges in accordance
with their respective numbers of classes of securities options traded
at any time during the calendar quarter.

H. New Parties to the ORSA Plan; Participation Fee

    Any other self-regulatory organization that maintains a market for
the trading of securities options in accordance with rules approved by
the Commission may become a party to the ORSA Plan, subject to agreeing
to the terms and conditions of the ORSA Plan, agreeing to the terms and
conditions of any contract pursuant to which the parties to the ORSA
Plan have delegated regulatory and surveillance functions under the
ORSA Plan, and payment of a participation fee.
    The participation fee will be an amount determined by a majority of
the Exchanges to be fair and reasonable compensation for the costs
incurred in developing and maintaining the facilities used under the
ORSA Plan and in providing for participation by the new party. In
determining the amount of the participation fee, the Exchanges must
consider the following factors:
    1. The portion of costs previously paid for the development,
expansion and maintenance of facilities used under the ORSA Plan which,
under generally accepted accounting principles, would have been treated
as capital expenditures and would have been amortized over the five
years preceding the admission of the new party;
    2. An assessment of costs incurred and to be incurred, if any, to
accommodate the new party, which are not otherwise required to be paid
by the new party; and
    3. Previous participation fees paid by other new parties.

If the Exchanges and a new party cannot agree on the amount of the
participation fee, the matter will be subject to review by the
Commission.
    A self-regulatory organization that does not maintain a market for
the trading of securities options may become a party to the ORSA Plan,
and a self-regulatory organization that ceases to maintain such a
market may continue to be a party to the ORSA Plan, only if permitted
by a majority of the other parties.

I. Term and Termination

    The ORSA Plan will remain in effect for so long as there are two or
more parties to the ORSA Plan. Any Exchange may withdraw from the ORSA
Plan at any time on not less than six months prior written notice to
each of the other parties. Any Exchange withdrawing from the ORSA Plan
will remain liable for its proportionate share of costs allocated to it
for the period during which it was a party, but it will have no further
obligations under the ORSA Plan or to any of the other Exchanges with
respect to the period following the effectiveness of its withdrawal.
The right of an Exchange to participate in joint regulatory services
under the ORSA Plan is not transferable without the consent of the
other Exchanges.

J. Amendments

    The ORSA Plan may be amended by the affirmative vote of all of the
parties, provided that the provisions pertaining to the allocation of
costs may be amended by the affirmative vote of not less than two-
thirds of the parties, subject in each case to any required approval of
the Commission.

III. Phases of Development

    The automated insider trading surveillance system proposed to be
used under the ORSA Plan has been developed by CBOE and is currently
being used by CBOE for the surveillance, investigation, and detection
of insider trading on its own market. The system is available for
immediate use by the Exchanges under the ORSA Plan. If the ORSA Plan is
approved by the Commission, CBOE intends to supplement its database of
options subject to surveillance by the system to include those
relatively few options that are traded on the markets of one or more of
the other Exchanges but not on CBOE. CBOE has represented that this
supplementation will be accomplished promptly after the ORSA Plan has
been approved by the Commission.

IV. Impact on Competition

    The Exchanges do not believe that the operation of the ORSA Plan
will have any impact on competition.

V. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the ORSA Plan is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number 4-516 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number 4-516. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments

more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post
all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the ORSA Plan that are filed
with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the
ORSA Plan between the Commission and any person, other than those that
may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the
Exchanges. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number 4-516
and should be submitted on or before May 1, 2006.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-5147 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: December 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 76399-76400]
[DOCID:fr20de06-140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54923; File No. SR-ISE-2006-73]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Definition of Complex Trade as Applied to Trades Through the
Intermarket Linkage

 December 12, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 4, 2006, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ISE proposes to amend ISE Rule 1900 to revise the definition of
``Complex Trade'' as such definition applies to trades through the
Intermarket Linkage (``Linkage''). The text of the proposed rule change
appears below, with additions italicized and deletions in [brackets]:

Rule 1900. Definitions

* * * * *
    (3) ``Complex Trade'' means the execution of an order in an option
series in conjunction with the execution of one or more related
order(s) in different options series in the same underlying security
occurring at or near the same time for the purpose of executing a
particular investment strategy and for an equivalent number of
contracts, provided that the number of contracts of the legs of a
spread, straddle, or combination order may differ by a permissible
ratio [for the equivalent number of contracts and for the purpose of
executing a particular investment strategy]. The permissible ratio for
this purpose is any ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three
(.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00).
* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change will amend the definition of ``Complex
Trade'' in the ISE's Linkage rules. For Linkage purposes, the ISE
defines a ``Complex Trade'' as a trade reflecting the execution of an
order in an options series in conjunction with one or more other orders
in different series in the same underlying security ``for the
equivalent number of contracts.'' A

Complex Trade is exempt from the trade-through rule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ISE Rule 1902(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast to the Linkage definition of ``Complex Trade,'' ISE
Rule 722(a)(6) defines ``complex orders'' for other purposes on the
ISE. This definition includes ``ratio orders,'' which do not require
that there be an equivalent number of contracts in the orders.
Specifically, ISE Rule 722(a)(6) permits ratios that are equal to or
greater than one-to-three, and less than or equal to three-to-one. The
ISE applies modified priority rules to complex orders.
    The proposal will conform the Linkage definition of Complex Trade
to the ISE's general definition of the concept. According to the ISE,
the other five options exchanges are adopting a similar definition,
which will result in uniform application of the term across all options
exchanges. The ISE believes that such uniformity will facilitate the
speedy execution of complex trades on all markets.
2. Statutory Basis
    According to the ISE, the basis under the Act for the proposed rule
change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \4\ that the
rules of a national securities exchange be designed to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transaction in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The ISE believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The ISE has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
on this proposed rule change. The ISE has not received any written
comments from members or other interested parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change; or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-ISE-2006-73 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2006-73. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).

Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
ISE. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-
2006-73 and should be submitted on or before January 10, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21653 Filed 12-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Roots	5.0	6.79	0	0.591	0.395

3.5	4.88	0	0.345	0.316

Carrot

Ravenna, MI  2007

MI$20	5	Carrot; Recoleta	Root	5.0	6.77	0	0.075	0.062

Arroyo Grande, CA 2006

CA$06	10	Carrot; Nantes	Root	5.0	6.79	0	0.088	0.088

Potato

Conklin, MI  2007

MI$21	5	Potato; Dark Red Norland	Tuber	5.0	6.77	0	0.072	0.103

Payette, ID  2007

ID$23	11	Potato; Ranger Russet	Tuber	5.0	6.83	0	0.067	0.078

	Residue Data from Onion Field Trials with Endothall (SC/L).

East Bernard, TX 2007

TX$07	6	Green Onion; Evergreen Hardy White	Whole plant without roots	5.0 6.75	0	0.284	0.234

Arroyo Grande, CA  2007

CA$18	10	Dry Bulb Onion; Onion Yellow Granex F1	Dry Bulb	5.0	6.76	0 0.0231	0.0231

	Residue Data from Lettuce Field Trials with Endothall Salts (SC/L).

Leaf Lettuce

Arroyo Grande, CA 2006

CA$04	10	Leaf lettuce; Greenstar	Leaves 	5.0	6.76	0	0.743	1.240

3.5	4.81	0	0.582	1.013

North Rose, NY 2007

NY$28	1	Leaf Lettuce; Green salad bowl	Leaves	5.0	6.73	0	0.462	0.410

3.5	4.67	0	0.255	0.241

Head Lettuce

Arroyo Grande, CA 2006

CA$05	10	Head Lettuce; Snaiper	Heads,

w/wrapper leaves	5.0	6.76	0	0.092	0.081

3.5	4.81	0	0.0321	0.082

Lyons, NY 2007

NY$31	1	Head Lettuce; Ithaca MTO	Heads,

w/wrapper leaves	5.0	7.17	0	0.604	0.491

3.5	5.07	0	0.582	0.436

	Residue Data from Cabbage Field Trials with Endothall (SC/L).

North Rose, NY 2006

NY$23	1	Matsumo	Head with wrapper leaves	5.0	7.00	0	0.0251	0.075

Baptistown, NJ  2006

NJ$08	1	Blue Lagoon	Head with wrapper leaves	5.0	5.64	0	0.065	0.058

	Residue Data from Legume Field Trials with Endothall Monoamine Salt (SC/L).

Succulent Podded Beans

Arroyo Grande, CA 2007

CA$26	10	Succulent Lima /speckled	Succulent seed w/pod	5.0	9.02	0	0.414 0.521

Baptistown, NJ 2006

NJ$24	1	Succulent Lima/ Burpee’s Improved Bush	Succulent seed w/pod 5.0	6.75	0	0.291	0.324

Dried Beans

Delavan, WI 2007

WI$13	5	Dry bean/

Pinto	Dried seed	5.0	6.77	0	0.134	0.070

Richland, IA 2007

IA$14	5	Dry bean/

Great Northern	Dried seed	5.0	6.77	0	0.109	0.123

Succulent Podded Peas

Ephrata, WA 2007

WA$17	12	Succulent pea/

Tonic	Succulent seed w/pod	5.0	6.74	0	0.878	1.00

Delavan, WI 2007

WI$12	5	Succulent pea/

Wanto	Succulent seed w/pod	5.0	6.74	0	0.537	0.522

Soybean

Baptistown, NJ 2006

NJ$25	1	Soybean/

93244449	Dried seed	5.0	6.75	1	0.072	0.068

Newport, AR 2007

AR$16	4	Soybean/

BPR 5423 nRR	Dried seed	5.0	6.76	0	0.0171	ND2

Richland, IA 2007

IA$15	5	Soybean/

93M42	Dried seed	5.0	6.77	0	0.0201	0.0171

Sparta, IL 2007

IL$11	5	Soybean/

Asgrow AG 3905	Dried seed	5.0	6.77	0	0.0381	0.0261

TABLE C.3.	Residue Data from Tomato Field Trials with Endothall Monoamine Salt (SC/L).

Grande Arroyo, CA 20006

CA$28	10	Tomato/ Organic Yaqui	Fruit	5.0	6.74	0	NR3 	NR3

Oviedo, FL 2006

FL$27	3	Tomato/ Celebrity	Fruit	5.0	6.77	0	0.0271	0.0301

	Residue Data from Cucumber Field Trials with Endothall Salts (SC/L).

Baptistown, NJ 2006

NJ$02	1	Burpless bush	Fruit	5.0	6.75	0	0.738	0.738

3.5	4.80	0	0.406	0.459

Conklin, MI 2007

MI$42	5	Fancipack	Fruit	5.0	6.77	0	0.234	0.284

3.5	4.81	0	0.337	0.310

	Residue Data from Orange Field Trials with Endothall Monoamine Salt (SC/L).

Dinuba, CA 2006

CA$11	10	Rush Thompson Improved	Fruit	5.0	6.78	0	0.0241	0.0281

Oviedo, FL 2006

FL$10	3	Hamlin	Fruit	5.0	6.63	0	0.0221	0.0211

	Residue Data from Apple Field Trials with Endothall Monoamine Salt (SC/L).

North Rose, NY 2006

NY$29	1	Empire	Fruit	5.0	6.79	0	0.0311	0.0471

Ephrata, WA 2006

WA$16	11	Braeburn	Fruit	5.0	6.64	0	ND2	0.0431

	Residue Data from Peach Field Trials with Endothall Salts (SC/L).

Morven, GA 2007

GA$01	2	White	Fruit	5.0	7.08	0	0.0451	0.0431

3.5	5.05	0	0.0431	0.0461

Dinuba, CA 2007

CA$02	10	Snow Princess	Fruit	5.0	6.78	0	0.144	0.160

3.5	4.82	0	0.118	0.136

	Residue Data from Crop Field Trials with Endothall Monoamine Salt (SC/L).

Conklin, MI 2007

MI$32	5	Blueberry: Blue Ray (Highbush)	Fruit	5.0	6.77	0	0.158	0.197

Hillsboro, OR 2007

OR$41	12	Blackberry (Boysen)	Fruit	5.0	6.73	0	0.311	0.346

	Residue Data from Tree Nut Field Trials with Endothall Monoamine Salt (SC/L).

Irwinville, GA

2006

GA$22	2	Pecan; summer	Nutmeat	5.0	7.01

	0	ND2	0.0241

Coalinga, CA 2007

CA$40	10	Almond; nonpariel	Nutmeat	5.0	6.80	0	0.0361	0.0371

	Hulls

6.91	8.20

TABLE C.3.	Residue Data from Cereal Crop Field Trials with Endothall.

Sweet Corn

Sodus, NY 2006

NY$17	1	Sweet corn; Speedy Sweet	K+CWHR	5.0	6.75	0	0.05	NR3

	Forage (w/o ears)

0.52	0.65

	Forage (w/ears)

0.49	0.40

	Stover (w/ears)

0.69	0.58

Campbell. MN 2007

MN$10	5	Sweet corn: Vitality	K+CWHR	5.0	6.91	0	0.17	0.17

	Forage (w/o ears)

1.18	1.28

	Forage (w/ears)

0.88	1.06

	Stover (w/ears)

4.70	5.06

Field Corn

Baptistown, NJ 2006

NJ$18	2	Field corn;

TA 3892	Forage	5.0	3.38 4	0	0.40	0.28

	Grain

6.75

0.0411	0.0391

	Stover

3.48	2.89

Sparta, IL 2007

IL$09	5	Field Corn DK61-73	Forage	5.0	6.77	0	0.31	0.34

	Grain

NR3	NR3

	Stover

1.56	1.39

Richland, IA 2007

IA$06	5	Field Corn 34A16	Forage	5.0	2.26 3	0	0.35	0.42

	Grain

6.77

NR3	NR3

	Stover

2.07	2.37

Centerville, SD 2007

SD$05	5	Field Corn DKC 54-46	Forage	5.0	2.40 3	0	0.36	0.21

	Grain

7.10

NR3	NR3

	Stover

1.07	1.81

Sorghum

Sparta, IL 2007

IL$08	5	Sorghum Dekalb 44	Forage	5.0	3.38 4	0	3.05	2.29

	Grain

6.77

1.41	0.91

	Stover

2.60	7.19

Richland, IA 2007

IA$07	5	Sorghum 85G01	Forage	5.0	3.38 4	0	0.96	0.57

	Grain

6.77

0.49	0.80

	Stover

1.11	0.81

Larned, KS 2007

KS$03	7	Sorghum Pioneer 87G57	Forage	5.0	2.26 3	0	0.29	0.41

	Grain

6.77

1.23	1.18

	Stover

3.10	2.65

Wheat

Ephrata, WA 2007

WA$20	11	Winter Wheat; Stevens	Forage	5.0	2.21 3	0	0.74	0.63

	Hay

1.00	1.11

	Grain

6.64

0.20	0.25

	Straw

2.20	1.93

Bernard, TX 2007

TX$19	6	Winter wheat; Fannin	Forage	5.0	2.24 3	0	1.99	2.27

	Hay

3.09	3.09

	Grain

6.71	1	2.01	1.80

	Straw

2.72	2.76

St, Johns, KS 2007

KS$21	5	Winter Wheat; Jagger	Forage	5.0	2.26 3	0	0.84	0.89

	Hay

3.39 4

1.31	1.62

	Grain

6.77

0.32	0.32

	Straw

1.49	1.38

Velva, ND 2007

ND$04	7	Spring Wheat; Glenn	Forage	5.0	2.19 3	0	0.89	0.94

	Hay

3.29 4

2.24	2.09

	Grain

6.58

0.30	0.47

	Straw

1.52	0.61

	Residue Data from Grass Feed Crop Field Trials with Endothall Monoamine Salt (SC/L).

Lecompte, LA 2006

LA$12	4	Bermuda grass;  Russell	Forage	5.0	7.02	1	2.08	2.23

	Hay

9.80	12.40

East Bernard, TX 2006

TX$14	6	Bermuda grass; Coastal	Forage	5.0	6.75	1	1.85	2.03

	Hay

13.1	14.2

Ephrata, WA 2006

WA$15	11	Bluegrass; Kentucky	Forage	5.0	6.64	1	1.82	1.85

	Hay

7.17	8.91

Newport, SR 2007

AR$37	4	Bluegrass; Kentucky	Forage	5.0	6.76	2	2.65	2.81

	Hay

6.51	6.78

Alexandria, LA 2006

LA$13	4	Fescue;

 not available	Forage	5.0	7.00	0	1.70	2.86

	Hay

5.89	5.84

Hillsboro, OR 2007

OR$38	12	Fescue;

Pure Gold	Forage	5.0	6.73	0	2.65	1.99

	Hay

5.34	9.24

	Residue Data from Non Grass Crop Field Trials with Endothall Monoamine Salt (SC/L).

Velva, ND 2007

ND$20	7	Alfalfa; NK919	Forage	5.0	6.58	0	2.13	1.41

	Hay

4.98	4.87

Tilden, IL 2007

IL$30	5	Alfalfa; cattleman’s	Forage	5.0	5.94	0	2.24	1.99

	Hay

5.31	3.09

	Residue Data from Crop Field Trials with Endothall Monoamine Salt (SC/L).

Velva, ND 2007

ND$20	7	Alfalfa; NK919	Forage	5.0	6.58	0	2.13	1.41

	Hay

4.98	4.87

Tilden, IL 2007

IL$30	5	Alfalfa; cattleman’s	Forage	5.0	5.94	0	2.24	1.99

	Hay

5.31	3.09

	Residue Data from Grape Field Trials with Endothall (2 lb ae/gal SC/L).

North Rose, NY 2006

NY$01	1	Elvira	Fruit	4.98	6.73	0	0.433	0.376

San Luis Obispo, CA 2007

CA$31	10	Pinot 155	Fruit	4.98	6.76	0	0.588	0.449

Ephrata, WA 2006

WA$02	11	Riesling	Fruit	4.97	6.64	0	0.587	0.696

	Residue Data from Rice Field Trials with Endothall Monoamine Salt (SC/L).

East Bernard, TX 2007

TX$24	6	Rice; Cocodrie	Grain	5.0	6.75	1	1.22	1.14

	Straw

1.99	2.24

Cheneyville, LA 2007

LA$25	4	Rice; Clearfield 161	Grain	5.0	6.77	0	1.16	1.19

	Straw

1.09	0.94

Newport, AR 2007

AR$26	4	Rice; Wells	Grain	5.0	6.76	0	0.818 3	0.694 3

	Straw

1.90	1.86

Biggs, CA 2007

CA$27	10	Rice; M-205	Grain	5.0	6.76	0	0.802 3	1.08

	Straw

2.59	2.61

	Residue Data from Mint Field Trials with Endothall Monoamine Salt (SC/L).

Ephrata, WA 2006

WA$09	11	Mint (Todd’s Mitchem)	Tops	5.0	6.64	0	2.89	2.70

Elkhorn, WI 2007

WI$39	5	Mint (Black Mitchem)	Tops	5.0	6.77	0	1.67	1.31

Residues below LLMV, but above LOD.

Non Detect – no residues seen

No Reportable Residues – no residues below the 0.05 ppm LLMV were reported

The rate is expressed both in terms of the concentration in the irrigation water (ppm and the total amount (lbs ae/A) applied.

Expressed in acid equivalents.  The LLMV is 0.05 ppm and the LOD is below 0.001 ppm.

The two results for each field trial represent two samples taken from a single plot, not two plots.

Attachment 5.  Processing Factors from IR-4 Processing studies

	Summary of Processing Factors for Endothall from Crops Irrigated with Endothall-treated water.

RAC	Processed Commodity	Application Rate 1	PHI

(days)	Processing Factor

ppm	lb ae/A

Apple 2	Juice	5.0	6.79	0	1.2x

	Wet pomace

2.8x

Field Corn	Grits	5.0	6.77	0	NC 3

	Meal

NC 3

	Flour

NC 3

	Refined oil (dry milling)

NC 3

	Starch

NC 3

	Refined oil (wet milling)

NC 3

Grape	Juice	5.0	6.73	0	1.2x5

	Raisins

4.4x

Mint	Oil	5.0	6.64	0	<0.001x

Orange 2	Dried pulp	5.0	6.63	0	2.2x

	Juice

0.7x

	Oil

<0.2x

Rice	Hulls	5.0	6.75	1	3.9x

	Bran

2.3x

	Polished rice

0.07x

Sorghum	Flour	5.0	6.77	0	0.7x

Soybean 2	Hulls	5.0	6.77	0	3.9x

	Meal

0.8x

	Refined oil

<0.005x

Sugar beet	Dried pulp	5.0	6.79	0	1.1x

	Molasses

2.4x

	Refine sugar

<0.1x

Tomato 2	Puree	5.0	6.77	0	2.1x4

	Paste

3.3x4

Wheat	Aspirated grain fractions (AGF)	5.0	6.71	0	15x

	Germ

2.6x

	Bran

2.3x

	Middlings

0.9x

	Flour

0.6x

	Shorts

1.4x

1	The rate is expressed both in terms of the concentration in the irrigation water (ppm) and the total amount (lb ae/A) applied.

2	Residue values <LLMV but ≥LOD were used for calculating processing factors.

3	Residues were <LLMV and <LOD in/on field corn grain and each processed fraction.  NC = not calculated.

4	Residues were below the LLMV (<0.05 ppm) in both fruit and puree samples, but were well above the LOD at 0.002 ppm)

5  1.2x is the Maximum Theoretical Processing Factor for grape juice

\

Attachment 6.  Calculation of Dietary Burdens

The MMPE dietary burden for chronic exposure assessment was calculated as in the accompanying Summary of  Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data, except that the intake of residues in the livestock water was taken to be 0.2 ppm, the potable water tolerance, instead of 5 ppm, the maximum treatment rate used for tolerance estimation.  The conclusion that chronic residues in livestock water are below 0.2 ppm was supported by estimates from EFED (attachment 2).

Using the average residue values from the fields trials and the recent changes in calculating dietary burdens (Revisions of Table 1 Feedstuffs, June 2008), the dietary burdens for livestock to endothall residues were calculated to be 2.8 ppm for beef cattle, 4.1 ppm for dairy cattle, 1.0 ppm for poultry and 1.0 ppm for swine (Table 8.1) based upon residues in the feeds.

For purposes of dietary exposure assessment it was considered that livestock may be chronically exposed to water at the potable water tolerance of 0.2 ppm.  The potential contribution of endothall residues in water to the dietary exposure of livestock was calculated following the procedures described in PP#1F3991/1F3935 (G. Okatie, 9/4/92), based on the concentration of endothall in the drinking water, the daily water consumption, and the daily feed intake.  The estimated values for daily water consumption and food intake (dry wt. basis) are presented in Table 2, along with the calculated contribution of the treated water to the dietary burden.  When expressed on the basis of the dry feed intake, the contribution of endothall-treated water to the dietary burden would be 0.77 ppm for beef cattle, 1.82 ppm for dairy cattle, 0.54 ppm for poultry, and 0.65 ppm for swine (Table 8.2).  When combined with the exposure to endothall residues in feedstuffs, the total dietary exposure of livestock to endothall residues would be 3.6 ppm for beef cattle, 5.9 ppm for dairy cattle, 1.5 ppm for poultry, and 1.7 ppm for swine (Table 8.3).

Anticipated Residues based upon these dietary burdens for meat, milk, poultry and eggs are subsequently calculated and presented in Table 1 in the Assessment.

Attachment 6.  Table 1.	Calculation of Dietary Burdens of Endothall Residues for Livestock.

Feedstuff	Type 1	% Dry Matter2	% Diet 2	Average Residues (ppm)	Percent Crop Treated	Dietary Contribution (ppm) 3

Beef Cattle

Grass hay	R	88	15	8.77	100	1.49

Grain aspirated fractions	CC	85	5	15	100	0.88

Wheat milled byproducts	CC	88	40	1	14	0.06

Grain, Cereal, group 15	CC	88	30	1	100	0.34

Sugar beet, molasses	CC	75	5	0.80	37	0.02

Soybean meal	PC	92	5	0.027	9	0.0001

TOTAL BURDEN	--	--	100	--	100	2.79

Dairy Cattle

Grass hay	R	88	20	8.77	100	1.99

Almond Hulls	R	90	5	7.6	100	0.42

Animal  Feed, Nongrass, group 18, forage	R	35	20	2.0	100	1.14

Grain, Cereal, group 15	CC	86	45	1	100	0.52

Sugar Beet, Molasses	CC	75	5	0.80	37	0.02

Soybean meal	PC	92	10	0.027	9	0.003

TOTAL BURDEN	--	--	100	--	100	4.09

Poultry

Grain, Cereal, group 15	CC	88	75	1	100	0.75

Alfalfa, Meal, Animal feed, Nongrass, group 18, hay	PC	89	5	5.1	100	0.29

Soybean Meal	PC	92	20	0.027	9	0.0005

TOTAL BURDEN	--	--	100	--	100	1.04

Swine

Grain, Cereal, group 15	CC	88	85	1	100	0.97

Alfalfa, Meal, Animal feed, Nongrass, group 18, hay	CC	89	5	5.1	48	0.024

Soybean Meal	PC	92	10	0.027	9	0.0003

TOTAL BURDEN	--	--	100	--	100	0.99

1  R:  Roughage; CC:  Carbohydrate concentrate; PC:  Protein concentrate.

2  OPPTS 860.1000 Table 1 Feedstuffs (June 2008).

3  Contribution = ([tolerance /% DM] X % diet) for beef and dairy cattle; contribution = ([tolerance] X % diet) for poultry and swine.

4 The tolerance for soybean seeds was used for soybean meal.

Attachment 6.  Table 2.	Calculation of Dietary Burdens of Endothall Residues to Livestock from Consumption of Water at the Pre-existing Potable Water Tolerance of 0.2 ppm.

Feedstuff	Endothall concentration in water (ppm)	Water  consumption (kg/day)	Feed consumption (kg dry wt./day) 1	Dietary Contribution from water (ppm) 2

Beef cattle (feedlot cattle)	0.2	35	9.1	0.77

Dairy cattle (lactating cows)	0.2	218	24	1.82

Poultry (laying hens)	0.2	0.14	0.052	0.54

Swine (finishing hogs)	0.2	10	3.1	0.65

1	Feed consumption from ChemSAC Memo, 6/30/2008.

2	 Contribution = (endothall concentration X water consumption/day) ÷ feed consumption/day.

Attachment 6.  Table 3.	Calculation of Total (Feed Plus Water) Dietary Burdens of Endothall Residues to Livestock

Feedstuff	Feed	Water	Total

Beef cattle (feedlot cattle)	2.8	0.77	3.6

Dairy cattle (lactating cows)	4.1	1.82	5.9

Poultry (laying hens)	1.0	0.54	1.5

Swine (finishing hogs)	1.0	0.65	1.7

Attachment 6,  Table 4.  Calculation of estimated Residues in Livestock Tissues Based upon the TRR in the Metabolism Studies and Considering Water Residues at 0.2 ppm.

Residues of Endothall in Beef Cattle Tissues Based upon the Goat Metabolism Study

Tissue

Total Radioactive Residues (ppm) after Feeding at 12.0 ppm

Anticipated Residues (ppm) after Feeding at 3.6 ppm  (all assume the higher dairy cattle diet)

Milk.

0.006	0.002

Kidney

0.046	0.014

Liver

0.020	0.006

Muscle

0.005	0.0015

Fat

0.002	0.0006

Residues of Endothall in Dairy Cattle Tissues Based upon the Goat Metabolism Study

Tissue

Total Radioactive Residues (ppm) after Feeding at 12.0 ppm

Anticipated Residues (ppm) after Feeding at 5.9 ppm  (all assume the higher dairy cattle diet)

Milk.

0.006	0.003

Kidney

0.046	0.023

Liver

0.020	0.010

Muscle

0.005	0.0025

Fat

0.002	0.001

Residues of Endothall in Swine Tissues Based upon the Goat Metabolism Study

Tissue

Total Radioactive Residues (ppm) after Feeding at 12.0 ppm

Anticipated Residues (ppm) after Feeding at 1.7 ppm

Kidney

0.046	0.0065

Liver

0.020	0.0028

Muscle

0.005	0.0007

Fat

0.002	0.0003

Residues of Endothall in Poultry Tissues Based upon the Chicken Metabolism Study

Tissue

Total Radioactive Residues (ppm) after feeding at 9.7 ppm

Anticipated Residues (ppm) after feeding at 1.5 ppm

Eggs

0.024	0.0037

    Yolk

0.024	0.0037

    White

0.002	0.0003

Kidney and Other Meat Byproducts

0.088	0.014

Liver

0.021	0.003

Muscle

0.008	0.001

Fat

0.007	0.001

Attachment 7.  Percent Crop Treated memo from BEAD

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Estimates of Crop Irrigation for Endothall Registration (DP# 369862, 369863)

FROM:	Bill Phillips, II, Ph.D., Agronomist

Biological Analysis Branch

Derek Berwald, Economist

		Economic Analysis Branch

		Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

THRU:	Timothy Kiely, Chief

		Economic Analysis Branch

		Arnet Jones, Chief

		Biological Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

TO:		Sidney Jackson, Risk Manager Reviewer

		Barbara Madden, Risk Manager

		Risk Integration Minor Use Emergency Response Branch

		Registration Division (7505P)

Product Review Panel:  October 7, 2009

Summary

EPA is evaluating a proposed use of the aquatic herbicide endothall for weed control in irrigation canals.  This memo provides estimates for the percentage of crops that may be exposed to endothall  that EPA is reasonably certain will not be exceeded. Crops will be exposed to endothall by irrigation water, so the maximum percent that could be exposed is the share of production from irrigated land.

Estimates, summarized in Table 1, are derived using two methods.  Where data on irrigated and dryland production are available, the estimates are based on the share of production from irrigated land, which is the maximum percent of the crop that could be exposed to endothall.  Estimates using the share of production that is irrigated are provided for barley, corn, dry edible beans, peanuts, oats, rice, sorghum, soybeans, sugarbeets, sugarcane, and wheat.  For crops of concern that do not have available data on irrigated and dryland production, BEAD uses the share of production grown in 17 western states where irrigation is used extensively and endothall use will be concentrated. Estimates based on production in the 17 western states are provided for apples, grapes, oats, green peas, wheat, watermelon, and strawberries.

In addition, BEAD reviewed the protocol for the residue trials and concludes that the resulting data are conservative.  The trials used applications of treated irrigation water applied through overhead sprinklers, which would result in high exposure to the edible portion of the crop.  Many fields are irrigated with drip lines or a flood system, which would result in less of the treated water, and thus less pesticide, deposited on the crop.  In the registrant’s field trials plant samples were taken for residue testing from crops irrigated overhead using water that was treated the day of harvest; this is not common practice under actual production conditions.

Table 1.  Estimated Percent Crop Treated with Endothall for Dietary Risk Assessment

	Share of Irrigated

Production	Share of

Production

 in West 1	Estimated Percent Crop Treated for Dietary Risk Assessment

Apple	n/a	65	65

	Fresh market	n/a	78	78

	Processing	n/a	44	44

	Juice	n/a	49	49

	Canned	n/a	14	14

Barley for grain	36	-	36

Corn for grain	19	-	19

Dry Beans 2	32	-	32

Grape	n/a	94	94

	Fresh market	n/a	99	99

	Processing	n/a	94	94

Green Peas	n/a	11	11

Oats for grain	7	37	7

Peanut for nuts	42	-	42

Rice	100	-	100

Sorghum for grain	15	-	15

Soybean for beans	9	-	9

Strawberry	n/a	91	91

	Fresh market	n/a	89	89

	Processing	n/a	100	100

Sugarbeet for sugar	37	-	37

Sugarcane for sugar	54	-	54

Watermelon	n/a	39	39

Wheat for grain	14	70	14

Source:	USDA 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, EPA calculations.

1	Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.  Estimates are only provided for certain crops.

Background

Endothall is an herbicide registered for control of plants in water bodies.  It is currently registered for weed control in irrigation canals, but with the requirement that water cannot be released from the system or applied to crops for seven days after treatment.

The Agency is currently evaluating a petition for tolerances on many irrigated crops to allow registration of endothall for use in irrigation canals to control aquatic weeds without the requirement that the treated water be held or contained prior to being used to irrigate a crop.  Because this is a new use pattern for endothall, dietary risks must be estimated and analyzed.  Normal methods for estimating the percent crop treated for a new pesticide are inappropriate in this case, because the pesticide is not directly applied to the crop.  Exposure occurs via irrigation water.

Endothall will be used to control weeds in irrigation systems, not as treatment for the water in the systems.  Most of the water that goes through a canal to irrigate crops will not be treated.  Instead, endothall will be periodically injected into irrigation water to keep weed populations down.  Because the water in the canal is rapidly turned over, after several hours most if not all of the endothall will no longer be in the canal systems.  In addition, the use directions for endothall restrict applications to irrigation canals to once every seven days, and a maximum of six times per year.

Due to the rate of endothall used, the number of applications, and the timing of applications the residue trials for endothall seem to be conservative to BEAD.  This supposition is supported given the protocol used where crops were overhead irrigated six times with an inch of water containing the maximum concentration of endothall.   After the final treatment the crop was harvested the same day, resulting in maximum endothall residue concentrations on the crop.  From one of the registrants field protocols:

“[d]uplicate control and treated samples of each commodity were harvested from the respective tests.  Samples of field corn forage, sorghum forage and wheat forage and hay were harvested 0 days after the second or third application (0 DAT).  Samples of sweet corn forage, kennels plus cob with husks removed (K+CWHR) and stover, field corn grain and stover, sorghum grain and stover, and wheat grain and straw were harvested following the sixth application at 0 DAT (or at 1 DAT in one wheat test).”

Under actual field production conditions, crop harvest is conducted only after a specified number of days after treatment. Due to standard agronomic practices this duration is extended when, for example, wheat is left to dry in the fields for some time before harvest, to reduce the moisture content.  While in other cases crops such as grapes are not overhead irrigated when fruit are present, because additional moisture on the bunch can lead to fungal diseases.  There is an additional consideration that should be given here and that is that much of the crops irrigated from surface water sources are done so by using some type of delivery system other than overhead sprinklers, systems such as flood or drip irrigation.

Method for Estimating Percent Crop Treated

For some crops, the estimates in this memo are based on yield and acreage data for irrigated and non-irrigated crops from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA 2009d).  The estimates provided will be an upper bound on the percentage of crops that may have been irrigated with water from canals that were treated with endothall, because some of the irrigated crops are not grown in areas where endothall will be used.

Other crops that are important to the dietary risk assessment do not have data on irrigated and non-irrigated production available.  For these crops, this memo provides estimates of the amount of the crop grown in 17 western states where endothall use is expected.  These are states where substantial amounts of water are transported through open canal systems to be used for irrigation.  It is these systems where weed control is important, and endothall is likely to be used.

Estimates from the 2007 Census of Agriculture

For select crops, the 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA 2009d) provides estimates of the acres and yield from farms with irrigation, farms without irrigation, and farms where some of the crop is irrigated.  Using this information we provide estimates of the share of production irrigated for those crops where the data are available. These crops are barley, corn, dry edible beans, oats, peanuts for nuts, rice, sorghum, soybeans, sugarbeets, sugarcane, and wheat.

Table 2 shows the estimated percent of the crop that has been irrigated for the food crops for which data are available.  To estimate the production from the irrigated acres, the first step is to estimate the crop production from irrigated land.  Using the data in Table 2, we multiply the irrigated yield by the irrigated acreage, which is the acreage from farms where the entire crop is irrigated plus the irrigated acreage from partially irrigated farms.  To get an estimate of the share of the crop irrigated, we divide this by an estimate of total production.  To estimate total production from the information in Table 2, we multiply the yield by the acreage for each type of farm, and add these together.  Taking wheat as an example, estimated production from irrigated farmland is (1,806,902 + 1,557,177) × 80.3 = 270,135,544 bushels, which is the numerator for our percentage calculation.  Total estimated production is 1,806,902 × 80.3 + (1,557,177 + 3,703,599) × 42.7 + 43,865,291 × 37.0 = 1,992,745,133 bushels.  Dividing estimates for production from irrigated land by the estimate of total production yields an estimate of the share of production that has been irrigated, in this case 14%.  The estimates for all the food crops with available data in the census are in the last column of Table 2.

Note that the data available in the Census of Agriculture only provides overall yields for farms where only part of the crop is irrigated, although it does provide total production and irrigated and dryland acreage data.  For this analysis, BEAD assumed the yield from the irrigated acreage on partially irrigated farms to be equal to the average yield per acre from irrigated farms.  This is a conservative assumption, because the implied non-irrigated yield is substantially lower than from dryland farms in all but one case, which tends to inflate the estimates of the share of crop irrigated.

These estimates are based on only one year of data.  However, it is unlikely that the amount of acreage irrigated will change a large amount from one year to the next, because irrigation equipment is an expensive capital investment.

Note that these are estimates of the amount of the crop irrigated, not the amount of the crop that may have endothall residues.  Not all of the crop that is irrigated will be grown in areas where endothall is likely to be used, and even in the West, where endothall use for irrigation is expected, not all systems will necessarily be using endothall, a new method of control.  Therefore, the share of crops that are actually exposed to endothall are likely to be lower than the estimates of irrigated acreage in Table 2.

Table 2.  Share of Crop Production Irrigated

	Entire crop irrigated

Part of crop irrigated

None of crop irrigated

EPA Estimated Share of Production Irrigateda

	 	 	Average Yield Per Acre

 	Acres	Acres not	Average Yield Per Acre

Average Yield Per Acre

Crop	Farms	Acres

	Farms	irrigated	irrigated

	Farms	Acres

	Barley for grain (bushels)	3,566	605,340	100.0

675	136,135	155,262	53.3

15,607	2,625,220	49.9

36%

Corn for grain (bushels)	17,927	6,103,769	180.0

20,984	7,053,000	6,435,486	150.0

308,849	66,656,287	144.3

19%

Dry edible beans, excluding limas (cwt)	2,275	317,193	22.6

181	36,310	50,432	16.5

3,780	1,051,614	15.9

32%

Oats for grain (bushels)	1,304	67,948	83.7

316	10,266	15,560	63.4

40,938	1,415,375	58.1

7%

Peanuts for nuts (pounds)	1,301	251,564	3722.5

1,080	167,225	186,723	3234.1

3,801	595,052	2725.8

42%

Rice (cwt)	6,084	2,758,792	72.0

-	-	-	-

-	-	-

100%

Sorghum for grain (bushels)	2,092	443,599	86.9

2,391	401,615	670,030	74.7

21,759	5,254,590	69.2

15%

Soybeans for beans (bushels)	7,007	2,175,069	45.3

13,326	3,062,006	3,396,716	40.8

258,777	55,282,030	40.2

9%

Sugarbeets for sugar (tons)	1,535	387,224	30.0

60	7,451	20,424	24.2

2,427	838,718	23.4

37%

Sugarcane for sugar (tons)	210	431,796	38.7

9	3,409	3,373	33.3

473	408,088	34.7

54%

Wheat for grain, all (bushels)	7,695	1,806,902	80.3	 	7,518	1,557,177 3,703,599	42.7	 	145,597	43,865,291	37.0	 	14%

Source:  USDA 2009d and EPA Calculations

a Assumes irrigated acres on farms where only part of the crop is irrigated obtain the same yield as acres on farms where the entire crop is irrigated

Crop Estimates

Endothall residues on some crops are of particular concern to EPA based on residue trials and dietary habits.  These crops are peas, watermelon, strawberries, apples, oats, grapes and wheat.  For these crops BEAD provides estimates of the proportion of the crop that is grown in the 17 western states, which are the states expected to be users of endothall in irrigation water.  According to the Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (USDA 2004), almost 70% of the irrigated acreage in the United States is in the 17 western states, and about 87% of the irrigation water applied to crops is in these western states, which correspond to the states served by Bureau of Reclamation water projects.

The share of the crop grown in the 17 western states can be used as a crude measure of the share of the crop that may have come in contact with endothall.  These estimates are the best that can be made with the available data, and they likely overestimate the crop that will encounter endothall treated water, because not all production in the western states will be irrigated with water from canals that have been treated with endothall. Not all irrigation systems will use endothall, some crop production is irrigated with wells that do not require weed control, and some crops such as wheat and oats may be farmed without irrigation, even in the arid West.   When possible (wheat and oats), the estimates provided  in Table 2 above, based on the 2007 Census of Agriculture, are preferable.

The 17 western states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.  It is in the West that large scale water delivery systems are important to agriculture; these are the systems that will use endothall for irrigation, as they are the systems that currently use acrolein or xylene, aquatic herbicides for which endothall may substitute.  Agriculture in the East, where it is less arid, does not require large scale water transfers.  BEAD does expect to see endothall use in the East, but primarily for drainage systems rather than irrigation water delivery systems where water will be applied to crops.

Where available, estimates of the crop grown in the 17 western states are provided for different end-uses of the particular crop.  This information can be useful for dietary risk estimates, which are based on consumption of specific food products.  The estimates of the amount grown in the 17 western states are provided in Table 3.

Peas

Only two western states are important producers of green peas for processing, which can appear in baby foods.  In 2008, about 103,000 tons were produced in Washington State, and about 33,000 tons in Oregon.  Production in these two states was about 11% of US production of almost 412,000 tons (USDA 2009a).

Watermelon

Four western states produce enough watermelon to show up in the USDA data, Arizona, California, Oklahoma, and Texas.  California and Texas produced about 6,100,000 cwt. and 6,000,000 cwt. in 2008, respectively.  Arizona produced almost 2,900,000 cwt., and Oklahoma only produced about 360,000 cwt.  Together, the almost 15,400,000 cwt. of watermelon represented about 39% of US production of about 39,600,000 cwt. in 2008 (USDA 2009a).

Strawberries

California is the major strawberry producing state in the United States.  In 2008, California produced almost 23,000 cwt. of strawberries, and Oregon another 238 cwt., the two together totaling about 91% of the total US production.  About 89% of the fresh market strawberries come from the western states of California, Washington and Oregon, and almost all the processing strawberries come from the same three states, accounting for almost all strawberries used for processing (USDA 2009b).

Apple

Available data on apple production covers the production for the western states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, with Washington being by far the largest producer.  Combined these states accounted for about 65% of total US apple production in 2008, with over 59% of the total coming from Washington alone (USDA 2009b).

Oats

Data on oat production is available for 13 of the seventeen western states, with South Dakota being the largest producer in the West, and 3rd in the country, with about 8.8 million bushels.  In all, the western states produce about 37% of the nation’s oats (USDA 2009c).

Grapes

California was the largest producer of grapes in 2008, accounting for over 89% of total production.  The 17 western states combined accounted for about 94% of total production.  Looking at the end uses of these grapes, the picture is similar.  About 99% of fresh grapes were from the western states in 2008, and about 94% of the processed grapes.  Of the grapes used for processing, California was the most important producer of wine grapes (about 99%) and seems to account for all dried grapes (USDA 2009b).

Wheat

Wheat is widely grown in western states, with all 17 states appearing in the available production data.  Together, the 17 western states account for about 70% of the total wheat production.

Table 3.  Share of Production of Specific Crops in the 17 Western States, 2007

	US Production	Western States Production	Western States Share

Green Peas (Tons)	411,780	43,666	11%

Watermelon (1,000 cwt.)	39,551	15,387	39%

Strawberries (1,000 cwt.)	25,317	22,913	91%

Fresh Market 	20,911	18,653	89%

Processing 	4,406	4,404	100%

Apple (Million Pounds)	9,769	6,394	65%

Fresh Market 	6,304	4,911	78%

Processing 	3,372	1,500	44%

Juice 	1,534	750	49%

Canned 	1,191	170	14%

Oats (1,000 Bushels)	88,635	32,565	37%

Grapes (Tons)	7,303,260	6,887,000	94%

Fresh Market 	985,200	976,050	99%

Processing 	6,304,350	5,944,650	94%

Wheat (1,000 Bushels)	2,499,524	1,752,810	70%

Source:  USDA 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, EPA Calculations

The 17 Western states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Suggested Federal Register Language

EPA is establishing tolerances on multiple commodities to support the application of the aquatic herbicide endothall to be used in irrigation canals without a holding period.

For a new agricultural pesticide use, EPA typically estimates percent crop treated by comparison with the amount of use of other pesticides for the same crop or site.  That approach is inappropriate for the new use for endothall, because the use is on irrigation canals rather than crops and EPA does not have data on the frequency of use of aquatic herbicides on irrigation canals.

Instead, EPA has estimated percent crop treated for endothall by estimating the percent crop irrigated which serves as an upperbound for crops that may be exposed to endothall in irrigation water.  EPA used two methods to estimate percent crop irrigated.  The preferred method, used where data on irrigated production are available, is an estimate of the share of total production that is irrigated.  Estimates from this method are provided for barley, corn, dry edible beans, oats, peanuts, rice, sorghum, soybeans, sugarbeets, sugarcane, and wheat. Where data on irrigated production are not available, EPA estimated the percent crop irrigated by determining the percentage of United States production of a crop that is grown in 17 western states where endothall may be used.  The 17 western states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.  These states are the states where large scale water projects predominate, and where other chemicals are used in canals for weed control.  These types of irrigation projects are relatively rare in other parts of the country.

Use of these estimates in the exposure assessment is conservative, because it is the equivalent of assuming 100% of irrigated crops have irrigated with water from endothall-treated canals.

In fact, even in areas with surface water delivery systems, all irrigation canals may not be treated with endothall.  Additionally, some crops, even in the heavily irrigated areas of the West, are not irrigated, such as dryland grain production.

References

USDA 2004.   US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, The Census of Agriculture, Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (2003) Volume 3, Special Studies Part 1.  November 2009.   Available here: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/FRIS/index.asp

USDA 2009a.  US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Vegetables 2008 Summary.  January 2009.  Available here:   HYPERLINK "http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-01-28-20 09.txt" http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-01-28-200 9.txt

USDA 2009b.  US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2008 Summary.  July 2009.  Available here:   HYPERLINK "http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/NoncFruiNu/NoncFruiNu-07-0 8-2009.pdf" http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/NoncFruiNu/NoncFruiNu-07-08 -2009.pdf

USDA 2009c.  US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Crop Production 2008 Summary.  January 2009.  Available here:   HYPERLINK "http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-01-1 2-2009.txt" http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-01-12 -2009.txt

USDA 2009d.   US Department of Agriculture, 2007 Census of Agriculture United States Summary and State Data Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 51.   February 2009, updated September 2009.   Available here: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Cha pter_2_US_State_Level/st99_2_032_032.pdf

Attachment 8.  Water Memo from EFED.

PC Code: 038901, 038903, 038904, 038905

DP Barcode: 356316

September 9, 2009

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Drinking Water Assessment for the IR-4 Tolerance Petition for the Use of Endothall-treated Irrigation Water on a Variety of Crops

TO:		Sidney Jackson, Risk Manager

		Barbara Madden, Risk Manager

Registration Division (7505P)

FROM:	Nelson Thurman, Senior Environmental Scientist

		Environmental Risk Branch 2

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

THROUGH:	Tom Bailey, Branch Chief

		Environmental Risk Branch II

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

Summary

A drinking water exposure assessment has been conducted to support the human health risk assessment for the proposed use of endothall-treated irrigation water on a variety of crops.

The maximum potential exposure of endothall in drinking water sources is expected to result from the direct application of endothall to drinking water reservoirs to control aquatic weeds.  EFED assumed that the entire reservoir would be treated at the maximum rates, with no more than 10% of the reservoir treated at one time as stated on the label, so that 10 treatments were applied 7 days apart to get the entire reservoir.  Since the label specified that the community water system (CWS) could not supply treated drinking water unless the residues were below 0.1 ppm (100 µg/L), EFED assumed 100 µg/L (0.1 ppm) as the acute (peak) exposure and the constant exposure during the treatment period and then modeled residue decline by degradation after the final treatment.  This resulted in a chronic (annual average) concentration of 31 µg/L (0.031 ppm) for endothall.  This represents the likely high-end chronic exposure from endothall from the use most likely to generate the highest exposures (treatment of a reservoir).

Nature of Action

Endothall is an herbicide with both terrestrial and aquatic uses.  Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) submitted field trial data to support the use of endothall as an algaecide and aquatic herbicide in irrigation and drainage canals.  The irrigation water would subsequently be applied to a variety of vegetables, berries, grains, nuts, grapes, and feed crops.  With no geographic limitations, potentially all irrigated crops could be subject to endothall residues from treated irrigation waters.  Endothall may be applied to irrigation canals at a maximum single rate of 5 ppm (as endothall acid), with a maximum of 30 ppm during the growing season, with a minimum 7-day application interval (based on both the Hydrothol 191 and Aquathol® K labels). Based on the maximum seasonal rate, EFED assumed a maximum exposure from 6 applications at 5 ppm with 7-day intervals between applications or 10 applications at 3 ppm for the 3 ppm maximum on one label.

Endothall may also be applied to lakes, ponds, and impoundments, including drinking water reservoirs, at rates of up to 3 ppm (Hydrothol) to 5 ppm (Aquathol).  For submerged aquatics in lakes or ponds, no more than 1/10 of the impounded water may be treated at one time.  The labels state that consumption of water by the public is allowed only when the concentration of endothall in water is less than the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 100 µg/L (0.1 ppm).

Previous Drinking Water Exposure Assessment

In May, 2004, EFED conducted a drinking water assessment for endothall uses on terrestrial crops in the western US (potatoes, cotton, clover, alfalfa for seed, hops) and direct aquatic applications.  The estimated maximum 1-in-10-year exposures from terrestrial uses were:

7.1 µg /L for the 1 in 10 year annual peak concentration (acute)

2.5 µg /L for the 1 in 10 year annual mean concentration (non-cancer chronic) and

2.4 µg /L for the 36 year annual mean concentration (cancer chronic).

Maximum ground water concentrations were less than 0.1 µg /L.

The greatest potential exposures from endothall use, however, come from direct application to drinking water reservoirs.  Assuming 100% of the reservoir is treated at the maximum rate, the maximum peak (single-day) exposure could be as high as 5000 µg/l (5 ppm), based on the maximum application rate to the reservoir. However, Endothall has a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 100 µg/L (0.1 ppm); therefore, EPA used the MCL as the maximum exposure level expected from direct application of endothall to reservoirs.  Although the MCL is likely to overestimate average (i.e., chronic) residues of endothall in drinking water, EPA believes it provides a reasonable high-end estimate of potential acute drinking water concentrations from the aquatic uses of endothall. For a screening approach, EFED used the MCL of 100 µg/L (0.1 ppm) for both the acute and chronic exposures in the dietary risk assessments.  The 2005 Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for the RED indicated that chronic dietary exposure assuming an average 100 ppb concentration for endothall accounted for 99% of the cPAD for infants <1 yr old and 45% of the cPAD for children 1-2.

Summary of Environmental Fate Properties of Endothall

The environmental fate and transport properties of endothall are described in the 2005 EFED environmental fate and ecological risk assessment.  This section briefly summarizes the RED characterization. Endothall exists in three forms in the environment: endothall dipotassium, endothall potassium cation, and endothall acid.  These chemical forms are highly soluble and mobile in the environment.  Exposure is expressed in terms of endothall acid equivalents.

Endothall degrades by biotic processes such as aerobic metabolism.  Single laboratory studies measured first-order degradation half-lives of 14.5 days for aerobic soil metabolism, 10 days for aerobic aquatic metabolism, and 9 days for anaerobic soil metabolism.  Terrestrial dissipation studies measured dissipation half-lives from the soil surface of 13 to 19 days.  Dissipation/disappearance half-lives in aquatic dissipation studies ranged from 4 to 30 days (median 8.5 days) in lab studies, and 0.5 to 20 days (median 4 days) in ponds and lakes.  As noted in Table 1, EFED multiplied the single half-life measurement by 3 to reflect the uncertainty in the range of potential half-life values in the field. The resultant 3X value for aquatic metabolism is within the range of dissipation half-lives reported for the aquatic dissipation studies while the single value is closer to the median dissipation half-lives from the studies.

Table 1.  Endothall Inputs Used for Drinking Water Exposure Modeling.

MODEL INPUT VARIABLE

INPUT VALUE

COMMENTS

Molecular Weight, g/Mol

186.2

2005 RED

Vapor pressure (Torr at 24.3 oC)

 ADVANCE \d4 2.2e-10

2005 RED

Solubility (mg/L)

100,000

2005 RED

Kd (ml/g)

2.4

Average of values in MRID 41616404

Aerobic Soil Metabolic Half-life (days)

43.5

3X 14.5 day half-life based on extractable residues in MRID 44949401

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolic Half-life (days)

30

3X 10 day half-life based on extractable residues in MRID 42618901

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism half-life (days)

27

3X 9 day half-life based on extractable residues in MRID 42903901

Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for the Proposed Use

For chronic drinking water exposures, the 100 µg/L (0.1 ppm) MCL is the presumable maximum threshold for surface water sources of drinking water.  That threshold assumes that the CWS downstream of the agricultural areas that are releasing treated irrigation canal water into the larger water bodies are aware of the applications so they can ensure that endothall levels stay below that threshold in the water they release to the public.  In the event that the CWS is not aware of what's going on upstream, it is possible that short-term exposures from endothall may exceed the MCL because of the high rates used in treating the waters.  For flowing water bodies, the endothall residues would quickly dissipate downstream so that elevated exposures would only be expected for short periods after endothall-treated irrigation water is released to the water body.

Application of endothall-treated irrigation water to crops would result in lower exposure concentrations released to surface water sources of drinking water due to (a) filtration of irrigation water through the crops and soil and (b) increased time for degradation from the time of treatment.  Estimated 1-in-10-year peak and average annual concentrations from irrigation applications of endothall are expected to be in the same range as those estimated for endothall applications to terrestrial crops in the 2005 RED (up to 39 µg /L peak and 10 µg /L annual).

The maximum potential drinking water exposures are expected to result from the direct application of endothall as an aquatic herbicide in a drinking water reservoir.  In a maximum potential exposure scenario, the entire reservoir is treated at maximum rates (3 to 5 ppm, depending on the label), with no more than 10% of the reservoir treated at one time.  This would result in 10 treatments of 3 ppm applied 7 days apart to get the entire reservoir (assuming a 30 ppm maximum seasonal rate).  The labels state that consumption of water by the public is allowed only when the concentration of endothall in water is less than the MCL of 100 µg/L (0.1 ppm).  At the maximum rates, even with a 600-foot setback from the drinking water intake, endothall residues may exceed the MCL for one or a few days after application. However, based on the label specifications, the water cannot be released for public consumption until the concentration is less than the MCL. Thus, the maximum peak concentration of endothall residues would be 100 µg/L (0.1 ppm).

Given the degradation/dissipation rates of endothall, the concentrations will likely decline fairly quickly once treatments have ended, even in the most static of reservoirs.  So longer-term average exposures will likely be well below the MCL.

For chronic exposures, EFED used the following estimates:

an assumed 100 µg/L (0.1 ppm) concentration during the 70-day treatment window

first-order degradation, based on a 30-day aquatic metabolism half-life (3X the single measured value provided by the registrant), using the

			Ct = C0e-kt

where Co = initial concentration, k =  first-order degradation rate (hr-1), and  t = time.

The calculated daily concentrations were averaged over the year to generate a chronic (annual average) concentration of 31 µg /L (0.031 ppm) for endothall.  This would represent the likely high-end chronic exposure from endothall from the use that is most likely to generate the highest exposures (treatment of a drinking water reservoir).

To characterize the range in potential exposures, EFED varied the degradation/ dissipation half-life (30 days vs 10 days) and included an estimate of reservoir flow-through rates, similar to the approach in the 2004 EFED drinking water assessment.  These are summarized in Table 2.  The FL reservoir had the greatest flow-through rates (see the 2004 EFED drinking water assessment for details).

Table 2: Range in estimated annual average concentrations of endothall residues based on varying degradation rates and reservoir flow-through rates.

Exposure Scenario	Annual average (chronic) concentration

(µg /L)

Endothall degradation half life (da) / rate (da-1)	Flow-through (m3/hr) / equiv turnover rate (da-1)	Effective dissipation rate (da-1)

	Static reservoir (no water flow-through)

30 da / 0.0231	0	0.0231	31 (0.031 ppm)

10 da / 0.0693	0	0.0693	23 (0.023 ppm)

FL reservoir (FL sugarcane scenario)

30 da / 0.0231	121 m3/hr / 0.0201	0.0432	25 (0.025 ppm)

10 da / 0.0693	121 m3/hr / 0.0201	0.0894	22 (0.022 ppm)

Livestock Drinking Water Exposure Assessment

To evaluate potential endothall residues in milk/dairy products, HED asked EFED for an estimate of potential endothall residues in livestock/animal drinking water.  The highest exposures would come from a static pond with no water flow-through.  Endothall would soon be diluted out of any water body with flow in it (canals, etc) and, even with multiple applications, the higher concentrations would soon be moving away from the source.

The labels have certain waiting periods before treated water could be used for animal consumption depending on the application rate:

Applied 0.3 ppm – 7 days after application

Applied 3.0 ppm – 14 days after application

Applied 5.0 ppm – 25 days after application

The estimated concentrations use the simple first-order degradation model, assuming either static (no flow) or varying water turnover rates in the farm water body.  Endothall concentrations degraded with a first-order model starting immediately after application. No water was consumed during the specified waiting periods; annual average concentrations reflect daily concentrations beginning after the waiting period.  The uncertainty in the estimates is bound by the range in potential degradation rates of endothall and the potential water turnover rates for the water body.  At the high end of the half-life range in water (30 days), average annual water exposures in static water bodies are 0.26 and 0.35 ppm, for the 3 and 5 ppm treatments respectively; at the low-end (10 days) of the half-life range, average water exposures are below 0.1 ppm.

Table 3: Range in estimated annual average concentrations of endothall residues in livestock water ponds based on varying degradation rates and flow-through rates.

Exposure Scenario	Annual average concentration,

mg /L (ppm)

Endothall degradation half life (da)	Pond turnover rate (% daily turnover)	Effective dissipation rate (da-1)	0.3 ppm applied	3 ppm applied	5 ppm applied

Single application

30 da 	0%	0.0231	0.03	0.26	0.35

	1%	0.0331	0.02	0.16	0.19

	5%	0.0731	0.007	0.04	0.03

10 da	0%	0.0693	0.007	0.04	0.04

	1%	0.0793	0.006	0.03	0.02

	5%	0.1193	0.003	0.01	0.006

3 applications spread throughout the year (1, 123, 245 days)

30 da	0%	0.0231	0.09	0.82	0.78

	1%	0.0331	0.06	0.51	0.44

	5%	0.0731	0.02	0.13	0.07

10 da	0%	0.0693	0.02	0.15	0.08

	1%	0.0793	0.02	0.11	0.06

	5%	0.1193	0.009	0.04	0.01

6 applications at 7-day treatment intervals w/ no consumption during treatment

30 da	0%	0.0231	0.12	1.06	1.42

	10%	0.1231	0.002	0.01	0.004

10 da	0%	0.0693	0.01	0.08	0.06

	10%	0.1693	0.001	0.002	0.001

In most instances, some water turnover/exchange (replenishment with rain and/or runoff) occurs in a farm pond over time.  Ranges of 1 to 5% turnover on a daily basis is not uncommon.  At a 5% water exchange rate for a pond, the year-long average concentrations for the 3 rate/waiting period combinations were below 0.2 ppm.  Table 3 also provides average annual concentration estimates for a variety of multiple application scenarios.  Each of the scenarios assume that the waiting period is enforced between trea

 Registrant submission: 47520713.  Arsenovic, M. (2008) Endothall (Hydrothol 191): Magnitude of the Residue on Grain Cereal Group (Except Rice): Lab Project Number: Z9768. Unpublished study prepared by Interregional Research Project No. 4.  590 pages.

  hÁ

h

h

h

h

!

"

+

-

A

B

I

K

L

T

U

V

W

X

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

!

!

"

B

U

V

W

W

X

w

œ

Ã

Ù

7

8

9

K

L

X

\

]

^

v

w

x

y

{

¥

¦

°

²

¹

Â

Ã

Í

Ï

Ø

7

8

9

J

L

M

S

U

_

f

x

|

}

‹

š

¥

²

æ

ÿ

/L

က

h’

hc+

@

@

@

@

@

@

h„

hLw

 h„

h„

@

@

hLw

h„

 h„

h„

 hLw

 h’

 h’

h’

  h

@

h`

h

䠃昀Ĵ瑹窮'

摧窮'Ï欀ᙤ

摧窮'Ï欀癤

h

h

愀Ĥ摧窮'

똆

똆

ఓܪ栕Ѣ

ఓܪ栕Ѣ

yt

yt

yt

yt

愀Ĥ摧窮'

똆

똆

䠃昀Ĵ瑹柔v

愀Ĥ摧窮'

똆

hcQ

@

h

B*

B*

h

@

@

&

@

@

&

@

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

@

&

@

&

@

@

&

@

&

@

@

&

@

&

@

&

@

@

&

h’

@

@

@

@

&

@

&

@

&

@

n

‹

Û

!

C

“

ã

ã

@

`„`úgd

h

h

h

 h

h

h

H*

h

 h

h

h

h

h

h

S

yt

gd

gd

h

h

 h

h

h

gd

a$gd

a$gd

gd

h

h

h

h

 h

h

h

h

 h

h

`„`úgd

a$gd

gd

`„`úgd

a$gd

gd

h

h

h

h

h

h

 h

h

h

h

h

gd

a$gd

h

 h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

gd

gd

`„`úgd

gd

gd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

 h

h

h

 h

h

`„`úgd

gd

gd

h

h

h

h

h

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

gd

gd

h

 h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

`„`úgd

a$gd

gd

a$gd

$

a$gd

h

h

h

h

h

 h

h

h

h

h

h

a$gd

gd

a$gd

`„`úgd

a$gd

a$gd

gd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

`„`úgd

gd

gd

`„`úgd

gd

gd

gd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

a$gd

a$gd

gd

gd

"

6

<

@

E

G

M

S

T

£

¤

¥

`„`úgd

a$gd

gd

-

!

"

5

6

;

<

?

@

D

E

G

L

M

R

T

g

p

‹

¡

¢

¤

¦

À

Á

Â

Ã

Ð

Ñ

Ø

Ù

Ü

Ý

á

ã

å

ç

è

é

î

ï

ð

ñ

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

攃昀Ĵ瑹㼍bഀð

ñ

`„`úgd

a$gd

gd

-

.

1

5

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

-

.

/

0

1

6

;

<

=

>

?

O

P

Q

gd

gd

5

6

:

<

N

O

R

V

W

[

]

t

u

v

w

‹

Œ

’

“

–

ž

¢

£

§

©

½

¾

Á

Å

Æ

Ê

Ì

Þ

ß

â

æ

ç

ð

ò

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

BQ

R

W

\

]

o

u

w

Œ

“

—

œ

ž

£

¨

©

ª

«

¬

¾

¿

À

Á

Æ

Ë

gd

gd

gd

Ë

Ì

Í

Î

Ï

ß

à

á

â

ç

ì

í

î

ï

ð

ñ

ò

ó

ô

õ

gd

gd

gd

gd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

gd

a$gd

gd

a$gd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

gd

gd

gd

gd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

h

h

h

h

h

h

a$gd

a$gd

gd

a$gd

gd

gd

a$gd

gd

a$gd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

`„`úgd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

h

h

h

h

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

`„`úgd

gd

gd

gd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

a$gd

a$gd

a$gd

gd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

gd

gd

gd

`„`úgd

gd

gd

gd

FfF

`„`úgd

a$gd

gd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

`„`úgd

gd

gd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

gd

gd

h

&

@

\

 h

  h

H*  h^

 h^

@

&

@

$

 h

  h

$

*	 h

$

 *	 h

*	 h

攃昀Ĵ瑹瘯ò

愀Ĥ摧瘯ò

愀Ĥ摧瘯ò

 *	 h

*	 h

攃昀Ĵ瑹瘯ò

攃昀Ĵ瑹瘯ò

*	 h

*	 h

*	 h

@

@

kd

&

@

p&ˆ'

'f

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

&

@

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

”

e the implied yield estimate is slightly higher than the dryland yield.  The difference is less than 3%.

 “Drinking Water Assessment for Endothall for both Terrestrial and Aquatic Uses”.  Memorandum from James Breithaupt, EFED, to Susan Lewis and Pat Dobak, SRRD, May 5, 2004.

 “Endothall: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment. HED Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document (RED)”. Memorandum from Zendzian et al, HED, to Mika Hunter, SRRD, 09/30/05.

 “Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment of Endothall - Revised”. Memorandum from Embry et al, EFED, to Mika Hunter, SRRD, April 22, 2005.

Endothall	Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessment	DP Number: 370449

PC Codes:  038901, 038904 and 038905

 PAGE

Page   PAGE  52  of   NUMPAGES   64

 PAGE