### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY WASHINGTON, DC 20460
OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION



### PC Code: 090100 

### DP Barcode: 381819,381820,381821 

### Date: January4,2011 

### D&us~o~S: 

## 487973,41R971; 

# -7966 MEMORANDUM Subject: Chlorantraniliprole (E2Y45): EcologicalRisk Assessmentto Support Numerous ProposedNew Uses 

### To: Venus Eagle, Risk Manager Kable Davis, Risk Manager Reviewer Registration Division (7505~) 

### From: Michael B. Lowit, Ph.D., Ecologist Christopher M. Koper, Chemist Nancy Andrews, Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch 

### I Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) Office ofPesticide Programs This memorandum summarizes the ecological risks associated with numerous proposed uses for the insecticide Chlorantraniliprole. The risk assessment considers three products: ~ltacor~, coraganm, and DPX-E2Y45 625FS. Assessed uses include field corn (seed treatment), Brassica leafy vegetables, bulb vegetables (onion, bulb subgroup), cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, leafy vegetables (non-Brassica), okra, peanut, root and tuber vegetables (except potato), leaves of root and tuber vegetables, bushberry subgroup, large shrubltree subgroup, low growing berry subgroup, tea, and ti palm. Foliar applications (ground or aerial spray) are proposed up to 0.065 lb ai/A or 0.099 lb ai/A depending on the use. Soil-at-planting methods are proposed for cucurbit, fruiting, and leafy vegetables up to 0.098 lb ai/A. The maximum seasonal application rate is 0.2 lb ai/A for all proposed uses. A single application of 

### chlorantraniliprole-treated seed (field corn) is proposed at up to 0.054 lb ai/A followedby foliar applications not to exceedthe seasonal maximum of 0.2 lb ai/A (treated seed and foliar combined).

### 1. 

### Executive 

### Summary chlorantraniliprole is an insecticide belonging to the diarnide class of chemistry. The specific mode of action isthrough chlorantraniliprole binding with insect ryanodine receptors which causes muscle contraction and leads to paralysis and ultimately death of the insect. Based on the environmental fate review, chlorantraniliprole may be characterized as persistent and mobile in terrestrial and aquatic environments. Extended chlorantraniliprole use is expected to cause accumulation of residues in soil from year to year. Major routes of dissipation are expected to be alkaline-catalyzed hydrolysis, photodegradation in water, leaching, and runoff. Previous Section 3 assessments for chlorantraniliprole (DP338512and DP361404) identified direct risks to freshwater and estuarinelmarine invertebrates. All the aquatic exposure estimates for the current assessment fall within the range of exposure estimates from the previous two assessments. Because the aquatic toxicity endpoints have not changed since the previous assessments, the aquatic risks posed by the proposed new uses fall within the range of risk estimates identified in the previous assessments. LOC exceedences are similar for the proposed new uses (LOCswere exceeded only for freshwater and estuarinelmarine invertebrates). Therefore, this assessment, in accordance with the findings ofthe previous assessments, identified direct risks to freshwater and estuarinelmarine invertebrates and indirect risks to organisms that may depend on them for sustenance for all proposed new uses (except the bushberry subgroup for estuarinelmarine invertebrates). Terrestrial exposures were quantified only for the chlorantraniliprole-treated seed (field corn) application. No LOCs were exceeded for non-listed terrestrial plants (risks to listed terrestrial plants cannot be precluded due to a non-definitive NOAEC), birds, and mammals in previous assessments (DP338512 and DP361404) at single and annual application rates that are equivalent to those proposed for the non-seed uses (foliar and soil-at-planting applications) considered in this assessment. Therefore, this assessment did not reproduce these calculations. No LOCs are expected to be exceeded for birds, mammals, or non-listed terrestrial plants for the proposed nonseed treatment uses. However, potential risks to non-target terrestrial invertebrates is a concern considering the proposed application rates, the submitted toxicity data, and the mode of action of chlorantraniliprole as an insecticide. Finally, potential risks to listed terrestrial plants cannot be precluded. Although the proposed application rate for chlorantraniliprole-treatedseed (field corn) does not exceed previously assessed application rates, T-REX v1.4.1 predicts higher terrestrial exposure from the seed treatment than from other uses, which requires risk quantification for terrestrial organisms. No terrestrial LOCs were exceeded for the seed application except for acute and chronic exposure to birds.

### Table 

### 1. Summary of LOC Exceedences for the Proposed New Uses of Chlorantraniliprole on a Number of Crops



# I Potential

"The available data could not preclude potential risks to listed terrestrial plants. 

# LU Effect Direct Effect (LOC 

# I Exceedence) 

# I I 

# I I 1 I I 1

b~~s were not calculated duetolack of a standard quantification methodology for non-listed species. Therefore, the 'LOC 

### exceedance' was based on lines of evidence including application rate, toxicity data, and the mode of action of chlorantraniliprole. 

### 2. 

### Data Gaps Taxonomic Group



## -- 

# 1

No data gaps were identified in the 2007 assessment (D338512). However, since the 2007 assessment was conducted, submission of an acute oral toxicity study in a passerine species was included as part ofthe Part 158 data requirements. In addition, without submission of a study that defines a terrestrial plant NOAEC, the presumption of an LOC exceedance for listed plants will be made. Studies addressing passerine species and terrestrial plants have been recently submitted and are currently under review. J 141 

### J 

## 1 Indirect Effect



### 3. Uncertainties and Proposed Label Changes Birds



### J



### The proposed labels state that the maximum application of chlorantraniliproleis 0.2 lb ai/A per cropper season or 0.2 lb ai/A per crop depending on the use. In modeling both the aquatic and terrestrial EECs, it is assumed that the registrant intended for one season to be equivalent to one year. Therefore, it is assumed that the annual maximum application rate is 0.2 lb ai/A. Language should be added to the labels indicating that 0.2 lb ai/A is the annual limit. Ifthe labels are intendedto allow multiple growing seasons per year, then the calculated EECs may under estimate the actual exposure. Fish


## -- J



### The label does not state how 

### chlorantraniliprole-treated field corn seed shouldbe planted. This assessment assumes that the label intends for standard fanning practices and that seed will be incorporated into the soil. In addition, a one inch incorporation depth was assumed when modeling field corn. Language should be added to the label stating the incorporation depth as this parameter will affect environmental exposure. Mammals


## --

4. 

### Scope ofAssessment Aquatic Invertebrates 

### J J



### An abbreviated review was conductedby EFED for the following reasons: Aquatic Plants



## -- Terrestrial



### Plants



## --

a 

### J



### This assessment uses the same toxicity and fate datathat was used in previous assessments. Toxicity and fate studies have been recently submittedbut are under review (MRID48075301,48075302,48075303,48216601,48216602, and 48216603). Proposed application rates, intervals, and seasonal loads are equivalent to or less than previously assessed application rates. Terrestrial Invertebrates 

### Jb

## 5. Summary ofProposed Uses The registrant proposed a number of new uses for chlorantraniliprole (Table 2). Foliar applications (ground or aerial spray) are proposed up to 0.065 lb ai/A or 0.099 lb ai/A depending on the use. Soil-at-planting methods (in-furrow spray, transplant water treatment, hill drench, surface band, and soil shank injection) are proposed for cucurbit, fmiting, and leafy vegetables up to 0.098 lb ai/A. The maximum seasonal application rate is 0.2 Ib ai/A for all proposed uses. In addition, a single application of 

### chlorantraniliprole-treated seed (field corn) is proposed at up to 0.054 lb ai/A followedby foliar applications not to exceed the seasonal maximum of 0.2 lb ai/A (treated seed and foliai combined). The proposed application rates are within those assessed in 2007 (DP338512)up to 0.5 lb ai/A. 

### Table 

### 2 summarizesthe proposed new uses and the previously assessed uses from DP338512and DP361404. 

### Table 

### 2. Pro~osed and Previouslv Assessed Use Rates for Chlorantranili~role Product DuPont DPX-E2Y45 

### 625FS DuPont Coragen

, \, Cotton 

### 0.098 

# 120 0.2 

### use1

drip chemigation Corn, field and pop Corn. sweet
1 Cucurbit vegetables

foliar Forage, fodder, Fruiting vegetables yoliar, drip treatment)



### 0.098 2 

### (5 foliar, 

### 10drip 

### 0.2 chemigation) 

### ProposedNew Use Field corn (seed 

### ( 0.054 

## I 1 for seed, 

### 2 for 

## 1 0.2 

# ' Max Application Rate (lb ai/A) 

# / foliar (7)' 

# 1

0.098 0.065 0.065 

### Max No. ofApps (min. interval, days)

Previously Assessed Uses

2 (10) 3 

### (7) 3 

### (1)

Grass forage Herbs Hops 

### Mag SeasonalRate (Ib ai/A)

0.2 0.2 0.2

legume vegetables Mint Non-grass animal feed Okra 

### 0.2 0.2 Artichoke Asparagus Brassica, leafy



### 0.065 0.065 0.065

0.065

pp 

### 0.065 0.065 vegetables foliar 

### 0.098 0.065

3 (7) 3 (3) 3 (7) Leafy vegetables, non-brassica Voliar, drip chemigation) 

### 0.065 

# 1 0.2 2 (14) 3 (3)



### 0.2 0.2 0.2 2 (3 foliar, 

### 10 drip chemigation) 

### 0.098

3 (14) 

### 0.2

3 (1, assumed) 3 

### (5) 0.2 Legume vegetables and foliage of



### 0.2 0.2 0.065

### Product

Potato Protected seed 

### use' Peanut
Spices Strawberry Tobacco

subgroup Cucurbit vegetables 

### 0.065 0.065

Fruiting vegetables 

### Max Application Rate (Ib ai1A) 0.065

0.065 0.065 

# 0 0.098 Tuberous and corm 

### 0.065 vegetables I 

### Proposed

Leafy vegetables \, 3 

### (5) 3 (5)

3 

### (5) 

### New Uses

1 application to soil atplanting plus additional chemigation or foliar applications 

### 3 

### (7) Brassica, leafy vegetables3

Bulb vegetables; onion, bulb 1 application to soil at planting plus additional chemigation or foliar

at planting plus additional chemigation or foliar



### Max No. ofApps

(min. interval, days) 3 

### (5) 0.2 0.2 3 (3) 3 (7) 2 (3) 0.2

0.2~

0.2 0.098

0.065

at planting plus additional chemigation or foliar 

### Max SeasonalRate (Ib ai/A) 0.2

0.2 0.2 

# 0 0.2



# - 

# / applications 

### 0.065 

## 1 3 (5) Peanuts 

### 0.065 

# (30 0.2 Root and tuber 

## 1 0.065 

## 1 3(3) 

### ) 0.2

I 

# 1 tuber vegetables6 

# 1 1

, 

## p

DuPont Altacor
J Bananalplantain 

### ( 0.099 

# 1 2 (10) 

# 1 0.2 Canebeny subgroup 

# 1 0.099 

# / 2 (14) 

# 1 0.2 0.2 I vegetables (except 

## 1 potato)6 Leaves of root and 

### 0.065



### 1 Cacao

Citrus Coffee Cotton Figs
I Grape

Olives Persimmons 

### 0.099 0.099 0.099 0.099 0.099 I 

### 0.099 0.099 0.099 2 

### (7) 2 (7) 2 (14) 0.2 0.2 0.2
, , 

### 2 (5) 2 (7) 2 

### (7) 2 (7) 2 (7) 

### 0.2 

# J 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Pomegranates 

# 1 0.099 

# 1 2 (7) 

# 1 0.2 Potato 

## P 0.2 

### Max Application

climbing subgroup 

# 1 Product use1 Rate (min. interval, Pome fruits 0.099 

### Max No. ofApps

Small fruit vine 

### Max Seasonal

### Rate

Bushberry subgroup 

# 1 0.099 

# 1 2 (7) 

# 1 0.2 

# 1 Large shrubltree 

# & 0.2 0.099 Stone fruit Tree nuts Tropical fruit \, 0.2 2 (7) 

## 1 0.2

'2 I I 1 Tea 

# 1 0.099 

# 1 2 (14) 

# / 0.2 Proposed and previously assessed uses are foliar applications (ground and air)unless indicated otherwise. 2 The label allows for a single application of

### chlorantraniliprole-treated seed (maximum single application of 0.054 lbs ai/A) followed by foliar applicationsof chlorantraniliprole up to a seasonal maximum application not to exceed 0.2 lbs ai1A (combination of seed and foliartreatments). Foliar applications are assumed to be limited to the 

# 0 0.099 0.099 0.099

subgroup Low growingberry

application rates for field corn (Coragen label). The fikld corn seed label (DPX-E2Y45 625FS) limits the number of foliar applications to two within a 30 day period. 3 Although a request was not made for these labeled uses, risk was assessed because it doesnot appear that they were included in previousrisk assessments.

One chemigation application may be applied to the soil following an application to the soil at planting (0.132 lb ai/A maximum from combination of soil-at-planting method and chemigation). No more than 0.2 Ib aiiA of chlorantraniliprole containing products may be applied seasonally per acre, therefore the label presumably allows for foliar applications following the soil applications. An interval is not specified between soil-at-planting and subsequent chemigation or foliar applications.

Okra and peanut uses were requested at application rates that were previously assessed (DP361404) and so are not reassessed. 6 

### Ti Palm is a proposed use but was not included on the label. It was assumed that it was intended tobe included in the root and tuber vegetables and leaves of root and tuber vegetables groupings. 

### 6. Exposure Summary 2 (7) 2 (7) 2 (10)

0.099 

# 1 2 (7)



### 6.1. 

### Terrestrial Exposure 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.2



### Terrestrial exposure was quantified only for 

### chlorantraniliprole-treated seed (field corn) applications. Exposure was not quantified for the proposed non-seed uses because no LOCs were exceeded for non-listed terrestrial plants (risks to listed terrestrial plants cannotbe precluded due to a non-definitive

### NOAEC), birds, and mammals in DP338512 (2007) at single and annual application rates that are equivalentto those considered in this assessment. Therefore,no LOCs are expected to be exceeded for birds, mammals, or non-listed terrestrial plants for the proposed non-seed uses.

### Seed Treatment Exposure for the proposed field corn seed treatment is co'mplex. The label allows for application of chlorantraniliprole-treated 

### seed (maximum single application of 0.054 lbs ai/A) followedby foliar applications of chlorantraniliprole up to a seasonal maximum application not to exceed 

### 0.2 lbs ai/A (combination of seed and foliar treatments). Foliar applications are assumed to be limited to the application rates for field corn (Coragen label). The field corn seed.label 

### (DPX

## E2Y45 625FS) limits the number of foliar applications to two within a 

### 30 day period. Due to model limitations, separate EECs were calculated in 

### T-REX (v 

### 1.4.1) 

### for the seed treatment 

### (Table 3) and the subsequent foliar applications 

### (Table 4). 

### Table 3. 

### Estimated Environmental Concentrations from Proposed Application of Chlorantranili~role-Treated 

### Seed

I Based on proposed maximum planting density of 33,000 seeds/A (DPX-E2Y45 625FS label) and assuming 1600

field corn seedsllb (provided by BEAD 11/9/2010,

### Appendix 1) Although the label doesnot specify how the seed shouldbe applied, it was assumed that the seed is intendedto be planted in a manner that incorporates it into the soil. Given that the label doesnot specify an application method, exposure was estimated assuming planting methods that result in the least amount of incorporation (85%) documented in the 

### T-REX user's guide. 

### Table 4. 

### Terrestrial Food-Item Residue Estimates for Mammals and Birds for Proposed Foliar Applications of Chlorantraniliprole Following Application of ChlorantraniliproleTreated seed1

Mammals

Dose-Based EECs 15 27.82 12.75 15.65 1.74 

### -- 35 19.23 8.8 1 10.82 1.20 0.27 

# I Dietary-Based EECS~

## I Avian 

## 1 

## 1 Dose-Based EECs



### 6.2. Aquatic 

### Exposure 20 100 1000

- 

### Dietary-Based 

### EECS~



### The PRZMIEXAMS input parameters for chlorantraniliprole are shown in 

### Table 5. Inputs are equivalent to inputs used in previous assessments (DP3385 12and DP361404). NA 

# 1 29.18



### Sincethe last risk assessment, two fate studies have been submitted to the Agency and are under review: Aquatic Field Dissipation of Chlorantraniliprole 

### (MRID48075303) and Method Validation for Chlorantraniliprole and its Products IN-EQW78, IN-ECD73 and IN-LBA24 in Soil (MRID 48075302). 33.23 18.95 8.48



### Table 

### 5. PRZMIEXAMS Input Parameters for Chlorantraniliprole Input Parameter: 

# / Value: 

# I Comment: 

# I source: Based on maximum oftwo foliar applications of 0.065 Ib ai/A (maximum single application) with a minimum application interval of 7 days. The label permits two foliar applications within 30 days ofplanting the treated seed. A third foliar application of 0.016 Ib ai/A is permitted by the label based on the seasonal maximum of 0.2 lbs ai/A but not until 30 days after planting the treated seed. Model limitations prevent calculation of EECs for the three application scenario due to unequal application rates and intervals. However, a third application is not expectedto increase the EECs giventhe relatively low application rate and length of time between foliar applications. 2 Based on default foliar dissipation half-life of 35 days 3 Size Class not used for dietary EECs 13.37

Bushberrv Subgroup 13-07B: NY Grapes(not applicablefor cranberry) ProvisionalCranberry Model (applicablefor cranberry) 15.23 8.69 3.89

Large ShrubITree Bern Subgroup 13-07C: CA, FL, MI, NJ, OR, TN Nursery 16.41

Low Growing Berry subgroup 13-07G: FL Strawberry 18.69 10.66 4.77

Tea (HI and SC only): The FIRST Model was employed. 1.82

Bulb Ve~etables: Onion, Bulb Subgroup 3-07A: 

# ) CA, GA Onion 2.08 1.18 0.53
NA

NIA 0.46 0.26 0.12

Cucurbit Vegetables:


# , FL Cucumber; MI, MO, NJ Melonnput Parameter:

vlaximum Single Ypplication Rate bs a.i./acre(kg a.i./ha) Value: Fruiting Vegetables: :A, FL, PA Tomato Leaves ofland Root and Tuber Vegetables: FL Carrot; ID, ME Potato; MN Sugarbeet, NC Sweet Potato

Brussicu (Cole) and LeahVegetables: LA Cole Crop, CA Lettuce Field Corn: KS Corn Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B: 0.100 (0.112) Large ShrubITree Berry Subgroup 13-07C: 0.100 (0.112) Low Growinn Bewsubgroup 13-07G: 0.100 (0.1 12) Tea (HI and SC only): 0.100 Bulb Vegetables: Onion. Bulb Subgroup 3-07A: 0.067 (0.075) Cucurbit Vegetables: 0.100 (0.112) Fruiting Vegetables: 0.100 (0.112) Leaves of/and Root and Tuber Vegetables: 0.067 (0.075) Brassica (Cole) and Leaf%Vegetables: 0.100 (0.1 12) Field Corn: 0.054 (0.061) 0.146 (0.164) ~roposed rates - jroposed labelnput Parameter: Ipplications per Year

Ypplication Interval days) Value: Bushbeny Subgroup 13-07B: 

### 2 Large ShrublTreeBerry Subgroup 13-07C: 

### 2 Low Growing Berry subgroup 13-07G: 

### 2 Tea (HI and SC only): 2 Bulb Vegetables: Onion, Bulb Subgroup 3-07A: 3 Cucurbit Vegetables: 

### 2 Fruiting Vegetables: 2 Leaves of land Root and Tuber Vegetables: 3 

### Brassica (Cole) and Leafy Vegetables: 

### 2 Field Corn: 1 Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B: 7 Large ShrublTreeBerry Subgroup 13-07C: 7 Low Growing Beny subgroup 13-07G: 7 Tea (HI and SConly): 14 Bulb Vegetables: Onion, Bulb Subgroup 3-07A: Cucurbit Vegetables: 10 Fruiting Vegetables: 10 Leaves ofland Root and Tuber Vegetables: 3 

### Brassica (Cole) and Leafy Vegetables: 

### 3 Field Corn: 0 Zomment: abel directions. Label ,pecifiesrates per acre per :rop. If crops are rotated vith those on which :hlorantraniliprole is used, [earlyrates may be higher.

jroposed application ntervals jource: reposed label

)reposed labelnput Parameter: )ate of Initial ipplication scenarioldaylmonth) Value: Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B: NY Grapes: 07-10 Provisional Cranberry Model: 07-10 Large ShrubITree Berrv Subgroup 13-07C: CA Nursery: 24- 1 0 FL Nursery: 23-12 

### MI Nursery: 23-12 

### NJ Nursery: 23-12 OR Nursery: 23- 12 

### TN Nursery: 14-10 Low GrowingBerrv subgroup 13-07G: FL Strawbeny: 07-02 Tea (HI and SC only): The FIRST Model was employed. Bulb Vegetables: Onion. Bulb Subgroup 3-07A: CA Onion: 18-05 GA Onion: 18-05 Cucurbit Vegetables: 

### (G, C, S) FL Cucumber: 04-12,04-12,25-12,02-10 MI Melon: 09-08, 09-08, 09-06, 16-04 MO Melon: 25-07, 25-07,20-05, 27-03 NJ Melon: 15-07, 15-07, 10-06, 17-04 Fruiting Vegetables: (G, C. S) CA Tomato: 26-08,26-08, 10-04, 15-02 

### FL Tomato: 09-05,09-05, 13-03, 18-01 PA Tomato: 09-10,09-10,26-05,02-04 Leaves ofland Root and Tuber Vegetables: (A, G) FL Carrot: 15-0

### 1 ID Potato: 09-09 

### ME Potato: 28-09 MN Sugarbeet: 08-10 NC Sweet Potato: 15-09 

### Brassica (Cole) and LeahVegetables: CA Cole Crops: 22-02 CA Lettuce: 05-05 Field Corn: KS Corn: 05-10 Comment: For the majority of crops, the date of initial applicatior was calculated from the Pre. Harvest Interval (PHI) and application interval as written on the proposed labels. In addition, the date 3f initial application for :hemigation was 40 days after crop emergence. Soil a planting applications were 14days before crop :mergence. A = aerial S =ground E =chemigation S = soil at planting (infurrow spray, transplant water treatment. hill drench. surface band, soil shank injection) iource: 

### :rap Scenariosnput Parameter: ipplication Method



# " Input
lncorporation Depth :cm.) Value: Bushberw Subgroup 13-07B: Foliar: aerial and ground Large ShrubITree Berry Subgroup 13-07C: Foliar: aerial and ground Low Growing Berrv subgroup 13-07G: Foliar: aerial and ground Tea 

### (HI and SC only): Foliar: aerial and ground (aerial was modeled) Bulb Vegetables: Onion. Bulb Subgroup 3-07A: Foliar: aerial and ground Cucurbit Vegetables: Foliar: aerial and ground Chemigation Soil at Planting Fruiting Vegetables: Foliar: aerial and ground Chemigation Soil at Planting Leaves of/and Root and Tuber Vegetables: Foliar: aerial and ground 

### Brassica (Cole) and Leafi Vegetables: Soil 

### at Planting Field Corn: Seed treatment followed by foliar application 2 (foliar) 8 (seedtreatment)

- 2.5 (seedtreatment) abel directions iource: ~roposed label

)reposed label
xoposed labelInput Parameter: IPSCND Input



# I--

Spray Drift Fraction

Application Efficiency

Molecular Mass (dm011 Vapor Pressure at 25OC (torr) Henry's Law Constant (atm-m3/mol) Solubility in Water Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient
Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days)

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life 

# Ivalue: 

# I Comment: 

# I source: 

# I Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B: 3 Large ShrubITreeBeny Subgroup 13-07C: 3 Low Growing Beny subgroup 13-07G: 3 

### Tea (HI and SC only): N/A (employed FIRSTmodel) 

### Bulb Vegetables: Onion, Bulb Subgroup 3-07A: 2 

### Cucurbit Vegetables: 3 Fruiting Vegetables: 3 Leaves of land Root and Tuber Vegetables: 2 Brassica 

### (Cole) and Leafy Vegetables: 3 Field Corn: 1 1 =remaining pesticide on foliage is converted to surface application to the top soil layer 2 =remaining pesticide on foliage is completely removed after harvest

3 =remaining pesticide on foliage is retained as surface residue and continues to undergo decay. US EPA. 2005

Input parameter guidance (USEPA, 2009) 0.05 (aerial) 0.01 (ground)
Input parameter guidance (USEPA, 2009) 0 (chemigation) 0.01 (soil at planting) 0.95 (aerial) 0.99 (ground) 1.0 (chemigation) 0.99 (soil at planting)

MRID 46889 130 

### --

estimated

Calculated 9oth percentile of mean' .Mean= 509 days. SD=252 days, t= 1.40,n= 9 *Several reported half-lives in MRID 46889124 were not used because of poor fit with first-order degradation model calculated from solubility and vapor oressure



### - represents the average Koc from 5 values

Calculated 9oth percentile of mean'. Mean= 178 days, SD= 74.95days. t= 3.078, n=2 

### MRID 46889123

MRID 46889124 MRID 46889015 MRID 46889124

MRID 46889016 

# 1I Anaerobic Aquatic 624 

### 3 x 208 days (EFED DuPont 14568

Aqueous Photolysis Half-life (days) Metabolism Half-life (davs) Hydrolysis Half-lives (days)

NIA =Not Applicable 

## ' =t

### ,,,, =Mean+(tw..,*~~)ld~-l

= Chemigation (< 1%spray drill as described in httD:/lwww.a~drift.com/PDF FlLESlChen~.~df - modeled as 0%) 

## ' = Koc values include 153, 509,272. 526, 180. 

### '= EFED recalculated first-order half-lives for both benzo- and pyrazole-labeled chlorantraniliprole. The calculated half-lives are based on aerobic soil metabolism data in non-sterile soil at 25'~. Half-lives used in the assessment include 577.6, 537.3,374.6,410.1, 246.6, 228. 888.6, 924.1, 396 days. 

## '= The 90' percentile of the mean half-life for chlorantraniliprole was 600 days for half-lives values presented in the OECD Chlorantraniliprole

Volume 3(1):Annex B, Environmental Fate and Behavior. (mean =491 ( 886, 539,380,233,323. 629,423. 518 days); SD=203; t90n.1=1.417;N=8 6= A single value half-life was used because of the insensitivity ofPRZMIEXAMS modeling to anaerobic aquatic metabolism.

!jttp://ww\v.e~a.gov/oppefed I/models/waterlinput parameter guidance.htm Guidance)



### The estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) were generated using EFED's standard suite of models. In addition, the provisional cranberry model was utilized to assess cranberry, the Tier 1 GENEEC model was used to assess driedtea leaves, and a manual PRZMIEXAM run was performedto assess field corn since the seed treatment can be followedby a foliar application. A representative PRZMIEXAM model input and output data for FL Cucumber (soil at planting application) is attached in 

### Appendix 

### 2. In addition, the provisional cranberry model output is attached in 

### Appendix 3. 0 (stable)



### Results ofthe PRZMIEXAMSmodeling arepresented in 

### Table 6. Peak EECs ranged from 0.42 to 8.17 pg/L for all proposed uses except cranberries which were considerably higher at 63.56 pg/L. Peak EECs in the 2007 assessment (D338512) ranged from 0.41 to 11 pg/L and the highest EEC in the 2009 assessment (D361404)was 100pg/L. Therefore, potential exposures and risks from the proposed new uses are within the range of potential exposures and risks described in the 2007 and 2009 assessments. PH7 

# 1 MRID 46889017 

## 1

Table 6. Chlorantraniliprole Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs)'for

Cranbeny 

### Surface Water based on-selected Crop Scenarios

Provisional Cranbeny 

# 1 Model 

# 1
-- 

# 1 63.56 62.36 

# 1 60.12 

# 1 Label

### Use

Laree ShrubITreeBerrv 

# 1 A 

# 1 1.98 

# 1 1.62 1.21 

# 1

v Subgroup 13-07C (October 24 -foliar) 

### PRzlWEM 

### sce!mtriol (ritst app tlate) 

### SurfaceWater DupontTM ~ltacor@ insectcontrol with R~NAX~~R@ 

### ~ethod~

Bushbeny Subgroup 13-07B Peak 

### EEC 

## @@I

NY Grapes (October 7 -foliar)



### -- NY Grapes (October 7 -foliar) 

### 21-Day 

### EEC 

### (crg/L)

A G 

### 60-Day 

### EEC 

# (W)

1.60 1.57 1.53

### Proposed Label Use

Low Growing Beny subgroup 13-07G - - FL Nursery (December 23 -foliar) A 2.58 

### PRZMEXAMS scenario' (first app date)

FL Nursery (December 23 -foliar) 

### G 2.27 

### MI Nursery (December 23 -foliar) MI Nursery (December 23 -foliar) 

### ~ethod'

NJ Nursery (December 23 -foliar) 

### A 3.48 

### Peak EEC (P&)

NJNursery (December 23 -foliar) G 3.23 ORNursery (December 23 -foliar) ORNursery (December 23 -foliar) TN Nursery (October 14 -foliar'l TN Nursery (October 

### 14 -foliar) G 2.3 1 FL Strawberrv 

## 1. A.c H 4.40 (February 7 -foliar) FL Strawbeny (Februaw 7 -foliar) 

# ~ ;;and SC only) 

### GENEEC~ -foliar 

# IDopontTM coragenQinseet controlwith 

### RYN*XPY. @ 

### 21

### -Day EEC 

## (~gn,)

Bulb Vegetables: Onion, Bulb Subgroup 3-07A 

### 60-Day EEC (PgfL)



# 1 Cucurbit Vegetables

Leaves of Root and Tuber Vegetables CA Onion

GA Onion

FL Tomato

### Proposed Label Use PRZMIEXAMS scenario' 

### (firstapp date) ME Potato (September28 -foliar) ME Potato (September 28 - foliar) MN Sugarbeet (October 08 -foliar) 

### MN Sugarbeet (October 08 -foliar) NC Sweet Potato (September 15 -foliar) NC Sweet Potato (September 15 -foliar) G 1.73 1.57 CA Cole Crop 

### and (February22 

### - soil at Vegetables G 3.03 2.62 

### ~ethod~

A G 

### A G A



### DupontTM DPX-E2Y45 Field Corn 

### Peak EEC 

# (PI&)

Bold numbers denote maximum EEC values. 2 A =aerial application, G =ground application, S = Soil at Planting (may include: in-furrow spray, transplant water treatment, hill drench, surface band, soil shank injection) 

# ' The Provisional Cranbeny Model was used to assess cranbeny. The model does incorporate a degradation component. 4 GENEEC was uses to assess tea (dried tea leaves) use. 5 A manual PRZMJEXAM run was employed for corn to capture seed treatment followed by a foliar application. CA Lettuce (May 05 

### - soil at planting) 

### 21

### -Day EEC (PI&)

G 

### 60-Day EEC (PI&)



### 1 2.09 1.95 1.44 1.03 2.00

4.45 

### 625FSField Corn Seed Treatment

KS Corn (October 05 -seed, foliar) 6.02 2.0 1 1.87 1.28 0.94 1.83

3.74
S, F 1.98 1.83 

### 1.14 0.82 1.43

2.56

5.14 4.13

### 7. Ecological Effects Summary Table 7 presents a summary of toxicity data used in this risk assessment. A 

### more detailed description ofthe toxicity data can be found in the 2007 assessment (DP338512). Sincethe last risk assessment, several studies have been submitted to the Agency and are under review: acute oral toxicity to zebra finch (MRID 48216601), terrestrial plant (6 crops) seedling emergence study (MRID 48216602),terrestrial plant (3 crops) vegetative vigor study (MRID 48216603), and a crayfish field study (MRID 48075301). Table 7. Effects Measurement Endpoints Used in Quantitative Risk Assessment

terrestrial invertebrates) Mammals

Terrestrial plants Reproduction -bobwhite NOAEC = 120mgikg-diet Survival - estimated rat >5000 mag-diet 

### Effects Measurement Endpoint Survival - bobwhite and mallard >5620 mg/kg-diet Survival -bobwhite LDso>2250 mag-bw

Reproduction -rat NOAEC = 20,000 mglkg-diet Vegetative Vigor Dicot EC25>300 g/ha Dicot EC5

### <300 gha Monocot ECZ5 >300g/ha Monocot EC5< 300gha Seedling Emergence Dicot ECz5 > 300 giha Dicot EC5< 300 g/ha Monocot EG5<300ha 

### Rationale Most sensitivetested Most sensitive tested Most sensitivetested Most sensitivetested LD50 adjusted to estimate dietary equivalent 

### (100%bw consumed/day) Most sensitive tested Most sensitive tested Most sensitive tested Most sensitivetested Most sensitivetested Most sensitivetested Most sensitive tested Most sensitivetested

invertebrates 

# I Reproduction AaphnidNOAEC = 0.0044 mgiL 

# I Most sensitivetested Freshwater fish 

# I Survival -rainbow trout 96-hr LCso> 13.8mg/L 

# I Most sensitivetested 1 Freshwater 

# I Reproduction -rainbow trout NOAEC =0.1l-mg/~ 

# I Most sensitivetested 

## 1 Estuarineimarine 

## 1 Survival -eastern oyster 48-hr ECS0 = 0.0399mglL 

## 1 Most sensitivetested 

# 0 Survival -daphnid 48-hr ECso= 0.01 16mg/L



## 1 Estuarineimarine 

## I Survival- sheepshead minnow 96-hr LC50 > 12 mg/L 

## I Most sensitivetested 

## 1 Most sensitivetested

invertebrates

and NOEC = 1.78mg/L Growth/reproduction -Vascular EC50 > 2 mg/L and NOAEC = 2 me/L Chronic effect estimate -NOAEC = 0.024rng/~-

fish Aquatic plants Most sensitivetested Most sensitivetested for acute (oyster) adjusted with available ACR Reproduction 

## 1sheepshead minnow NOAEC = 1.38mg/L Growthireproduction -Non-vascular EC5, > 1.78mg/L Most sensitivetested Most sensitivetested 

# 1

### 8. 

### Ecological

### Risk Summary 8.1. Terrestrial Organisms LOCs were not exceeded for terrestrial birds, mammals, or non-listed plants in the 2007 assessment. EECs for the proposed non-seed uses are not expected to be higher than those used in the 2007 assessment; therefore, potential risk from non-seed uses was not re-evaluated for terrestrial organisms. However, as in the 2007 assessment, there is concern for potential risk to terrestrial invertebrates and risk to listed plants cannot be precluded. Seed Treatment The label allows for planting of chlorantraniliprole-treatedseed (field corn) followed by foliar application of chlorantraniliprole. Due to model limitations, separate EECs were calculated in 

## TREX (v 1.4.1) for the seed treatment and the foliar applications. The overall risk from the seed treatment plus subsequent foliar applications is characterized by considering the individual risk from each application method. Based on the proposed application rates (seed and subsequent foliar), EECs for terrestrial plants and invertebrates are not expected to be any higher than those used in the 2007 assessment, thus risk was not re-evaluated. As in the 2007 assessment there is concern for potential risk to terrestrial invertebrates and risk to listed plants cannot be precluded due to a non-definitive NOAEC. 

### Mammals RQs were not calculated for acute toxicity because the acute rat study resulted in a non-definitive endpoint. However, the EECs from both the seed treatment and subsequent foliar applications are less than l/loth ofthe highest dose tested the rat study; therefore acute risk is not expected for listed or non-listed mammals. The chronic LOC was not exceeded for mammals based on either the seed treatment (RQ = 

### 0.13) or the subsequent foliar applications (RQ 

### 5 0.01). Chronic risk to mammals is not expected from the seed treatment and subsequent foliar applications. 

### Birds RQs were not calculated for acute toxicity because the acute avian oral toxicity studies resulted in non-definitive endpoints. The EEC (avian nagy dose) from the seed treatment alone is more than l/loth (ca. 40%) ofthe highest dose tested in these studies. When considered alone, subsequent foliar applications are less than l/loth ofthe highest dose tested in the acute avian studies, but add to the exposure and risk from the seed treatment. A 20-pound bird could eat a maximum of four chlorantraniliprole-treated seeds without a concern from the seed treatment alone (i.e., the EEC would be less than l/loth of the highest dose tested in the acute avian studies). The same bird eating 100% of its daily diet astreated seeds would mean consumption of about 17seeds per day. Given the results of this analysis and the non-definitive toxicity endpoint, acute risk to listed birds cannot be precluded.

### The chronic LOC was exceeded for birds based on the seed treatment alone (RQ =

### 22.05). Subsequent foliar applications do not exceed the LOC (RQ 

### 5 0.24) when considered alone, but do add to the exposure and risk from 

### the seed treatment. 8.2. 

### Aquatic Organisms All proposed new uses produced aquatic EECs that were lower than those reported in the 2009 assessment (D361404) for rice seed treatment, therefore, RQs are not reported for eachproposed new use. Fish LOCs were not exceeded for freshwater or estuarinelmarine fish on either an acute (RQs 

## F 0.01) or chronic (RQs

## F 0.55)basis. Therefore, risk to fish is not expected. Invertebrates As in the 2009 and 2007 assessments, LOCs were exceeded for freshwater and estuarinelmarine invertebrates on both an acute and chronic basis. The proposed cranberry use EECs were considerably higher than EECs for any other use evaluated in the past or in the current analysis except for rice seed treatment (2009 assessment). Table 8 compares the difference in RQs for the proposed cranberry use and the proposed cucurbit use which yielded the second highest EECs. Freshwater invertebrates exceed the LOC (acute, chronic, or both) for all proposed uses and estuarinelmarine invertebrates exceed the LOC (acute, chronic, or both) for all proposed uses except the bushberry subgroup. Freshwater acute RQs ranged from 0.03to 5.48 and chronic RQs ranged from 0.08 to 14.17. Estuarinelmarine acute RQs ranged from 0.01 to 1.59and chronic RQs ranged from 0.01 5 to 1.69. Risk to aquatic invertebrates is expected from the proposed uses on an acute and chronic basis.

Freshwater Invertebrates

I I I I Scenarios resulting in the highest and second highest EECs for the proposed uses I 2RQ =peak EEC/ECSo 

### Estuarine Marine Invertebrates
RQ = 2 1 -day EEC/NOAEC Bold values exceed LOC: (A) Acute LOC = 

### 0.05 for endangered species, 0.1 for restricted use, and 

### 0.5 for nonlisted species and (B) Chronic LOC = 1 

### Cranberry Cucurbit (FL Cucumber) Cranberry Cucurbit (FL Cucumber) 63.56 8.17 63.56 8.17 14.17 1.69 

### 62.36 

### 5.48 62.36 7.44 7.44 0.70 1.59 0.20 2.60 

### 0.3 1

### Aquatic Plants LOCs for listed species were not exceeded for vascular (RQs 5 0.032) or nonvascular (RQs 

## i 0.036) aquatic plants. Therefore, risk to listed aquatic plants isnot expected. RQs were not calculated for non-listed species because the available studies yielded nondefinitive endpoints (ECSo).However, a comparison of EECs to study effects may be used to evaluate potential risk. The EECs for the proposed uses are at least 30 times less than the ECSOs, thus risk to non-listed aquatic plants is not expected. 

### 9. 

### Endangered and Threatened Species Table 9 summarizes the conclusions of potential concerns for direct and indirect effects to federally-listed threatened and endangered species (listed species). 

### Table 9. 

### Potential Effects to Federally Listed Taxa I I I I 

### Listed 

### Taxa Terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants 

### - monocots

Aquatic phase amphibians Freshwater crustaceans 

### Direct Effects yes1

Mollusks Marinelestuarine fish

direct effects on terrestrial invertebrates 3direct effects on freshwater invertebrates 4 direct effects on estuarinelmarine invertebrates 5direct effects to terrestrial plants at the listed species level of concern suggests concern of animals with obligate relationships to a plant species 6 direct effects onbirds and terrestrial-phase amphibians 

### Indirect Effects

~es~.~

No

Marinelestuarine invertebrates



### LOCATES is used to identify listed species that may be located within the same county asthe proposed new uses. However, due to the wide range of proposed uses, both in crop type and yes3" Yes (may be subject to further evaluation) No

- - - - 

### geographic distribution, it ispossible that every listed species in the United States (except for aquatic vascular plants) could be either directly or indirectly affected as a result of applications of chlorantraniliprole to the proposed crops. Therefore, LOCATES was not run. ~~~3.4.5 Yes43s insufficient data to preclude risk Yes Yes

Yes43s yes33s

### 10. 

### References USEPA. 2005. PRZM-3, A Model for Predicting Pesticide and Nitrogen Fate in the Crop Root and Unsaturated Soil Zones: Users Manual for Release 3.0. May 2005. USEPA. 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport ofPesticides, Version 2.1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, October 22,2009. USEPA. 2010. Water Models. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Science and Policy. Online at: htt~://www.epa.gov/oppefedl 

### /models/water/

### Appendix 

### 1. Seed Weight and Planting Rates

Sources: 1. Dome Agricultural Report: Crop Planting and Storage Tables, p. 1 19 2.Alberta Canada guide to Calculating seeding rates. httu://wwu.aaric.gov.ab.caia~dexl1001100 97-1 .html

### Appendix 

### 2. Representative PRZMIEXAMSOutput: 

### FL Cucumber - 

### Soil at Planting

stored as FLcucumberS.out Chemical: Chlorantranlioprole PRZM environment: FLsucumberSTD.txt modlfled Wedday, 13 June 2007 at 11:19:24 EXAMS environment: pond298.e~~ modlfied Tueday. 26August 200Sat 05:14:07 Metfile: w12844.dvf modified Tueday. 26 August 2008 at 05:14:21 water segment concentrations (ppb)
Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 1961 1.52 1.46 1.33 1962 0.59 0.56 0.48 1963 8.28 8.05 7.61 1964 11.37 10.93 9.77 1965 16.10 15.42 13.67 1966 4.44 4.34 3.95 1967 4.01 3.93 3.50 1968 5.60 5.38 4.72 1969 2.75 2.65 2.43 1970 0.87 0.85 0.77

60 Day 10.24 7.50 5.92 4.03 3.89 3.52 3.25 2.96 2.88 90 Day Year1 y 7.94 2.72

7.44 5.73 4.74 1.55 Average of 0.79 Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006
Data used tor this run: Output File: FLCucumberS Metflle: w 12-4. dvf PRZM scenario: FLcucumberSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemlcal Name: Chloranrraniliprole Descroptlon Variable NanValue Units Comments Molecular weight mwf 483.15 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 3.1OE-15 atm-mA3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.57E-13 torr Solubility so1 1.023 mg/L Kd Kd +'oc -s/L Koc 328 mg/L Photolysis half-lsfe k-3P 0.31 days Hal+-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kba- 341.13 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 624 days Hatfife Aerobsc Sot, Mefabolism as- 631.76 days Halfife Hydrolys'5 OH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual ,ncorporat,on Depth: DEPl cm npplication ~=te: TAPP 0.112 *=/ha Applicafion Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction ot applicafion rate applied to pond Application Date Date 02- 10 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mr-rn tnterva1 1 inteTYa1 5 days set to oor delete line for single app. app. rate 1 apprate 0.112 *=/ha Record 17: F I LTRA lPSCND 3 UPTKF Record 18: PCVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flae for Index Res. Run I R EPA Pond Flag for runoft calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

### Appendix 3. 

### The Provisional Cranberry Model Output 

# 1~mvisiona~~ranben~ MO~~I 

### Equations:EEC=EECO'exp (&~*(&*AAM t112) t (dsed'0'ArAM 1112)tjdsedt p'~d ~r~~ti12)1(~ t dsedyotp' ~d)))]

- r 

### Inputs ModelParameters Calculated Parameters Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Valw I~@~cabm iate(IklA) 0.201 \watercolmndepth(m) 

# 1 03051

aqdcmetablismtl, id:, Isdimatpsiv 

# 1 oaml ~SM 

### wr (II~) 

### rrionl AerobicsoilmeEabolrsm (d) Ka: (Ukg) 328 if INKoeentetKd(Uirg) Aerobic @ic metabdism (d) 341.13

Ap

rate,7dbefwePHI(IbsIA)= 0.10 Ap

rate, (PHI : 1 Odays)(IhlA)= 0.10 TotalIMAat hamt= 

## ' 0.20 Sedimmldepth(m) Oynic~onof~mm! SediMbulkdensity (kqim3) 0.01 0.n 13W KdinptA(Ukg) 3.28 

### uunk(1l)

# 1 iKQX2 AM ratek(lid) 

# , 0.W1111