December 11, 2003 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for Thiram FROM: Jim Carleton and Fred Jenkins Environmental Risk Branch II Environmental Fate and Effects Division 7507C THROUGH: Tom Bailey, Chief Environmental Risk Branch II Environmental Fate and Effects Division 7507C TO: Craig Doty Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

Attached to this memo is the revised EFED risk assessment for thiram. Thiram's usage on apples, peaches, strawberries, and non residential turf is expected to present risk to numerous organisms. However, the potential chronic risk to birds and mammals are of greatest concern. Although thiram has low acute toxicity to birds and mammals, there are LOC exceedences for acute risk. One major uncertainty in this assessment is the effectiveness of thiram as a registered repellent. Repellency may prevent wildlife from consuming a lethal dose. Further investigation into this area is warranted. Exposure to thiram can cause reproductive effects in avian species and growth effects in mammals. The risk quotients for the foliar, turf, and seed treatment uses greatly exceed the levels of concern for chronic risk to birds and mammals. Again, since thiram is an animal repellent, there is uncertainty surrounding the exposure component of the risk assessment. Further refinements in this area, including predictions on whether non target animals would ingest enough thiram contaminated food to induce chronic effects, will be pursued. N C S S C N CH3 CH3 CH3 CH3 * * S S * * Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Reregistration of Thiram Prepared by:

James Carleton Fred Jenkins United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Environmental Fate and Effects Division Environmental Risk Branch II 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Mail Code 7507C Washington, DC 20460 Reviewed by:

Thomas A. Bailey, Ph. D. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ENVIRONMENTAL RISK CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Use Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Formulation Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Method, Rate, and Timing of Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL RISK CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Physical/ Chemical Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Persistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Monitoring Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 AQUATIC EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Hazard Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Aquatic Exposure Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Aquatic Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 DRINKING WATER ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Surface Water EECs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Groundwater EECs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Monitoring Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 TERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Hazard Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Terrestrial Exposure Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Quantitative Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 APPENDIX A: Ecotoxicity Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 APPENDIX B: Tier I Model Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 APPENDIX C: Assumptions Used in the LFATE Spreadsheet Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 APPENDIX D: Terrestrial ( Bird and Mammal) Risk Quotient Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 APPENDIX E: Environmental Fate Study Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 APPENDIX F: Environmental Fate Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 APPENDIX G: Ecological Effects Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 APPENDIX H: Chemical Names and Structures of Thiram and Degradates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 APPENDIX I: Descriptions of PRZM/ EXAMS Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 ii Page LIST OF TABLES EECs for Use in the Human Health Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PRZM/ EXAMS Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Tier II Surface water EECs ( Farm Pond) for Thiram ( µ g/ L) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Acute Risk Quotients for Freshwater Fish Based on a Bluegill Sunfish ( Leopmis macrochirus) LC50 of 42 ppb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Acute Risk Quotients for Freshwater Invertebrates Based on a Water Flea ( Daphnia magna) LC50 of 210 ppb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Acute Risk Quotients for Estuarine and Marine Fish Based on a Sheepshead Minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus) LC50 of 540 ppb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Acute Risk Quotients for Estuarine/ Marine Aquatic Invertebrates Based on a Mysid Shrimp ( Americamysis bahia) LC50 of 3.6 ppb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Acute Risk Quotients for Aquatic plants Based on a Selenastrum Capricornutum EC50 of 140 ppb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 PRZM/ EXAMS Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Tier II Surface water EECs ( Index Reservoir) for Thiram ( µ g/ L) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Ground Water Exposure Inputs for SCIGROW for Thiram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Ground Water EECs for Thiram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Expected Environmental Concentrations for Exposure to Terrestrial Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1 I. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK CONCLUSIONS Thiram ( tetramethylthiram disulfide) is a fungicide used to control plant diseases in the field. Although numerous uses are listed in REFS, currently thiram is only registered for foliar application on apples, peaches, strawberries, and non residential turf. Thiram is also used as an animal repellant and as a seed protectant, which together account for the majority of the registered uses. Some of these uses are not currently supported by any registrant ( K. Rothwell, personal communication 1/ 24/ 2000), and are not included on any current labels. This risk assessment is based only on currently labeled uses. This risk assessment focuses primarily on the four foliar uses mentioned above, because these uses involve substantially higher application rates than the seed and animal repellant uses. Several studies are lacking, but based on the available data, EFED concludes the following concerning the environmental risk of the usage of thiram.

Thiram's usage on apples, peaches, strawberries, and non residential turf is expected to present risk to numerous organisms. Acute risk to aquatic animals ( including endangered species) is expected. The chronic toxicity data requirements for aquatic animals have not yet been fulfilled. However, EFED assumes that there will be adverse chronic risk to aquatic animals because of: 1) the adverse acute risk to aquatic animals, 2) predicted water exposures, and 3) studies on mammals and birds indicating that the reproductive physiology of fish may be affected. Although the acute risk to birds and mammals is uncertain, the chronic risk to mammals and birds ( including endangered species) is expected to be high.

Acceptable guideline studies on hydrolysis and adsorption/ desorption are required. Based in part on supplemental fate data, thiram may be sufficiently mobile and persistent to reach surface waters in concentrations high enough to impact aquatic life, following foliar applications of the chemical.

The Tier I Estimated Environmental Concentrations ( EECs) for Thiram were calculated using SCIGROW ( ground water) for turf, apples and cotton seed. Tier II surface water EECs for Thiram were calculated using PRZM/ EXAMS for apples, non residential turf, and cotton seed. Surface water EECs were not calculated for the strawberry use because of the absence of an official PRZM/ EXAMS scenario. However, given the commonplace use of plastic mulch in the cultivation of strawberries, and the large number of potential seasonal applications, runoff loadings and associated aquatic concentrations of Thiram are likely to be high. PRZM/ EXAMS scenarios were run using the standard farm pond environment to generate ecological EECs, and the Index Reservoir to generate drinking water EECs. Resulting EECs to be used for human drinking water exposure assessment are summarized in the following table.

Table 1. EECs for use in the human health risk assessment 2 Crop Annual App Rate ( lbs ai/ acre/ yr) SCIGROW concentration ( ppb) PRZM/ EXAM S* Acute EEC ( ppb) PRZM/ EXAMS* non cancer chronic EEC ( ppb) PRZM/ EXAMS* cancer chronic EEC ( ppb)

Turf farm 146.6 0.84 47.8 2.5 2.2 Golf course 146.6 0.84 14.8 0.78 0.67 Apples 22.5 0.13 16.3 1.2 1.1 Cotton seed 0.01 0.00006 0.006 0.0002 0.00007 * Index Reservoir environment II. INTRODUCTION Use Characterization Thiram is a broad spectrum fungicide used to control plant diseases in the field. Thiram is currently registered for foliar application on apples, peaches, strawberries, and non residential turf. Thiram is also used as an animal repellant and as a seed protectant. Thiram is available in dust, flowable, wettable powder, water dispersible granules, and water suspension formulations. Thiram is also formulated in mixtures with other fungicides. The majority of thiram use is as a seed treatment. According to UCB Chemicals Corp., the only registrant which makes thiram products for foliar and turf uses, 139,000 pounds of active ingredient were sold in 1998 for foliar and turf uses, while 840,000 pounds were sold for seed treatment. According to the QUA report ( 9/ 9/ 99, F. Hernandez), the seed treatment with the greatest thiram usage is cotton, and about 29 million acres, or 16% of overall acreage planted in the U. S. is planted with seeds that have been treated with thiram. According to information provided by the USGS ( available at http:// water. wr. usgs. gov/ pnsp/ use92/), and based on state level estimates of pesticide use rates for individual crops, compiled by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy ( NCFAP) for 1991 1993 and 1995, and on county based crop acreage data from the 1992 Census of Agriculture), the geographical areas with the greatest thiram usage include areas in the northeast ( especially in Pennsylvania, Delaware and Connecticut), the southeast ( especially in North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida), the Pacific northwest, and California.

Formulation Type The formulations of Thiram registered for foliar application are as follows:

$ Thiram 65J: a wettable powder product composed of 65% Thiram and 35% inert ingredients.

$ Thiram GranufloJ: a water dispersable granule product composed of 75% Thiram and 25% inert ingredients. 3 Method, Rate, and Timing of Application The recommended application methods for foliar treatments of Thiram 65J wettable powder and Thiram GranufloJ water dispersible granule are groundboom and aerial broadcast. For strawberries, the labels recommend applying up to five individual applications of up to 3.3 lb a. i./ acre per crop cycle ( there are three crop cycles per year in Florida), at ten day intervals, for a maximum total of 49.5 lbs. a. i./ acre per year. According to the registrant, the use of this number of applications on strawberries in Florida is standard practice. For apples, the labels recommend individual applications as needed of 4.5 lb a. i./ acre, to be applied at pre bloom, calyx, early cover, and late cover. For peaches, the labels recommend applications of 3.8 lb a. i./ acre each as needed. For non residential turf, the labels recommend applications of up to 98 lb a. i./ acre each as needed.

III. INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL RISK CHARACTERIZATION This risk characterization includes an integration of both the environmental fate characteristics of thiram and the expected ecological effects of thiram. The primary concerns of the risk characterization are acute and chronic risks to aquatic organisms, and chronic risk to mammals and birds due to foliar and turf uses of thiram.

The environmental fate database for thiram is incomplete. However, based in part on supplemental fate data, thiram that is applied foliarly is expected to be sufficiently mobile and persistent in some cases to reach surface waters in concentrations high enough to impact aquatic life. Thiram appears to be hydrolytically labile under alkaline conditions, but relatively stable under acidic conditions ( half life > 68 days at pH 5). Aqueous photolysis data indicate a very short half life (< 1 day) for thiram, suggesting that in clear waters thiram may not persist. Thiram may thus be most potentially persistent in acidic waters with high turbidity or color, such as in peat bogs, or acidified, eutrophic lakes. Under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions in soil, data indicate that microbial metabolism of thiram is substantially biphasic, with rapid initial degradation for about the first week, followed by a period of much slower degradation. Aerobic aquatic data indicate rapid degradation in water. However, this may be offset by use patterns involving multiple, repeated applications which cause repeated pulse loadings to water bodies over the course of an application season.

Although the major agricultural use of thiram is as a seed treatment, it is the orchard and turf uses which present the most significant risks to endangered and non endangered aquatic organisms ( freshwater and marine/ estuarine fish, invertebrates, plants and algae) on an acute basis ( See Part V. Sec C.). This is in part because the application rate of the pesticide to the environment ( in terms of lbs./ acre) is substantially higher than that for treated seed. In addition to the higher application rate, the orchard and turf uses typically entail multiple applications, unlike seed, which is only " applied" to the environment at planting. A higher application rate means higher thiram concentrations in receiving waters such as low order streams draining agricultural areas. This explains the level of concern exceedances for acute risk to aquatic organisms from thiram usage on apples and turf ( See Aquatic Risk Assessment Tables 6 10). Currently there is 4 no modeling scenario to predict estimated exposure concentrations for pesticides used on strawberries. However, typical agricultural practices for growing strawberries treated with thiram may increase the risk of thiram entering adjacent aquatic organism habitats. These typical practices include using multiple applications ( 15 applications at 3.3 lbs. ai/ acre), and growing strawberries in plastic mulch beds. Risk of aquatic habitat contamination exist from these specific practices because the plastic surface underlying the mulch beds will decrease rain infiltration and increase runoff from the site of application. Multiple seasonal applications also increase the probability that thiram will enter water bodies at concentrations high enough to cause adverse effects to aquatic organisms.

The chronic toxicity data requirements for aquatic organisms have not yet been fulfilled. However, since thiram is moderately to very highly toxic to aquatic organisms on an acute basis, has adverse reproductive effects on other organisms, and is expected to reach surface waters and persist, EFED assumes thiram may pose an adverse chronic risk to aquatic organisms.

Although the acute risk quotients indicate that thiram presents an acute risk to birds and mammals for the foliar uses and an acute restricted use to birds and mammals for the seed uses, EFED concludes that the acute risk to birds and mammals is uncertain. This conclusion is based on the fact that lab studies indicate low toxicity to avian and mammal species, and that thiram is marketed as an animal repellant to protect treated seeds or foliage against birds and mammals. This repellency may prevent wildlife from oral consumption of concentrations high enough to warrant a concern for acute risk, if multiple seed ingestions are required for a lethal acute dose. However, EFED has no efficacy data on the effectiveness of thiram as an animal repellent. Therefore, EFED is not certain of the acute risk of thiram to birds and mammals.

Although EFED is uncertain of the acute risk to birds and mammals, EFED has concerns for the chronic risk of thiram to birds and mammals. Even though thiram is used as an animal repellant, birds and mammals could ingest enough of this chemical to pose chronic risks. The risk quotients for the foliar, turf, and seed treatments greatly exceed the level of concern for chronic risk to birds and mammals ( Mammal Risk Quotients range 2762 3.94; Bird Risk Quotients range 546 25; See Appendices C and D). Therefore, EFED predicts that there will be chronic risk to birds and mammals. These chronic risks include endangered species of mammals and birds.

EPA is required under the FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances ( including all pesticide active and other ingredients) " may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate." Following the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee ( EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was scientific basis for including, as part of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the Program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority 5 to require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ( EDSP).

When the appropriate screening and or testing protocols being considered under the Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program have been developed, thiram may be subjected to additional screening and or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption.

Based on the weight of the evidence, the following effects noted in Avian Reproduction studies on thiram ( MRID 43612501, 43612502) suggest possible endocrine system related action: abnormal egg production, reductions in eggs laid, abnormal embryos of eggs set, and abnormal hatchlings of eggs set.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL FATE ASSESSMENT The environmental fate database is incomplete because acceptable guideline studies on hydrolysis and adsorption/ desorption have not been submitted. The registrants are required to submit acceptable studies to fulfill these guideline requirements. Although these guideline study requirements have not been fulfilled at this time, the Agency has supplemental data for all of these studies, which can be used in conjunction with the acceptable guideline study data to qualitatively assess the environmental fate of the chemical.

A. Physical/ Chemical Properties Common Name: Thiram Chemical Name: Tetramethylthiuram disulfide PC code: 079801 CAS Number: 137 26 8 Chemical Class: Dimethyl dithiocarbamate Formulations: Dust, Flowable, Wettable Powder, Water Dispersable Granule, Water Suspension Molecular weight: 240.44 g/ mol Aqueous solubility: 30 ppm ( 25

C) Vapor pressure: Negligible at 25

C 6 B. Persistence Hydrolysis, photodegradation, and aerobic soil metabolism are the main degradative processes for thiram. Observed half lives are generally less than 18 days under the nominal or expected use conditions, producing the volatile degradates COS and CS 2 from hydrolysis and photodegradation, and CO 2 from aerobic metabolism. Non volatile degradates are formed at less than 10% of the applied.

In a study classified as supplemental, the hydrolysis half life for thiram ( MRID 41840601) was 68.5 days in pH 5 buffer, 3.5 days in pH 7 buffer, and 6.9 hours in pH 9 buffer. In another hydrolysis study ( MRID 45714101), thiram was stable ( half life= 169 days) in pH 5 buffer solution, while half lives in pH 7 and pH 9 buffer were 17.9 and 6.9 days, respectively. The pH 5 portion of the study was classified as acceptable, while the pH 7 and pH 9 portions were classified as supplemental.

In a supplemental aqueous photolysis study ( MRID 41753801), the half life of thiram was 10.4 hours in pH 5 buffer, while in a study classified as acceptable ( MRID 45651201), the photolytic half life was 7.2 hours in pH 5 buffer. No degradation was observed in dark controls in either study. In an acceptable soil photolysis study ( MRID 45724501), thiram degraded with a half life of 17.3 hours on a sandy loam soil at pH 6.6 ( the half life was 43.2 hours in the dark controls).

In an aerobic soil ( pH= 6.7) laboratory study ( MRID 43734901), thiram degraded with an overall half life of 17.2 days ( r2 = 0.74) in sandy loam soil, over a period of 205 days ( the reviewer calculated overall half life was 2.09 days by non linear regression). The minor degradate 1,1,3,3 tetramethyl 2 thiourea ( TMTU) was a maximum of 0.3% ( 0.069 ppm) of the applied radioactivity at 14 days posttreatment. The minor degradates 1,1,3,3 tetramethylurea ( TMU) and tetramethylthiuram monosulfide ( TMTM) were each < 0.1% ( 0.001 0.006 ppm) of the applied radioactivity. The minor volatile degradate 14CS 2 was < 3% of the applied radioactivity from 0 to 4 days posttreatment. Based on TLC analysis, the minor degradate dimethylcarbamo ( thioperoxic) acid ( M6.5) was a maximum of 8.7% ( 1.8 ppm) of the applied radioactivity at 4 days posttreatment. Evolved 14CO 2 accounted for 9.0% of the applied radioactivity at 2 days posttreatment and increased to a maximum of 74.9% by 205 days. The DT50, DT75, and DT90 for thiram were approximately 1.7, 4.8, and 9.8 days, respectively.

The aerobic aquatic metabolism of thiram was studied ( MRID 45243401) in flooded loamy sand and loam sediments ( water: soil ratio approximately 3: 1) that were treated at a rate equivalent to 3.2 kg ai/ ha and incubated in the dark at 20 ± 2

C for up to 101 days. During incubation, air was blown across the water surface without disturbing the sediment layer; redox potentials in the water and sediment ranged from 65 to 220 mV and  46 to  390 mV, respectively. Thiram degraded with reviewer calculated half lives of 1.5 and 2.1 days for pond and river water systems, respectively. Thiram was found only in the floodwater throughout the study. Three degradates, each present at < 5.5% of the applied, were identified using HPLC: 7 ° DMDTC ME ( dimethyldithiocarbamic acid methyl ester); ° TMTM ( tetramethylthiuram monosulphide); and ° DMDTC ( dimethyldithiocarbamic acid sodium salt dihydrate).

In addition, CS 2 ( carbon disulfide) and CO 2 were identified in the floodwater and volatile traps, and comprised > 60% of the applied at 101 days.

In an anaerobic aquatic study ( MRID 43628501), thiram degraded with an overall half life of 43.1 days ( 0 168 days data; r2 = 0.45) in flooded clay loam sediment, over a period of 252 days. The major degradate under anaerobic conditions was CS 2, comprising approximately 17% of the applied after 7 days of anaerobic incubation; no other anaerobic degradates were present at > 10% during the incubation. In both studies, degradation appeared to be biphasic, with faster degradation initially following application, followed by a slower degradation until the end of the study. The DT50, DT75, and DT90 were approximately 4.2, 8.1, and 20.6 days, respectively.

In terrestrial field studies conducted in California ( MRID 44724501), Thiram ( Spotrete J 75 WDG), broadcast applied eight times as a spray, at a nominal application rate of 10.3 lbs a. i./ A/ application, dissipated with half lives of 27.4 days ( r2 = 0.09; 0 1 month data) and 14.4 days ( r2 = 0.13; 0 14 day data) for bareground and turf plots of sandy loam soil ( pH 8.2 to 9.6), respectively, using first order linear regression. Dissipation was again biphasic in both plots. In terrestrial field studies conducted in North Carolina ( MRID 44724502), Thiram ( Spotrete ® 75WDG), broadcast applied eight times as a spray at a nominal application rate of 10.3 lb a. i./ A/ application, dissipated with half lives of 36 days ( r2 = 0.79; 0 60 day data) and 62.5 days ( r2 = 0.84; 0 90 day data) following the last of eight applications onto a bareground plot of sand soil ( pH 4.1 to 4.7) and a turf plot of loamy sand soil ( pH 4.4 to 4.5), respectively.

Volatilization is not expected to be a major route of dissipation due to thiram's low vapor pressure ( 2.3 mPa at 25

C, or 1.77 x 10 7 Torr). The major thiram degradates are volatile, and so are not expected to persist in soil or water.

C. Mobility Thiram residues appear to have low mobility in the environment. In a supplemental laboratory study ( MRID 43787501), Thiram, at concentrations of 0.01, 0.04, 0.20, and 1.07 mg/ L, was determined to be essentially immobile in sandy loam and silt loam soils, and to have low mobility in loam and loamy sand soils that were equilibrated for 4 hours at 20 oC ( a 4 hour equilibration period was first determined to be adequate). Freundlich K ads values were 54 for the sandy loam soil ( pH= 6.7), 150 for the loamy sand soil ( pH= 4.8), 67 for the silt loam soil ( pH= 6.7), and 263 for the loam soil ( pH= 7.3); corresponding K oc values were 2245, 24526, 6359, and 12899 mL/ g. Respective 1/ N values were 1.04, 1.15, 1.10, and 1.13 for adsorption. The degree of sorption of thiram to these soils was found not to be a function of the amount of organic matter present. 8 D. Monitoring data At this time, there are limited monitoring data available for thiram in either ground or surface water, with no reported detections. The Pesticides in Ground Water Database ( 1991) contains no records for thiram; STORET contains no detections of thiram. No detections of thiram have been reported to the Agency under 6( a) 2. The US Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment program ( NAWQA) is not currently analyzing for thiram in their samples, and they do not have analytical methods in place for this chemical.

V. AQUATIC EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT A. Hazard Assessment Thiram is moderately to very highly toxic to freshwater and estuarine fish on an acute basis ( 96 hour LC 50' s 42 to 7 ppb) ( see Appendix A, Tables 1 and 3). In addition, thiram on an acute basis is highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates ( EC 50: 210 ppb) and very highly toxic to marine/ estuarine invertebrates ( EC 50: 3.6 ppb).

EFED has required that chronic toxicity testing be conducted for freshwater and marine/ estuarine fish and invertebrates ( Memos: D260206 & D252135). This chronic toxicity data has not yet been submitted. Therefore, EFED cannot determine the chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms.

B. Aquatic Exposure Summary Tier II models PRZM and EXAMS were used to determine estimated concentrations of Thiram in surface waters for use on non residential turf, apples, and cotton seed. Model input parameters are presented in the following table. 9 Table 2. PRZM/ EXAMS Input Parameters Parameter Input Source/ Rationale Solubility ( ppm) 16 Registrant provided Aerobic soil t1/ 2 ( days) 6.27 3 × single value available; MRID 43734901 Hydrolysis t1/ 2 ( days), pH= 5 169 MRID 45714101 Hydrolysis t1/ 2 ( days), pH= 7 18 MRID 45714101 Hydrolysis t1/ 2 ( days), pH= 9 6.9 MRID 45714101 Aerobic aquatic t1/ 2 ( days) 3.2 From 90% C. L. on mean k ( 2 observations), adjusted to account for hydrolysis at pH 7; MRID 45243401 Aqueous photolysis t1/ 2 ( days) 0.3 MRID 45651201 CAM parameter 2 Reflects application to turf ` foliage'

Koc ( mL/ g) 11507 Mean value; MRID 43787501 Application rate, turf ( lb/ Acre) 10.18 From label Reg. No. 45728 1 Application rate, apples ( lb/ Acre) 4.49 From use closure memo, K. Rothwell, 2/ 22/ 2000 Application rate, cotton seed ( lb/ Acre) 0.01 From label Reg. No. 7501 80: ( 0.001 lb ai/ lb seed) × ( 10 lb seed/ acre)

Number of Applications, turf 8 Max. seasonal ( not annual) number; from use closure memo, K. Rothwell, 2/ 22/ 2000 Number of Applications, apples 5 Max. seasonal number; from use closure memo, K. Rothwell, 2/ 22/ 2000 Number of Applications, cotton seed 1 ` Application' only at planting Interval between applications, turf ( days) 7 Min. interval; from use closure memo, K. Rothwell, 2/ 22/ 2000 Interval between applications, apples ( days) 7 Assumed: value not specified on label, or in use closure memo, K. Rothwell, 2/ 22/ 2000 Date of first application, turf June 1 Reflects summer application season Date of first application, apples March 22 Reflects spring application season Using PRZM/ EXAMS and available environmental fate data for thiram, EFED calculated Tier II EECs for thiram in surface water for the uses with the maximum foliar and seed acreages ( apples and cotton, respectively). Detailed descriptions of these scenarios are given in Appendix I. 10 Table 3. Tier II Surface Water EECs ( farm pond) for thiram ( µ g/ L).

Use site Maximum 4 Day 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day 365 Day FL Turf, nonresidential 44.5 25.0 15.3 13.1 9.7 3.4 OR apples 20.0 12.5 8.9 5.8 4.4 1.6 MS cotton seed 0.29 0.02 0.007 0.0035 0.0027 0.001 Ecological EEC Summary: Peak Acute estimated surface water concentrations of Thiram applied at maximum label rates are 44.5 µ g/ L ( turf), 20.0 µ g/ L ( apples), and 0.029 µ g/ L ( cotton). Chronic ( 21 day) estimated surface water concentrations are 15.3 µ g/ L ( turf), 8.9 µ g/ L ( apples), and 0.007 µ g/ L ( cotton).

C. Aquatic Risk Assessment Below is a summary of the exceedances of the level of concern for acute risks to aquatic organisms ( freshwater and estuarine/ marine fish, invertebrates, plants and algae) for thiram usage. This summary is based on calculated risk quotients and only applies to thiram usage on nonresidential turf, apples, and cotton. Currently EFED does not have a modeling scenario for estimating aquatic concentrations of pesticides used on strawberries. Although there is reason to believe these concentrations may be high, EFED is unable to quantitatively determine risk quotients for thiram used on strawberries ( See Sec III Integrated Risk Characterization).

EFED has required the chronic studies, Fish Full Life Cycle Test ( Guideline 72 5), and the aquatic invertebrate life cycle test ( guideline 72 4) using the TGAI of thiram. These studies have not yet been submitted. However because of the adverse acute risk expected for aquatic organisms, and of the chronic adverse effects to mammals and birds, EFED assumes high potential chronic risk to aquatic organisms ( including endangered species).

Summary of acute risks to aquatic organisms Freshwater fish risk:

$ acute risk for non residential turf and apple uses ( risk includes endangered species).

Freshwater invertebrate risk:

$ acute risk for non residential turf and apple uses ( risk includes endangered species).

Marine/ Estuarine fish risk:

$ acute risk to non residential turf uses ( risk includes endangered species).

Marine/ Estuarine Invertebrate risk: 11 $ acute risk for non residential turf and apple uses ( risk includes endangered species).

Risk quotients are tabulated below.

Freshwater Fish The acute freshwater fish risk quotients are calculated below.

Table 4. Acute Risk Quotients for Freshwater Fish Based on a Bluegill Sunfish ( Leopmis macrochirus) LC50 of 42 ppb.

Site/ Application Method LC50 ( ppb) EEC Initial/ Peak ( ppb) Acute RQ ( EEC/ LC50)

Turf/ ground 42 44.5 A 1.05 B Apples/ aerial foliar application 42 20.0 A 0.47 B Cotton/ seed application 42 0.029 A < 0.05 C A Tier II Surface Water EECs for thiram ( µ g/ L). B Exceeds the level of concern of acute risk to freshwater fish ( including endangered species). C Does not exceed the level concern.

Freshwater Invertebrates The freshwater invertebrates acute risk quotients are tabulated below.

Table 5. Acute Risk Quotients for Freshwater Invertebrates Based on a Water Flea ( Daphnia Magna) LC50 of 210 ppb.

Site/ Application Method LC50 ( ppb) EEC Initial/ Peak ( ppb) Acute RQ ( EEC/ LC50)

Turf/ ground 210 44.5 A 0.21 B Apples/ aerial foliar application 210 20.0 A 0.10 B Cotton/ seed application 210 0.029 A < 0.05 C A Tier II Surface Water EECs for thiram ( µ g/ L). B Exceeds the level of concern of acute risk to freshwater fish ( including endangered species). C Does not exceed the level concern. 12 Estuarine and Marine Fish The estuarine and marine fish acute risk quotients are tabulated below.

Table 6. Acute Risk Quotients for Estuarine and Marine Fish Based on a Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus) LC50 of 540 ppb.

Site/ Application Method LC50 ( ppb) EEC Initial/ Peak ( ppb) Acute RQ ( EEC/ LC50)

Turf/ ground 540 44.5 A 0.082 B Apples/ aerial foliar application 540 22.0 A < 0.05 C Cotton/ seed application 540 0.047 A < 0.05 C A Tier II Surface Water EECs for thiram ( µ g/ L). B Exceeds the level of concern of acute risk to freshwater fish ( including endangered species). C Does not exceed the level of concern.

Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates The estuarine and marine fish acute risk quotients are tabulated below.

Table 7. Acute Risk Quotients for Estuarine/ Marine Aquatic Invertebrates Based on a Mysid Shrimp ( Americamysis bahia) LC50 of 3.6 ppb.

Site/ Application Method LC50 ( ppb) EEC Initial/ Peak ( ppb) Acute RQ ( EEC/ LC50)

Turf/ ground 3.6 44.5 A 12.36 B Apples/ aerial foliar application 3.6 20.0 A 6.11 B Cotton/ seed application 3.6 0.029 A < 0.05 C A Tier II Surface Water EECs for thiram ( µ g/ L). B Exceeds the level of concern of acute risk to freshwater fish ( including endangered species). C Does not exceed the level of concern.

Aquatic Plants and Algae The aquatic plant acute risk quotients are tabulated below. The level of concern for risk to aquatic plants is not exceeded. 13 Table 8. Acute Risk Quotients for Aquatic plants Based on a Selena strum Capricornutum EC50 of 140 ppb and a Lemma Gibba EC 50 of 1600 ppb Site/ Application Method EC50 ( ppb; Selena strum Capricorn utum) EC50 ( ppb; Lemma Gibba) EEC Initial/ Peak ( ppb) Acute RQ ( EEC/ LC50) Acute RQ ( Lemma Gibba; Aquatic Vascular Plants)

Turf/ ground 140 1600 44.5 A < 1 C < 1 C Apples/ aerial foliar application 140 1600 20.0 A < 1 C < 1 C Cotton/ seed application 140 1600 0.029 A < 1 C < 1 C A Tier II Surface Water EECs for thiram ( µ g/ L). B Exceeds the level of concern of risk . C Does not exceed the level concern.

Endangered Species Assessment ( Aquatic)

Both the non residential turf and apples uses exceed the level of concern for risks to endangered freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates, estuarine/ marine invertebrates. There is an exceedence of the level of concern risk to endangered marine/ estuarine fish only for the turf use.

VI. DRINKING WATER ASSESSMENT Tier II models PRZM and EXAMS were used to determine estimated concentrations in surface waters for use on non residential turf, employing the Index Reservoir ( IR) water body with a Percent Crop Area ( PCA) adjustment for the turf farm use, and a similar areal adjustment for the golf course use to reflect percent coverage in tees and greens. The tier I screening model SCI GROW was used to estimate concentrations of thiram in groundwater.

A. Surface Water EECs Tier II models PRZM and EXAMS were used to determine estimated concentrations of Thiram in surface waters for use on non residential turf, apples, and cotton seed. Model input parameters are presented in the following table.

Table 9. PRZM/ EXAMS Input Parameters Parameter Input Source/ Rationale Solubility ( ppm) 16 Registrant provided Aerobic soil t1/ 2 ( days) 6.27 3 × single value available; MRID 43734901 Hydrolysis t1/ 2 ( days), pH= 5 169 MRID 45714101 Hydrolysis t1/ 2 ( days), pH= 7 18 MRID 45714101 14 Hydrolysis t1/ 2 ( days), pH= 9 6.9 MRID 45714101 Aerobic aquatic t1/ 2 ( days) 3.2 From 90% C. L. on mean k ( 2 observations), adjusted to account for hydrolysis at pH 7; MRID 45243401 Aqueous photolysis t1/ 2 ( days) 0.3 MRID 45651201 CAM parameter 2 Reflects application to turf ` foliage'

Koc ( mL/ g) 11507 Mean value; MRID 43787501 Application rate, turf ( lb/ Acre) 10.19 From label Reg. No. 45728 1 Application rate, apples ( lb/ Acre) 4.49 From use closure memo, K. Rothwell, 2/ 22/ 2000 Application rate, cotton seed ( lb/ Acre) 0.01 From label Reg. No. 7501 80: ( 0.001 lb ai/ lb seed) × ( 10 lb seed/ acre)

Number of Applications, turf 8 Max. seasonal ( not annual) number; from use closure memo, K. Rothwell, 2/ 22/ 2000 Number of Applications, apples 5 Max. seasonal number; from use closure memo, K. Rothwell, 2/ 22/ 2000 Number of Applications, cotton seed 1 ` Application' only at planting Interval between applications, turf ( days) 7 Min. interval; from use closure memo, K. Rothwell, 2/ 22/ 2000 Interval between applications, apples ( days) 7 Assumed: value not specified on label, or in use closure memo, K. Rothwell, 2/ 22/ 2000 Date of first application, turf June 1 Reflects summer application season Date of first application, apples March 22 Reflects spring application season Percent crop area, turf farm and apples 0.87 Default PCA Percent golf course in greens & tees 0.27 Standard assumption for golf courses; memo 2/ 27/ 2002 from E. Leovey to EFED Using PRZM/ EXAMS and available environmental fate data for thiram, EFED calculated Tier II EECs for thiram using Index Reservoir scenarios for the uses with the maximum foliar and seed acreages ( apples and cotton, respectively). The Index Reservoir is intended as a drop in replacement for the standard pond for use in drinking water assessments. It is used in a manner similar to the standard pond except that flow rates are calibrated to be consistent with local weather conditions. The morphology of the reservoir and its watershed are designed to correspond with those of Shipman City Lake, a small reservoir in Illinois selected to represent small runoff vulnerable drinking water surface supplies in agricultural areas. As with the standard pond, soils are selected to represent the regions in the modeled scenarios. Detailed descriptions of the scenarios used in this assessment are presented in Appendix I. 15 Table 10. Tier II Surface Drinking Water EECs ( index reservoir) for thiram ( µ g/ L).

Use site Acute ( Max. daily average), µ g/ L Chronic, non cancer ( µ g/ L) Chronic, cancer ( µ g/ L)

Turf, FL ( Turf farm) 47.8 2.5 2.2 Turf, FL ( Golf course) 14.8 0.78 0.67 Apples, OR 16.3 1.2 1.1 Cotton seed, MS 0.006 0.0002 0.00007 B. Groundwater EECs EFED used the Tier I screening model SCIGROW to estimate concentrations of thiram in ground water. Model input parameters and EECs are presented in tables 12 and 13, respectively.

Table 11. Ground Water Exposure Inputs for SCIGROW for Thiram.

Parameter Input Source/ Rationale Aerobic soil t1/ 2 ( days) 6.27 days Single available value; MRID 43734901 Koc 9629 Median of four available values; MRID 43734901 Annual application rate ( lb a. i./ acre/ yr) 146.6 Max. annual label rate; Reg. No. 45728 1; from use closure memo, K. Rothwell, 2/ 22/ 2000 Table 12. Ground Water EECs for thiram ( µ g/ L)

Use site Acute and Chronic conc., µ g/ L Turf, FL ( Turf farm) 0.84 Apples, OR 0.13 Cotton seed, MS 0.00006 C. Monitoring Data At this time, there are limited monitoring data available for thiram in either ground or surface water, with no reported detections. The Pesticides in Ground Water Database ( 1991) contains no records for thiram; STORET contains no detections of thiram. No detections of thiram have been reported to the Agency under 6( a) 2. The U. S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment program ( NAWQA) is not currently analyzing for thiram in their samples, and they do not have analytical methods in place for this chemical. 16 VII. TERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT A. Hazard Assessment Since the LD50 falls in the range of > 100 > 2800 mg/ kg, thiram is categorized as moderately toxic to practically nontoxic to avian species on an acute oral basis. Because the LC50 falls in the range of 1000> 5000 ppm, thiram is categorized as slightly toxic to practically nontoxic to avian species on a subacute dietary basis ( see Appendix A, Table 5).

Study results indicate that thiram is practically nontoxic to small mammals on an acute oral basis ( Acute oral LC 50 2600 mg/ kg). For chronic toxicity effects a reduction in body weight of mammals was observed at a NOAEC of 1.9 mg/ kg/ day.

Thiram is practically nontoxic to the honeybee ( LD 50> 200  g/ bee).

B. Terrestrial Exposure Summary Foliar and turf uses The terrestrial EECs were calculated using the spread sheet routine entitled " LFATE". ( See Appendix C. for the assumptions). The peak EECs were used to calculate the acute and chronic risk for each of the use sites. EFED chose the peak EEC because the foliar and turf uses typically entail frequent multiple applications ( applications per year range of 3.44 to 15 and the intervals between the applications range from 7 10 days). Because thiram's use involves frequent repeated applications, and thiram has a slow rate of degradation, the EECs for foliar and turf uses are expected to remain at or near peak concentrations throughout the growing season.

Table 13. Expected Environmental Concentrations for Exposure to Terrestrial Wildlife.

Site, Appl. Method Appl. Rate ( lbs ai/ A)/# of Appl/ Frequency of Appl( days) Terrestrial EEC ( ppm)

Short Grass ( ppm) max* Tall Grass ( ppm) max* Broadleaf Plants & Small Insects max* Fruit & Large Insects max*

peaches ground application, max. per season rate 3.8/ 8/ 7 2666.4 1222.1 1499.8 166.7 apples ground application, max. per season rate 4.5/ 5/ 10 3586.2 1643.7 2017.2 224.13 strawberries ground application, max. per season rate 3.3/ 15/ 10 3719.11 1704.59 2092 232.44 Turf, ground application, max per season rate 13.5/ 8/ 7 15863.33 7270.92 8923.41 991.49 * Value ( max concentration) used to calculate acute and chronic risk quotients. 17 Seed uses Seeds are treated with thiram before they are planted. Therefore, EFED has calculated the EEC for seed use based the residual concentration of thiram on the seed. The EEC of thiram as residue on seeds is 1000 ppm. The EEC concentration is calculated as follows :

0.001 lbs ai./ lbs seed ( in accordance to label) = 1000 ppm ai as residue on seeds C. Quantitative Risk Assessment Birds Acute risk quotients for birds are calculated based on the acute dietary LC 50 of 3950 ppm for the northern bobwhite quail. Chronic risk quotients for birds are calculated using the LOAEC ( 9.6 ppm) obtained from the bird reproductive studies testing the Mallard and Northern bobwhite quail.

The level of concern is exceeded for acute risk to birds for foliar and turf uses, and the LOC is exceeded for acute restricted risk to birds for use on seeds ( See Appendix D). In addition, the level of concern is exceeded for chronic risk to birds for foliar, turf, and seed uses. EFED concludes that although thiram exposure from the seed uses may not be continuous or recurring, chronic effects to birds may occur as a result of initial exposure to planted seeds. Furthermore, the chronic risk to birds for any of the uses can only be partially assessed because the chronic toxicity data requirements for birds is only partially fulfilled ( See Appendix A. Toxicity Summary Sec. A).

Mammals Acute and chronic risk quotients for mammals are calculated based on the results of toxicity tests obtained from HED. The value used to determine the acute risk quotients is 2600 mg/ kg. The value used to determine the chronic risk quotients is 1.9 mg/ kg.

The level of concern is exceeded for acute risk to mammals including endangered species for foliar uses and turf, and the level of concern is exceeded for acute restricted risk to mammals including endangered species for only the seed uses. The level of concern is exceeded for chronic risk to mammals including endangered species for use on foliar, turf, and seed. EFED concludes that although thiram exposure from the seed uses may not be continuous or recurring, chronic effects to mammals may occur as a result of initial exposure to planted seeds.

Appendix D demonstrates the acute and chronic risk quotients for mammals for use on turf, seed, and foliar ( apples, peaches, and strawberries). 18 Insects Thiram is practically nontoxic to the honeybee ( LD 50> 200  g/ bee). Therefore, the new uses are predicted to pose minimal risk to nontarget insects.

Threatened or endangered species The level of concern for turf, foliar, and seed uses is exceeded for acute and chronic risk to threatened or endangered species of birds and mammals. 19 APPENDIX A Ecotoxicity Data I. Toxicity to Freshwater Organisms a. Freshwater Fish, Acute Two freshwater fish toxicity studies using the TGAI are required to establish the toxicity of thiram to fish. The preferred test species are rainbow trout ( a coldwater fish) and bluegill sunfish ( a warmwater fish). Results of these tests are tabulated below.

Table 1. Freshwater Fish Acute Toxicity Species/ Flow through or Static % ai 96 hour LC50 ( ppb) Toxicity Category Study Identification Study Classification Bluegill Sunfish ( Leopmis macrochirus) 99 42 Very Highly Toxic MRID070801 Core Bluegill Sunfish ( Leopmis macrochirus) 75 280 Highly Toxic BAOTH102 Supplemental Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) 75 500 Highly Toxic 00090293 Supplemental Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Harlequin fish ( Rasbar heteromorpha) 99 80 130 7 Highly Toxic Very Highly Toxic BAOTH102 00034713 Core Supplemental Since the LC50 falls in the range of < 1 1000 ppb, thiram is categorized as highly toxic to very highly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis. The guideline ( 72 1) is fulfilled.

b. Freshwater Fish, Chronic EFED has requested that a Fish Full Life Cycle Test ( Guideline 72 5) using the TGAI for thiram. The preferred test species is the fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas). The guideline ( 72 5) has not yet been fulfilled. The study must be conducted to fully satisfy the requirement. The study was requested for the following reasons:

 The pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent.

 FIFRA requires a fish life cycle test for any pesticide if the aquatic acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1 ppm. The LC50 of the freshwater species, the rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss), is 0.130 ppm ( Study Identification # BAOTH102). 20 c. Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute A freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity test ( guideline 72 2) using the TGAI is required to establish the toxicity of thiram to aquatic invertebrates. The preferred test species is Daphnia magna. Results of this test are tabulated below.

Table 2. Freshwater Invertebrate Acute Toxicity Species/ Static or Flowthrough % ai 48 hour LC50 ( ppm) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Waterflea ( Daphnia magna) 98 0.21 highly toxic 164662 Core Thiram is categorized as highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates on an acute basis. The guideline ( 72 2) is fulfilled.

d. Freshwater Invertebrate, Chronic ( Guideline 72 4)

EFED has requested the freshwater aquatic invertebrate life cycle test ( guideline 72 4) using the TGAI of thiram. The preferred test species is the water flea ( Daphnia magna). The guideline ( 72 4) has not yet been fulfilled. The study was requested for the following reasons:

 The pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent.

 FIFRA guidelines require both the freshwater aquatic invertebrate life cycle test for any pesticide if the aquatic acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1 ppm. The waterflea ( Daphnia magna) is 0.21 ppm ( MRID 164662).

II. Toxicity to Estuarine and Marine Animals a. Estuarine and Marine Fish, Acute Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/ marine fish using the TGAI is required for Thiram because the end use product is expected to reach marine/ estuarine habitats. The preferred test species is sheepshead minnow. Results of these tests are tabulated below.

Table 3. Estuarine/ Marine Fish Acute Toxicity Species/ Static or Flow through % ai 96 hour LC50 ( ppm) ( measured/ nominal) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus) 98 0.54 Highly Toxic 425144 01 Core Since the LC50 falls in the range of 0.54 ppm, is categorized as highly toxic to estuarine/ marine fish on an acute basis. The guideline ( 72 3a) is fulfilled. 21 b. Estuarine and Marine Fish, Chronic EFED has requested the estuarine/ marine fish life cycle test ( guideline 72 5) using the TGAI of thiram. The preferred test species is the sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus). The guideline ( 72 5) has not yet been fulfilled. The study must be conducted to fully satisfy the requirement. The study was requested for the following reasons:

 The pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent.

 FIFRA requires a fish life cycle test for any pesticide if the aquatic acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1 ppm. The LC50 of the estuarine marine species, the sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegtus), is 0.54 ppm ( Study Identification MRID425144 01).

c. Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates, Acute Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/ marine invertebrates using the TGAI is required for thiram because the end use product is intended for direct application to the marine/ estuarine environment or the active ingredient is expected to reach this environment because of its use in coastal counties. The preferred test species are mysid shrimp and eastern oyster. Results of these tests are tabulated below.

Table 4. Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrate Acute Toxicity Species/ Static or Flow through % ai. LC50/ EC50 ( ppb) ( measured/ nominal) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Eastern oyster ( shell deposition or embryolarvae ( Crassostrea gigas) 98.3 4.7 EC50 very highly toxic 424883 01 Core Mysid ( Americamysis bahia) 98.3 3.6 LC50 very highly toxic 424883 02 Core Since the LC50/ EC50 falls in the range of < 1 ppb, thiram is categorized as very highly toxic to estuarine/ marine invertebrates on an acute basis. The guideline ( 72 3b and 72 3c) is fulfilled.

d. Estuarine and Marine Invertebrate, Chronic EFED has requested the estuarine/ marine aquatic invertebrate life cycle test ( guideline 72 4) using the TGAI of thiram. The preferred test species is the Mysid ( Americamysis bahia). The guideline ( 72 4) has not yet been fulfilled. The study must be conducted to fully satisfy the requirement. The study was requested for the following reasons:

 The pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent. 22  FIFRA guidelines require the estuarine/ marine aquatic invertebrate life cycle test for any pesticide if the aquatic acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1 ppm. The acute LC50' s for the eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginia) and the mysid shrimp ( Mysidopis bahia) are 0.0047 ppm and 0.0036 ppm respectively ( MRIDs 424883 01 and 424883 02).

1. Ecological Toxicity Data a. Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals i. Birds, Acute and Subacute An acute oral toxicity study using the technical grade of the active ingredient ( TGAI) is required to establish the toxicity of thiram to birds. The preferred test species is either mallard duck ( a waterfowl) or bobwhite quail ( an upland gamebird). Results of this test are tabulated below.

Table 5. Avian Acute Oral Toxicity Species % ai LD50 ( mg/ kg) Toxicity Category Identification No. Study Classification1 Ring neck Pheasant ( Phasianus colchicus) 99 673 moderately toxic Baoth103 Supplemental Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos)

Red wing blackbird ( Agelaius phoeniceus)

Starling 14 Day ( Sturnus vulgatis) 99 99 99 > 2800 > 100 > 100 practically nontoxic moderately toxic moderately toxic Baoth103 MRID 075683 MRID 075683 Core Supplemental Supplemental 1 Core ( study satisfies guideline). Supplemental ( study is scientifically sound, but does not satisfy guideline)

Since the LD50 falls in the range of 51  > 2000 mg/ kg, thiram is categorized as moderately toxic to practically nontoxic to avian species on an acute oral basis. The avian acute oral toxicity test requirement, guideline 71 1, is fulfilled. 23 Two subacute dietary studies using the TGAI are required to establish the toxicity of thiram to birds. The preferred test species are mallard duck and bobwhite quail. Results of these tests are tabulated below.

Table 6. Avian Subacute Dietary Toxicity Species % ai 5 Day LC50 ( ppm) 1 Toxicity Category MRID No. Study Classification Bobwhite ( Colinus virginianus)

Mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos)

Ring necked pheasant ( Phasianus colchicus)

Japanese quail ( Coturnix c. japonia) Tech Tech.

Tech Tech 3950 5000 > 5000 > 5000 slightly toxic slightly toxic pratically nontoxic pratically nontoxic MRID 022923 MRID 022923 MRID 022923 MRID 022923 Core Core Supplemental Supplemental 1 Test organisms observed an additional three days while on untreated feed.

Since the LC50 falls in the range of 1000> 5000 ppm, thiram is categorized as slightly toxic to practically nontoxic to avian species on a subacute dietary basis. The guideline ( 71 2) is fulfilled.

ii. Birds, Chronic Avian reproduction studies using the TGAI are required for thiram because the following conditions are met: ( 1) birds may be subject to repeated or continuous exposure to the pesticide, especially preceding or during the breeding season, ( 2) the pesticide is stable in the environment to the extent that potentially toxic amounts may persist in animal feed, ( 3) the pesticide is stored or accumulated in plant or animal tissues, and/ or, ( 4) information derived from mammalian reproduction studies indicates reproduction in terrestrial vertebrates may be adversely affected by the anticipated use of the product. The preferred test species are mallard duck and bobwhite quail. Results of these tests are tabulated below. 24 Table 7. Avian Reproduction Species/ Study Duration % ai NOEC/ LOEC ( ppm) LOEC Endpoints MRID No. Author/ Year Study Classification Northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus) 97.5 500/ 2500 egg production, reductions in the egg set of eggs laid, viable embryos of eggs set, normal hatchlings of eggs laid, normal hatchlings of eggs set, and 14 day old survivors of eggs set; and reductions in feed consumption, 14 day old survivor weight, and hen bodyweights. 436125 02 Core Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos) 98.7 9.6/ 39.7 eggs set, viable embryos, live 3 week embryos, normal hatchlings, 14 day old survivors, eggs set/ eggs laid, normal hatchlings/ live 3 week embryos, and normal hatchlings/ eggs laid 45441201 Core Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos) 97.5 < 50/ 50 egg productions, eggs set/ eggs laid, and normal hatchlings/ eggs laid 436125 01 Supplemental iii. Mammals, Acute and Chronic Wild mammal testing is required on a case by case basis, depending on the results of lower tier laboratory mammalian studies, intended use pattern and pertinent environmental fate characteristics. In most cases, rat or mouse toxicity values obtained from the Agency's Health Effects Division ( HED) substitute for wild mammal testing. These toxicity values are reported below.

Table 8. Mammalian Toxicity Species/ Study Duration % ai Test Type/ Classification Toxicity Value Affected Endpoints MRID No.

laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus)

laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus) 99.0 97.5 Acute Oral LD50 Reproduction Study 2 Generation Species/ Core 2600 mg/ kg 1.9 mg/ kg/ day Mortality Body Weight 00153548 42095901 An analysis of the results indicate that thiram is categorized as practically nontoxic to small mammals on an acute oral basis.

iv. Insects 25 A honey bee acute contact study using the TGAI is required for thiram because its foliar uses ( peaches, strawberries, and apples) will result in honey bee exposure. Results of this test are tabulated below.

Table 9. Nontarget Insect Acute Contact Toxicity Species % ai LD50 Toxicity Category MRID No. Study Classification Honey bee ( Apis mellifera) technical 73.72 ( ug/ bee) non toxic 0003635 core An analysis of the results indicate that thiram categorize as nontoxic to bees on an acute contact basis. The guideline ( 141 1) is fulfilled.

II. Toxicity to Plants a. Terrestrial Currently, terrestrial plant testing is not required for pesticides other than herbicides except on a case by case basis ( e. g., labeling bears phytotoxicity warnings incident data or literature that demonstrate phytotoxicity). Therefore, EFED does not require terrestrial plant testing for thiram.

b. Aquatic Aquatic plant testing ( EC 50 Aquatic Plant Test: Guideline 122 2 ( Tier I )) is required for thiram for the following reasons: 1) It has outdoor non residential terrestrial uses. 2) It may move off site by runoff ( solubility > 10 ppm in water) or may move by drift ( aerial or irrigation) 3) It is applied directly to aquatic use sites. The tier I study as defined in the Pesticide Registration Rejection Rate Analysis ( EPA 738 R 94 085 December 1994) requires the EC50 aquatic plant test for Lemna gibba and Selenastrum capricornutum. The results of the aquatic plant toxicity tests are demonstrated below in Table 10.

Table 10. Nontarget Insect Acute Contact Toxicity Species % ai LD50 MRID No. Study Classification Selenastrum capricornutum 99% 0.14 ppm 44086101 Core Lemma Gibba 98.7% 1.6 mg a. i./ L 45441202 Core 26 APPENDIX B Tier I Model Limitations Limitations of the SCI GROW Analysis The SCI GROW model ( Screening Concentrations in Ground Water) is a model for estimating concentrations of pesticides in ground water under " maximum loading" conditions. SCI GROW provides a screening concentration; an estimate of likely ground water concentrations if the pesticide is used at the maximum allowed label rate in areas with ground water exceptionally vulnerable to contamination. In most cases, a majority of the use area will have ground water that is less vulnerable to contamination than the areas used to derive the SCIGROW estimate.

The SCI GROW model is based on scaled ground water concentration from ground water monitoring studies, environmental fate properties ( aerobic soil half lives and organic carbon partitioning coefficients K oc's) and application rates. The model is based on permeable soils that are vulnerable to leaching and on shallow ground water ( 10 30 feet). 27 APPENDIX C Assumptions used in the LFATE spreadsheet program A first order decay assumption is used to determine the concentration at each day after initial application based on the concentration resulting from the initial and additional applications. The decay is calculated from the first order rate equation:

CT = C i e kT or in integrated form: ln ( CT/ C i) =  kT Where: CT = concentration at time T on day zero C i = concentration in parts per million ( ppm) present initially ( on day zero) on the surfaces. C i is calculated based on Canoga and Fletcher by multiplying the application rate, in pounds active ingredient per acre, by 240 for short grass, 110 for tall grass, and 135 for broad leaf plants/ insects and 15 for seeds. Additional applications are converted from pounds active ingredient per acre to PPM on the plant surface and the addition mass added to the mass of the chemical still present on the surfaces on the day of application.

k= degradation rate constant determined from studies of hydrolysis, photolysis, microbial degradation, etc. Since degradation rate is generally reported in terms of half life, the rate constant is calculated from the input half life ( k = ln 2/ T1/ 2) instead of being input directly. In accordance with EFED policy since the half life of thiram is greater than 30 ( days), the half life chosen to calculate the terrestrial EEC is 30 days ( EFED Policy Memorandum, Calculation of Terrestrial EECs, August 20, 1999).

T= time, in days, since the start of the simulation. The initial application is on day 0. The simulation is set to run for 365 days.

The following table demonstrates the input value for the LFATE program for each of the crop uses.

Table A. Input values for LFATE Crops Half life ( k) ( days) Frequency of Applications Maximum # of Applications per Year Application Rate apples 30 10 5 4.5 peaches 30 10 3.44 3.8 strawberries 30 10 15 3.3 Turf 30 7 8 13.6 28 The program calculates concentration on each type of surface on a daily interval for one year. The maximum concentration during the year and the average concentration during the first 56 days are calculated.

Table A. Acute and Chronic Risk Quotients Calculations for Birds for Seed Uses Only Concentration of Thiram as residue on treated seeds ( ppm) LC50 ppm NOEAC ppm Acute RQ1( EEC/ LC50) Chronic RQ ( EEC/ NOEAC)

999 3950 9.6 0.25 104 Table B. Mammalian ( Herbivore/ Insectivore) Acute and Chronic Risk Quotients for Application of Thiram on Seed Uses Based on a Rat Acute LD50 of 2600 and a Rat Chronic NOAEL of 1.9 mg/ kg Concentration as Residue on Seed ( ppm) Body Weight ( g) % Body Weight Consumed Rat LD50 ( mg/ kg) Rat Chronic NOEAC ( 1.9 mg/ kg/ day) converted to ppm) Acute RQ1 Chronic RQ 999 15 95 2600 38 0.36 24.97 35 66 2600 38 0.25 17.35 1000 15 2600 38 0.06 3.94 RQ = EEC ( ppm)/ LD50 ( mg/ kg)* % Body Weight Consumed APPENDIX D 29 Chemical Name: Thiram Use Apples Formulation Technical Inputs Application Rate 4.5 lbs a. i./ acre Half life 30 days Frequency of Application 7 days Maximum # Apps./ Year 8 Outputs Maximum 56 day Average Concentration Concentration ( PPM) ( PPM) Short Grass 5249.06 3264.00 Tall Grass 2405.82 1496.00 # days Broadleaf plants/ sm Insects 2952.60 1836.00 Exceeded Fruits/ pods/ lg insects 328.07 204.00 on short grass ( in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 ( ppm) 3950 21 Chronic NOAEC ( ppm) 9.6 56 Max Single Application which does NOT exceed Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 16.458 ( Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.040 ( lb a. i.) Short Grass 1.33 546.78 Tall Grass 0.61 250.61 # days Mammalian Acute 72.22 Broadleaf plants/ sm Insects 0.75 307.56 Exceeded Mammalian Chronic 0.01 Fruits/ pods/ lg insects 0.08 34.17 on short grass ( in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 ( mg/ kg bw/ d 2600 38 Rat Calculated LC50 ( ppm) 52000 Chronic NOAEL ( mg/ kg 1.9 56 Rat Calculated NOAEL ( ppm) 38 15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal Rat Acute Rat Chronic Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary ( mult. apps) ( mult. apps) ( mult. apps) RQ RQ Short Grass 1.92 1.33 0.30 0.10 2762.66 Tall Grass 0.88 0.61 0.14 0.05 1266.22 Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 1.08 0.75 0.17 0.06 1554.00 Fruits/ pods/ lg insects 0.12 0.08 0.02 0.01 172.67 Seeds ( granivore) 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01 Length of Simulation 1 year Level of Concern 193.00 ( ppm)

Acute Mammalian RQs Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plantsFruit/ pods/ lg insects 15 95 1.92 0.88 1.08 0.12 Herbivores/ 35 66 1.33 0.61 0.75 0.08 insectivores 1000 15 0.30 0.14 0.17 0.02 21 21 0.03 Grainivores 35 15 0.02 1000 3 0.00 Chronic Mammalian RQs 2762.66 1266.22 1554.00 172.67 Terresterial Application Residues 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 Days Concentration ( PPM) Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm Insects Fruits/ pods/ l Terrestrial ( Bird and Mammal) Risk Quotient Calculation For Foliar, Turf and Seed Uses Figure A. Terrestrial Organism Risk Quotient Calculations for Thiram Use on Apples 30 Chemical Name: Thiram Use Peaches Formulation Technical Inputs Application Rate 3.8 lbs a. i./ acre Half life 30 days Frequency of Application 7 days Maximum # Apps./ Year 8 Outputs Maximum 56 day Average Concentration Concentration ( PPM) ( PPM) Short Grass 4432.54 2756.27 Tall Grass 2031.58 1263.29 # days Broadleaf plants/ sm Insects 2493.30 1550.40 Exceeded Fruits/ pods/ lg insects 277.03 172.27 on short grass ( in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 ( ppm) 3950 8 Chronic NOAEC ( ppm) 9.6 56 Max Single Application which does NOT exceed Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 16.458 ( Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.040 ( lb a. i.) Short Grass 1.12 461.72 Tall Grass 0.51 211.62 # days Mammalian Acute 72.22 Broadleaf plants/ sm Insects 0.63 259.72 Exceeded Mammalian Chronic 0.01 Fruits/ pods/ lg insects 0.07 28.86 on short grass ( in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 ( mg/ kg bw/ d 2600 33 Rat Calculated LC50 ( ppm) 52000 Chronic NOAEL ( mg/ kg 1.9 56 Rat Calculated NOAEL ( ppm) 38 15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal Rat Acute Rat Chronic Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary ( mult. apps) ( mult. apps) ( mult. apps) RQ RQ Short Grass 1.62 1.13 0.26 0.09 2332.92 Tall Grass 0.74 0.52 0.12 0.04 1069.25 Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.91 0.63 0.14 0.05 1312.27 Fruits/ pods/ lg insects 0.10 0.07 0.02 0.01 145.81 Seeds ( granivore) 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 Length of Simulation 1 year Level of Concern 193.00 ( ppm)

Acute Mammalian RQs Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plantsFruit/ pods/ lg insects 15 95 1.62 0.74 0.91 0.10 Herbivores/ 35 66 1.13 0.52 0.63 0.07 insectivores 1000 15 0.26 0.12 0.14 0.02 21 21 0.02 Grainivores 35 15 0.02 1000 3 0.00 Chronic Mammalian RQs 2332.92 1069.25 1312.27 145.81 Terresterial Application Residues 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 Days Concentration ( PPM) Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm Insects Fruits/ pods/ l Figure B. Terrestrial Organism Risk Quotient Calculations for Thiram Use on Peaches 31 Figure C. Terrestrial Organism Risk Quotient Calculations for Thiram Use on Strawberries. 32 Chemical Name: Thiram Use Strawberries Formulation Technical Inputs Application Rate 3.3 lbs a. i./ acre Half life 30 days Frequency of Application 7 days Maximum # Apps./ Year 8 Outputs Maximum 56 day Average Concentration Concentration ( PPM) ( PPM) Short Grass 3849.31 2393.60 Tall Grass 1764.27 1097.07 # days Broadleaf plants/ sm Insects 2165.24 1346.40 Exceeded Fruits/ pods/ lg insects 240.58 149.60 on short grass ( in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 ( ppm) 3950 0 Chronic NOAEC ( ppm) 9.6 56 Max Single Application which does NOT exceed Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 16.458 ( Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.040 ( lb a. i.) Short Grass 0.97 400.97 Tall Grass 0.45 183.78 # days Mammalian Acute 72.22 Broadleaf plants/ sm Insects 0.55 225.55 Exceeded Mammalian Chronic 0.01 Fruits/ pods/ lg insects 0.06 25.06 on short grass ( in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 ( mg/ kg bw/ d 2600 27 Rat Calculated LC50 ( ppm) 52000 Chronic NOAEL ( mg/ kg 1.9 56 Rat Calculated NOAEL ( ppm) 38 15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal Rat Acute Rat Chronic Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary ( mult. apps) ( mult. apps) ( mult. apps) RQ RQ Short Grass 1.41 0.98 0.22 0.07 2025.95 Tall Grass 0.64 0.45 0.10 0.03 928.56 Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.79 0.55 0.12 0.04 1139.60 Fruits/ pods/ lg insects 0.09 0.06 0.01 0.00 126.62 Seeds ( granivore) 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 Length of Simulation 1 year Level of Concern 193.00 ( ppm)

Acute Mammalian RQs Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plants/ Fruit/ pods/ lg insects 15 95 1.41 0.64 0.79 0.09 Herbivores/ 35 66 0.98 0.45 0.55 0.06 insectivores 1000 15 0.22 0.10 0.12 0.01 21 21 0.02 Grainivores 35 15 0.01 1000 3 0.00 Chronic Mammalian RQs 2025.95 928.56 1139.60 126.62 Terresterial Application Residues 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 Days Concentration ( PPM) Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm Insects Fruits/ pods/ l Fi gu re D. Te rr est ria l Or ga nis m Ri sk Q uo tie nt Ca lcu lat io ns for Th ira m Us e on Tu rf. 33 Chemical Name: Thiram Use Turf Formulation Technical Inputs Application Rate 13.6 lbs a. i./ acre Half life 30 days Frequency of Application 7 days Maximum # Apps./ Year 8 Outputs Maximum 56 day Average Concentration Concentration ( PPM) ( PPM) Short Grass 15863.83 9864.54 Tall Grass 7270.92 4521.25 # days Broadleaf plants/ sm Insects 8923.41 5548.81 Exceeded Fruits/ pods/ lg insects 991.49 616.53 on short grass ( in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 ( ppm) 3950 49 Chronic NOAEC ( ppm) 9.6 56 Max Single Application which does NOT exceed Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 16.458 ( Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.040 ( lb a. i.) Short Grass 4.02 1652.48 Tall Grass 1.84 757.39 # days Mammalian Acute 72.22 Broadleaf plants/ sm Insects 2.26 929.52 Exceeded Mammalian Chronic 0.01 Fruits/ pods/ lg insects 0.25 103.28 on short grass ( in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 ( mg/ kg bw/ d 2600 56 Rat Calculated LC50 ( ppm) 52000 Chronic NOAEL ( mg/ kg 1.9 56 Rat Calculated NOAEL ( ppm) 38 15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal Rat Acute Rat Chronic Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary ( mult. apps) ( mult. apps) ( mult. apps) RQ RQ Short Grass 5.80 4.03 0.92 0.31 8349.39 Tall Grass 2.66 1.85 0.42 0.14 3826.80 Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 3.26 2.27 0.51 0.17 4696.53 Fruits/ pods/ lg insects 0.36 0.25 0.06 0.02 521.84 Seeds ( granivore) 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.02 Length of Simulation 1 year Level of Concern 193.00 ( ppm)

Acute Mammalian RQs Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plantsFruit/ pods/ lg insects 15 95 5.80 2.66 3.26 0.36 Herbivores/ 35 66 4.03 1.85 2.27 0.25 insectivores 1000 15 0.92 0.42 0.51 0.06 21 21 0.08 Grainivores 35 15 0.06 1000 3 0.01 Chronic Mammalian RQs 8349.39 3826.80 4696.53 521.84 Terresterial Application Residues 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 Days Concentration ( PPM) Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm Insects Fruits/ pods/ l Table A. Acute and Chronic Risk Quotients Calculations for Birds for Seed Uses Only Concentration of Thiram as residue on treated seeds ( ppm) LC50 ppm NOEAC ppm Acute RQ1( EEC/ LC50) Chronic RQ ( EEC/ NOEAC)

1000 3950 9.6 0.25 104 34 Table B. Mammalian ( Herbivore/ Insectivore) Acute and Chronic Risk Quotients for Application of Thiram on Seed Uses Only Based on a Rat Acute LD50 of 2600 and a Rat Chronic NOAEL of 1.9 mg/ kg/ day Concentration as Residue on Seed ( ppm) Body Weight ( g) % Body Weight Consumed Rat LD50 ( mg/ kg) Rat Chronic NOEAC ( 1.9 mg/ kg/ day) converted to ppm) Acute RQ1 Chronic RQ 1000 15 95 2600 38 0.36 24.97 35 66 2600 38 0.25 17.35 1000 15 2600 38 0.06 3.94 RQ = EEC ( ppm)/ LD50 ( mg/ kg)* % Body Weight Consumed APPENDIX E Environmental Fate Study Bibliography 35 Guideline 161 1 Status: Supplemental. MRID 41840601 ( 1991), Norris, K. J. Determination of the hydrolysis of 14C Thiram. Reviewed by J. Carleton ( original review by J. Hetrick). MRID 45714101 ( 2002), Shepler, K. and Runes, H. Hydrolysis of 14C Thiram at pH 5,7, and 9. Reviewed by M. Mahoney.

Guideline 161 2 Status: Fulfilled. MRID 45651201 ( 2001), Shepler, K. and Runes, H. Photodegradation of 14C Thiram in sterilized buffer at pH 5 by artificial light. Reviewed by M. Mahoney. Supplemental: MRID 41753801 ( 1991), Norris, K. J. Determination of the photodegradation in water of 14C Thiram. Reviewed by J. Carleton ( original review by J. Hetrick).

Guideline 161 3 Status: Fulfilled. MRID 45724501 ( 2002), Shepler, K. and Runes, H. Photodegradation study of 14C Thiram in/ on soil by artificial light. Reviewed by M. Mahoney Unacceptable: MRID 43661801 ( 1997), Burri, R. Photodegradation study of 14C Thiram on soil. Reviewed by J. Carleton.

Guideline 162 1 Status: Fulfilled. MRID 43734901 ( 1995), Morgenroth, U. and Müller Kallert, H. M. 14C Thiram: degradation and metabolism in one soil incubated under aerobic conditions. Reviewed by J. Carleton.

Guideline 162 3 Status: Fulfilled. MRID 43628501 ( 1994), Wyss Benz, M. 14C Thiram: degradation and metabolism in an anaerobic aquatic system. Reviewed by J. Carleton.

Guideline 163 1 Status: Supplemental. MRID 43787501 ( 1995), Morgenroth, U. Adsorption/ desorption of 14C thiram on four soils. Reviewed by J. Carleton.

Guideline 164 1 Status: Supplemental. MRID 44724501 ( 1998), Dykeman, R. G. Determination of the dissipation of residues of thiram in California turf and bare ground plots treated with Spotrete J 75WDG. Reviewed by J. Carleton.

Guideline 164 1 Status: Fulfilled. MRID 44724502 ( 1998), Dykeman, R. G. Determination of the dissipation of residues of thiram in North Carolina turf and bare ground plots treated with Spotrete J 75WDG. Reviewed by J. Carleton. 36 APPENDIX F Environmental Fate Data Requirements for Thiram Guideline # Data Requirement Is Data Requirement Satisfied? MRID #' s Study Classification 161 1 Hydrolysis no 45714101 41840601 supplemental supplemental 161 2 Photodegradation in Water yes 45651201 41758301 acceptable supplemental 161 3 Photodegradation on Soil yes 45724501 43661801 acceptable invalid 161 4 Photodegradation in Air waived 162 1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism yes 43734901 acceptable 162 2 Anaerobic Soil Metabolism no 40768103 invalid 162 3 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism yes 43628501 acceptable 162 4 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism yes 45243401 acceptable 163 1 Leaching Adsorption/ Desorption no 43787501 supplemental 163 2 Laboratory Volatility not required 163 3 Field Volatility not required 164 1 Terrestrial Field Dissipation yes 44724501 44724502 supplemental acceptable 164 2 Aquatic Field Dissipation not required 164 3 Forestry Dissipation not required 165 4 Accumulation in Fish not required 165 5 Accumulation aquatic non target not required 166 1 Ground Water small prospective not required 166 2 Ground Water small retrospective not required 201 1 Droplet Size Spectrum not required 202 1 Drift Field Evaluation not required 37 APPENDIX G Ecological Effects Data Requirements for Chemical Thiram Guideline # Data Requirement Is Data Requirement Satisfied? Id. #' s Study Classificatio n 71 1 Avian Oral LD50 Yes BAOTH103 Core 71 2 Avian Dietary LC50 Yes MRID 022923 Core 71 4 Avian Reproduction Yes MRID 45441201 Core 72 1 Freshwater Fish LC50 Yes BAOTH102 Core 72 2 Freshwater Invertebrate Acute LC50 Yes MRID 164662 Core 72 3( a) Estuarine/ Marine Fish LC50 Yes MRID 425144 01 Core 72 3( b) Estuarine/ Marine Mollusk EC50 Yes MRID 424883 01 Core 72 3 © Estuarine/ Marine Shrimp EC50 Yes MRID 424883 02 Core 72 4( a) Freshwater Fish Early Life Stage No NA NA 72 4( b) Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle No NA NA 72 5 Freshwater Fish Full Life Cycle No NA NA 122 1( a) Seed Germ./ Seedling Emergence Not required NA NA 122 1( b) Vegetative Vigor Not required NA NA 122 2 Aquatic Algal Growth Yes MRID 426460 01 Core 123 1( a) Seed Germ./ Seedling Emergence Not Required NA NA 123 1( b) Vegetative Vigor Not Required NA NA 123 2 Aquatic Plant Growth Yes MRID 45441202 NA 144 1 Honey Bee Acute Contact LD50 Yes MRID 0003635 Core 141 2 Honey Bee Residue on Foliage Not required NA NA 1 The bobwhite quail reproductive study ( MRID436125 02) was core. However, the mallard study 436125 01 was declared supplemental because the NOEAC was not obtained. EFED has required the mallard study be repeated in order to obtain a NOEAC. The guideline ( 71 4) has not yet been fulfilled. 38 N C S S C N CH3 CH3 CH3 CH3 * * S S * *

N C N S CH3 CH3 CH3 CH3 N C N CH3 CH3 CH3 CH3 O N C CH3 CH3 S C N S S CH3 CH3 N C O S CH3 CH3 OH APPENDIX H Chemical Names and Structures of Thiram and Degradates Thiram ( tetramethyl thiuram disulfide): (* denotes position of radiolabels)

TMTU ( 1,1,3,3 tetramethyl 2 thiourea):

TMU ( 1,1,3,3 tetramethylurea):

TMTM ( tetramethylthiuram monosulfide):

M6.5 ( dimethylcarbamo ( thioperoxic) acid): 39 40 APPENDIX I Descriptions of PRZM/ EXAMS Scenarios Apple Scenario:

The apple orchard is in Washington County, Oregon. It has a Cornelius silt loam soil, a fine silty, mixed, mesic Mollic Fragixeralfs, in MLRA 2. The Cornelius silt loam is a deep, moderately well drained soil that formed in silty loess like material located on uplands with slopes of 2 60 percent. The series is typical of cultivated walnut and other orchard crops of the region. The Cornelius silt loam is a Hydrologic Group C. There are approximately 200 acres of apple orchards in Washington County, which is among the lowest in the State. However, the region is known for high rainfall potential, steep slopes, and vulnerable soils, making it an ideal " high end" region for pesticide runoff potential. The weather data is from weather station W24232 in Salem, Oregon. The weather data file is also part of the PIRANHA shell and is used to represent the weather for MLRA 2.

Cotton Scenario:

The cotton field is in Yazoo County, Mississippi. It has a Loring silt loam soil, a finesilty mixed, mesic Thermic Typic Fragiudalf, in MLRA O 134. The Loring silt loam is a moderately well drained soil with a fragipan formed in loess on level to strongly sloping upland and stream terraces on slopes of 0 20 percent. The Loring silt loam is a Hydrologic Group C soil with SCS curve numbers that were measured on a real field in Yazoo County, Mississippi under cotton culture. There are approximately 101,000 acres of cotton grown in Yazoo County, which is the most of any county in Mississippi and among the top 10 percent in the U. S. USLE C Factors were developed by George Foster at the University of Mississippi in consultation with Ronald Parker of the US EPA to represent a cotton field with one year tilled followed by two years under conservation tillage using RUSLE. The weather data is from weather station W03940 in Jackson, Mississippi. The weather data file is also part of the PIRANHA shell and is used to represent the weather for MLRA 131. This weather data was used rather than the MLRA 140 weather data as it was expected to better represent the weather in Yazoo County.

Turf scenario:

The field used to represent Florida turf is derived from that for citrus production in Collier or Hendry Counties in Southwest Florida. The soil selected to simulate the field is a Wabasso fine sand. Wabasso fine sand, is a sandy, siliceous, hyperthermic Alfic Alaquods. These soils are often used for citrus production and truck crops. Wabasso fine sand is a deep to very deep, poorly to very poorly drained, slow to ponded runoff, rapidly permeable in the top horizon and slow to very slowly permeable in the lower horizons soil that formed in sandy and loamy marine sediments. These soils are generally found on flatwoods, flood plains, and depressions and have 41 slopes of 0 to 2 percent. The soil is extensive in Florida. Wabasso fine sand is a Hydrologic Group D soil.

Use of Index Reservoir and Percent Cropped Areas in Modeling PRZM EXAMS modeling using the Index Reservoir ( IR) and the Percent Crop Area ( PCA) adjustment was used to estimate concentrations in surface water used as a source of drinking water. The index reservoir represents a watershed that is more vulnerable than most used as drinking water sources. It was developed from a real watershed in western Illinois. The index reservoir is used as a standard watershed that is combined with local soils, weather, and cropping practices to represent a vulnerable watershed for each crop that could support a drinking water supply. If a community derives its drinking water from a large river, the estimated exposure would likely be higher than the actual exposure. Conversely, a community that derives its drinking water from smaller bodies of water with minimal outflow would likely get higher drinking water exposure than estimated using the index reservoir. Areas with a more humid climate that use a similar reservoir and cropping patterns would likely get more pesticides in their drinking water than predicted levels.

A single steady flow has been used to represent the flow through the reservoir. Discharge from the reservoir also removes chemical from it so this assumption will underestimate removal from the reservoir during wet periods and overestimate removal during dry periods. This assumption can underestimate or overestimate the concentration in the pond depending upon the annual precipitation pattern at the site. The index reservoir scenario uses the characteristic of a single soil to represent the soil in the basin. In fact, soils can vary substantially across even small areas, and thus, this variation is not reflected in these simulations. The index reservoir scenario does not consider tile drainage. Areas that are prone to substantial runoff are often tile drained. This may underestimate exposure, particularly on a chronic basis. EXAMS is unable to easily model spring and fall turnover which results in complete mixing of the chemical through the water column at these times. Because of this inability, Shipman City Lake has been simulated without stratification. There is data to suggest that Shipman City Lake does indeed stratify in the deepest parts of the lake at least in some years. This may result in both over and underestimation of the concentration in drinking water depending upon the time of the year and the depth the drinking water intake is drawing from.

Development of a Percent Crop Area ( PCA) watershed based adjustment factor for the percent of land in production for potatoes has not been performed. The SAP recommended against the use of the PCA for ` minor' crops because it believed that the scale of the watershed size used to develop the PCA ( 8 digit HUC) was too large to capture each drinking water watershed and the resulting PCAs would likely be highly inaccurate and not conservative ( for the purpose of PCA development, potatoes can be considered a minor crop). In the absence of a crop specific PCA, a default PCA of 0.9 is currently being used. 42 Tier 2 modeling with the index reservoir and the PCA is intended for use as a screen. That is, the estimate should be higher than most values that are seen in areas where a particular crop is grown. A preliminary assessment comparing monitoring data for a few chemicals to estimates made using these methods indicate the estimate may not be consistently conservative. However, monitoring data at drinking water facilities is sparsely available and we are unable to check the validity for most crops against monitoring data at this time.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 211 (Thursday, November 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 75353]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 35044]

Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act
of 1940

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice of applications for deregistration.

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

    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
October 2023. A copy of each application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the applicable file number listed
below, or for an applicant using the Company name search field, on the
SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may also
call the SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order
granting each application will be issued unless the SEC orders a
hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by
emailing the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving
the relevant applicant with a copy of the request by email, if an email
address is listed for the relevant applicant below, or personally or by
mail, if a physical address is listed for the relevant applicant below.
Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on November
21, 2023, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants,
in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary at
[email protected].

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Davis, Assistant Director, at
(202) 551-6413 or Chief Counsel's Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; SEC,
Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street
NE, Washington, DC 20549-8010.

Goldman Sachs MLP & Energy Renaissance Fund [File No. 811-22979]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On July 10,
2023, applicant made liquidating distributions to its shareholders
based on net asset value. Expenses of $49,714 incurred in connection
with the liquidation were paid by the applicant and the applicant's
investment advisor. Applicant also has retained approximately
$6,850,674 for the purpose of paying an outstanding tax liability.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on September 22, 2023.
    Applicant's Address: 200 West Street, New York, New York 10282.

Mirae Asset Discovery Funds [File No. 811-22406]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred the assets of
the Emerging Markets Fund to the Global X Emerging Markets ETF and the
assets of the Emerging Markets Great Consumer Fund to the Global X
Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF, and on May 12, 2023, made a final
distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of
$530,294.71 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
the acquiring fund's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 24, 2023 and
amended on October 6, 2023.
    Applicant's Address: 1212 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor, New
York, New York 10036.

Trust For Credit Unions [File No. 811-05407]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On May 10, 2023, applicant made a liquidating
distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of
$288,261 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by the
applicant and Callahan Credit Union Financial Services, LLLP, an
affiliate of the applicant's underwriter.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on June 1, 2023 and amended
on August 11, 2023 and October 13, 2023.
    Applicant's Address: 615 East Michigan Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
53202.

Walthausen Funds [File No. 811-22143]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to
North Star Small Cap Value Fund, and on May 12, 2023, made a final
distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of
$187,496 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on September 26, 2023.
    Applicant's Address: 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1416, Chicago,
Illinois 60606.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.

    Dated: October 27, 2023.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-24131 Filed 11-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


         National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health
                           U.S. Department of Labor
                          200 Constitution Avenue, NW
                                Room  6 C5320
                             Washington, DC 20210
                               February 12, 2014

February 11, 2014 1:00 pm to approximately 4:00 pm

1:00 pm	Workgroup session on temporary workers	NACOSH workgroup members

February 12. 2014  9:00 am to approximately 4:00 pm

9:00 am	Welcome					Amanda Edens
								Designated Federal Official

		Welcome and introductions			Dr. Linda Rae Murray
								Chair, NACOSH

		SOL Instructions				Sarah Shortall

		OSHA Update					Dr. David Michaels
								OSHA Assistant Secretary
Break

		NIOSH update					Dr. John Howard
								Director, NIOSH

12:00  -  1:00 	 Lunch Break

1:00		Presentation on the Executive Order		Jordan Barab
		For Improving Chemical Facility Safety
		And Security

		Report out from NACOSH workgroup		NACOSH workgroup members

Break

		Committee Discussion				Committee

		Wrap up					Committee


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16285-16286]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07726]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0039]

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of
Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand
the scope of recognition for Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc., as a
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
April 18, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone:
(202) 693-2110; email: [email protected]. OSHA's web page includes
information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition of Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (ITSNA), as a NRTL.
ITSNA's expansion covers the addition of three test standards to its
scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government
authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products
properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require
testing and certification of the products.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial
recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides a preliminary finding and, in the second
notice, the agency provides the final decision on the application.
These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page
for each NRTL that details its scope of recognition. These pages are
available from the agency's website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    ITSNA submitted an application, dated April 21, 2015 (OSHA-2007-
0039-0029), to expand its recognition to include three additional test
standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application
packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform
any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing ITSNA's expansion
application in the Federal Register on February 5, 2019 (84 FR 1792).
The agency requested comments by February 20, 2019, but received no
comments in response to this notice. OSHA now is proceeding with this
final notice to grant expansion of ITSNA's scope of recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
ITSNA's application, go to http://www.regulations.gov or contact the
Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-3653,
Washington, DC 20210. Docket No. OSHA-2007-0039 contains all materials
in the record concerning ITSNA's recognition.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined ITSNA's expansion application, the capability
to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent
information. Based on a review of this evidence, OSHA finds that ITSNA
meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of the
recognition, subject to the specified limitation and conditions listed.
OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant ITSNA's
scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of ITSNA's recognition
to testing and certification of products for demonstration of
conformance to the test standards listed, in Table 1.

         Table 1--List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in ITSNA's NRTL Scope of Recognition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Test standard                                         Test standard title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 1990............................................................  Standard for Nonmetallic Underground
                                                                      Conduit with Conductors.
UL 60745-2-19......................................................  Hand-Held Motor-Operated Electric Tools--
                                                                      Safety--Part 2-19: Particular Requirements
                                                                      For Jointers.
UL 60745-2-22......................................................  Hand-Held Motor-Operated Electric Tools--
                                                                      Safety--Part 2-22: Particular Requirements
                                                                      For Cut-Off Machines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is
limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require
third-party testing and certification before using them in the
workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products
for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a
NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the
test standards listed above as American National Standards. However,
for convenience, the use of the designation of the standards-developing
organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation may
occur. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3,
Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test
standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or
the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a
test standard is currently ANSI-approved.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,

ITSNA must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. ITSNA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. ITSNA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. ITSNA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on ITSNA's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the
scope of recognition of ITSNA, subject to the limitation and conditions
specified above.

III. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 10, 2019.
Loren Sweatt,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2019-07726 Filed 4-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P