### 2 

# Problem Formulation for the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk, Endangered Species, and Drinking Water Assessments in Support of the Registration Review of Acetamiprid

(E)-N 1 

### -[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]-N 2 

### -cyano-N 1 

### -methylacetamidine CAS No. 135410-20-7 PC Code: 099050

P

repared b y : Katrina White, Ph.D., Biologist Scott Glaberman, Ph.D., Biologist Environmental Risk Branch IV U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Environmental Fate and Effects Division Environmental Risk Branch IV 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Mail Code 7507P Washington, DC 20460 R eviewed by: 

### Jim Carleton, Ph.D., Senior Scientist Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor Marietta Echeverria, Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch IV

September 5, 2012

### 3 Table of Contents

1. Purpose .................................................................................................................... .................... 7 2. Description of Regulatory Action ........................................................................................... .... 7 3. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments ........................................................................... 8 3.1. Ecological Risk Assessments .......................................................................................... 8 3.2. Drinking Water Assessments ........................................................................................ 11 4. Mechanism of Action ........................................................................................................ ........ 12 5. Overview of Pesticide Usage ................................................................................................ .... 13 5.1. Summary of Products and Overview of Usage ............................................................. 13 5.2. Agricultural Uses and Residential Uses on Plants ........................................................ 18 5.3. Use on Trees ................................................................................................................. 21 5.4. Termiticide, Ants Control, and Control of Pests ........................................................... 21 5.5. Usage Data .................................................................................................................... 23 6. Environmental Fate and Transport............................................................................................ 26 6.1. Summary ....................................................................................................................... 26 6.2. Degradation/Transformation of Parent ......................................................................... 31 6.3. Field Dissipation ........................................................................................................... 3 2 6.4. Degradates/Transformation Products ............................................................................ 34 6.5. Mobility/Sorption .......................................................................................................... 39 6.6. Monitoring Data ............................................................................................................ 40 7. Clean Water Act ............................................................................................................ ............ 40 8. Receptors................................................................................................................... ................ 41 8.1. Effects to Aquatic Organisms ....................................................................................... 42 8.1.A. Acetamiprid (Parent) .................................................................................................. 42 8.1.B. Degradate Effects to Aquatic Organisms ................................................................... 45 8.2. Effects to Terrestrial Organisms ................................................................................... 47 8.2.A. Acetamiprid (Parent) Toxicity ................................................................................... 47 8.2.B. Degradate Toxicity to Terrestrial Organisms ............................................................. 51 8.3. Incident Database Review ............................................................................................. 52 9. Identification of Stressors of Concern ..................................................................................... . 53 10. Ecosystems Potentially At Risk ............................................................................................ .. 57 11. Assessment Endpoints ...................................................................................................... ...... 57 12. Conceptual Model .......................................................................................................... ......... 58 12.1. Risk Hypothesis ............................................................................................................ 58 12.2. Conceptual Diagram ..................................................................................................... 59 13. Analysis Plan ............................................................................................................. ............. 63 13.1. Measures of Exposure ................................................................................................... 64 13.1.A. Exposure in the Aquatic Environment ..................................................................... 64 13.1.B. Exposure to Terrestrial Animals via Residues on Food Items ................................. 65 13.1.C. Exposure to Terrestrial Plants .................................................................................. 66 13.1.D. Exposure to Spray Drift ........................................................................................... 66 13.1.E. Exposure to Terrestrial Plants fr om Residues in Irrigation Water ........................... 66 13.1.F. Exposure from Applicati ons to Individual Trees ...................................................... 67 13.2. Measures of Effect ........................................................................................................ 67

### 4 13.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects ............................................................................. 68 13.3.A. Deterministic and Probabilistic Assessment Methods ............................................. 68 13.3.B. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ................................................................. 69 13.3.C. Endangered Species Assessment .............................................................................. 69 13.3.A. Risk Assessment of Pollinators ................................................................................ 70 13.3.B. Human Health Drinking Water Assessment ............................................................ 71 14. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps ................................................................................. 7 1 14.1. Fate .......................................................................................................................... ...... 71 14.1.A. Rationales for Requesting Fate Studies ................................................................... 75 14.1.B. Discussion of Additional Fate Data to Reduce Uncertainty or Aid in Monitoring .. 77 14.2. Ecological Effects ......................................................................................................... 78 14.2.A. Testing on Typical End-Use Products (TEP) ........................................................... 86 14.3. Additional Information Needed on Specific Labels, Uses, and Formulation Types .... 86 14.4. Other Information Needs .............................................................................................. 89 15. References ................................................................................................................ ............... 90 15.1. Literature Cited ............................................................................................................. 90 15.2. Submitted St udies ......................................................................................................... 95 15.2.A. Physical Chemical and Fate Data........................................................................... 109

List of Tables

Table 3-1. Existing Uses Assessed in the Co mpleted Ecological Risk Assessments .................. 10 Table 5-1. Summary of Secti on 3 and Section 24C (Special Local Need) Registrations for Acetamiprid (completed 04/12/2012) ......................................................................... 13 Table 5-2. Summary of Use Patterns of Acetamiprid with Well Defined Use Rates for Agricultural Crops ...................................................................................................... 18 Table 5-3. Summary of Use Pattern Recommended for Control of Borers, Scale Insects, and Hemlock Wooly Adelgids in Ornamental or Non-Bearing Fruit and Nut Trees ........ 21 Table 5-4. Summary of Uses Around Build ings, Paths, Wood, and Equipment ......................... 22 Table 5-5. Screening Level Estimates of Agri cultural Uses of Acetamiprid (099050), Sorted Alphabetically ............................................................................................................. 23 Table 6-1. Summary of physical-che mical properties of acetamiprid ......................................... 27 Table 6-2. Summary of envir onmental fate and transport properties of acetamiprid 6 

### ................. 28 Table 6-3. Summary of Terrest rial Field Dissipation Study Results For Acetamiprid ............... 33 Table 6-4. Summary of Maxi mum Degradate Amounts in Envi ronmental Fate Studies of Acetamiprid d 

### ............................................................................................................... 37 Table 6-5. Summary of environmen tal fate and transport properties of the acetamiprid degradate IM-1-4 ........................................................................................................................ . 38 Table 6-6. Summary of half-liv es estimated for residues of pa rent, IM-1-4, and Unextracted residues in metabolism studies.................................................................................... 39 Table 8-1. Categories of Acute T oxicity for Aquatic Animals .................................................... 41 Table 8-2. Categories of Acute Toxi city for Terrestrial Animals ................................................ 42 Table 8-3. Most Sensitive Aquatic T oxicity Endpoints for Acetamiprid .................................... 44 Table 8-4. Aquatic Toxicity Endpoints for Degradates of Acetamiprid ...................................... 46 Table 8-5. Most Sensitive Te rrestrial Animal Toxicity Endpoints for Acetamiprid ................... 49

### 5 Table 8-6. Most Sensitive Terrestrial Plant Toxicity Endpoints for Acetamiprid. ...................... 51 Table 8-7. Available Terrestrial Animal Toxicity Endpoints for Degradates. ............................ 51 Table 9-1. Comparison of Available Empirical Toxi city Data for Acetamiprid and Degradates 54 Table 9-2. ECOSAR Quantitative Structure-Activ ity Relationship (QSAR) Toxicity Predictions for Acetamiprid and Degradates ................................................................................. 55 Table 9-3. Summary of Residues of Concern and Methods of Estimating Exposure for Different Classes of Organisms .................................................................................................. 56 Table 14-1. Summary of Submitted Environmental Fate Studies, Study Classifications and Data Gaps for Acetamiprid and Its Degradates ................................................................... 72 Table 14-2. Summary of Submitted Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects Studies and Data Gaps for Parent Acetamiprid. .................................................................................................... 80 Table 14-3. Summary of Submitte d Aquatic and Terrestrial Animal Effects Studies and Data Gaps for Degradates of Acetamiprid. ......................................................................... 84

List of Figures

Figure 5-1. Average Pounds Acetamiprid Used by Crop Reporting District (2006-2010). ........ 25 Figure 6-1. Potential Degradation Pathway for A cetamiprid. Bold degradates had greater than 10% applied radioactivity associated w ith the compound in at least one submitted fate study. .................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 6-2. Structure of Pyridylmethylamine Nicotinoid Insecticides and Nicotine.................... 36 Figure 12-1. Conceptual model depicting stressors, exposure path ways, and potential effects to aquatic organisms and their habita t from the use of acetamiprid .............................. 60 Figure 12-2. Conceptual model depicting stressors, generic e xposure pathways, and potential effects to terrestrial organism s (terrestrial plants, terrestr ial invertebrate s, and dietary routes of exposure for terrest rial vertebrates) and thei r habitat from the use of acetamiprid ................................................................................................................ 61 Figure 12-3. Conceptual mode l depicting stressors, drinking water and inhalation exposure pathways, and potential effects to terrestr ial animals from the use of acetamiprid .. 62 Figure 12-4. Conceptual model depicting stressors, exposure path ways, and potential effects to aquatic and terrestrial organisms from app lications of acetamipri d to individual trees.

.............................................................................................................................. ..... 63

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Supplemental Environmental Fate Information .................................................. 116 Appendix B. Summary of Av ailable Effects Studies ................................................................. 124 Appendix C. Example ECOSAR Output ................................................................................... 138 Appendix D. Reference List for OPPTS 835 Guidelines .......................................................... 140 Appendix E. Results from Screening Imbibiti on Program (SIP) and the Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk Assessment (STIR) ..................................................................... 142 Appendix F. Agency risk quotient (RQ) metric s and levels of concern (LOC) for Federallylisted (listed) threatened /endangered and non-listed species per risk class .......... 145 Appendix G. Data Call-In Justification Tables for Non-Guideline Ecological Effects Studies 146 Appendix H. Preliminary Estimate of Surface Water Concentrations for Ecological Risk

### 6 Assessment ........................................................................................................... 148

### 7 1. Purpose

The purpose of this problem formulation is to pr ovide an understanding of the environmental fate and ecological effects of the registered uses of acetamiprid ((E)-N1-[(6-chloro-3- pyridyl)methyl]-N2-cyano-N1-methylacetamidine). Acetamiprid is a neonicotinoid insecticide registered for the following agricultural crops: alfalfa, apple, beans, blueberry, bushberry, caneberry, bulb vegetables, cole crops, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegeta bles, leafy vegetables, citrus, clover, cotton (unspecified), crabapple, cranberry, deciduous fru it trees (unspecified), grapes, leafy vegetables, legume vegetables, oni on, ornamental herbaceous plants, ornamental nonflowering plants, ornamental wood shrubs and vi nes, pear, pine seedlings, pome fruits, Irish white potato, root and tuber vegetables, small fr uits, soybeans, strawberry, tobacco, tomato, and tree nuts. Acetamiprid is registered for the following residential/commercial use areas/sites: ornamental and flowering plants, ornamental shrubs, ornamental trees, houseplants, gardens, poplar trees, preconstruction site s, households, outdoor building perimeters, residential areas, greenhouses, shadehouses, and lathouses. It is al so registered to cont rol ants, cockroaches, termites, and various other insects indoors and outdoors. This document will provide a plan for analyzing data relevant to acetamiprid and for conducting environmental fate and ecological risk, endangered species, and drinking water assessments for its registered uses. Additionally, this problem formulation is intended to identify data gaps, uncertainties, a nd potential assumptions used to address those uncertainties relative to characterizing the ecological risk associated with the registered uses of acetamiprid.

2. Description of Regulatory Action

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 mandated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implement a new program for assessing the risks of pesticides, i.e ., Registration Review 1 

### . All pesticides distributed or sold in th e United States (U.S.) generally must be registered by EPA. The decision to register a pesticide is based on the consideration of scientific data and other factors showing that it will not cau se unreasonable risks to human health, workers, or the environment when used as directed on pr oduct labeling. The Registration Review program is intended to ensure that, as the ability to a ssess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the envir onment. Changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time; through the new Registration Review program, the Agency periodically reevaluates pesticides to en sure that as change occurs, products in the marketplace can be used safely.

As part of the implementation of the Registratio n Review program pursuant to Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodentic ide Act (FIFRA), the Agency is beginning its evaluation to determine whether acetamiprid continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. This problem formulation for the en vironmental fate and ecological risk assessment chapter in support of the Registra tion Review is intended for the initial docket opening the public phase of the review process.

1 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrr d1/registration_review

### 8 3. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments

3.1. Ecological Risk Assessments

Acetamiprid is used in outdoor sites and thus has the potential to result in exposures to wildlife. The Agency conducted a new chemical ecologi cal risk assessment and drinking water assessment on acetamiprid in 2002. New use requests prompted five additional assessments completed in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011. These assessments serve as a basis for this problem formulation. The assessmen ts are briefly discussed below.

A Section 3 new chemical ecological risk as sessment was conducted for acetamiprid use on flowers and ornamentals, leafy vegetables, cole crops, cotton, fruiting vegetables, citrus, pome fruits, grapes and seeds (USEPA, 2002, D270368) . The highest proposed maximum seasonal application rate for any crop was 0.6 pounds active ingr edient per acre (lbs a i/A) for pome fruits. Acetamiprid was characterized as posing low risk to the environment relative to most other insecticides based on its selective toxicity, low use rates, and relati vely rapid rate of degradation. Direct acute risk to aquatic i nvertebrates with direct application into sh allow water bodies was predicted, and chronic risks to so me species of aquatic invertebra tes (due to the selectivity of acetamiprid) were predicted for other uses. Di rect risk to Federally-listed threatened or endangered species (hereafter referr ed to as “listed species”) of terrestrial wildlife, terrestrial plants, and saltwater invertebrates were also pred icted. Direct effects on terrestrial invertebrates were presumed based on acetamiprid being an ins ecticide; however, actual risk to terrestrial invertebrates was not quantifie d. The only residue of concer n evaluated was the parent acetamiprid.

Subsequent new use assessments were conducted fo r tobacco, potatoes, and residential uses in 2004 (USEPA, 2004, D304025) and for cucurbits, stone fruits, and tree nuts in 2005 (USEPA, 2005, D319610). The 2004 assessment indicated that a cetamiprid may pose dire ct acute risks to non-listed and listed freshwater invertebrates, list ed mammals, and listed te rrestrial plants while the 2005 assessment indicated additional chroni c risks to non-listed and listed aquatic invertebrates and non-listed and listed mammals and both acute a nd chronic risks to non-listed and listed birds. Additionally, direct risk to lis ted terrestrial plants was indicated. The maximum seasonal application rate for tree nuts (0.72 lbs ai/A) assesse d in 2005 was higher than the highest rate previously evalua ted. The risk assessments also noted that acetamiprid was moderately toxic to bees and be longed to a class of chemicals th at has been associated with causing behavioral effects in bees. Potential for i ndirect effects to fish was also identified. The only residue of concern evaluated in th e risk assessment was parent acetamiprid.

A 2007 assessment (USEPA, 2002, D270368) for new uses on berries, bulb vegetables, succulent legumes, and strawberri es concluded that the proposed application rates were lower than those previously assessed, resulting in lower risk quotients (RQs); however, RQ values still exceeded the Agency’s levels of concern (LOCs) for the same previously identified taxa. The only residue of concern evaluated in the ri sk assessment was the parent acetamiprid.

A 2009 new use assessment (Morrica et al. , 2005) for new uses on red clover and the climbing

### 9 vine small fruit subgroup (crop subgroup 13-07F, except fuzzy kiwifruit) indicated that the proposed uses could result in direct effects to birds (and to reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians for which birds serve as surrogates) on both an acute and chronic exposure basis (USEPA, 2009, D364328). Listed fr eshwater and estuarine/marine aquatic invertebrates and mammals may be affected by acute exposur es to acetamiprid, and freshwater and estuarine/marine aquatic invertebrates may be di rectly affected by chr onic exposures. Finally, the assessment also indicated th at listed dicotyledonous plants could be adversely affected by spray drift from aerial applications to grapes and climbing vine sma ll fruits. Indirect effects were predicted for aquatic plants, fish (and aqua tic-phase amphibians for which fish serve as surrogates), estuarine/marine fish and aquatic invertebrates. The assessment considered the parent and the degradate, IM 1- 4, as residues of concern and ri sk was evaluated using a total toxic residue approach. 2 

### Overall, the inclusion of IM-1-4 did not affect the risk conclusions.

In 2011, an assessment was completed for both exis ting and newly proposed agricultural uses of acetamiprid (described in Table 3-1 ); the uses that have been approved are included in this document, while uses that are still pending are not discussed. The existing uses were re-evaluated for aquatic organisms because the degradate IM 1-4 and unextracted residues were assumed to also be residues of concern; therefore, a total to xic residues approach was used to assess risk of both existing and proposed uses. IM-1-4 was c onsidered as a residue of concern in this assessment because it has a considerably longer ha lf-life than the parent compound and available data suggest it is as toxic as the parent compound to aquatic animal species. The screening-level risk assessment concluded that all proposed uses of acetamiprid have the potential for direct acute effects to listed aquatic invertebrates. There was also the potential for direct acute effects to non-listed aquatic invertebrates for five of the seven crop uses (includi ng fruiting vegetables, citrus, and pome fruit). The Agency’s chronic LOC for aquatic invertebrates was also exceeded for all proposed crop uses of acetamiprid.

The assessment in 2011 also indicated that for te rrestrial organisms, there was a potential for direct acute effects to both lis ted and non-listed birds (reptiles a nd terrestrial-phase amphibians) for all of the proposed crop uses of acetamiprid. Th e higher risk estimates for birds compared to previous assessments were based on a recently study in zebra finches ( Taeniopygia guttata ) where acetamiprid was shown to be very highly toxic to passerine bird s on an acute exposure basis. The assessment also indicated that acetam iprid had the potential to cause direct acute effects to listed mammals and terrestrial plants for all uses evaluated except for soybeans. In addition, there was also potential for direct effects to non-listed terrestrial plants for assessed uses on citrus and pome fruit.

Although the 2011 assessment did not predict direct risk to fish and a quatic plants for any assessed uses, the assessment noted that indirect effects to all taxa exce pt aquatic non-vascular plants could occur due to effects on prey or habitat. 3

2 The residues of concern for ecological risk assessment are defined by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division. The residues of concern for human health drinking water ar e the parent only and these are determined by the Health Effects Division.
3 Indirect effects to terrestrial and aquatic vascular plan ts may occur due to effects on birds and mammals that are

### 10 Table 3-1. Existing Uses Assessed in th e Completed Ecological Risk Assessments

Use Site/ Source Year Assessed Single App. Rate (lbs. ai/A) Number of Apps. Seasonal App. Rate (lbs. ai/A) Interval Between

Apps. (days) Comments

Ready to Use Hand spray on Ornamentals, Citrus, Vegetables, and Fruits 2002 NS NS NS 7 --

Residential Uses 2004 2.2 NS NS NS -- Ornamental and Flowering Plants 2002 0.15 lbs ai NS 0.55 lbs ai 7 --

Cotton 2002, 2011 0.1 4 0.4 7

-- Leafy Vegetables within Crop Group 4 2002, 2011 0.075 5 0.375 7

--
Head and Stem Cole Crops 2002, 2011 0.075 5 0.375 7

-- Fruiting Vegetables (within Crop Group 8-10) 2002, 2011 0.075 4 0.3 7

--

Canola 2002 0.03 (5.0 g ai/kg seed; 6 lbs

treated seed/A) 1 NA NA --

Citrus (within Crop Group 10-10) 2002, 2011 0.25 5 0.55 7

-- 0.25 (assumed 2 ) 2 (assumed 2 ) 7

--
0.11 (assumed 2 ) 5 0.55 7

-- Pome Fruit (within Crop Group 11-10) 2002, 2011 0.15 4 0.60 12

-- Tuberous and CormVegetables (within Crop Subgroup 1C) 2004, 2011 0.075 4 0.3 7

--

Tobacco 2 2004, 2011 0.075 4 0.3 7 None Grapes and Other Climbing Small Fruits (except FuzzyKiwifruit, within Crop Subgroup 13-07F) 2002, 2009, 2011 0.1 2 0.2 14 None

Stone Fruit (within crop Group 12) 2005, 2011 0.15 4 0.6 10 None

Cucurbits (within Crop Group 9) 2005, 2011 0.10 5 0.5 5 Multiple
seasons per year Tree Nuts (within Crop Group 14, including Pistachio) 2005, 2011 0.18 4 0.72 7 in 2005 14 in 2011 -- Edible Podded Legume (within Crop Subgroup-6A) 2007, 2011 0.1 3 0.3 7

--

pollinators or important in seed dispersal of the species.

### 11 Use Site/ Source Year Assessed Single App. Rate (lbs. ai/A) Number of Apps. Seasonal App. Rate (lbs. ai/A) Interval Between

Apps. (days) Comments

and Succulent Shelled Peasand Beans (within Crop SubGroup 6B) Strawberries and Other Low Growing Berries (within Crop Sub-group 13-07G) 2007, 2011 0.13 2 0.26 7

--

Blueberries and Other BushBerries (within Crop SubGroup 13-07B) and CaneBerries (within Crop Subgroup 13-07A) 2007, 2011 0.085 5 0.5 7

--

Onions and Other Bulb Vegetables (within Crop Group 3-07) 2007, 2011 0.15 4 0.6 7

--
Clover (for use in OD, OR, and WA only) 2009, 2011 0.075 1 0.075 NA

--

Mustard 2002 0.03 (5.0 g ai/kg seed; 6 lbs

treated seed/A) 1 NA NA --

Soybean 2011 0.04 2 0.078 (0.08 assumed 1 ) 7 150 foot buffer 25 foot buffer Abbreviations: App=Application
1 Assumed for Tier I aquatic exposure modeling and terrestr ial exposure modeling because it is not possible to model multiple applications at different rates.
2 Scenarios were assumed for modeling purposes because the five applications of the single maximum application rate cannot be made according to the maximum seasonal application rate.



### 3.2. Drinking Water Assessments

The outdoor uses of acetamiprid potentially contribut e residues to drinking water. The most recent Tier I drinking water assessment to support a human health risk assessment was completed in 2011 (USEPA, 2011, D394234, D394479). The assessment analyzed the drinking water concentrations for a number of proposed an d existing agricultural uses assessed in the 2011 Ecological Risk Assessment (see Table 3-1 ). The Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC) reported that the residue of concern for acetamiprid is the parent only (USEPA, 2001). Unextracted residues were observed in aerobic soil and aerobic aquatic metabolism studies and in some studies it was uncertain whether some of the unextracted residues contained parent compound (MRIDs 46255603, 44651881, 44699101, 44651879, 44988513, and 44988512). 4 

### Additionally, the extraction techni ques were not exhaustive and it is

4 If unextracted residues formed along with loss of the parent compound it is possible that some of the unextracted residues are the parent compound; however, if the parent degraded significantly in the beginning of the study and

### 12 likely that if different extracti on techniques were used, a higher percentage would be extracted. Therefore, when it was uncertain, half-lives used in surface water and ground water modeling were estimated assuming that the unextracted residues were the parent compound. Then these new half-life values based on residues of parent and unextracted residues were used in modeling to estimate drinking water concentrations. 5 

### When the parent was shown to degrade at the beginning of the study and unextracted residues di d not appear until the end of the study, it was assumed that the unextracted residues were not the parent compound. 6 

### Estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) in surf ace water were derived using F QPA I ndex R eservoir S creening T ool (FIRST version 1.1.1, March 25, 2008) and ground water concentrations were estimated using the Screening Concentr ation in Ground Water (SCI-GRO W version 2.3, July 29, 2003). For existing uses, the highest acute EDWC (estim ated for acetamiprid use on tree nuts) was 42.8 μg acetamiprid+unextracted residues/L water a nd the annual average concentration was 12.2 μg acetamiprid+unextracted residues/L water. Th e highest estimated ground water concentration for existing uses was 0.013 μg/L. Whether EDWC w ill result in a human health risk concern is determined by considering EDWC as a part of aggregate dietary exposure (food and water) and comparing dietary exposure estimates to ma mmalian toxicity endpoi nts (modified by the necessary uncertainty and/or safe ty factors) to determine whet her the LOC is exceeded for the dietary exposure pathway. Because of the absen ce of data on acetamiprid, the potential effects of drinking water treatment ( e.g ., chlorination, ozonation) were not considered in the assessment.

4. Mechanism of Action

Acetamiprid is a chloronicotinyl insecticide belo nging to the cyano-substi tuted sub-class of the neonicotinoid pesticides, which also includes thiacloprid (CAS No. 111988-49-9). Similar to other neonicotinoids including nitroguanidine-substituted compounds such as imidacloprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran and thiamethoxam, acetamiprid is a systemic, broad-spectrum insecticide that acts as a stomach poison agains t sucking and some biting insects (Sur and Stork, 2003). The compound acts as an agonist of the ni cotinic acetylcholine rece ptor (nAChR) at the postsynaptic membrane of nerve ce lls. The active ingredient interr upts the function of the insect nervous system. As reported in the original Se ction 3 risk assessment, biochemical radio-ligand binding studies show that acetamipr id interacts with high affinity at the nAChR binding site in insects, and with low affinity at the nA ChR in vertebrates (USEPA, 2002, D270368). The cyano-substituted neonicotinoids exhib it a lower toxicity to honeybees (LD 50 

### values of <12.5 to 14.6 μ g/bee) than the nitro-substituted ne onicotinoids (18 to 138 ng/bee) (Iwasa et al. , 2004). Inhibition of cytochrome P450 activity in honeybees ( Apis mellifera ) resulted in increased toxicity of acetamiprid, indicati ng that P450 metabolism is an important detoxifying pathway for insects (Iwasa et al. , 2004).

unextracted residues did not form until the end of the study, the unextracted residues are unlikely to be the parent compound.
5 Half-lives including unextracted residues were calcula ted and used in modeling for the aerobic soil metabolism studies (MRID 46255603, 44651881 for clay loam soil, MRID 44651879) and aerobic aquatic metabolism studies (MRID 44988513), and anaerobic aquatic metabolism studies (MRID 44988512).
6 This occurred in two soils (sandy loam and silty clay loam) in an aerobic soil metabolism study (MRID 44651881).

### 13 5. Overview of Pesticide Usage

5.1. Summary of Products and Overview of Usage

Acetamiprid was first registered in 2002 (USEPA, 2012). It is an insectic ide used to control a variety of insects includ ing aphids, beetles, caterpillars, l eafhoppers, stinkbugs, thrips, whiteflies, boll worms, fleahoppers, earwigs, silverfish, te rmites, ants, cockroaches, weevils, Colorado potato beetles, potato psyllids, wirewo rms, household pests, bedbugs, Lygus bug, carpenterworm, apple maggots, bor ers (excluding the Emerald ash borer) and scale insects. There are currently 37 Section 3 registrations containing ace tamiprid and 14 Section 24C (Special Local Needs) registrations ( Table 5-1 ). Some formulated e nd products of acetamiprid contain other active ingredients in addition to acetamiprid; a fl owable concentrate (Reg. No. 8033-116) and two termiticides (Reg. No. 8033-96 and 8033-109 7 

### ) also contains the synthetic pyrethroid insecticide bifenthrin (CAS No. 826 57-04-3) and one homeowner product (Reg. No. 8033-108) contains the conazole fungicide triti conazole (CAS No. 131983-72-7). Use sites include agriculture, residential, commercial, industrial, and nursery use sites. All use sites are described in more detail in the following sections.

Formulations include water dispersible granules (WDG), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), soluble concentrates (SC), liquids, water soluble packet s (WSP), impregnated stickers, impregnated bait stations, gels, and an attract-a nd-kill device. Water dispersibl e granules, EC, SC, and WSP are applied as ground or aerial sprays an d may result in spray drift. Gels are used as spot treatments, beads, and thin films to control ants and cockroac hes. Water dispersible granules are all applied as a liquid. There are also seed treatment uses on potatoes, canola, and mustard. Some liquid formulations are injected into trees. Termiticides may be applied as a liquid or foam. They may be applied on soil surfaces as a perimeter treatme nt, crack and crevice treatment, or brush and spray. The may also be applied into soil usi ng trenching, rodding, sub slab injection, and soil excavation techniques. Some termiticide produc ts are applied to subsurfaces into piping, injections, and reticulation deliver y systems. The impregnated ma terials are generally stickers used to control flies. The attract-and-kill devi ce is a pheromone mixed with acetamiprid that is hung in trees.

Table 5-1. Summary of Section 3 and Section 24C (Special Local Need) Registrations for Acetamiprid (completed 04/12/2012) Reg. Number Registration Name Percent Acet. Form. General Summary of Use Sites Target pests
Agricultural Use Patterns That Are not Seed Treatments

8033-20 Acetamiprid Technical 99.5

8033-22 Tristar 70WSP Insecticide 70 WSP Ornamentals j Many: aphids, beetles, caterpillars, thrips, etc.

8033-23 Assail 70WP Insecticide 70 WP Many: cotton, fruits, vegetables, tobacco, tree nuts, clover, etc. Many: aphids, whitefly, weevils, thrips, etc.

7 These are the parent labels for SLN registration numbers OK110002 and OK100003.

### 14 Reg. Number Registration Name Percent Acet. Form. General Summary of Use Sites Target pests

8033-24 Intruder Brand Insecticide 70 WP Cotton Aphids, whitefly, plant bugs, fleahopper, boll worm

8033-36 c Assail 30 SG Insecticide 30 WDG Many: cotton, fruits, vegetables, tobacco, tree nuts, clover, etc. Many: aphids, whitefly, weevils, thrips, etc.

8033-26 a Acetamiprid 70 WSP Insecticide 70 WSP Outdoor use only Ants, termites

8033-94 Tristar 30 SG Insecticide 30 SC Ornamentals and vegetables Many: aphids, whitefly, thrips, etc.

8033-101 f Acetamiprid SL Insecticide 8.5 SC Cotton Aphids, whiteflies

8033-106 TRISTAR 8.5 SL INSECTICIDE 8.5 SC Ornamentals, transplants of leafy & fruiting vegetables, greenhouse tomatoes Broad range, including aphids, whiteflies, scales,

caterpillars, weevils, leafminers

8033-116 h Justice OF Insecticide 13 10 e FC Soybean Many, including aphids, beetles, earworm, rootworm, grasshoppers

ID070011 Assail 70 WP Insecticide 70 WP Alfalfa Lygus bug

ID090014 Assail 30 SG Insecticide 30 WDG Alfalfa seed crop Lygus bug

NV070004 Assail 70 WP Insecticide 70 WP Alfalfa seed crop Lygus bug

OR070017 Assail 70 WP Insecticide 70 A&K Alfalfa seed crop Lygus bug

OR090005 Assail 70 WP Insecticide 70 WP Poplar (hybrid) Carpenterworm

UT090001 Assail 70 WP Insecticide 70 WP Alfalfa seed crop Lygus bug

WA060009 Tristar 30 SG insecticide 30 SC Fruit and nut trees (nonbearing), apples, crabapples, pears, ornamental plants and
trees Apple maggot

WA060011 Tristar 70 WSP Insecticide 70 WSP Crabapples, pears, fruit trees, crops, ornamental plants, ornamental trees, residential

areas, nonag areas (public health) (outdoor) Apple maggot

WA070006 Assail 70 WP Insecticide 70 WP Alfalfa seed crop Lygus bug

WA110010 Tristar 8.5 SL Insecticide 8.5 SC Apples, crabapples, pears, ornamental plants and trees,

non-bearing fruit and nut trees in non-agricultural quarantine and pest-free areas

(including residential areas) Apple maggot

WY080010 Assail 70 WP Insecticide 70 WP Alfalfa seed crop Lygus bug

Seed Treatments

### 15 Reg. Number Registration Name Percent Acet. Form. General Summary of Use Sites Target pests

8033-95 d Acetamiprid 50 FS Insecticide Seed Treatment 40 RTU liquid Canola and mustard seed, potato seed piece Aphids, Colorado potato beetle, flea beetle, leaf hopper, potato psyllid, wireworm Ready To Use Products/Homeowner Use That ar e not Ant Baits or Impregnated Materials

8033-21 Acetamiprid RTU Insecticide .006 RTU
spray Ornamentals, vegetables, citrus, pome fruits Many: aphids, beetles, caterpillars, leafhoppers, stinkbugs, etc.

8033-25 Acetamiprid 70 WSP Insecticide For Homeowner Use 70 WSP Outdoor building perimeters Ants, earwigs, silverfish, termites etc.

8033-107 g Acetamiprid Concentrate Insecticide 0.5 Ornamentals, vegetables, fruits, houseplants Many: aphids, whitefly, thrips, etc.

8033-108 Acetamiprid + Triticonazole Concentrate 0.26 0.78 i Ornamentals, roses, flowers, trees, shrubs, houseplants Many: aphids, whitefly, thrips, etc.

8033-107 g Acetamiprid Concentrate Insecticide 0.5 Ornamentals, vegetables, fruits, houseplants Many: aphids, whitefly, thrips, etc.

Ant and Cockroach Baits and Gels

8033-28 Acetamiprid (F5025) 0.15%Sweet Bait GelAnts OTC 0.15 Gel Indoor/outdoor Sweet and grease eating ants

8033-29 b Acetamiprid (F5025) 0.15% Sweet Bait Gel

Ants PMP 0.15 Gel Indoor/outdoor Ants

8033-30 Acetamiprid (F5025) 0.15% Sweet Bait Gel Cockroach OTC 0.15 Gel Indoor/outdoor Cockroaches

8033-31 Acetamiprid (F5025) 0.15% Sweet Bait Gel

Cockroaches 0.15 Gel Indoor/outdoor Cockroaches

8033-32 Acetamiprid (F5025) Bait StationCockroachesOTC 0.35 IM-BS inchildresistant container Indoor/outdoor Cockroaches

8033-33 Acetamiprid (F5025) Bait StationCockroachesPMP 0.35 Indoor/outdoor Cockroaches

8033-34 Acetamiprid (F5025) 0.35% 0.35 Gel Indoor/outdoor Cockroaches

### 16 Reg. Number Registration Name Percent Acet. Form. General Summary of Use Sites Target pests

Protein Bait Gel Cockroach OTC

8033-35 Acetamiprid (F5025) 0.35% Protein Bait Gel PMP Cockroaches PMP 0.35 Gel Indoor/outdoor Cockroaches

8033-90 Acetamiprid (F5025) 0.35% Cockroach Bait Gel-OTC 0.35 Gel Indoor/outdoor Cockroaches

8033-91 Acetamiprid (F5025) 0.35% Cockroach Bait Gel-PM 0.35 Gel Indoor/outdoor Cockroaches

8033-92 Acetamiprid (F5025) 0.35% Cockroach Bait

Station OTC 0.35 IM- BS Indoor/outdoor Cockroaches

8033-93 Acetamiprid (F5025) 0.35% Cockroach Bait

Station PMP 0.35 IM- BS Indoor/outdoor Cockroaches

8033-97 Acetamiprid (F5025) 0.075% Sweet Bait Gel - Ants OTC 0.075 Gel Indoor/outdoor Ants

8033-98 Acetamiprid (F5025) 0.075%Sweet Bait GelAnts-PMP 0.075 Gel Indoor/outdoor Ants

8033-99 Acetamiprid (F5025) 0.075% Gel Bait Station

Ants - OTC 0.075 IM- BS Indoor/outdoor Ants

8033-100 Acetamiprid (F5025) 0.075% Gel Bait Station

Ants - PMP 0.075 IM- BS Indoor/outdoor Ants

8033-105 Acetamiprid 0.075% Protein Ant Bait Station OTC 0.075 IM- BS Indoor/outdoor Ants

Termiticides

8033-96 F4688 50 WSP Insecticide Termiticide 22.73 27.27 e WSP Indoor/outdoor, food/feed handling establishments;
mattresses Termites, household pests (ants, bees, wasps, biting flies, centipedes, chiggers,

cockroaches, crickets, earwigs, fleas, ticks, flies, mosquitoes, spiders,

### 17 Reg. Number Registration Name Percent Acet. Form. General Summary of Use Sites Target pests scorpions, silverfish, sowbugs, stink bugs, etc. ) , bedbugs

8033-109 F5688 11% ME Insecticide Termiticide 5 6 e EC Indoor/outdoor, food/feed handling establishments Termites, household pests (ants, bees, wasps, biting flies, centipedes, chiggers,

cockroaches, crickets, earwigs, fleas, ticks, flies, mosquitoes, spiders, scorpions, silverfish, sowbugs, stink bugs, etc .), bedbugs

OK100001 F4688 50 WSP Insecticide Termiticide 22.73 27.27 e WSP Outdoors Termites

OK110002 F5688 11% ME Insecticide Termiticide 5 6 e EC New or post-construction sub-concrete slab treatments

through piping or similar delivery systems Termites

OK100003 Transport Termiticide Insecticide 22.73 27.27 e WSP Outdoors Termites

Impregnated Materials

8033-114 F7180-8 Fly Sticker Insecticide - PMP 4.4 IMsticker Indoor/outdoor House flies, little house flies, blow flies, bottle flies, flesh

flies, phorid flies, fungus gnats, and vinegar (fruit) flies. 8033-115 F7180-8 Fly Sticker Insecticide OTC 4.4 IMsticker Indoor/outdoor

WP=wettable powder; SC=soluble concentrate; WSP=wate r soluble packet; RTU-ready to use; EC=emulsifiable concentrate; WDG=water dispersible granules; IM=imp regnated material; FC=flowable concentrate; BS=bait station; Acet.=acetamiprid; reg=registration; OTC=ove r the counter; PMP=pest ma nagement professionals; A&K=attract-and-kill device

a Only for Sale to, and for Use and Storage by Pest Management Professionals
b Inject into cracks & crevi ces w/syringe or bait injector

c Geographical restrictions for certain use sites; chemigation permitted for cranberries & potatoes only
d Must not subsequently apply to potato plants grown from treated seed pieces; for canola & mustard, use only in commercial seed treatment facilities; all treated seed must be dyed; do not treat seed for fall planting

e Percent bifenthrin
f Chemigation prohibited

g For residential use sites only; not for commercial production
h Buffer is required with use
i Percent triticonazole j Not for woodlands or forest management, not for homeowner use

### 18 5.2. Agricultural Uses and Resi dential Uses on Plants

BEAD prepares a Label Use Information System (L UIS) Report summarizing all registered uses of a product. The EFED Table 1 re port was used as the source to summarize all relevant uses of acetamiprid. The report was completed on April 16, 2012. Table 5-2 summarizes all agricultural uses with maximum sing le application rates provided in lbs ai/A. These uses include aerial or ground broadcast applica tions of liquids to alfalfa, a pple, beans, blueberry, bushberry, caneberry, bulb vegetables, cole crops, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegeta bles, leafy vegetables, citrus, clover, cotton (unspecified), crabapple, cranberry, deciduous fru it trees (unspecified), grapes, leafy vegetables, legume vegetables, oni on, ornamental herbaceous plants, ornamental nonflowering plants, ornamental wood shrubs and vi nes, pear, pine seedlings, pome fruits, Irish white potato, root and tuber vegetables, small fr uits, soybeans, strawberry, tobacco, tomato, and tree nuts. Seed treatments are also allowe d on potatoes, canola/ra pe, and mustard. The maximum number of applications per y ear was not specified on the labels.

Table 5-2. Summary of Use Patterns of Acetamiprid with Well Defined Use Rates for Agricultural Crops

Use Site Application Method, Timing Form Max Single App. Rate (lbs ai/A) Max # Apps /

CC Max App Rate/CC (lbs ai/A) Max App Rate/Year (lbs ai/A) Minimum Treatment

Interval

(days)

ALFALFA 1 Broadcast, Foliar WP 0.0744 NS NS NS NS

ALFALFA 2 Broadcast, Foliar WP 0.074-0.075 3, 44 0.225-.2975 NS 7, 14

APPLE Broadcast, Foliar SC 0.15 NS NS NS 12

BEANS Broadcast, Foliar WDG 0.0994-0.1006 3 0.3-0.3019 NS 7

BLUEBERRY Broadcast, Foliar L-RTU 0.0005 5 NS NS 7
BLUEBERRY, BUSHBERRY, CANEBERRY Broadcast, Foliar WDG, WP 0.0994-0.1006 NS, 5 0.4988- 0.5006 NS 7

BULB VEGETABLES Broadcast, Foliar WP 0.1488-0.15 4 0.5994-0.6 NS 7

BULB VEGETABLES, COLE CROPS, CUCURBIT VEGETABLES, FRUITING VEGETABLES, LEAFY VEGETABLES Broadcast, Pretransplant, Foliar L 0.1529 NS 0.1529 NS NS

CANOLA\RAPE Seed Treatment L-RTU 0.5039 lbs ai/lbs seed NS NS NS NS

### 19 Use Site Application Method, Timing Form Max Single App. Rate (lbs ai/A) Max # Apps /

CC Max App Rate/CC (lbs ai/A) Max App Rate/Year (lbs ai/A) Minimum Treatment

Interval

(days)

CITRUS Broadcast, Foliar, Petal Fall WDG, WP 0.2494 NS 0.5494 NS 7

CLOVER Broadcast, Foliar WP, WDG 0.0744-0.075 1 0.0744 NS NS

COLE CROPS Broadcast, Foliar WP 0.0744-0.075 5 0.3719 NS 7

COTTON (UNSPECIFIED) 3 Broadcast, Foliar WDG, WP, L 0.0994-0.1006 NS, 4 0.3994- 0.04061 NS 7

CRABAPPLE 4 Broadcast, Foliar SC, Solid 0.1488 - 0.15 NS NS NS, 0.5438 12

CRANBERRY Broadcast, Foliar WDG, WP 0.1294-0.1313 2 0.2588- 0.2625 NS 7

CUCURBIT VEGETABLES Broadcast, Foliar, Bloom WDG, WP 0.0994-0.1006 5 0.4969- 0.5031 NS 5

DECIDUOUS FRUIT TREES (UNSPECIFIED) 4 Broadcast, Foliar SCSolid, L 0.1488-0.1529 NS NS NS, 0.5438 7, 12

FRUITING VEGETABLES Broadcast, Foliar WP, WDG 0.0744-0.075 4 0.2975-0.3 NS 7

GRAPES Broadcast, Foliar WDG 0.0994-0.1006 2 0.1988- 0.2013 NS 14

LEAFY VEGETABLES Broadcast, Foliar WP, WDG 0.0744-0.075 5 0.3719- 0.375 NS 7

LEGUME VEGETABLES Broadcast, Foliar WDG, WP 0.0994-0.1006 3 0.3-0.3019 NS 7

MUSTARD Seed Treatment L-RTU 0.5039 lbs ai / lbs seed NS NS NS NS

ONION Broadcast, Foliar WDG, WP 0.1488 -0.15 4 0.5994-0.6 NS 7

ORNAMENTAL AND/OR SHADE TREES, HERBACEOUS PLANTS Broadcast, Foliar L, SCsolid 0.1488-0.1529 NS NS NS, 0.5494 7, 12

ORNAMENTAL WOODY SHRUBS AND VINES Broadcast, Foliar L 0.1529 NS NS NS 7

PEAR 4 Broadcast, Foliar SCsolid 0.1488-0.15 NS NS NS, 0.5438 12
PEAS, SUCCULENT Broadcast, Foliar WDG, WP 0.0994- 0.1006 3 0.3-0.3019 NS 7

PINE SEEDLINGS Broadcast, Foliar L 0.1529 NS NS NS 7

POME FRUITS Broadcast, Foliar, Pink to Bloom, WP, WDG 0.1488-0.15 NS, 4 0.5906-0.6 NS 12

### 20 Use Site Application Method, Timing Form Max Single App. Rate (lbs ai/A) Max # Apps /

CC Max App Rate/CC (lbs ai/A) Max App Rate/Year (lbs ai/A) Minimum Treatment

Interval

(days)

Petal Fall

POTATO, WHITE/IRISH Seed Treatment L-RTU 0.0098 lbs ai / lbs seed NS 0.2945 NS NS
POTATO, WHITE/IRISH, ROOT AND TUBER VEGETABLES Broadcast, Foliar WDG, WP 0.744-0.075 4 0.3-0.3063 NS 7

SMALL FRUITS Broadcast, Foliar WDG, WP 0.0994-0.1006 2 0.1988- 0.2013 NS 14

SMALL FRUITS Broadcast, Foliar WDG, WP 0.1294-0.1313 2 0.2588- 0.2625 NS 7

SOYBEANS (UNSPECIFIED) 6 Broadcast, Foliar FC 0.0407 2 0.0814 NS 7

STONE FRUITS Broadcast, Foliar, Dormant, Delayed Dormant, Petal Fall WDG, WP 0.1488-0.15 4 0.595-0.6 NS 10

STRAWBERRY Broadcast, Foliar WDG, WP 0.1294-0.1313 2 0.2588- 0.2625 NS 7

TOBACCO Broadcast, Foliar WDG, WP 0.0744-0.075 4 0.2975-0.3 NS 7

TOMATO Chemigation, Soil drench
treatment L, SCsolid 0.0075-0.0076 lbs/plant NS, 1 NS NS NS

TREE NUTS Broadcast, Foliar SCsolid 0.1488-0.15 NS NS NS, 0.5438 12

TREE NUTS Broadcast, Foliar, Dormant, Delayed Dormant WP, WDG 0.1794-0.18 4 0.7175-0.72 NS 14

Max.=maximum; form=formulation, App=application; WDG=water dispersible granule, FC=flowable concentrate; WP=wettable powder; EC=emulsifiable concentrate; L-RTU=liquid-ready to use; SC-Solid=soluble concentrate/solid; L=liquid; cc=crop cycle; NS=not specified; A&K=attract-and-kill device *Can be applied to all uses sites using aerial, airblast, or ground equipment, except for th e seed treatment uses. The maximum number of applications per year was not specified on labels.
1 May only be used in ID, UT, WY.
2 May only be used in NV, WA, ID.
3 Some labels restrict use to CA, FL, GA, NC, SC, VA.
4 Only allowed for use in WA.
5 SC-solid may only be used in WA.
6 Buffer Restrictions
7 May only be used in OR.

### 21 EPA registration number WA110010 allows for c ontrol of apple maggot in non-agricultural quarantine and pest free areas (i ncluding residential areas) u nder order for Apple Maggot as Specified under WAC 16-470. Th e product is used on apples, cr abapples, pears, ornamental plants and trees, and non-bearing fr uit and nut trees. The product is applied to give the tree uniform spray coverage of the plant. The label does not have a maximum single application rate. It does indicate that the produc t may be applied every 12 days, up to 4 times a year, with a maximum of 0.55 lbs ai/A per year.

There are several products registered for use on a variety of sites wit hout a specified maximum single application rate, maximu m number of applications pe r crop cycle or year, maximum number of applications, or mi nimum retreatment interval.

5.3. Use on Trees

Three different labels allow for use as tree inj ections or basal bark treatments (EPA Reg No. 8033-94 and 8033-106) on ornamental and non-bearing fruit and nut trees. One of the labels (EPA Reg No. OR09005) is an attrac t-and-kill device to control carpe nter worm in poplar trees. The device is applied with a st ring to trees where acetamiprid we ttable powder is mixed with a grease and pheromone. This use is assumed to re sult in minimal exposure to aquatic organisms. Tree injection uses allow for 0.0024 – 0.0025 lbs ai pe r inch diameter at breast height (DBH). Basal bark treatments involve wetting the bark of the tree starting from a height of approximately eight feet downwards to the exposed root flair with a directed spray to completely wet the application area. Basal bark treatments recommend applications at 0.004 lbs per inch DBH of the intended target. Also recommend use of 0.15 lbs ai/36-42 total inches of treatment DBH, depending on the bark. Only single applic ation rates are provided on the labels.

Table 5-3. Summary of Use Pattern Recommended for Control of Borers, Scale Insects, and Hemlock Wooly Adelgids in Ornamental or Non-Bearing Fruit and Nut Trees

Use Site Application Method Timing Formulation Single Application Rate Recommendations

Hybrid Poplar Device applied to tree with string Spring and Summer Attract-andkill Device 0.00000265 lbs ai/A

Ornamental and Nonbearing Fruit and Nut Trees Tree injection
treatment Bud break through foliar L, SC-solid 0.0024 - 0.0025 lbs ai/DBH

Basal bark
treatment Bud break through foliar (Mid Spring) L NS, 0.004 lbs ai/DBH 0.15 lbs ai/ gal/36-42 DBH
L=liquid; SC-solid=soluble concentrate, solid; DBH=diameter breast height in inches; gal=gallon



### 5.4. Termiticide, Ants Control, and Control of Pests

A number of products are register ed for use of control of termites, ants, and various other insects

### 22 around homes, buildings, eating esta blishments, animal production sites, equipment, ships and boats, transportation facilit ies, paths, patios, and wood protection treatment, etc. The uses involve surface application to so ils, mound treatments, drench tr eatments, perimeter treatments, soil injection, trench ing, rodding, void treatments, spot tr eatments, soil excavation treatments, crack and crevice treatments, dr ench, bait applications, mound trea tments, and insecticidal strip treatments. Some termiticide products are applie d to subsurfaces into piping and reticulation delivery systems. Soil excavation involves diggi ng up soil, treating it, an d then reapplying it. Rodding involves drilling a series of holes (no more than 12 inches apart) into the ground, injecting the pesticide, and then covering the hole. Trenching (m ay be 6 inches deep and wide) involves digging a trench around a structure and treating the trenc h, Often trenching and rodding are both used in treatments. Perimeter treatment may be up to 10 feet wide around the structure and up to 3 feet high on the structure. No info rmation was available on application intervals or maximum number of applications per year.

Table 5-4. Summary of Uses Around Buildings, Paths, Wood, and Equipment
Application Method Application Timing Formulation Maximum Single Application Rate Application Rates in lbs ai/A Crack and crevice and/or spot
treatment When needed SC-Solid 0.3659 lbs ai/A
Soil drench treatment, spray, crack and crevice treatment, spot treatment, void treatment, perimeter treatment When needed SC-solid, WP, EC 0.1829 - 0.189 lbs ai/A

Barrier treatment When needed SC-Solid 1.1 lbs ai/A Barrier treatment, soil surface treatment, barrier treatment Postconstruction, preconstruction WP, EC 18.6-18.7 lbs ai/A

Drench When needed EC 23.4 lbs ai/A Application Rate per Spot
Crack and crevice and/or spot
treatment When needed Bait 0.00000083 lbs ai/ spot Bait 0.00000165 lbs ai/ spot Bait 0.00000386 lbs ai/ spot Applications Rates for Baits in Bait Stations

Bait application When needed Bait 0.00001531 lbs ai/ bait station
Bait 0.00002344 lbs ai/bait station Application Rates in lbs ai per linear foot

Soil treatment (subslab injection, trenching), soil excavation, spray, void treatment When needed, postconstruction, preconstruction EC, WP 0.0009 lbs ai/ linear ft

EC, WP 0.0017 lbs ai/linear ft

Application Rates in lbs ai/gallon Crack and crevice treatment, void treatment, spot treatment, foam application, void treatment, soil injection When needed EC, WP, WDG 0.0043 lbs ai / 1 gal

SC-Solid, WP 0.105 lbs ai / 25 gal 0.1065 lbs ai /25 gal Other Application Rates Mound Drench Cool weather (65 - 80 WP, EC 0.0043 lbs ai / mound

### 23 Application Method Application Timing Formulation Maximum Single Application Rate F) 0.0086 lbs ai / mound Spray, spot treatment, perimeter
treatment When needed L-RTU, SC-solid No dosage conversion
Bait application When needed Bait No dosage conversion Insecticidal strip treatment When needed IM No dosage conversion L-RTU=liquid-ready to use; SC-solid=soluble concentr ate-solid; IM=impregnated material; EC=emulsifiable concentrate; WP=wettable powder; gal=gallon



### 5.5. Usage Data

Based on market usage data from 2000-2010, us age averaged approximately 60,000 lbs ai for 900,000 acres treated resulting in an overall averag e application rate of 0.067 lbs ai/A (USEPA, 2012) ( Table 5-5 ). The screening-level us e assessment (SLUA) estimate, which only considers agricultural use, indicate that 33% of the aceta miprid used is applied to apples and cotton (20,000 lbs ai/year on average). On average 2000 to 5000 lbs of acetamiprid per year is applied to pears, oranges, lettuce, strawberries, a nd grapes. Based on the maximum amount of crop treated, acetamiprid is important for pears, cele ry, strawberries, apples, grapes, and lettuce where on average greater than 15% of these crops are tr eated with acetamiprid. Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage data sources together , averaging across all ob servations, and then rounding.

Table 5-5. Screening Level Estimates of Ag ricultural Uses of Acetamiprid (099050)

, Sorted Alphabetically

Crop Average Annual Pounds Active Ingredient Used on Crop Percent Crop Treated
Average Maximum

Alfalfa <500 <1 <2.5

Almonds* <500 <1 <2.5
Apples 20,000 25 40

Artichokes* <500 N/C N/C
Beans, Green <500 <1 <2.5

Broccoli 1,000 10 15
Brussels Sprouts* <500 N/C N/C
Cabbage 1,000 10 15

Caneberries <500 <2.5 5
Cantaloupes <500 5 15

Cauliflower <500 10 20
Celery 1,000 35 45

Cherries 1,000 5 15
Chicory*+ <500 N/C N/C

### 24 Crop Average Annual Pounds Active Ingredient Used on Crop Percent Crop Treated
Average Maximum

Cotton 20,000 5 5

Cucumbers <500 <2.5 <2.5
Grapefruit <500 <2.5 5
Grapes (all) 2,000 20 30

Lemons <500 <2.5 5

Lettuce 3,000 15 30

Lima Beans <500 <1 <2.5

Nectarines* <500 N/C N/C

Olives*+ <500 N/C N/C

Onions <500 5 5
Oranges 4,000 <2.5 10

Peaches 1,000 5 10

Pears 5,000 35 60

Pecans <500 <1 <2.5
Peppers <500 5 15

Pistachios <500 <1 <2.5

Potatoes 1,000 <2.5 <2.5

Prunes <500 5 5
Pumpkins <500 5 5
Spinach <500 10 20
Squash 1,000 <2.5 <2.5

Strawberries 3,000 30 50

Tobacco <500 <1 <2.5

Tomatoes 1,000 5 10

Walnuts 1,000 5 10

Watermelons <500 <1 <2.5
All numbers rounded. <500 Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient <2.5 Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated

<1 Less than 1 percent of crop treated N/C Only lbs.ai available * Based on CA DPR data only (valid because 95% or more of U.S. acres grown are in California) + Crops not known to be listed on active end use product registrations or as Section 18 emergency exemptions when this report was run

SLUA data sources include: USDA-NASS (United States Departme nt of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service) Private Pesticide Market Research California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)

### 25 Figure 5-1 spatially represents acetamiprid agricultural use intensity in the U.S.; use intensity is highest in parts of the Southw est (CA and AZ), Northwest (WA and OR), and Northeast (NY, PA, and MI).

Figure 5-1. Average Pounds Acetamiprid Used by Crop Reporting District (2006-2010). 8

8 This map was developed by BEAD (USEPA, 2012). This is a map of agricultural pesticide usage at the Crop Reporting District (CRD) level; CRDs are aggr egates of counties created by USDA NASS (USDA, 2010). Pesticide usage is displayed as average pounds (for the years 2006-2010) per 1,000 acres of farmland in a CRD to normalize for the variation in farmla nd between CRDs. Farmland acreage was obtained from USDA (2007).

Usage is based on private market surv eys of pesticide use in agriculture (Proprietary Data, 2006-2010). The survey data are limited to the stat es that represent the top 80-90% of acreage for the individual crops; therefore, use may be occurring in regions outside the scope of the survey. CRDs showing no usage of pesticides may be due to either the lack of pesticide use in the region or non-participation in the agricultural surveys. In addition, across the years, there may be variations in the specific crops in cluded in the CRD survey. This may result in a lower annual average for the CRD.

Sources: Proprietary Data, 2006-2010; USDA NASS Crop Reporting Districts, 2006-2010; USDA Census of Agriculture, 2007.

### 26 6. Environmental Fate and Transport

6.1. Summary

Acetamiprid may enter the environment via spray di rectly onto soil or fo liage, via spreading of bait on surfaces, or via injection into soil and bu ilding foundations. It may move off-site via spray drift, leaching, and runoff. Acetamiprid is considered nonvolatile from dry non-adsorbing surfaces, water, and moist soil. It is not likel y to bioconcentrate in aquatic or terrestrial organisms. Chemicals with half -lives greater than 60 days in soil, water, and sediment are considered persistent (USEPA, 2008b); therefore, aerobic aquatic and soil metabolism half-lives for acetamiprid indicate that acetamiprid is not pe rsistent. However, there is uncertainty in the half-lives due to sign ificant amounts of unextracted, unide ntified residues in the metabolism studies. If these unidentified residues were found to be pare nt, then the compound would be classified as persistent. 9 

### Primary routes of degradation are via aerobic soil and aerobic aquatic metabolism. Acetamiprid is stable to hydrolysis at 25 o 

### C and aqueous photolysis is not an important degradation pathway. Acetamiprid is cl assified as moderately mobile using the FAO classification system (K oc 

### s = 157-298 L/kg organic carbon) and may be transported into surface and ground water. Acetamiprid has nine (exclu ding carbon dioxide) identifi ed degradates, five of which are major degradates. Four of the fi ve major degradates have the pyridylmethylamine structure and one minor degradat e contains both the pyridylmethamine structure and the cyano group of the parent. Residues of concern for hu man health drinking wate r were identified by the Health Effects Division to be the parent only. Residues of concern for aquatic organisms were determined to be the parent and IM 1-4 10 

### by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division. As some of the unextracted residues may be the pa rent compound or IM 1-4, unextracted residues were determined to be a residue of concern for both human hea lth drinking water and aquatic organisms by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division.

Acetamiprid has a log dissociation constant (pK a 

### ) of 0.7 for the protonated form, indicating that its form will not change significantly at environmen tally relevant pH values. The vapor pressure, air-water partition coefficient ( K AW ) 

### , and ratio of acetamiprid concentration in moist soil to acetamiprid concentration in air (C water+soil 

### /C air 

### ) indicate that it is nonvolatile from dry nonadsorbing surfaces, water, and moist soil using OPPTS 11,12 

### Guideline 835.6100 classifications. The log octanol-water part ition coefficient (log K ow 

### ) is 0.08 at 25 o 

### C and the log octanol-air partition coefficient (log K OA 

### ) is 12.5 indicating it is not likely to bioconcentrate in aquatic or terrestrial organisms (Armitage and Gobas, 2007; Gobas et al. , 2003; USEPA, 2009c).

Table 6-1 summarizes the identity information and physical-chemical properties of acetamiprid. Table 6-2 summarizes other environmental fate data fo r the parent and provides half-lives for the

9 Data indicates that some of the unextracted residues are unlikely to be parent; however, it is unknown what portion is parent and what portion is not.
10 IM-1-4 retains the pyrimidylmethylamine structure of the parent.
11 Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) is now the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP); how ever, the guidelines still reference OPPT S and so the guidelines are referenced with OPPTS in this document.
12 A list of all OPPTS Guidelines discussed in this document is available in Appendix D.

### 27 parent and unextracted residues. Table 6-6 summarizes half-lives for the parent alone, residues of acetamiprid and IM 1-4, and residues of acetamip rid, IM 1-4, and unextracted residues. All of these half-life values are used to characterize estimated environm ental concentrations (EECs) in
water.

Table 6-1. Summary of physical-chemical properties of acetamiprid

Parameter Value Source Comments

PC Code 099050 None None

CAS Number 135410-20-7 (USNLM, 2009) None

Structure
None

Chemical Name N 1 -[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]-N 2 -cyanoN 1 -methylacetamidine MRID 44651803 None

Molecular Weight 222.68 MRID 44651803 None
Water Solubility 4250 mg/L (25°C) MRID 44651811 None

Vapor Pressure <1 x 10 -8 Torr at 25 o C MRID: 46235701 Nonvolatile from dry non-adsorbing surfaces (USEPA, 2010a) 7.50 x 10 -10 Torr at 25 o C

1 X 10 -4 mPa at 25 o C (AERU, 2012)

Henry’s Law
constant 5.2 x 10 -14 atm-m 3 /mol at 25 o C (estimated) (Estimated from vapor
pressure and water solubility at pH 7 and 20 o C) Calculated with vapor pressure reported by AERU (2009).

Dissociation Constant (pKa) 0.7 at 25 o C (USEPA, 2002) None

Log K OW 0.8 at 25 o C MRID 44651883 Not likely to bioconcentrate (USEPA, 2010a) Air-water partition coefficient (K AW ) 2.11 x 10 -12 (log K AW = -11.68) Calculated 1 Non-volatile from water (USEPA, 2010a)

Octanol-air partition coefficient (K OA ) 3.0 x 10 12 (log K OA = 12.5) Calculated 1 Not likely to biomagnify in terrestrial food chains 2

(Gobas et al. , 2003;

USEPA, 2009c)

C water+soil /C air 2.63 x 10 11 to 2.02 x 10 12 Calculated 1 Non-volatile from moist soil (USEPA, 2010a)

1 All estimated values were estimated according to “ Guidance for Reporting on the Environmental Fate and Transport of the Stressors of Concern in Problem Formulations for Registration Review, Registration Review Risk Assessments, Listed Species Litigation Assessments, New Chemical Risk Assessments, and Other Relevant Risk

### 28 Assessments ” (USEPA, 2010a).
2 A recent FIFRA Scientific Adviso ry Panel (SAP) reported, “Gobas et al (2003) concluded that chemicals with a log K OA >5 can biomagnify in terrestrial food chains if log K OW >2 and the rate of chemical transformation is low. However, further proof is needed before accepting these limits without reservations” (USEPA, 2009c). This was also supported by Armitage and Gobas’s work completed in 2007 (Armitage and Gobas, 2007).



### Table 6-2. Summary of environmental fate and transport properties of acetamiprid 6

Parameter Value(s) Source / Study Classification Comments

Hydrolysis 3 (days) Half-life, linear regression 1 : Stable (pH 5, 7, 9 at 25 o C) 50.8 (pH 9 at 35 o C) 12.8 (pH 9 at 45 o C) MRID 44651876 Acceptable None

Atmospheric Degradation (days) Half-life: 0.140 (estimated) (USEPA, 2009b)

NA Estimated Hydroxyl Radical Reaction Half-life for a 12-hour day; 1.5x10 6 OH molecules/cm 3 Using EPIWeb Version 4.0
Aqueous Photolysis Half-life (days) Half-life, linear regression 1 : 34 2 (pH 7, 25 o C) MRID 44988509 Acceptable None

Soil Photolysis Halflife 4 No half-lives available MRID 48563501 Supplemental –

not for use in

modeling Microbial activity was higher in the dark control than in the irradiated samples and

the degradation was faster in the dark control. As soil photolysis did not occur at a faster rate than microbial degradation,

photolysis will not be a major route of degradation when microbial degradation is occuring. It is not known whether degradation was faster in the dark control due to the differences microbial activity. The study provides evidence on degradation products that may be observed with irradiation.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days) Half-life, nonlinear regression 1 at 20 o C:

Parent Only: 1.1, sandy loam 1.2, clay loam 1.0, clay loam

Parent+Unextracted Residues 76, sandy loam 75, clay loam 99, clay loam MRID 46255603 Supplemental – May be used in modeling Only one replicate. Unextracted residues made up <1 to 31 % of applied radioactivity.

### 29 Parameter Value(s) Source / Study Classification Comments

Half-life, nonlinear regression 1 at 20 o C:

Parent Only: 2.8, sandy loam 0.90, silty clay loam 6, clay loam

Parent+Unextracted Residues: 10, clay loam MRID 44651881 Supplemental – May be used in modeling Unextracted residues made up approximately 20-40% at the end of the study (182 days); however, unextracted residues were not observed until most of the parent had degraded in the silty clay loam and sandy loam suggesting that the unextracted residues were not the parent compound. 5

Half-life, nonlinear regression 1 at 20 o C:

Parent Only: 1.4, loamy sand

Parent+Unextracted Residues: 2.0, loamy sand MRID 44699101 Supplemental – May be used in modeling Unextracted residues ranged from 2 to 17% of applied radioactivity. The identity of the unextracted residues is not known.

Half-life, linear regression 1 at 25 o C: Parent Only: 0.3, loamy sand MRID 44651880 Supplemental – Not for use in

modeling Not conducted under GLP. Unextracted residues were high (up to 14%)

Half-life, linear regression 1 at 25 o C:

Parent Only: 3.5, loamy sand

Parent+Unextracted Residues: 6.4, loamy sand MRID 44651879 Acceptable Biphasic degradation was observed with an initial 3.6 day half-life followed by a 75

day half-life. Unextracted residues were up to 20%.

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days) No half-lives available MRID 48554501SupplementalNot for use in

modeling Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 1.87-1.94 mg/L, indicating system was not fully anaerobic. Data on degradates can be used as the environment

is expected to occur in natural systems. 7

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life (days) Half-life, nonlinear regression 1 at 25 o C:Parent Only: 25, loamy sand sediment

Parent+Unextracted Residues: 74, loamy sand sediment MRID 44988513 Acceptable Maximum of 38% unex tracted residues. The identity of the unextracted residues is

not known. Data available for only one sediment.

### 30 Parameter Value(s) Source / Study Classification Comments

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life (days) Half-life, linear regression 1 at 25 o C:

Parent Only: 325, loamy sand sediment

Parent+Unextracted Residues: 568, loamy sand sediment MRID 44988512 Acceptable Data available for only one sediment.

Solid-water distribution coefficient (K d ) in L/kg Average K d at 20 o C

0.39, loamy sand, pH 4.4 3.9, loamy sand II, pH 6.2 1.1, silt loam, pH 6.6 3.5, clay, pH 7.5 4.1, sandy loam sediment, pH 5.6 Mean = 2.60 (standard deviation=1.72) MRID 44651883 Acceptable Coefficient of variation is 66%.

Freundlich solid-water distribution coefficient (K F ) in L/kg K F (1/n) at 20 o C

Parent: 0.33 (0.85), loamy sand, pH 4.4 3.0 (0.82), loamy sand II, pH 6.2 1.0 (0.90), silt loam, pH 6.6 3.2 (0.91), clay, pH 7.5 3.2 (0.83), sandy loam sediment, pH 5.6 MRID 44651883 Acceptable Sorption was dependent on concentration in some soils.

Organic-carbon normalized distribution coefficient (K oc ) in L/kg organic carbon Average K oc at 20 o C

157, loamy sand, pH 4.4 266, loamy sand II, pH 6.2 251, silt loam, pH 6.6 298, clay, pH 7.5 164, sandy loam sediment, pH 5.6 Mean = 227 (standard deviation=63.26) MRID 44651883 Acceptable Coefficient of variation is 28%. The coefficient of variation is less than that for

K d values indicating that K oc values will b e better at predicting sorption across soils than K d values. Moderately mobile according to FAO classification.

Terrestrial Field Dissipation Half-life (days) Half-life, nonlinear regression 1 : 2.8, CA, Gilman loamy fine, Vinca

rosea 14.1, FL, Astatula fine, tree ferns 4.2, NJ, Penn silt loam, garden

mums MRID 44988514 Supplemental Wettable powder 70% ai (EXP80667A 70WP). Degradate IM 1-2 converted to IM 1-4 in storage stability study and IM 1- 4 was not stable. Residues in plants were not reported. Broadcast at 0.15 lbs ai/A with four applications. Parent was not detected below 15 cm. ECM/ILV for soil are 44988516/44988517.

### 31 Parameter Value(s) Source / Study Classification Comments

Half-life, linear regression 1 : 3, WA, Timerman coarse sandy loam, apples 6, FL, Candler sand soil, oranges 13, NY, Oakville loamy fine sand, cabbage 6, CA, Romona loam soil, cotton MRID 44988515 Supplemental Wettable powder 70% ai (EXP80667A 70WP). Degradate IM 1-2 converted to IM 1-4 in storage stability study and IM 1- 4 was not stable. Residues in plants were not reported. Broadcast at 0.15 lbs ai/acre

with four applications. Parent was not detected below 15 cm. Conditions not favorable to leaching. Subset of data used to estimate half-life for FL and WA site. ECM/ILV for soil are 44988516/44988517.

Half-life, linear regression 1 : 10.1, Prince Edward Island, Alberry sandy loam 5.2, Ontario, London loam 17.8, Manitoba, Ryerson clay loam MRID 44988625 Supplemental Wettable powder 70% ai (EXP61486A). Pan evaporation data were not reported so water balances could not be determined. Storage stability data were not submitted for the test site soils. Acetamiprid was applied four times at 168 g ai/ha with a 7

day interval to bare plots in Canada. Parent not detected below 15 cm depth. ECM/ILV for soil are 44988516/44988517.

Environmental Chemistry Methods and Independent laboratory Validation LC/MS/MS for detection of acetamiprid, IM 1-2, IC-0 in soil MRID 44988516/ 44988517 Satisfactory Acetamiprid, IC-0, IM 1-4 LOD = 3.33 μg/kg-soil Acetamiprid, IM 1-2, IC-0, 1M-1-4 LOQ = 10 μg/kg-soil HPLC-UV for parent, IC-0, IM 1-4, IM 1-2 in water MRID 44988536 LOD = 0.033 μg/L LOQ=0.1 μg/L

1 Degradation kinetics were calculated using the single firs t order decay equation using ei ther nonlinear regression of non-transformed data or linear regression of natural log transformed data.
2 Value corrected to represent natural sunlight at 40 o N latitude.
3 MRID 44651877 is supplemental. A material balance was not conducted in the study; however, the results suggest that degradates IM-1-4 and IC-0 are stable.
4 MRID 44988508 is unacceptable.
5 This indicates that the unextracted residues were not the parent compound. Unextracted residues in the clay loam appeared as the parent was lost the identity of unextracted residues is unknown.
6 This table shows half-lives for the parent and parent plus unidentified unextracted residues which may or may not be the parent. These values are relevant in understanding the uncertainty in data due to unextracted residues. Table 6-6 summarizes half-lives calculated for acetamiprid plus IM 1-4 plus unextracted residues which will be used in the calculation of modeling inputs in the ecological risk assessment.
7 Unextracted residues were at a maximum of 36.1% in the clay loam and 30% in the sandy loam soil. The identity of the unextracted residues is not known. Data only availa ble on two soils. Results on four soils are recommended.



### 6.2. Degradation/Transformation of Parent

The persistence of acetamiprid is uncertain because a large portion of residues in the metabolism studies were unidentified; however , the overall evidence suggests it is not persistent in aerobic systems. Aerobic soil metabolism rates for the pa rent alone and for the parent and unextracted

### 32 residues in some soils indicate acetamiprid is not persistent. 13 

### However, if it is assumed that all of the unextracted residues ar e the parent compound, acetamiprid w ould be considered persistent in some systems. Evidence suggests that not al l of the unextracted re sidues are the parent compound; however, it is unknown what portion of th e unextracted residues are parent and what portion are not. As many of the values consid ering both parent and une xtracted residues are lower than 10 days; it is likely that acetamiprid is not persistent in aerobic systems. Under anaerobic aquatic conditions acet amiprid is persistent.

Acetamiprid was stable to hydrolysis at 25 o 

### C and pH 5, 7, and 9; however, hydrolysis was observed at pH 9 at 35 and 45 o 

### C (MRID 44651876). The aqueous photol ysis half-life of 34 days indicates that aqueous photol ysis is a minor degradation pathway (MRID 44988509). Rates of soil photodegradation are not available. 14



### The primary route of degradation for the parent compound is aerobic soil metabolism. There is uncertainty in the degradation of acetamiprid due to high levels of unextracted residues in metabolism studies. Therefore, to assess the impact of this uncertainty on the risk assessment, degradation rates were estimated in two ways: for the measured parent by itself, and for measured parent plus unextracted residues under the assumption that unextracted residues are also parent compound or are a resi due of concern. Half-lives we re also calculated for these combinations along with N-methyl(6-chloro-3-py ridyl)methylamine (IM 1-4) because the IM 1-4 degradate is considered a residue of concern for aquatic organisms; IM 1-4 is not considered a residue of concern for human health drinking water residues. In ni ne soils, aerobic soil metabolism rates for the parent ranged from <1 day to 6 days for the parent alone, and from 2 to 99 days for the parent plus unextracted residues. This difference in half-lives is environmentally relevant and impacts the EECs and EDWCs (see S ection 14.1.B for more discussion). Anaerobic soil metabolism half-lives are not available. Aero bic aquatic metabolism rates were slower than aerobic soil metabolism rates. The aerobic aquati c half-life was 25 days for the parent, and 74 days for parent plus unextracted residues in one sediment (MRID 44988513) . Anaerobic aquatic metabolism was much slower, with a half-life of 325 days in a loamy sand sediment (MRID 44988512). Examination of aerobic aquatic and an aerobic aquatic metabolism in two sediments representative of intended use sites are recommended by O PPTS Guideline 835.4300; however, data are only available on one sedi ment for both of the studies.

6.3. Field Dissipation

The terrestrial field dissipation of acetamiprid wa s studied at seven U.S. sites on various crops, and on bare ground plots at three s ites in Canada. The application rate used in all studies was 0.15 lbs ai/A. This is lower than the maximum single application rate for use on citrus--0.25 lbs ai/A/single application, which has the highest single application rate among agricultural uses, a maximum of five applications/season, and a ma ximum of 0.55 lbs ai/A/season (several other

13 International half-lives that are considered persistent in soil, water, and sediment range from greater than 60 days to greater than 365 days (USEPA, 2008b).
14 A soil photolysis study (MRID 48563501) is available; however, data were insufficient to determine the rate of soil photolysis.

### 33 fruit and nut tree crops have similar or sligh tly higher seasonal appl ication rates). The dissipation half-lives for acetamiprid applied to domestic food, fiber and ornamental crops ranged from three to 14 days for residue s in 0 to 15 cm (MRIDs 44988514, 44988515). The dissipation half-lives for acetamiprid applied to ba re ground plots (determined in Canadian soils) ranged from five to18 days (MRID 44988625). Th e submitted studies generally met guideline requirements. However, because the degradate IM 1-2 converts to IM 1-4 in frozen storage within a short period of time (approximately 1 m onth), and many of the samples were stored for much longer periods of time (over 600 days, length s of storage for which storage stability data were not reported) prior to analysis, the patt erns of formation and decline could not be determined accurately for these major degradates. Also, at several of the study sites, negative water balances ( i.e. , greater evaporation/total water loss from the soil than th e total water input) following the final application lik ely precluded the possibility of significant leaching. Soil characteristics and results of th e field studies are presented in Table 6-3 . All reported maximum values for degradates in Table 6-3 are for the period following the final application and represent individual replicates (U.S. sites) or replicate means (Canadian site s) from the 0- to 15-cm depth. The degradate IM 1-4 frequently had higher maximum concentrations in soils than the parent. In the studies conducted on cropped si tes, IM 1-4 was detected at its maximum levels generally within two weeks of application. These IM-1-4 conclusions are uncertain because of the storage stability issue.

Table 6-3. Summary of Terrestrial Field Dissipation Study Results For Acetamiprid

MRID Soil Texture Study Site, Crop Half-life in days Max. Depth of Leaching Maximum Concentration Observed in Soil (μg/kg-soil)

Acet. IM 1-4 2 IM 1-2 2 IC-0

44988515 sandy loam WA, apples 3 0-15 cm (a,b,c) 3 148 149 29 ND 4

44988515 sand FL, oranges 6 0-15 cm (a, b) 77 60 ND ND

44988515 loamy sand NY, cabbage 13 0-15 cm (a, b) 107 197 ND ND

44988515 loam CA, cotton 6 0-15 cm (a, b, c); 15-30 cm (d) 68 202 20 18

44988514 loamy sand CA, vincarosea 3 0-15 cm (a, b, c); 30-45 cm (d) 46 425 26 45

44988514 sand FL, tree ferns 14 0-15 cm (a, b, d) 151 147 ND 12

44988514 silt loam NJ, garden

mums 4 0-15 cm (a, b, d) 96 191 ND 23

### 34 MRID Soil Texture Study Site, Crop Half-life in days Max. Depth of Leaching Maximum Concentration Observed in Soil (μg/kg-soil)

44988625 sandy loam Prince Ed. Isl., CAN., Bare ground 10 0-15 cm (a, b, c, d) 331 135.0 17.0 14.5

44988625 loam Ontario, CAN. 5 0-15 cm (a, b, c, d) 202.5 82.0 87.5 34.5

44988625 clay loam Manitoba, CAN., bare

ground 18 0-15 cm (a, b, c, d) 209.0 41.0 68.0 17.5

1 Acetamiprid was applied at all sites using four applications at intervals ranging from 6 to 9 days.
2 IM 1-2 converts to IM 1-4 under storage conditions. IM 1- 2 concentrations shown are likely to be lower than those that occurred in the field.
3 a = parent; b = IM-1-4; c = IM-1-2; d = IC-0.
4 ND = not detected.



### 6.4. Degradates/Transformation Products

Transformation products resulting from the envi ronmental degradation of acetamiprid are:

 N-methyl(6-chloro-3-pyri dyl)methylamine (IM 1-4)

 (E)-N1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)-methyl]-N2 -cyano-N1-methylacetamidine (IM 1-5)

 6-chloronicotinic acid (IC-0)

 N 2 

### -carbamoyl-N 1 

### -((6-chloro-3-pyridyl)-methyl)-N 1 

### -methylacetamidine (IM 1-2)

 

### 6-chloro-3-pyridylmethano (IM-0)

 N-((6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl)-N-methylacetamide (IM 1-3)

 N-[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]acetamide (IM 2-3)

 N 1 

### -[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]-N 2 

### -cyanoacetamidine (IM 2-1)

 Carbon dioxide

Structures of these degradates and the maximum percent of applied radioactivity present as the specified degradate is shown in are shown in Table 6-4 with additional information in Appendix A

. Figure 6-1 provides structures and a proposed degradation pathway. In the studies containing soil or sediment, there was a signific ant amount of unextracted residues in many of the studies. As indicated earli er, this could result in an undere stimation of the maximum amount for degradates. The degradates IM 1-4, IM 1-5, IC -0, IM 1-2, and IM 1-3 were present at greater than 10% applied radioac tivity and are considered major degr adates. All of these degradates except IC-0 contain the pyridylmethylamine in acetamiprid that is similar to other pyridylmethylamine nicotinoid insecticides (depicted in Figure 6-2 ) and observed in nicotine, which acts on the nicotinic acety lcholine receptor (Tom izawa and Casida, 2005) . Degradates IM 1-4, IM 1-5, and IM 1-3 were al so relatively stable with peak s observed at the final sampling interval or high levels observed in studies over long durations. While IM-1 -3 is relatively stable and is considered a major degradate ba sed on the hydrolysis study (pH 9 with 35 o 

### C and 45 o 

### C), it was only detected at maximums of 3-8% in the metabolism studies. Maximum concentrations of IM 1-4 were often higher than maximum concentrati ons of parent observed in the terrestrial field

### 35 dissipations studies (see Table 6-3 ). Toxicity data on transfor mation products are discussed in Section Table 8-4 and Table 8-7 . Stressors of concern are identified in Section 9.

Figure 6-1. Potential Degradation Pathway for Acetamiprid. Bold degradates had greater than 10% applied radioactivity associated with the compound in at least one submitted fate study.

### 36 Acetamiprid Imidacloprid Nitenpyram

Thiacloprid Nicotine

Figure 6-2. Structure of Pyridylmethylamine Nicotinoid Insecticides and Nicotine

The 2009 new use assessment for acetamiprid identified IM 1-4 as a residue of concern for aquatic animals and it was assumed to have si milar toxicity to the parent (USEPA, 2009, D364328). The only residue of concern for hum an health drinking water is the parent compound. Table 6-6 provides the half-lives estimated for parent with IM 1-4 and parent with IM 1-4 plus unextracted residues. Hydrolysis and aqueous photolysis data for IM 1-4 indicate it is stable to these degradation processes and that IM 1-4 has sorption coefficients similar to those of the parent ( Table 6-2 ). Aerobic soil metabolism data show that residues of IM 1-4 were detected at high levels throughout the study for ma ny of the soils with re sidues in three soils indicating that IM 1-4 was stable to aerobic soil metabolism. 15 

### The maximum depth that IM 1-4 was detected in terrestrial fiel d dissipation studies was 15 cm. Appendix A contains additional environmental fate data submitted on IC-0.

15 Three studies indicate that IM-1-4 is relatively stable to aerobic soil metabolism in some soils. In the aerobic soil metabolism study discussed in MRID 44651879, percent applied radioactivity associated with IM-1-4 was 73% at 120 days and 60% at 365 days. In the aerobic soil metabolism study discussed in MRID 44651881 on a clay loam soil at 10 o C, percent applied radioactivity associated with IM-1-4 was 73% at 30 days and 54% at 178 days. In the same study (MRID 44651881) and soil (clay loam) at 20 o C, percent applied radioactivity was 56% at 14 days and 37 at 182 days.37Table 6-4. Summary of Maximum Degradate Amountsin Environmental Fate Studies of AcetamipriddCompoundMaximum Degradate % of Applied Radioactivity Associated with Compound (Time of Peak)Amount Detected at Final Sampling Interval in Corresponding StudyMaximumConcentration inTerrestrial FieldDissipation(μg/kg soil)HydrolysisAqueousPhotolysisSoil PhotolysisAerobic SoilAnaerobic SoilAnaerobicAquaticAerobicAquaticIM 1-415 (35 d)a15 (35 d)aND32 (24 d)a32 (24 d)a73 (120 d)c61 (365 d)c64 (61 d)61 (125 d)27 (270 d)a27 (270 d)a64 (60 d)c34 (300 d)c425IM 1-5 NA ND NA22 (13 d)a13 (182 d)bNANANANAIC-0 NA ND16 (24 d)a16 (24 d)a12 (7 d)ND (182 d)3 (125 d)a3 (125 d)aND19 (180 d)ND (300 d)45IM 1-2 NA ND1 (7 d)ND (24 d)55 (7 d)ND (182 d)4 (5 d)ND (125 d)1 (90 d)ND (365 d)21 (30 d)<1 (300 d)88IM-0 NA ND ND2.21 (7 d)ND (187 d)2 (1 d)ND (125 d)NANANAIM-1-361 (35 d)a61 (35 d)aND4 (24 d)a4 (24 d)a3 (60 d)<1 (365 d)3 (5 d)3 (125 d)a8 (180 d)6 (365 d)1 (90 d)ND (300 d)NAIM-2-1 NA NA3 (17 d)2 (24 d)NANDNANANAIM-2-3 NA NA NDNA2 (5 d)ND (125 d)NANANANA=notanalyzed; ND=not determineda Peak at final sampling interval in some studiesb Peak at final sampling interval in some soilsc High levels observed for > 100 days.d SeeAppendix Afor more information on source of information in this table.

### 38 Table 6-5. Summary of environmental fate a nd transport properties of the acetamiprid degradate IM-1-4

Parameter Value(s) Source/ Study Classification Comments

Hydrolysis

(days) Stable (pH 4, 7, 9 at 50 o C) MRID 44651877 Supplemental Study duration was five days and at 50 o C. Greater than 99% of applied residues were IM-1-4 at the end of the study.

Aqueous Photolysis

Half-life (days) Stable (pH 7, 25 o C) MRID 44988511

Valid None

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Slow degradation

See results from studies conducted on parent High levels observed for > 100 days

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism Slow degradation Peak observed at study termination

Anaerobic Soil

Metabolism Stable Little degradation over more than 60 days

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Stable

Solid-water distribution coefficient (K d ) in L/kg Average K d at 20 o C

0.38, loamy sand , pH 4.4 6.48, loam sand II, pH 6.4 5.63, silt loam, pH 6.6 21.9, clay, pH 7.5 4.08, sandy loam sediment, pH 5.6 Mean = 7.69 (standard deviation=8.28) MRID 44651885

Valid Coefficient of variation is 108%.

Freundlich solidwater distribution coefficient (K F ) in L/kg K F (1/n) at 20 o C

0.29, loamy sand , pH 4.4 5.35, loam sand II, pH 6.4 4.34, silt loam, pH 6.6 17.0, clay, pH 7.5 2.84, sandy loam sediment, pH 5.6 Mean = 5.97 (standard deviation=6.45) MRID 44651885

Valid Sorption was dependent on concentration in some soils. All 1/n values were less than 0.90.

### 39 Parameter Value(s) Source/ Study Classification Comments

Organic-carbon

normalized distribution coefficient (K oc ) in

L/kg organic carbon Average K oc at 20 o C

153, loamy sand , pH 4.4 440, loam sand II, pH 6.4 1278, silt loam, pH 6.6 1842, clay, pH 7.5 163, sandy loam sediment, pH 5.6 Mean = 775 (standard deviation=753) MRID 44651885

Valid Coefficient of variation is 97%. The coefficient of variation is less than that for

K d values indicating that K oc values will b e better at predicting sorption across soils

than K d values. Moderately mobile to slightly mobile according to FAO classification.



### Table 6-6. Summary of half-lives estima ted for residues of parent, IM-1-4, and Unextracted residues in metabolism studies
Type of Study (MRID) Study System Half-life (days)*
Parent Only Parent + IM1-4 Parent+IM-1-4+Unextracted Residues

Aerobic Soil (44651881) Silty Clay Loam, 20 o C 0.9 1.1 1.1 Clay Loam, 20 o C 6 104 392 Sandy Loam, 20 o C 2.8 118 299

Aerobic Soil (46255603) Sandy Loam, 20 o C 1.1 2.4 72 Clay Loam, 20 o C 1.2 2.4 67 Clay Loam, 20 o C 1.0 1.7 84

Aerobic Soil (44699101) Loamy Sand, 20 o C 1.4 20 53

Aerobic Soil (44651879) Loamy Sand, 25 o C 3.5 430 895

Aerobic Aquatic (44988513) Loam Sand, 25 o C 25 215 658

Anaerobic Aquatic (44988512) Loamy Sand, 25 o C 325 590 1372

*All values were estimated using nonlinear regression and the single first order equation.



### 6.5. Mobility/Sorption

Acetamiprid is classified as moderately mob ile with organic carbon normalized soil-water distribution coefficients (K oc 

### ) ranging from 157 to 298 L/kg organic carbon 

### measured in four soils and

### 40 one sediment (MRID 44651883) 16 

### . The mean K oc 

### was 227 L/kg-organic carbon and the coefficient of variation for K oc 

### values (28%) is less than that for K d 

### values (66%) indicating that K oc 

### values will be better at predic ting sorption across soils than K d 

### values. Additionally, K d 

### s tend to be higher as the percent organic car bon increases. There was no relationship with K d 

### s and pH or percent clay. Based on the sorption co efficients and persistence, acetamiprid has the potential to reach ground water, especially in vulnerable sandy soils with low organic-carbon content and/or the presence of shallow ground wate r. However, the maximum depth at which it was detected in terrestrial fiel d dissipation studies was 15 cm. Th e mobility of the degradate IM 1-4, which is a residue of concern for aquatic organisms, is similar to the mobility of the parent. K d 

### values ranged from 0.38 to 21.9 L/kg-soil in four soils and one sediment and K oc 

### values ranged from 153 – 1842 L/kg-organic carbon. The mean K oc 

### for IM 1-4 (775 L/kg-organic carbon) was slightly high er than the mean K oc 

### for the parent (227 L/kg-organic carbon). Therefore, the sorption coefficients fo r the parent will be used in modeling.

6.6. Monitoring Data

The following databases and sources were sear ched on May 4, 2012 for monitoring information on acetamiprid:

 

### The United States Environmental Protect ion Agency (USEPA) STORET Database ( http://www.epa.gov/storet/dbtop.html )

 

### The United States Geological Survey (U SGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program Data Warehouse ( http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov /traverse/f?p=NAWQA:HOME:1405517206944567 )

 

### The USGS National Stream Quality A ccounting Network (NASQAN) program ( http://water.usgs.gov/nasqan /)

No monitoring data are available as none of th e databases reported looking for acetamiprid.

7. Clean Water Act

Acetamiprid is not identified as a cause of impairment for an y water bodies listed as impaired under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, based on information provided at http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_ nation_cy.cause_detail_303d?p_cause_group_id=88 5 . In addition, no Total Maximum Daily Loads (T MDL) have been developed for acetamiprid, based on information provided at http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_ nation.tmdl_pollutant_de tail?p_pollutant_group_id =885&p_pollutant_group_name=PESTICIDES . More information on impaired water bodies and TMDLs can be found at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/

. The Agency invites submission of water quality data for this pesticide. To the extent possible, data should conform to the quality standards in Appendix A of the OPP Standard Operating Procedure: Inclusion of Impaired Water Body and Other Water Quality Data in OPP’s

16 Classification is based on the FAO classification system (USEPA, 2010a)

### 41 Registration Review Risk A ssessment and Management Process (see: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/p pdc/2006/november06/session1-sop.pdf ), in order to ensure they can be used quantitatively or qual itatively in pesticide risk assessments.

8. Receptors

Consistent with the process described in th e Overview Document (USEPA, 2004b), the risk assessment for acetamiprid will rely on a surr ogate species approach. Toxicological data generated from surrogate test species, which are intended to be representa tive of broad groups of organisms, are used to extrapolate potential e ffects on a variety of speci es (receptors) within these groups. Categories of organisms evaluated include: fish, arthropods (insects, crustaceans), mollusks, birds, mammals, aquatic vascular a nd nonvascular plants, a nd terrestrial plants.

Acute and chronic toxicity data from studies submitted by the pe sticide registrant, along with studies available in the open literature, will be us ed to evaluate the potential direct and indirect effects of acetamiprid on aquatic a nd terrestrial receptors. This incl udes toxicity of the technical grade active ingredient, degradat es, and formulated products ( e.g . “six-pack” acute toxicity studies). Open literature studies are iden tified using EPA’s publically available ECOTOX database (USEPA, 2009a) 17 

### , which employs a literature sear ch engine for locating chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants , and wildlife. The evalua tion of both data sources may also provide insight into the direct and indirect effects of acetamiprid usage on biotic communities from loss of sensitive species and from changes in community structure or function.

The most sensitive endpoint for each group of organisms is used in risk assessment. Assessment endpoints include direct t oxic effects on the survival, reproduc tion, and growth of terrestrial and aquatic life, as well as indirect effects, such as reduction in pr ey base and/or modification of habitat. A brief summary of the aquatic and terres trial toxicity data available for acetamiprid and its degradates is provided in Sections 8.1 and 8.2, respectively. A more complete summary of the available data is presented in Appendix B . In addition, a summary of ecological incidents associated with acetamiprid is provided in Section 8.3. Additional in formation on degradate toxicity is discussed in Section 9.

Toxicity to fish and aquatic invertebrates is categorized using the system shown in Table 8-1 (USEPA, 2004a). Toxicity to terrestrial fauna (birds and mammals) is categorized using the system shown in Table 8-2 . Toxicity categories for plan ts have not been defined.

Table 8-1. Categories of Acute Toxicity for Aquatic Animals

LC 50 (ppm) Toxicity Category < 0.1 Very highly toxic > 0.1 - 1 Highly toxic > 1 - 10 Moderately toxic > 10 - 100 Slightly toxic

17 http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

### 42 > 100 Practically nontoxic



### Table 8-2. Categories of Acute Toxicity for Terrestrial Animals

LD 50 (mg/kg) LC 50 (ppm) Toxicity Category <10 <50 Very highly toxic 10-50 50-500 Highly toxic 51-500 501 - 1000 Moderately toxic 501-2000 1001 - 5000 Slightly toxic

>2000 >5000 Practically nontoxic



### 8.1. Effects to Aquatic Organisms

The most sensitive aquatic toxicity endpoints resu lting from acetamiprid (parent) and degradate exposure based on registrant-subm itted studies are provided in Tables 8-3 and 8-4 , respectively. As long as additional information is not submitte d or available in the open literature, these endpoints will be used to calculate RQ values for acetamiprid. A single aquatic toxicity study (Beketov and Liess, 2008) was available in EC OTOX as of April 20, 2012; this study will be evaluated for utility in risk assessment during the Registratio n Review process.

8.1.A. Acetamiprid (Parent)

(a) Fish and Aquatic-Phase Amphibians

Two acute toxicity studies of th e effect of acetamiprid on freshwater fish species were submitted. The 96-hr LC 50 

### values are greater than 100 and 119 mg ai/L for the rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ; MRID 44651864) and bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ; MRID 44651863), respectively. Acetamiprid is therefore classified as practically non-toxic to freshwater fish on an acute exposure basis. Sublethal effects were not ed in both studies. In rainbow trout, darkened body pigmentation, swollen abdomen, and loss of equilibrium were reported at the three highest concentrations (50, 70, 100 mg ai/L). In bluegill sunfish, darkened body pigmentation was observed in all fish at all treatments (11.8, 20.0, 35.4, 65.0, 119.3 mg ai/L). Unless more sensitive data is found in the open literature, the acute toxicity estim ate for trout will be used to assess potential acute risk to freshwater fish (and aquatic-phase amphibians for which they serve as surrogates) during risk assessment.

In the only acute estuarine/marine fish study involving acetamiprid, the 96-hr LC 50 

### for the sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ; MRID 44988411) is 100 mg ai/L, and lethargy was observed in all surviving fish at 90 mg ai/L. A cetamiprid is classified as slightly toxic to estuarine/marine fish on an acute exposure basis. Unless more sensitive data is found in the open literature, the acute toxicity es timate for the sheepshead minnow will be used to assess potential acute risk to estuarine/marine fish during risk assessment.

### 43 A 35-day early life stage toxicity st udy (MRID 44651872) of fathead minnows ( Pimephales promelas ) was submitted to evaluate the chronic eff ects of acetamiprid on freshwater fish. The lowest observed adverse effect concentration (LOAEC) for the study is 38.4 mg ai/L based on both decreased survival and growth (measured by weight). The no-observed-adverse-effect concentration (NOAEC) is 19.2 mg ai/L, and this w ill be used to estimate potential chronic risk to freshwater fish (and aquatic-phase amphibians for which they serve as surrogates) during risk
assessment.

No chronic toxicity data were submitted for estuar ine/marine fish. However, given the low acute toxicity to both freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and the low likelihood of adverse chronic effects to freshwater fish identifi ed in previous assessments, the ne ed for chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine fish is considered low.

(b) Aquatic Invertebrates

The non-biting midge ( Chironomus riparius ; MRID 45916201) is the most sensitive freshwater aquatic invertebrate species in whic h acetamiprid was tested. The 48-hr LC 50 

### for the midge is 0.021 mg ai/L, and acetamiprid is therefore cons idered very highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. A cetamiprid is approximate ly three orders of magnitude more toxic to chironomids th an to the freshwater cladoceran Daphnia magna (48-hr LC 50 

### =50 mg ai/L; MRID 44651866) on an acute e xposure basis. Therefore, the chironomid endpoint value will represent freshwater invertebrates during risk assessment.

Acetamiprid is also very hi ghly toxic to mysid shrimp ( Americamysis bahia ; MRID 44651869), an estuarine/marine invertebrate, on an acute exposure basis (48-hr LC 50 

### =0.066 mg ai/L). Sublethal effects ( e.g. , lethargy) were observed among all th e surviving mysids exposed to the 0.064 and 0.110 mg ai/L treatment levels and in at least one individual atall concentrations except the lowest (0.013 mg ai/L).

Chronic toxicity data for acetamiprid is available for D. magna (MRID 44651871). Survival was reduced in this species by 57%, compared to cont rols, at the highest test concentration (74 mg ai/L). Significant reductions in length (8%), we ight (24%), and mean num ber of offspring (50%) were observed at 9 mg ai/L, resulting in a NOAEC of 5 mg ai/L based on reduced growth and reproduction. However, since acetamiprid is ap proximately three orders of magnitude more toxic to chironomids (LC 50 

### =0.021 mg ai/L) than to daphnids (LC 50 

### =50 mg ai/L) on an acute exposure basis, the availa ble chronic endpoint for D. magna may not adequately represent chronic toxicity to more sensitiv e freshwater invertebrates. Ther efore, an acute-t o-chronic ratio (ACR) approach is used for this assessment. Si nce the acute daphnid endpoi nt is 50 mg ai/L and the chronic NOAEC is 5 mg ai/L, the ACR is for this species is 10. Applying the ACR to the chironomid acute toxicity endpoint results in an estimated ch ronic toxicity endpoint of 0.0021 mg ai/L. This ACR value will be used to calculate chronic RQ values for freshwater invertebrates unless more sensitive data is identified in the open literature.

A chronic study with acetamiprid (MRID 44651873) wa s also carried out on mysid shrimp as a representative of estuarine/mari ne invertebrates. Reduction in male dry body weight was the

### 44 most sensitive endpoint, yiel ding a NOAEC of 0.0025 mg ai/L a nd a LOAEC of 0.0047 mg ai/L. The percent reduction in male dry weight ranged from 11 to 36% in test levels that significantly differed from the dilution control.

Although acetamiprid is registered for use as an insecticide, the high sensitivity of amphipods (acute; see Appendix B for endpoint data) and mysid shrimp ( acute and chronic) to the chemical suggests that there is the potenti al for concern to a variety of aquatic invertebrates, not just insects. Characterization of the taxonomic breadth and magnitude of this potential risk will be addressed during the upcoming risk assessment.

(c) Aquatic Plants

Tier 1 toxicity testing with aquatic plants indicates that acetamiprid is not toxic at the concentrations tested ( Table 8-3 ). Exposure to acetamiprid did not significantly affect growth in the single aquatic vasc ular plant species ( Lemna gibba , 14-day test) and four nonvascular plants species at limit concentrations test ed ranging from 1.0 to 1.3 mg ai/L.

Table 8-3. Most Sensitive Aquatic Toxicity Endpoints for Acetamiprid

Species Measured Effect Duration Endpoint Toxicity Value mg ai/L Test Substance % ai MRID (Study Classification) Freshwater Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow Trout) Mortality 96 hours LC 50 >100* (Practically non-toxic) >99% 44651864 (Acceptable)

Pimephales promelas (Fathead Minnow) Embryo and larval survival, larval growth (wet-weight and length) 35 days NOAEC LOAEC 19.2 38.4 100% 44651872 (Supplemental)

Freshwater Invertebrates

Chironomus

riparius (Non-biting Midge) Mortality 48 hours LC 50 0.021 (Very highly toxic) 99.3 45916201 (Supplemental)

Calculated

Value -- NOAEC 0.0021 † Acute-tochronic

Ratio --

Estuarine/Marine Fish Cyprinodon variegatus (Sheepshead

minnow) Mortality 96 hours LC 50 100 (Slightly toxic) 99.9% 44988411 (Acceptable)

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

Americamysis bahia (Mysid shrimp) Mortality 96 hours LC 50 0.066 (Very highly toxic) 99.9% 44651869 (Acceptable)
Reduced body

weight in

males 28 days NOAEC LOAEC 0.0025 0.0047 99.9% 44651873 (Acceptable)

### 45 Species Measured Effect Duration Endpoint Toxicity Value mg ai/L Test Substance % ai MRID (Study Classification) Aquatic Vascular Plants Lemna gibba (duckweed) Frond number 14 days EC 50 >1.0* 99.9% 44988415 (Acceptable) NOAEC 1.0 Aquatic Non-Vascular Plants Navicula pelliculosa (Freshwater diatom) Cell density 5 days EC 50 >1.1* 99.9% 44988417 (Acceptable) NOAEC 1.1

Skeletonema

costatum (Marine diatom) Cell density 5 days EC 50 >1.0* 99.9% 44988418 (Acceptable) NOAEC 1.0
* Non-definitive study endpoint; cannot be used to calculate RQs. † Endpoint is estimated using the ACR of 10 calculated for D. magna (acute LC 50 of 50 mg ai/L divided by chronic

NOAEC of 5 mg ai/L = 10); applying ACR to the midge acute 48-hr LC 50 of 0.021 mg ai/L results in estimate NOAEC of 0.0021 mg ai/L; unless additional data becomes available, this value will be used to estimate risk in upcoming Registration Review Ecological Risk Assessment.



### 8.1.B. Degradate Effects to Aquatic Organisms

An acute toxicity study of the degradate IM 1-4 on rainbow trout (MRID 44651865) was conducted at concentrations ranging from 4.3 to 69.3 mg ai/L ( Table 8-4 ). No mortalities were reported except at the 69.3 mg ai/L test level, but this may have been due to buffering problems in the test solution, as pH levels ranged from 9.0-9.3. An additional concentration was subsequently tested under buffered conditions at 98.1 mg ai/L, and no mortality was observed. Sublethal effects, including darkened body pigmentation and surface swimming, were observed at concentrations above 4.3 mg ai/L. The 96-hr LC 50 

### is >98.1 mg ai/L, classifying the degradate IM 1-4 as either slightly toxic or practically nontoxic to freshw ater fish on an acute exposure basis. The 96-hr LC 50 

### for the parent in rainbow trout (96-hr LC 50 

### >100 mg acetamiprid/L) was also non-definitive.

Acute toxicity to aquatic inve rtebrates was evaluated for seve ral degradates of acetamiprid. Toxicity tests on D. magna with degradates IC-0 (M RID 44988409), IM-1-2 (MRID 44651867), and IM 1-4 (MRID 44651868) resulted in 48-hr LC 50 

### values of >95.1, >99.8, and 43.9 mg ai/L, respectively, while the D. magna 48-hr LC 50 

### for the parent compound is 50 mg ai/L (MRID 44651866). This indicates that IM 1-4 has similar t oxicity to the parent for freshwater aquatic invertebrates. The 48-hr LC 50 

### of IM 1-5 for the non-biting midge (MRID 46255610) is 68 mg ai/L as compared to 0.021 mg a i/L for the parent, acetamiprid.

For estuarine/marine invertebrates, the only acute toxicity test with a degradate was with IM 1-4 on mysid shrimp (MRID 44651870), resulting in a 96-hr LC 50 

### of 19 mg ai/L, which is two orders of magnitude less sensitive than the parent compound endpoint value of 0.066 mg ai/L for the same species.

### 46 A single chronic toxicity study with acetamiprid degradates was carried out with the IM 1-5 degradation product in D. magna (MRID 44651871). Significant reduc tion in mean number of offspring (30%) was observed at 51 mg ai/L, the LOAEC, resulting in a NOAEC of 26 mg ai/L based on impaired reproduction.

Overall, the data suggest that degradation produc ts of acetamiprid have low toxicity to aquatic invertebrates, although similar toxicity of IM 1-4 to D. magna relative to the parent compound indicates that they may be equally toxic to some aquatic animal taxa. Given this uncertainty, a total toxic residues (TTR) approach is recommen ded for risk assessment for aquatic animals, where combined exposure values for parent a nd IM 1-4 degradate are compared to study endpoints for the purpose of estimating risk. An a dditional rationale for c onsidering IM 1-4 in a TTR approach is that many degradates ultima tely transform into IM 1-4 and IM 1-4 was observed at high levels in both fi eld and lab studies. Identificati on and discussion of acetamiprid degradates that will be consider ed as residues of concern for ri sk assessment is provided in the portion of the document dealing with stressors or con cern (Section 9).

Table 8-4. Aquatic Toxicity Endpoi nts for Degradates of Acetamiprid
Species (Degradate) Measured Effect Duration Endpoint Toxicity Value mg ai/L Degradate % ai MRID (Study Classification) Freshwater Fish
Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow Trout) Mortality 96 hours LC 50 >98.1* (Slightly topractically nontoxic) IM 1-4 96.7% 44651865 (Acceptable)

Freshwater Invertebrates

Daphnia magna

(Water flea) Immobility 48 hours EC 50 >95.1* (Practically non-toxic) IC-0 99.7% 44988409 (Acceptable)

Immobility 48 hours EC 50 >99.8* (Practically non-toxic) IM 1-2 99.6% 44651867 (Acceptable)

Immobility 48 hours EC 50 43.9 (Slightly toxic) IM 1-4 98.7% 44651868 (Acceptable)

Chironomus

riparius (Non-biting Midge) Mortality 48 hours LC 50 68 (Slightly toxic) IM 1-5 98.9% 46255610 (Acceptable)

Daphnia magna

(Water flea) Number of
young per

female 21 days NOAEC LOAEC 26 51 IM 1-5 98.9% 46255609 (Supplemental)

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates Americamysis bahia (Mysid shrimp) Mortality 96 hours LC 50 19 (Slightly toxic) IM 1-4 99.6% 44651870 (Acceptable) * Non-definitive study endpoint; cannot be used for risk estimation duri ng risk assessment.

### 47 8.2. Effects to Terrestrial Organisms

The most sensitive toxicity endpoint values associ ated with acetamiprid exposure to terrestrial organisms are shown in Tables 8-5 and 8-6 . These endpoints will be us ed to calculate RQs for acetamiprid. The ECOTOX database was search ed on April 20, 2012 for terrestrial organism toxicity data, and relevant st udies are preliminarily discu ssed in the sections below.

8.2.A. Acetamiprid (Parent) Toxicity

(a) 4.2.1.1. Birds

Acute oral toxicity studies have been submitted for two avian species: the zebra finch ( Taeniopygia guttata ; MRID 48407701) and the mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ; MRID 44651859). The former study was submitted in 2011 in order to represent toxicity to passerine birds. Acetamiprid is very highly toxic to zebra finches (14-day LD 50 

### =5.68 mg ai/kg-bw) and moderately toxic to mallards (LD 50 

### of 84.4 mg ai/kg-bw) on an acute oral exposure basis. Zebra finches are the most sensitive species for acute oral toxicity and their endpoint will be used for risk assessment. In both studies, at least one sublethal effect ( e.g. , ruffled appearance, lethargy, loss of coordination) was observed at all doses.

Subacute dietary toxicity studies were performed on both the mallard duck (MRID 44651861) and the northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ; MRID 44651860). The mallard and bobwhite quail studies tested th ree and two concentrations, re spectively. The 5-day dietary LC 50 

### reported in both of these studies was >5000 mg ai/kg-diet since less than 50% mortality was observed at all concentrations te sted. Both studies reported mort alities and sublethal effects at one or more test levels. The lowest concentr ation where no effects were observed was 200 mg ai/kg-diet in the mallard study ba sed on reduced survival, behavior al effects, and decreased food consumption and 1000 mg ai/kg-bw in the quail study based on reduced survival and decreased food consumption. According to OPPTS 850.2200 guida nce, a minimum of five test substance concentrations should be used during definitive avian dietary toxicity tests. Moreover, when mortalities are observed at one or more concentr ation levels, as is th e case in both of these studies, a full de finitive study ( i.e. , with five test concentrations) is recommended according to EFED’s non-definitive endpoint guidance policy. Since a definitive endpoint was not established in either of these studies, they will not be used to calculate RQ s but may be used to characterize effects to birds based on sub-acute dietary exposure. It should also be noted that an avian dietary toxicity study (MRID48844901) of acetamiprid in the zebra finch has recently been submitted and is currently under review.

Chronic toxicity to birds was initially evaluate d in the form of two re production studies using mallards (MRID 44988408) and northern bobwhite quail (MRID 44988407). However, there were uncertainties regarding major endpoints in both studies resulting in submission of two new studies in the same two species (MRIDs 46369201, 46555601). In the more recent mallard study, reduced male body weight was the most se nsitive endpoint and was observed at all treatment levels (treatment rang e: 60.2 to 461 mg ai/kg-diet). Nu mber of eggs laid, eggs set, viable embryos, and hatchling body we ights were all affected at th e 461 mg ai/kg-diet level. In

### 48 the more recent bobwhite quail study, the most sensitive endpoint was reduced hatchling body weight, which was observed at a ll test concentrations except the lowest, resulting in NOAEC and LOAEC values of 89.7 and 184 mg a i/kg-diet, respectively. Number of eggs laid, eggs set, viable embryos, and hatchling body weights were all reduced relativ e to controls at the 771 mg ai/kg-diet level. Since the mallard duck showed higher sensitivity than the bobwhite quail but yielded a non-definitive endpoint, chronic risk will be assumed for birds (as well as reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians) during risk as sessment unless an additional study is submitted.

(b) Mammals

Studies evaluating the to xicity of acetamiprid to mammals were reviewed by the OPP Health Effects Division (HED); based on those reviews, acetamiprid is classified as highly toxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis. During initial testing in male and female rats ( Rattus norvegicus ) at acetamiprid doses ranging from 100 to 510 mg/kg-bw, more than half of the females died at all test levels except the lowest ( i.e. , 100 mg/kg-bw) (MRID 44651833). Therefore, additional testing was carried out, with female rats only, at doses ranging from 80 to 160 mg/kg-bw. Based on the addi tional testing, the 14-day LD 50 

### for female rats was 146 mg ai/kg-bw. Clinical signs of toxicity included cr ouching, tremors, low sensitivity, lateral position, prone position, salivation, and atax ia. All surviving animals return ed to normal appearance and behavior by day 2 of the study.

Consistent results were reported in rats fo r a two-year chronic feeding study (MRIDs 44988429 and 45245304), a two-generation reproducti on study (MRID 44988430), and a 13-week subchronic study (MRID 44651843) with acetamipri d. Reduction in growth, as measured by body weight, weight gain, and food consumption, wa s observed at test concentrations of 400-800 mg ai/kg-diet and greater; wh ereas test concentrations of 160-280 mg ai/kg-diet caused no significant adverse effects. In addition to growth endpoints, re productive effects ( e.g. , pup weight, litter size, viability) were also observed at 280 mg a i/kg-diet in the two-generation reproduction study (MRID 44988430). The NOAEC (160 mg /kg diet) that will be used for risk assessment will be based on the growth endpoint s from the 2-year chronic feeding study.

(c) Terrestrial Invertebrates

An acute contact toxicity test with t echnical acetamiprid was conducted on young adult European honeybees (MRID 44651874). In th is study, percent mortality was 40, 66.7, 46.7, 63.3, and 60% for the 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 μg ai/bee test groups, respectively. The LD 50 

### for the contact study was reported as 8.1 μg/bee. However, there is uncertainty in this LD 50 

### value since no clear dose-response relationship was apparent. Since percent mortality was 66.7% at 12.5 μg ai/bee, the median mortality do se is considered to be below this value ( i.e.
, <12.5) suggesting that acetamipri d should be considered moderately toxic to honeybees on an acute contact exposure basis (Atkins et al. , 1976). In the ECOTOX database, Iwasa et al. (2004) report an acute contact 24-hr LD 50 

### of 7.07 μg ai/bee. Althoug h this endpoint was based on nominal concentrations and the exposure period was half that of a typical guideline acute contact study ( i.e. , 48 hrs), it does generally support the registrant-submitted study finding that acetamiprid is moderately toxic to honeybees on a contact exposure basis. A full open-literature

### 49 review of Iwasa et al. (2004) will be conducted during the upcoming risk assessment.

An acute oral study was also carried out in honeybees (MRID 44651874), as well as oral and contact studies in bumble bees ( Bombus terrestris ; MRID 45932503), but endpoint values were greater than those from the guideline honeybee acute contact toxicity study.

EPA currently relies on a tiered approach for eval uating the potential effects of pesticides on honeybees. If an acute contact toxicity test (Tier 1) results in a 48-hr LC 50 

### value less than 11 μg ai/bee, then honeybee toxicity of resi dues on foliage studies (Guideline 850.3030) 18 

### can be required (Tier 2). However, if the 48-hr LC 50 

### is less than 11 μg ai/bee and there are data indicating potential effects to honeybee colonies, th en field testing of pollin ators (Tier 3) may be requested consistent with (Guideline 850.3040) 19



### . Since the reported 48-hr LD 50 

### of the honeybee acute contact t oxicity study was <12.5 μg/bee, a toxicity of residues on foliage study wa s submitted (MRID 44651875) but was deemed unacceptable due to low recovery of acetamiprid on treated foliage. A second residues on foliage toxicity study was submitted, but has not ye t been reviewed by EFED (MRID 45346901). Two semi-field studies conducted to evaluate the possible effect of acetamiprid on honeybee behavior were also submitted (MRIDs 45932504; 45932505), a nd were classified as supplemental 20 

### . Both studies used tents to expose hone ybees via contact with forage a nd/or overspray, and applications rates were equivalent to 0.15 and 0.09 lbs ai/A, which is in line with single application rates for many registered and proposed crop uses. Mortalit y, flight frequency, and foraging behavior were evaluated relative to a cont rol and a known toxic standard. No significant effects on any endpoints were observed in either study from acetamiprid treatments.

Several open literature studies of acetamiprid effects on honeybees are av ailable for acetamiprid. These studies will be thoroughly reviewed as pa rt of the upcoming Registration Review risk
assessment.

Table 8-5. Most Sensitive Terrestrial Anim al Toxicity Endpoints for Acetamiprid

Species Measured effect Endpoint Test Duration Toxicity Value (Acute Toxicity Category) Test Substance % ai MRID (Study Classification) Birds Taeniopygia guttata (Zebra finch) Mortality LD 50 14 days 5.68 mg ai/kg-bw (Very highly toxic) 99.9% 48407701 (Acceptable)

18 USEPA. 1996. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines . OPPTS 850.3030. Honeybee Toxicity of Residues on Foliage. EPA 712–C–96–148. April 1996. http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/pub lications/OPPTS_Harmonized/850_Ecological_Effects_Test_Guidelines/Dra fts/850-3030.pdf
19 USEPA. 1996. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines. OPPTS 850.3040. Field Testing for Pollinators. EPA 712–C– 96–150. April 1996. http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/pub lications/OPPTS_Harmonized/850_Ecological_Effects_Test_Guidelines/Dra fts/850-3040.pdf
20 Note: non-guideline studies cannot be rated “accep table” since there are no guideline standards

### 50 Species Measured effect Endpoint Test Duration Toxicity Value (Acute Toxicity Category) Test Substance % ai MRID (Study Classification) Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) Mortality LC 50 5 days >5,000 mg/kg-diet*(Practically nontoxic) >99% 44651860 (Supplemental)

Anas platyrhynchos (mallard duck) Growth (body weight; weight

gain; food consumption) NOAEC LOAEC 22 weeks <60.2 mg ai/kg-diet* 60.2 mg ai/kg-diet 100% 46369201 (Supplemental)

Mammals

Rattus norvegicus (laboratory rat) Mortality LD 50 14 days 146 mg/kg-bw; females † (Highly toxic) 99.5% 44651833 (Acceptable: Reviewed by HED) Growth (female

body weight; female weight gain) NOAEC LOAEC 24 months 160 mg/kg-diet (7.1 mg/kg-bw/day)

400 mg/kg-diet Not stated in DER 44988429

Terrestrial Arthropods

Apis mellifera

(Honeybee) Mortality LD 50 72 hours Acute contact <12.5 μg ai/bee Acute oral >10.21 μg ai/bee 99% 44651874 (Acceptable)

* Non-definitive study endpoint; cannot be used for risk estimation.



### (d) Terrestrial Plants

The most sensitive terrestrial plant toxicity data are presented in Table 8-6 . Seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies (MRID 44988413) were conducted on ten plant species with a test substance that was listed as 71.1% acetamiprid as wettable powd er. Seedling emergence results were classified as supplemental because only sh oot length, and not plant weight, was measured as an endpoint for growth. Based on shoot length, the most sensitive monocotyledonous (monocot) species was onion ( Allium cepa ; EC 25 

### =0.23 lbs ai/A; NOAEC=0.077 lbs ai/A), and the most sensitive dicotyledonous (dicot) species was cucumber ( Cucumis sativus ; EC 25 

### =0.16 lbs ai/A; NOAEC=0.077 lbs ai/A). The vegetative vigor study was classified as core ( i.e.
, acceptable) for all plants except for lettuce ( Lactuca sativa ), which was classified as supplemental because adverse (phytotoxic) effects were observed in control plants. The most sensitive monocot and dico t species were ryegrass ( Lolium perenne ; EC 25 

### =0.46 lbs ai/A; NOAEC=0.31 lbs ai/A) and lettuce (EC 25 

### =0.0087 lbs ai/A; NOAEC=0.0046 lbs ai/A), respectively. Since lettuce was pa rticularly sensitive to acetamiprid but the study was classified as supplemental, an additional vegetative vigor study was carried out on lettuce alone (MRID 45921401). The results of this study support the previous finding that lettuce is relatively sensitive (EC 25 

### =0.0056 lbs ai/A; NOAEC=0.0025 lbs ai/A) co mpared to other plant species tested. Since lettuce serves as a surrogate for broadleaf dicots, poten tial toxicity to this larger group of plants is possible. Two nonguideline studi es were also carried out to more closely examine the effects of acetamiprid on lett uce. Both studies (MRIDs 46229601 and 46229602) reported that the variety of lettuce ( i.e ., buttercrunch) used in the first two studies, accounted for

### 51 the greater sensitivity of lettuce relative to othe r species tested, and that other varieties of lettuce exhibited reduced sensitivities.

Table 8-6. Most Sensitive Terrestrial Plan t Toxicity Endpoints for Acetamiprid. Species (Plant Group) Test Substance Study Type EC 25 (lbs ai/A) NOAEC (lbs ai/A) Endpoints Affected MRID Study Classification

Onion (monocot) Wettable powder formulation (71.1% ai) Seedling
emergence 0.23 0.077 Shoot length
44988413 Supplemental Cucumber

(dicot) 0.16 0.077

Perennial
ryegrass (monocot) Vegetative vigor 0.46 0.31 Plant weight Acceptable

Lettuce (dicot) Wettable powder formulation (70.04 % ai) 0.0056 0.0025 Shoot length 45921401 Supplemental



### 8.2.B. Degradate Toxicity to Terrestrial Organisms

The only available acute or subacute avian st udy on an acetamiprid degradate is a subacute dietary toxicity study of the compound IM 1-4 with the mallard duck (MRID 44651862) ( Table 8-7 ). The 5-day dietary LC 50 

### was >5000 mg ai/kg-diet, indicati ng that similar to the parent compound, IM 1-4 is practically non-toxic to mallard s on a subacute dietary exposure basis. No mortalities were observed at a ny concentration in this study.

Acute oral toxicity tests with mammals were conducted on seve ral metabolites and degradation products of acetamiprid (MRIDs 44988420, 44988421, 44988422, 44651834, 44651835). Results of these tests show that these compounds are considerably less toxic than the parent compound, and are classified as slightly toxic or practically nontoxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis.

Table 8-7. Available Terrestrial Animal Toxicity Endpoints for Degradates.

Species Measured effect Endpoint Toxicity Value (Acute Toxicity Category) Test Substance % ai MRID (Study Classification) Birds
Anas platyrhynchos (Mallard duck) Mortality 5-day LC 50 >5000 mg ai/kg-diet*(Practically nontoxic) IM 1-4 44651862 (Acceptable)

Mammals

Laboratory Rat Mortality LD 50 1792 mg ai/kg-bw (Practically nontoxic) IM-0 44988421 (Acceptable)

### 52 Species Measured effect Endpoint Toxicity Value (Acute Toxicity Category) Test Substance % ai MRID (Study Classification)

Mortality LD 50 >5000 mg ai/kg-bw (Practically nontoxic) IC-0 44988420 (Acceptable)

Mortality LD 50 2176 mg ai/kg-bw (Practically nontoxic) IM 2-2 99.9% 44988422 (Acceptable)

Mortality LD 50 >5000 mg ai/kg-bw (Practically nontoxic) IM 1-2 99.6% 44651835 (Acceptable)

Mortality LD 50 1088 mg ai/kg-bw (Slightly toxic) IM 1-4 99.6% 44651834 (Acceptable) * Non-definitive study endpoint; cannot be used for risk estimation. † Endpoint value will be used for risk estimation



### 8.3. Incident Database Review

Since the time of the last ri sk assessment of acetamiprid in 2011, four incidents have been entered into U.S. EPA’s Ecologica l Incident Information System (EIIS), which was last checked on August 28, 2012. One aquatic incident (I022234-001) took place in 2010 that involved a fire in a chemical warehouse containing Assail 70 WP insecticide (TGAI: acetamiprid) as well as an unreported list of other pesticides and fertilizers; water used to extinguish the fire resulted in runoff into a river that was ultimately linke d to a fish kill of 700 to 1000 fish of unknown species. Since it is not possible to link any one chemical to this incident, the role of acetamiprid has been designated as “possible.” Three incident s have been reported for acetamiprid related to honeybees. The first incident (I023702-003) spanned the years 2004-2006 and attributed hive population losses of 75-80% to Assa il (acetamiprid) or Admire (imidacloprid). However, this information was published in the form of a news letter and insufficient information was provided to determine the likelihood that acetamiprid was responsible. Another incident (I024270-001), which took place in May, 2012, reported dead bees in 48 colonies whil e pollination services were being provided to an orchar d containing apple, apricot, a nd plum trees. Apparently, Assail was not applied until bees were removed from th e area. It is unknown which other pesticides were applied during the bee kill incident. Based on this information, the role of acetamiprid in this incident is considered “unlikely.” The final honeybee incident (I023979-002) took place on August 25, 2011 and was submitted in the form of an online news article. The incident occurred when a cotton field near the area where bees were being kept was spraye d with Assail 70WP at 8:30 am. All of the honeybees were reported to have died. This incident occurred 10 days after a similar bee kill incident attributed to Lors ban (chlorpyrifos); a 60-80 percent loss of the beekeeper’s honeybees were reported to have di ed across the two incidents. Given that a spraying of Assail 70 WP was specifically associated with the bee kill, this incident is classified as “highly probable.”

A total of 60 aggregated incidents have been reported in the Office of Pesticide Programs

### 53 Incident Data System (IDS) as of Septembe r 5, 2012. Forty-one (68%) of these incidents involved damage to plants, two (3%) incidents were reported for wildlife, and 18 (30%) were reported for domestic animals. Incident repor ts for non-target organisms typically provide information only on mortality events and plant dama ge. Sublethal effects in organisms such as abnormal behavior, reduced growth, or impaired reproduction are rarely reported, except for phytotoxic effects in terrestrial plants. EPA’s ch anges in the registrant reporting requirements for incidents in 1998 may have further reduced the likelihood of incident re ports. Registrants are now only required to subm it detailed information on “major” fish, wildlife, and plant incidents. Minor fish, wildlife, and plant inci dents, as well as all other non- target incidents, are generally reported in aggregate and are not included in EIIS . During the risk assessment associated with Registration Review of acetamiprid, these databa ses will be checked again and any additional incidents will be evaluated to determine if they represent current use patte rns of acetamiprid.

The Avian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS; American Bird Conservancy 2009) was also queried on August 28, 2012, and did not list any bird incidents a ssociated with acetamiprid.

9. Identification of Stressors of Concern

All major degradates of acetamipri d identified in fate studies ha ve a similar pyridylmethylamine backbone as the parent and cannot be eliminated from scrutiny based on structural properties alone. Additionally, IM 1-2, IM-1 -3, IM 1-4, IM 1-5, and IC-0 are all considered major degradates as they were observed with greater th an 10% applied radioactivity associated with the degradate in some studies. Degradates IM-1-3, IM 1-4, and IM 1-5 were also relatively stable with peaks observed at the final sampling interv al or high levels observe d in studies over many days. While IM 1-3 is relatively stable, it was only a major degradat e in the hydrolysis study (pH 9 at 35 o 

### C and 45 o 

### C and biotic metabolism is expected to be its predominant degradation pathway. Fate data suggest that exposure to these degradates (especia lly IM 1-4) could be significant compared to exposure to the parent.

Empirical toxicity data were us ed to determine whether degrad ates should be considered a residue of concern. Based on empirical toxicity data ( Table 9-1 ), degradates IM 1-2, IM 1-5, IC0, and IM-0 only have one or two established endpoi nts that can be compar ed with parent data from the same species. In these cases, these degradat es appear to be less t oxic than the parent. It should be noted that of the four degradates listed above, only IM 1-5 has data for any taxon that is considered to be highly sensitive to the parent ( i.e. , chironomids, mysid shrimp). In this case, IM 1-5 is several orders of magnitude less sens itive to the non-biting midge than the parent compound. None of the above listed degradates ha ve available data for mysid shrimp, which is the most sensitive estuarine/marine organism to acetamiprid. There is somewhat more data for IM 1-4 compared to the other degr adates. IM 1-4 is similarly toxic to daphnids as the parent, but is considerably less toxic to mysid shrimp. In fish, it is not possible to make an adequate comparison since both acetamiprid and IM 1-4 e ndpoints are non-definitive. In insects, acute toxicity data indicate that the presence of an electron-withdrawi ng moiety (either a nitro or cyano group) is important for insecticidal activity, a nd the nitro group has been shown to result in higher toxicity to honey bees (Iwasa et al. , 2004). None of the degr adates have the cyano or

### 54 nitro group. The assumption will be made in the assessment that IM 1-4 is a residue of concern for all aquatic animals as very limited data are av ailable to evaluate sensitivity across species for this degradate; the impact of including IM-1-4 and unextracted residues on quantitation of risk values will be explored further during the risk assessment.

Table 9-1

. Comparison of Available Empirical Toxicity Data for Acetamiprid and Degradates

Compound Empirical (Measured) Toxicity Endpoints Rainbow

Trout 96-hr LC 50 Daphnid 48-hr LC 50 Mysid Shrimp 96-hr EC 50 Non-biting Midge 96-hr LC 50 Daphnid Chronic NOAEC Mallard Subacute Dietary LC 50 Rat Acute Oral LD 50 Units* mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/kg-diet mg/kg-bw Acetamiprid >100 50 0.066 0.021 5.0 >5000 146 IM-1-2 -- >99.8 -- -- -- -- 2176 IM-1-4 >98.1 43.9 19 -- -- >5000 1088 IM-1-5 -- -- -- 68 25 -- --

IC-0 -- >95.1 -- -- -- -- >5000 IM-0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1792 * All units are expressed in terms of the parent or degradate ( e.g ., mg acetamiprid/L water or mg degradate/L water)



### In an attempt to supplement available empirical toxicity data for ace tamiprid transformation products, estimated toxicity data for degradates were generated using quantitative structureactivity relationships (QSAR) derived in the program ECOSAR 21 

### (version 1.00). ECOSAR is only used to prioritize the need for additional da ta on degradates, not to derive endpoint values for use in estimating risk. ECOSAR estimates were compared to measured toxicity information for parent and degradates ( Table 9-2; an example ECOSAR output is provided in Appendix C ). QSAR estimates specific to the parent compound class ( i.e. , halopyridines) were not accurate when compared to measured data. Moreover, EC OSAR estimates for degradates were also not accurate compared to the empirical degradate data set. Therefore, ECOSAR estimates appear to be of limited use in predicting degradate toxici ty for these degradates. ECOSAR did, however, predict increased chronic toxicity of IM-1-4 in daphnids (0.025 mg IM 1-4/L) compared to that of the parent (0.097 mg acetamiprid /L) ( Table 9-2 ) when using the aliphatic amine chemical class as the basis for analysis.

Based on the available information, none of the id entified degradates appear to be more toxic than the parent. There is some evidence that ace tamiprid and IM 1-4 may be similarly toxic to daphnids; conversely, mysid shrimp are approximate ly two orders of magnitude more sensitive to acetamiprid than to IM-1-4. Ba sed on toxicity results for these tw o species, the extent of IM 1- 4 toxicity to aquatic animals besides mysid shrimp is uncertain. Therefore, unless additional data on toxicity of IM 1-4 to other aquatic animals b ecome available prior to risk assessment, total residues of parent plus IM 1-4 will be compared to the most sensitive acute and chronic aquatic animal endpoints for the parent or IM 1-4, whiche ver is more sensitive. In addition, unextracted residues will also be included in the TTR exposure calculations sin ce it is uncertain how much of these unidentified residues are parent or IM 1-4. No specific additi onal studies to address

21 http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/tools/21ecosar.htm

### 55 degradate toxicity are recommended at this time.

Table 9-2

. ECOSAR Quantitative Structure-Activi ty Relationship (QSAR) Toxicity Predictions for Acetamiprid and Degradates
Compound (compounds class used by ECOSAR) Estimated Toxicity Endpoint (mg/L)

96-hr FW Fish LC 50 48-hr Daphnid

LC 50 96-hr EC 50 Green Algae Fish Chronic Value Daphnid Chronic Value

ECOSAR TOXICITY PREDICTIONS Acetamiprid (Parent) Empirical ( Measured ) >100 50 >1.3 19.2 5.0 Halopyridines 0.21 0.73 -- 0.30 0.97 Neutral SAR 59 36 19 5.5 3.7 IM 1-2 Empirical ( Measured ) -- >99.8 -- -- --

Amides 771 236 1.6 4.6 -- Halopyridines 0.225 1.4 -- 8.9 -- Neutral SAR 5774 2692 563 570 182 IM 1-3 Amides 284 101 1.0 1.7 -- Halopyridines 0.19 1.0 -- 3.9 -- Neutral SAR 2008 988 248 196 72 IM 1-4 Empirical ( Measured ) >98.1 43.9 -- -- --
Aliphatic Amines 182 14 3.8 2.8 0.025

Halopyridines 0.15 0.80 -- 3.3 -- Neutral SAR 1724 843 208 169 61 IM 1-5 Empirical ( Measured ) -- -- -- -- 25 Halopyridines 0.184 1.369 -- 27.067 0.752 Neutral Organic 28011 11695 1682 2821 673 IC-0 Empirical ( Measured ) -- >95.1 -- -- -- Halopyridines-acid 1.5 6.9 -- 12 1.1 Neutral SAR 447 238 78 43 20 IM-0 Halopyridines 0.13 0.75 -- -- -- Benzyl Alcohols 360 194 -- -- --

Neutral SAR 1934 934 221 190 67



### Method of Estimating Exposure and Evaluating Risk for Degradates

To estimate exposure to compounds assumed to have a similar toxicity to the parent ( e.g., IM 1-4 for aquatic organisms), a TTR approach will be used by summing the residues observed in fate studies and then estimating degradation rates based on the total summed residues. The TTR

### 56 degradation rates will then be used to estimat e exposure in place of degradation rates for the parent alone. As stated previously, the residues used to es timate degradation rates to estimate exposure for aquatic organisms will be parent, IM -1-4, and unextracted residues. The modeled TTR amounts will then be compared to toxicity endpoints for the pa rent or IM-1-4, whichever is more sensitive for each taxon. For human health dr inking water, residues of concern are assumed to be the parent and unextracted residues and these residues will be combined to calculate degradation rates to arrive at a final estimated drinking water concentration (EDWC).

For terrestrial organisms, only the parent is c onsidered a residue of concern as previously identified for human health. Unextracted residue s are still considered a residue of concern for terrestrial organisms since these residues could consist of the parent compound. However, the TREX program, which is used to model exposure of terrestrial organisms to acetamiprid, does not use fate data for modeling, except in the case of foliar diss ipation data (which is not available for acetamiprid). Therefore, even though a TTR appr oach (parent plus unextracted residues) is relevant for terrestrial vertebra tes, it does not influence exposur e estimates. For terrestrial invertebrates, a standard procedur e is not available to estimate e xposure at this time, and may be addressed further at the time of the risk a ssessment. For terrestrial plants, the program TERRPLANT, which estimates exposure through spra y drift and runoff, is also not influenced by fate parameters. SCIGROW and PRZM/EXAMS may be used to estimate exposure to residues in irrigation water and parent and une xtracted residues will be included in the degradation rates used to estimate exposure.

Table 9-3 summarizes the different a pproaches for assessing risk to degradates for each taxon.

Table 9-3. Summary of Residues of Concern and Methods of Estimating Exposure for Different Classes of Organisms

Taxa Residues of Concern 1 Toxicity Assumption/ Exposure Assumption Method of Estimating Exposure
Aquatic Animals Acetamiprid, IM 1-4, unextracted residues Similar Toxicity TTR PRZM/EXAMs Aquatic Plants

Terrestrial Vertebrates 2 Parent and Unextracted Residues Similar Toxicity TTR T-REX , unextracted residues will not influence results Human Drinking

Water Parent and Unextracted Residues Similar Toxicity TTR PRZM/EXAMs, unextracted residues will influence results

Terrestrial Invertebrates Parent and Unextracted Residues Similar Toxicity TTR Exposure not currently estimated

Terrestrial

Plants Parent and unextracted residues Similar Toxicity TTR TERRPLANT, unextracted residues will not influence results

SCIGROW and PRZM/EXAMs for irrigation water, unextracted residues will influence results Abbreviation: TTR= Total toxic residue approach
1 Unextracted residues are only relevant residues of concern for terrestrial organisms when exposure is estimated for drinking water or for residues in irrigation water.
2 Residues included in the TTR approach for these taxa are based on HED analysis of residues of concern for

### 57 humans and analysis of available toxicity data on degradates for birds.



### Mixtures

Evaluation of pesticide environmental mixtures is beyond the scope of this assessment because of the myriad factors that cannot be quantified ba sed on the available data. Those factors include identification of other possible co-contaminants and their concentrations, differences in the pattern and duration of exposure among contamin ants, and the differential effects of other physical/chemical characteristic s of the receiving waters ( e.g. organic matter present in sediment and suspended water). Evaluation of factors th at could influence additivity/synergism is beyond the scope of this assessment and the capabilities of the available data to allow for an evaluation. However, it is acknowledged that not considering mixtures c ould over- or under-estimate risks depending on the type of interaction and factor s discussed above. The assessment will, however, analyze the toxicity of formulated products (i ncluding formulations involving more than one active ingredient) and will determine whether formulated products are more toxic than the technical grade active ingredient data used for asse ssing both direct and indirect risks. There are four registered Section 3 products that contain more than one ac tive ingredient. Three contain acetamiprid and bifenthrin and one contains acet amiprid (0.26%) and triticonazole (0.78%). Available data on rat oral LD 50 

### s for these formulations do not i ndicate that the formulations are more toxic to mammals than the active ingredie nt alone. Therefore, it is assumed that formulation toxicity is similar to the parent t oxicity for terrestrial organisms. For aquatic organisms, exposure to entire formulations may o ccur with spray drift into a water body or when a product is applied directly to wa ter. Products applied to cranberri es may be directly applied to water. The only other product that is applied in an agricultural se tting that could result in spray drift is for the product containing acetamiprid (13%) and bi fenthrin (10%) (EPA Reg. No. 8033- 116) that is used on soybean. Additional data on the aquatic toxicity of the product used on soybeans and representative typi cal end-use products used on cranberries are needed.

10. Ecosystems Potentially At Risk

The ecosystems at risk are often extensive in scop e, and as a result it may not be possible to identify specific ecosystems during the development of a baseline risk assessment. However, in general terms, terrestrial ecosystems potentially at risk could include the treated field and areas immediately adjacent to the treated field that may receive drift or runoff. Areas adjacent to the treated field could include cultiv ated fields, fencerows and hedgero ws, meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian habita ts and other uncultivated areas.

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include wa ter bodies adjacent to, or downstream from, the treated field and might include impounded bodies such as ponds, lake s and reservoirs, or flowing waterways such as streams or rivers. For uses in coastal areas, aquatic habitat also includes marine ecosystems, including estuaries.

11. Assessment Endpoints

Assessment endpoints are defined as "explicit expressions of the actual environmen tal value that

### 58 is to be protected." Selection of the asse ssment endpoints is based on valued entities ( e.g ., fish, birds), the ecosystems potentially at risk ( e.g ., water bodies, riparian vegetation, and upland habitats), the migration pathways of acetamiprid ( e.g ., runoff, drift, etc .), and the routes by which ecological receptors are e xposed to acetamiprid ( e.g ., direct contact, etc .). Assessment endpoints for acetamiprid include direct adverse effects on the survival, reproduction, and growth of the receptors, as well as indirect effects, such as reduction of the prey base or modification of habitat. Each assessment endpoint requires one or more "measures of ecological effect," defined as changes in the attributes of an assessment endpoint or changes in a surrogate entity or attribute in response to exposure to a pesticide. Specifi c measures of ecological effect are generally evaluated based on acute and chronic toxicity information from registrant-submitted guideline tests that are performed on a limited number of organisms. Additional ecological effects data from the open literature will also be considered.

12. Conceptual Model

For a pesticide to pose an ecological risk, it mu st reach ecological receptors in biologically significant concentrations. An exposure pathway is the means by which a pesticide moves in the environment from a source to an ecological recepto r. For an ecological pathway to be complete, it must have a source, a release mechanism, an environmental transport medium, a point of exposure for ecological receptors, an d a feasible route of exposure.

The conceptual model for acetamiprid provides a wr itten description and vi sual representation of the predicted relationships between acetamiprid and degradates, potential routes of exposure, and the predicted effects for the assessment endpoint . A conceptual model consists of two major components: risk hypothesis and a conceptual diagram (USEPA, 1998).

12.1. Risk Hypothesis

A risk hypothesis describes the predicted re lationship among the stre ssor, exposure, and assessment endpoint response along with the rationa le for their selection (USEPA, 2004). For assessment of acetamiprid, the risk is stressor-in itiated, where the stressor is acetamiprid and a major degradate IM-1-4 which was identified in th e previous risk assessment as having a similar toxicity to that of the pa rent (USEPA, 2009, D364328). The ri sk hypothesis for this risk assessment is provided below:

Given the uses of acetamiprid and its environmen tal fate properties, th ere is a likelihood of exposure to non-target terrestrial and/or aquatic organisms. When used in accordance with the label, acetamiprid results in potential ad verse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Based on previous risk assessments there are potential direct risks to birds, mammals, freshwater invertebrates, estuarine/marine invertebrates, and terrestrial dicotyledonous plants.

### 59 12.2. Conceptual Diagram

The conceptual model depicts the potential pa thways for ecological risk associated with acetamiprid use on a variety of use sites. The conceptual model provides an overview of the expected exposure routes for terrestrial and aquati c organisms. In assessments, determinations are made on whether direct and indirect eff ects are likely to occur and on whether habitat modification may occur. The potential for habita t modification is determined based on primary constituent elements (PCEs) (as defined in 50 CFR 414.12(b)) for listed species. Although the conceptual models for direct/i ndirect effects and modification of designated critical habitat (PCE)s are shown on the same diagrams, the poten tial for direct/indirect effects and modification of PCEs will be ev aluated separately in the assessment.

The potential exposure pathways and effects of acetamiprid on aquatic environments are depicted in Figure 12-1 and for terrestrial environments in Figure 12-2

. Figure 12-3 depicts exposure from drinking water and inhalation to terrestrial vert ebrates and invertebrates. Stressors of concern for aquatic animals and plants include parent acetamiprid, IM-1-4, and unextracted residues. Stressors of concern for te rrestrial animals and terrestrial plants include acetamiprid alone. Unextracted residues are also included in the exposure assessment to terrestrial organisms when applicable ( e.g ., when estimating exposure to residues in irrigation water for terrestrial plants). Solid arrows depict the most likely routes of exposure and effects; dashed lines depict potential rout es of exposure that are not consid ered likely for acetamiprid. Applications to individual trees can result in ab sorption and translocation of acetamiprid from the site of application throughout the tree. Birds, mammals, and terrestrial invertebrates may be exposed through ingestion of leaves, seeds, pollen, or other edible portions of the tree. These exposure pathways are depicted in the conceptu al model in Figure 12-4 , along with the receptors of concern and the potential attribut e changes in the receptors due to exposures of acetamiprid.

Acetamiprid will enter the environment via direct a pplication to terrestrial environments. It may move off site via spray drift, runoff, and leachin g. Acetamiprid is considered non-volatile from dry non-adsorbing surfaces, water, and soil. Add itionally, the Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR) version 1.0 (November 23, 2010) indicates that exposure via inhalati on is not likely to be a risk concern for birds and mammals ( Appendix E ). These results combined with the estimated atmospheric half-life of less than two days indi cate that long-range transport in the vapor phase is not an exposure pathway of concern. Additionally, the K OA 

### , K OW 

### , and BCF suggest that acetamiprid is not likely to biocon centrate or bioaccumulate in aqua tic or terrestrial organisms. Organic-carbon normalized sorption coefficient (K OC 

### ) values range from 157 to 300 L/kg- OC 

### indicating that acetamiprid is classified as moderately mobile under the FAO mobility classification system. The Screening Imbibition Program (SIP) version 1.0, August 19, 2010 identifies that acetamiprid ha s the potential to be present in drinking water at high enough concentrations to result in a risk concern ( Appendix E ). This is a highly conservative evaluation as SIP assumes that concentrations in drinking water could be at the level of solubility. Acetamiprid may be applied as a flowable, as a ge l, or in bait stations . Spray drift is only expected to result in significant exposure w ith broadcast applications (both aerial and ground boom spray) of liquids. Spray drif t is assumed to be negligible fo r applications of liquids with a

### 60 hand held sprayer. When acetamiprid is placed into a bait station, runoff into the aquatic environment will likely be negligible; however, consumption of bait by non-target insects and terrestrial vertebrates may still occur. Aquatic exposure to residues injected into trees will be assumed to be minimal/negligible based on a communication with the technical registrant that acetamiprid is only injected into high value trees in residential areas. Finally, when acetamiprid is applied underground as for some of the term iticide uses, leaching to ground water may occur while spray drift and runoff are not likely to occur.

*Spray drift is not expected to be a significant pathway of exposure for applications of granular materials, seed treatments, and for applications of liquids with a hand held sprayer. **PCE stands for primary constituent elements and are used to determine whether habitat modification may occur.



### Figure 12-1. Conceptual model depicting stressors, exposure pathways, and potential effects to aquatic organisms and their habitat from the use of acetamiprid

### 61 *Spray drift is not expected to be a significant pathway of exposure for applications of granular materials, seed treatments, or applications of liquids with a handheld sprayer. See Figure 12-3 for drinking water and inhalation exposure pathways for terrestrial vertebrates and ingesti on of residues in dew by terrestrial invertebrates. **PCE stands for primary constituent elements and are used to determine whether habitat modification may occur.


### Figure 12-2. Conceptual model depicting stressors, generic exposure pathways, and potential effects to terrestria l organisms (terrestrial plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and dietary routes of exposure for terrestrial vert ebrates) and their habitat from the use of acetamiprid

### 62 *Spray drift is not expected to be a significant pathway of exposure for applications of granular materials, seed treatments, or applications of liquids with hand held sprayers. **PCE stands for primary constituent elements and are used to determine whether habitat modification may occur. 

### Figure 12-3. Conceptual model depicting stressors, drinking water and inhalation exposure pathways, and potential effects to te rrestrial animals from the use of acetamiprid

### 63 Figure 12-4. Conceptual model depicting stressors, exposure pathways, and potential effects to aquatic and terrestrial organisms from applications of acetamiprid to individual trees

.



### 13. Analysis Plan

In order to address the risk hypot hesis, the potential for adverse effects on the environment is estimated. The use, environmental fate, and ec ological effects of acetam iprid are characterized and integrated to assess the risks. This is a ccomplished using a risk quo tient (ratio of exposure concentration to effects concentr ation) approach. Although risk is often defined as the likelihood and magnitude of adverse ecological effects, the risk quotient-based approach does not provide a quantitative estimate of likelihood and/or magnitude of an adverse effect. However, as outlined in the Overview Document (USEPA, 2004b), the likelihood of adverse e ffects to individual organisms from particular uses of acetamiprid is estimated using the prob it dose-response slope and either the level of concer n (discussed below) or actual ca lculated risk quotient value.

This analysis plan will be revisited and may be revise d depending upon the information 

### Stressor

Source

Receptors

Attribute Change Acetamiprid applied directly to tree

Direct application

Individual organisms Reduced survival Reduced growth Reduced reproduction Terrestrial food items (fruit, seeds, foliage, pollen)

Mammals 

### Exposure Media

Direct Contact/ Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Translocation/uptake

Birds Terrestrial

insects Aquatic Organisms Runoff

### 64 submitted by the public in response to the openi ng of the Registration Review docket for acetamiprid.

13.1. Measures of Exposure

In order to estimate risks of acetamiprid exposur e in aquatic and terrestrial environments, all exposure modeling and resulting risk conclusion s will be based on current label information on the maximum application rates and will be estima ted for each use of acetamiprid. Measures of exposure are based on aquatic and terrestrial mo dels that predict EECs of acetamiprid.

13.1.A. Exposure in the Aquatic Environment

Concentrations of acetamiprid and associated residues (IM-1-4 and unextracted residues) in surface waters (EECs) will be estimated using PRZM (Pesticide Root Zone Model version 3.12.2; May 12, 2005) and EXAMS (Exposure Anal ysis Modeling System version 2.98.04.06; April 25, 2005) (Burns, 2000; Carsel et al. , 1997). The PRZM model simulates pesticide movement from and transformation on an agricu ltural field following a pplication. The EXAMS model simulates resulting concentrations in a receiving water body. The PRZM and EXAMS models and their user manuals may be downl oaded from the EPA Water Models web-page (USEPA, 2011b). Percent Cropped Area (PCA) adju stment factors are used to account for the maximum fractional area within a watershed that may be planted with a modeled crop, and are used to modify human health drinking wate r concentrations predicted by PRZM and EXAMS (Echeverria et al. , 2012). Acetamiprid has uses in agricu ltural, commercial, and residential uses sites; therefore, a PCA of 1.0 will be used.

EFED is currently exploring methods to assess urba n and residential uses on a national basis. At the present time, EFED considers the use of th e impervious scenario (a Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM) modeling scenario) as the most suitable available modeling approach for impervious runoff. The PRZM impervious scenar io may be used in the tier II coupled aquatic models PRZM/EXAMS along with a residential or ot her suitable scenario such as rights-of-way (ROW) to obtain EECs. The conceptual model for the residential scenario integrates simultaneous modeling of the individual use scen ario with an impervious scenario. This approach assumes that no watershed is completely covered by either the 1⁄4 acre lot (the basis for the residential scenario) or undeve loped land (the basis for the RO W scenario) for residential and ROW use patterns; therefore, differential amount s of runoff will occur within the watershed. The impervious scenario was developed to repr esent the paved areas within a watershed not including roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and bu ildings outside the 1⁄4 acre lot (the 1⁄4 acre lot scenario accounts for impervious surfaces such as buildings within the represented area). By modeling a separate scenario for impervious surf aces, it is also possible to estimate that amount of exposure that could occur when the pesticid e is oversprayed onto this surface. Using two scenarios in tandem requires post-pr ocessing of the modeled output in order to derive a weighted EEC that represents the contri bution of both the pervious ( i.e. , residential and ROW scenarios) and the impervious surfaces. Exposure from both scenarios can also be weighted and aggregated. The daily time series from each model run from the times series file

### 65 (NAME_TS.out) generated from the PRZM graphi cal user interface (PE5.pl) residential and impervious surface scenarios are combined using EXCEL. The time series data are weighted based on percentage of impervious surface, the per centage of the pervious surface treated, and an adjusted time series is created. Rolling aver ages for the relevant durations of exposure ( e.g. , 21 day and 60 day averages) are calculated, and the rele vant one-in-ten year return EEC is generated from these distributions.

Concentrations of acetamiprid and associated residues (IM-1-4 and unextracted residues) in ground water will be estimated using EFED's Tier I aquatic model SCIGROW (Screening Concentration In Ground Water, version 2.3; 8/ 8/2003). SCIGROW is a regression model used as a screening tool to estimate pesticide con centrations found in ground water used as drinking water. The output of SCIGROW represents concen trations that might be expected in shallow unconfined aquifers under sandy soils, and ther efore represents ground water that is most potentially vulnerable to pesticide contamina tion. The SCIGROW model and user’s manual may also be downloaded from the EPA Water Mode ls web-page (USEPA, 2011b). Aerobic soil metabolism may be assumed to be negligible for us es that are applied at depths where microbial activity is minimal.

The exposure assessment for house perimeter treatm ent required a modification in the standard modeling approach to account for the lack of uni form pesticide application in a small watershed such as yard, housing development, etc. The reco mmended perimeter treatment requires a 10 feet treated area around the perimeter of the house and a llows for treatment of 3 feet up the side of the building. A treated area f actor was estimated using a hous ing density of four 2000 ft 2 

### houses per acre. Each house has a perimeter of 180 ft and treated area of 2,340 ft 2 

### (180 ft × 13 ft). The estimated treated area per acre is then 9,360 ft 2 

### which results in an estimated 21% of an acre (9,360ft 2 

### /43,560ft 2 

### /acre). The application rate may be a ssumed to be 21% of the actual for the perimeter treatment scenario.

In addition to modeling estimates, available monitoring data will be evaluated. Monitoring data will include those collected/reported by states as well as other federal departments/agencies ( e.g ., USGS National Water Quality Assessment; http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa)

. A downstream dilution model (under development) may be used to identify areas downstream from a use area that may have EECs high enough to re sult in a risk concern. This analysis will be used to define the potential area of effects for endangered species.

13.1.B. Exposure to Terrestrial Animals via Residues on Food Items

Exposure estimates for terrestrial an imals assumed to be in the target area or in an area exposed to spray drift are derived using the T-REX model (version 1.4.1, 10/09/ 2008) (USEPA, 2008a). This model incorporates the Kenaga nomograph, as modified by Fletcher et al. (1994), which is based on a large set of field residue data. The upper-limit values from the nomograph represent the upper bound of residue values from actual fiel d measurements (Hoerger and Kenaga, 1972). The Fletcher et al. (1994) modifications to the Kenaga nomograph are based on measured field residues from 249 published research papers, incl uding information on 118 species of plants, 121

### 66 pesticides, and 17 chemical classes (Fletcher et al. , 1994). Based on these data, T-REX assumes a 35-day foliar dissipa tion half-life in the absence of other data.

For applications of gels containing acetamiprid, acute exposure and risks to terrestrial wildlife are estimated with the conceptual approach and the LD 50 

### /ft 2 

### method given in the model T-REX. Terrestrial EECs are calculated based on an esti mation of loadings of pesticide per unit area (expressed in terms of mg ai/ft 2 

### ) for a single application (multiple applications are not accounted for in this analysis); the available mass of pesticid e per square foot is then compared to the acute oral dose for toxicity (LD 50 

### values adjusted for body weight and percent body weight consumed) to derive risk quotients for birds and/or mammals.

The T-REX model is used to estimate exposur es and risks to avian and mammalian species resulting from acetamiprid seed treatment. T-REX approximates acute exposure from seed treatment using avian and mammalian Nagy doses (mg ai bw -1 

### day -1 

### ), and also utilizes an approach analogous to the LD 50 

### /ft 2 

### analyses done for granular a pplications. Chronic exposures are estimated based on the maximum seed appli cation rate (mg ai/kg seed), which can be compared directly to estimated dietary-based chroni c dietary toxicity endpoint s to estimate risks.

13.1.C. Exposure to Terrestrial Plants

EECs for terrestrial plants inhabiting dry and wetland areas are derived using the program TERRPLANT (version 1.2.2, 12/26/2006) (USEPA, 2006) . This model uses estimates of pesticides in runoff and spra y drift to calculate EECs. EECs are based upon solubility, application rate and minimum incorporation de pth. AgDRIFT may also be used to assess exposure to spray drift.

13.1.D. Exposure to Spray Drift

Two spray drift models, AgDISP and AgDRIFT, ar e used to assess exposures of aquatic and terrestrial organisms to acetamiprid deposited in te rrestrial and aquatic hab itats by spray drift. AgDrift (version 2.01; dated 5/24/2001)(Spray Dr ift Task Force Spray Software) is the model most commonly used to simulate spray drift into terrestrial and aquati c environments. AgDISP (version 8.13; dated 12/14/2004) (Teske and Curbis hley, 2003) is used when a parameter needs to be modeled that is not availabl e in AgDRIFT. Spray drift analys is will be an important part of the analysis in defining the potential ar ea of effects for endangered species.

13.1.E. Exposure to Terrestrial Plants from Residues in Irrigation Water

Non-target crops may be exposed to contaminat ed irrigation waters from surface water or shallow ground water containing acetamiprid. The potential risks to plants when exposed to irrigation water contaminated with acetamipri d will be estimated for both ground water and surface water irrigation sources. The EECs for gr ound water and surface water will be calculated using SCIGROW and PRZM/EXAMs, respectively. Comparisons will be made to the most sensitive endpoint from the vegetative vigor stu dy assuming that runoff of irrigation water does
not occur.

### 67 13.1.F. Exposure from Applications to Individual Trees

There is no currently approved model for estima ting potential exposure to organisms from tree injection or bark treatment. A screening-level estimate of ex posure will be used in the assessment to determine whether a more in-depth anal ysis of this use patternis needed due to the potential for risk to organisms. The method used to estimate exposure in the terrestrial environment is discussed in a recently completed assessment in EFED and the screen is based on the following assumptions (USEPA, 2010b). Th e aquatic risk assessment methodology was developed for this problem formulation.

(1) Aquatic Risk Assessment

a. The total mass of chemical applied to th e trees on one acre is assumed to be an application rate. PRZM/EXAMs will be us ed to estimate potential exposure from applications to bark of trees. Spray drift will be assumed to be minimal. Aquatic exposure due to tree injections will be assumed to be minimal. (2) Concentration of chemical in leav es for Terrestrial Risk Assessment

a. Leaf concentration was estimated by assuming that 100% of the chemical was translocated to the leaves. Leaf mass was estimated using allometric equations developed for blue oak trees presented by the USDA Forest Service (Karlick and McKay, 2002). The following equations are us ed to evaluate risk to terrestrial organisms.

EEC = total mass of chemical applied / leaf mass on tree.

Leaf mass (g) = 1.78x 2 

### – 12.4x – 108.5 x = tree circumference at breast height (cm)

Pesticide concentration on leaves was convert ed to dose by assuming that birds consume 114% and mammals consume 95% of thei r body weight daily using the following equation:

Body weight adjusted EEC for residues on leaves mg/kg bw = X mg/kg leaf × 1.14 or 0.95 kg leaf/kg-bw

13.2. Measures of Effect

Ecological effects data are used as measures of di rect and indirect effect s to biological receptors. Effects data are obtained from registrant-submitted studies or from literature studies identified by the ECOTOX database. The acute measures of eff ect used for animals in this assessment are the LD 50 

### , LC 50 

### and EC 50 

### . LD stands for "Lethal Dose", and LD 50 

### is the amount of a material, given all at once, that is estimated to cause the deat h of 50% of the test organisms. LC stands for "Lethal Concentration" and LC 50 

### is the concentration of a chemical that is estimated to kil1 50% of the test organisms. EC stands for "Effect Concentration" and the EC 50 

### is the concentration of a

### 68 chemical that is estimated to produce a specific effect in 50% of the te st organisms. Endpoints for chronic measures of exposure for listed and non-listed animals are the NOAEL/NOAEC. NOAEL stands for "No Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level " and refers to the hi ghest tested dose of a substance that has been reported to have no ha rmful (adverse) effects on test organisms. The NOAEC ( i.e ., "No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Concentration" ) is the highest test concentration at which none of the observed effects were statisti cal1y different from the control. For non-listed plants, only acute e xposures are assessed ( i.e ., EC 25 

### for terrestrial plants and EC 50 

### for aquatic plants); for listed plants either the NOAEC or EC 05 

### is used.

Where available, sublethal effects observed in both registrant-submitted and open literature studies wil1 be evaluated qualitatively. Such effects may include behavioral changes ( e.g ., lethargy and changes in coloration). However, qua ntitative assessments of risks are limited to those endpoints that can be di rectly linked to the Agency's assessment endpoints of impaired survival, growth and reproduction.

In the absence of taxa-specific data, the assessm ent of risk for direct effects to non-target organisms makes the assumption that toxicity of acetamiprid to birds is similar to terrestrialphase amphibians and reptiles. The same assu mption is made for fish and aquatic-phase amphibians. In the absence of data for either acute or chronic effects, the conservative assumption wil1 be to presume that acetamiprid is toxic.

13.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects

Risk characterization is the inte gration of exposure and ecological effects characterizations to determine the potential ecological risk from the registered uses of acet amiprid and the likelihood of direct and indirect effects to non-target or ganisms in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The exposure and toxicity (effects) da ta are integrated in order to evaluate the risks of adverse ecological effects on non-target species. For th e assessment of acetamiprid, the risk quotient (RQ) method is used to compare exposure and measured toxicity values. EECs are divided by acute and chronic toxicity values . The resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency's Levels of Concern (LOCs) (USEPA, 2004b)( Appendix F ). These criteria are used to indicate when acetamiprid use, as directed on the labels, has the potential to cause adverse direct or indirect effects to non-target organisms. In addition, inci dent data from the EIIS will be considered as part of the risk characterization.

13.3.A. Deterministic and Probabilistic Assessment Methods

The quantitative assessment of risk will primarily depend on the deterministic point-estimate (RQ) based approach described in the risk assessment. Dependi ng on the extent of refinement needed by the risk manager, risk estimates may be further refined using pr obabilistic tools that the Agency has developed. These tools have b een reviewed by FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panels 22 

### and have been deemed as an appropria te means of refining assessments where deterministic approaches have identified risks. Ne wer tools may be available to assess the routes

22 http://vvww.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/index.htm

### 69 of exposure and will be applied as appropriate in Registration Review.

13.3.B. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

As required by FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA reviews num erous studies to asse ss potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectivel y, these studies include acute, sub-chronic and chronic toxicity, including asse ssments of carcinogenicity, ne urotoxicity, developmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. These studies include e ndpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influe nce, including effects on endocri ne target organ histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual maturatio n, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies that assess gr owth, developmental and reprod uctive effects in different taxonomic groups. As part of its most recent re gistration decision, EPA re viewed these data and selected the most sensitive endpoi nts for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), acetamiprid is subject to endocrine screening as part of the Endocri ne Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whet her certain substances (including pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or ot her such endocrine effect s as the Administrator may designate.” The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making th e statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a chemical substance to interact with the estrog en, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal systems. Chemicals that go th rough Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stag e of the EDSP where EPA will determine which, if any, of th e Tier 2 tests are necessary base d on the available data. Tier 2 testing is designed to identify a ny adverse endocrine-related eff ects caused by the substance, and establish a dose-response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect.

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call-ins for the first group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. Acetamiprid is not among the group of 58 pesticide active ingredient s on the initial list to be screened under the EDSP. Accordingly, as part of Registration Review, EPA will issue future EDSP orders/data call-ins, requiring the submissi on of EDSP screening assays for acetamiprid. For further information on the status of the EDSP, the polic ies and procedures, the list of 67 chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website. 23



### 13.3.C. Endangered Species Assessment

Consistent with the Agency’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Agency will evaluate risks to Federally-listed th reatened and/or endangere d (listed) species from registered uses of acetamiprid. This assessm ent will be conducted in accordance with the

23 http://www.epa.gov/endo/

### 70 Overview Document (USEPA, 2004 b), provisions of the ESA, and the Services’ Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (USFWS/NMFS, 1998).

The action area is used to identify all listed (t hreatened and endangered) species and designated critical habitat that could be affected by the Federal action. The Federal action is the authorization or registration of pesticide use or uses as descri bed on the label(s) of pesticide products containing a particular active ingredient. The action area is defined by the Endangered Species Act as, “all areas to be affected directly or indirec tly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action” (50 CFR §402.2). Based on an analysis of the Federal action, the action area is defined by the actual and pote ntial use of th e pesticide.

In the case of nationwide ecological risk assessment conducted for acetamiprid under Registration Review, the action area will encompass the entire United States and its territories. The purpose of defining the action area as the entire US and its territories is to ensure that the initial area of consideration encompasses all ar eas where acetamiprid may be used now and in the future, including the potential for off-site transport via spra y drift and downstream dilution. Additionally, the concept of a na tionwide action area takes into acc ount the potential for direct and indirect effects and any poten tial modification to critical ha bitat based on ecological effect measures associated with reduction in survival, growth, and reproduction, as well as the full suite of sublethal effects available in the effects literatu re. It is important to note that the nationwide action area does not imply that dire ct and/or indirect e ffects and critical habitat modification are expected to or are likely to occur over the full ex tent of the action area, but rather to identify all listed species and critical habita t that may potentially be affected by the action. The Agency will use more rigorous analysis including consideratio n of available land cover data, toxicity data, and exposure information to determine areas wh ere individual listed species and designated critical habitat may be affected or modified via endpoints associated with reduced survival, growth, or reproduction.

13.3.A. Risk Assessment of Pollinators

The EPA is aware of registrant-s ubmitted studies and ot her open literature studies regarding the potential effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on insect pollinators a nd specifically on honey bees. EPA is also aware of concerns regardi ng the potential association between the use of nitroguanidine-substituted neonico tinoids and honey bee losses characterized as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and the broader phenomenon of declining honey bee heal th globally. While a number of factors ( e.g ., nutrition, habitat loss, di sease, parasites, bee management practices, and pesticides) have been hypothesize d, no single factor has yet to be identified as the “cause” of declines.

As part of the review process, EPA examines the effects of chemicals on bees based on both laboratory and when appropriate, field studies to determine whet her individual bees and entire bee colonies may be affected by the use of a compound and to support risk mitigation decisions. EPA is currently revising its process for assessing pesticide risks to bees to reflect advancements in the state of the science that underlie bee e xposure and effects assessments. Interim guidance

### 71 (USEPA 2011 24 

### ) on factors to consider when evaluating e xposure and effects to bees is available to ecological risk assessors. In 2012, EPA will present to a FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) a proposed process for quantifying risks to honeybees and identifying exposure and effect studies needed to inform that process. Base d on input from the SAP, EPA will incorporate its revised assessment process to quantify risks to bees in a similar manner as that used to evaluate risks to other taxa.

As EPA’s understanding of the scie nce evolves, its need for data and its evaluation of those data will evolve as well. Therefore, as with all taxa , EPA reserves the right to require additional data it deems necessary to inform its understanding of potential ecological risks and support its associated risk management decisions. Additio nal data requirements for pollinators may extend beyond those identified in problem formulations and preliminary work plans written in support of the Registration Review process.

13.3.B. Human Health Drinking Water Assessment

In order to bring the drinking water assessment up to date with current data, models and simulation model guidance, a new drinking water assessment will be conducted to support future human health dietary risk assessments of acetamiprid. The drinking water assessment will incorporate model estimates of acetamiprid and unextracted residues in surface water and groundwater. Concentrations of acetamiprid and unextracted residues in surface waters will be estimated using PRZM and EXAMs (see descripti on in Section 13.1.A), and concentrations in ground water will be estimated using SCIG ROW (see description in Section 13.1.A).

The drinking water assessment will also include available surface and ground water monitoring data with consideration of change s in use patterns that may have occurred. States are encouraged to submit monitoring data for review.

14. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps

14.1. Fate

Several fate studies are needed to better char acterize the environmental fate and transport of acetamiprid. The studies listed below will decrease the uncertainty in determining the potential exposure to the pesticide. EFED recomm ends the following studies be required:

 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism (OPPTS Guid eline 835.4300); test substance acetamiprid, data needed for one sediment

 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism (OPPTS Guid eline 835.4400); test substance acetamiprid, data needed for one sediment

 Column and Aged Column Leaching Study (OPPTS Guideline 835.1240); Parent and

24 USEPA. 2011. Pesticides: Science and Policy. Interim Guidance on Honey Bee Data Requirements. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/ efed/policy_guidance/team_authors/te rrestrial_biology_tech_team/honeybee _data_interim_guidance.htm

### 72 representative TEP for formulations applie d using trenching, roddi ng, soil injection, and soil excavation techniques

 Aquatic Field Dissipation (OPPTS Guidelines 835.6200); test substance is representative end-use product used on cranberries

 Aerobic Soil Metabolism (OPPTS Guidelin e 835.4100), Test substance acetamiprid additional information on MR IDs 46255603, 44651881, 44699101, 44651879 or identity of unextracted residues

 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism (OPPTS Guid eline 835.4300), Test substance acetamiprid, additional information for MRID 44988513 or identity of unextracted residues

 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism (OPPTS Guideline 835.4400), Test substance acetamiprid additional information for MRID 44988512 or identity of unextracted residues

 Environmental Chemistry Methods: Wa ter (OPPTS Guideline 850.7100), parent and major degradates IM 1-2, IM 1-5, IM 1-4, IM 1-3, and IC-0

In addition to the above studies, the following st udies would provide additional information that would reduce uncertainty in th e risk assessment or assist the public in monitoring:

 Terrestrial Field Dissipation (OPPTS Guid eline 835.6100); test substance acetamiprid

Table 14-1 summarizes the fate data requirements for acetamiprid. A rationale discussing the need for each study is also provided below.

Table 14-1. Summary of Submitted Environmenta l Fate Studies, Study Classifications and Data Gaps for Acetamiprid and Its Degradates

OPPTS Guideline MRID
Test Material Study Classification Comments on Study Classification Data Gap? Are additional data needed

for risk assessment? Comments

Hydrolysis 835.2120 (161-1) 44651876
Parent Acceptable Values may be used in risk assessment.
No No

-- 44651877 Supplemental Screening study at 50 o C. Shown to be stable.

Aqueous Photolysis 835.2240 (161-2) 44988509
Parent Acceptable Values may be used in risk assessment No No

-- 44988511

Parent Valid

--

### 73 OPPTS Guideline MRID
Test Material Study Classification Comments on Study Classification Data Gap? Are additional data needed

for risk assessment? Comments

Soil Photolysis 835.2410 (161-3) 48563501
Parent Supplemental Unable to calculate half-lives due to microbial activity being higher in dark control than in irradiated sample. Yes No When microbial degradation is present it is expected to be a more

important degradation pathway than photolysis. Additional data are not expected to impact the risk assessment.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism

835.4100 (162-1) 46255603 Parent Supplemental

High unextracted residues Yes Yes All of the studies contained high levels of unextracted residues and

maximum amounts of residues observed may b e higher than observed. In absence of additional data, unextracted residues will be included

when estimating halflives for use in aquatic modeling. 44651881

Parent Supplemental

44699101

Parent Supplemental

44651880

Parent Supplemental – Not for use in modeling
44651879

Parent Acceptable

Anaerobic Soil

Metabolism

835.4200 (162-2) 48554501
Parent SupplementalNot for use in

modeling Dissolved oxygen concentrations were 1.9 mg/L Yes No While data are required by 40 CFR Part 158.1300, additional data are not expected to impact the risk

conclusions.

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism

835.4300 (162-4) 44988513
Parent Acceptable Data only available on one sediment. High levels of unextracted residues. Yes Yes For the study available on one sediment there were significant unextracted residues. In the absence of additional data, unextracted residues will be included

when estimating halflives for use in aquatic modeling. If data are only available on one sediment the estimated value will be multiplied by three.

### 74 OPPTS Guideline MRID
Test Material Study Classification Comments on Study Classification Data Gap? Are additional data needed

for risk assessment? Comments

Anaerobic

Aquatic Metabolism

835.4400 (162-3) 44988513
Parent Acceptable Data only available on one sediment. High levels of unextracted residues. Yes Yes For the study available on one sediment there were significant unextracted residues. In the absence of additional data, unextracted residues will be included

when estimating halflives for use in aquatic modeling. If data are only available on one sediment the estimated value will be multiplied by three.

Adsorption/ Desorption 835.1230 (163-1) 44651883
Parent Acceptable Test material was parent No No

-- 44651885

IM-1-4 Valid Test material was IM1-4

Leaching and Aged Column

Leaching 835.1240 -- --- -- Yes Yes Data are needed to predict the risk of contamination of ground water from uses involving trenching, rodding, soil excavation,

and subslab injection.

Terrestrial Field

Dissipation

835.6100 44988514
Parent Supplemental IM-1-2 not stable, residues in plants not measured
Yes No Additional data are not expected to impact the risk assessment

conclusions. 44988515

Parent Supplemental IM-1-2 not stable. Residues in plants not measured

44988625

Parent Supplemental No storage stability data

835.6200 Aquatic Field

Dissipation -- -- -- Yes Yes Acetamiprid may be used on cranberries and therefore, applied directly to water. Therefore, data on aquatic field dissipation of acetamiprid are needed.

### 75 OPPTS Guideline MRID
Test Material Study Classification Comments on Study Classification Data Gap? Are additional data needed

for risk assessment? Comments

Bioconcentration Factor 850.1730 -- -- -- No No Not required because K OW is < 1000 (40 CFR Part 158.630)

Environmental

Chemistry Method: Water 850.7100 44988536
Parent and

Major Degradates Satisfactory

-- No No An ECM and ILV are needed with a limit of quantitation (LOQ) for

the parent below 2.5 μg/L that may be used in

monitoring. Available methods have an LOQ of 0.1 μg/L. 1

Environmental

Chemistry Method: Soil and sediment

850.7100 44988516/4 4988517
Parent and

Major Degradates Satisfactory

-- No No

Abbreviations: ECM=Environmental Chemistry Method; ILV=independent laboratory Validation
1 The LOQ was based on the NOAEC for mysid (NOAEC = 0.0025 mg ai/L) and an LOC of 1 (MRID 44651873).



### 14.1.A. Rationales for Requesting Fate Studies

 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism (OPPTS Guid eline 835.4400); test substance acetamiprid, data needed for one sediment and additional data needed on the identity of unextracted residues for MRID 44988513

 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism (OPPTS Guid eline 835.4300); test substance acetamiprid, data needed for one sediment and additional data needed on the identity of unextracted residues for MRID 44988513

 Aerobic Soil Metabolism (OPPTS Guidelin e 835.4100), Test substance acetamiprid additional information on MRIDs 46255603, 44651881, 44699101, 44651879 regarding the identity of une xtracted residues

Data on aerobic aquatic and anaerobic aqua tic metabolism (OPPTS Guidelines 835.4300 and 835.4400) in two sediments each are recommended; however, data are only available for each type of test in one sediment. This could resu lt in underestimation or ov erestimation of typical half-lives in such media. Because only a single data point (half-life) is available for each of these studies, model input half-lives are assumed to equal th ree times the measured values, in keeping with standard EFED procedure (USE PA, 2009b). Having half-lives from additional studies would allow estimation of 90 th 

### percentile confidence bounds on the mean half-lives for use in modeling, which would probably be less c onservative. A total t oxic residue (including parent, IM-1-4, and unextracted re sidues) approach is used in modeling for the ecological risk assessment. Half-life values used in modeling were high ( i.e ., >1500 days), and as a

### 76 consequence EECs are conservative. These data gaps will also influence the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs).

The identity of unextracted residues is unknown in a number of submitted studies where unextracted residues made up grea ter than 10% of applied radio activity (<1 to 40%). This creates significant uncertainty for the risk assessme nt. Due to the uncertainty in the identity of these residues, in the absence of additional data, it will be assumed that the unidentified residues are residues of concern in estimating the half-liv es of total residues of concern. It will be assumed that unextracted residues have similar t oxicity to the parent compound. In a recently completed ecological risk assessment, the parent , IM-1-4, and unextractedresidue risk quotients were up to twice the values of those for the parent and IM-1-4 only (USEPA, 2011a). For the drinking water assessment, inclusion of unextracted residues resulted in EDWCs that were 4 to 35 times the EDWCs based on parent alone (USEPA, 2011, D394234, D394479). If the identity of the unextracted residues were known, the degradate profile would likely change. Additional studies that make an effort to en sure that all residues that can be extracted from soil and sediment are extracted 25 

### , and that those residues are identified, could significantly reduce the uncertainty resulting from having significant amounts of unextracted and unidentified residues in metabolism studies.

In all fate studies, efforts should be made to extract all residues from soil and sediment.

 Column and Aged Column Leaching Study (OPPTS Guideline 835.1240) and Aged Column Leaching; Parent and representative TEP for formulations used as termiticides

Acetamiprid may be used to control termites an d is applied via trenching, rodding (boring a series of relatively evenly spaced holes in the soil adjacent to the structure and back-filling the holes with termiticide and soil), s ub slab injection, soil excavation, or injected into piping or similar systems around buildings. There is a partic ular concern for leaching of pesticides applied under the soil surface as other ch emicals have been found at high levels when applied in this manner (USEPA, 1999). The pesticide may be app lied below levels where microbial activity is high, resulting in greater persiste nce. There is also a concern that the formulation may enhance the movement of the pesticide in soils as the entire fo rmulation is applied unde r the soil surface. The environmental risk concern is that the incr eased mobility may potentially allow acetamiprid to reach drinking water wells a nd in-ground drainage systems such as French drains, which are used to drain water away from basement walls, a nd tile drains, which are used to lower the water table in residential and other ar eas. Both the French and tile drains typically convey water through storm-water drainage-ways to water bodies rath er than to wastewater treatment facilities. In order to better understand the risk of these uses EFED requests column leaching studies be conducted on the parent and representative formul ations (including a formulation that is applied in foam) that are used in this manner. If the formulation indicates that the formulation is more mobile than the parent, EFED believes it would be prudent to request a radio-labeled aged soil

25 A reasonable effort to extract all residues would include employing a variety of extraction solvents and testing extraction efficiencies for known analytes. Use of acids and bases if they do not alter the chemical of interest may also be used.

### 77 column leaching study that determines how fast th e formulation components lose their ability to enhance acetamiprid mobility and estimates the rate of decay in mobility enhancement. EFED envisions such a study consisting of a radio-la beled aged soil column leaching study using acetamiprid formulation aged for different lengths of time (for example, 0 months, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year). If such a study is performed, EFED recommends that acetamiprid and acetamiprid degradates be quant ified. It would also be recommended that multiple soil types varying in organic matter cont ent be studied including a loamy sand and a silt loam or sandy loam. Ideally, the stud ies would be conducted on soils where adsorption/desorption data for the parent were al so available and the soils were shown to be vulnerable soils.

 Aquatic Field Dissipation (OPPTS Guidelines 835.6200); test substance is representative end-use product used on cranberries

Acetamiprid may be used on cranberries and applied directly to water. 40 CFR § 158.1300 recommends that aquatic field dissipation stud ies be available when products may be applied directly to water or when there is a potential for aquatic exposur e. Data from aquatic field dissipation studies are needed to get a better understanding of the environmental fate of acetamiprid in aquatic systems. In the absence of additional data, EFED will use available data to predict the fate of aceta miprid in cranberry bogs.

14.1.B. Discussion of Additional Fate Da ta to Reduce Uncertainty or Aid in

Monitoring

 Terrestrial Field Dissipation (OPPTS Gu ideline 835.6100), Test substance acetamiprid formulation

Terrestrial field dissipation st udies are only available examin ing applications of wettable powders. Studies conducted using other formulati ons such as soluble conc entrates, emulsifiable concentrates, and termiticide formulations woul d reduce the uncertainty on the effect of the formulation on the environmental transport of acet amiprid. This would be particularly helpful for termiticide formulations that are directly in jected below the soil surface. Additionally, IM 1- 2 was converted to IM 1-4 during storage and IM 1-4 was not stable for two of the studies with storage stability data. In a third study, storage stability data were not available. This results in uncertainty in the maximum residue s of IM 1-2 and IM 1-4 that w ould occur in the environment. This is particularly important as concentra tions of IM 1-4 were sometimes higher than concentrations of the parent. Additional data to resolve these uncertainties in the terrestrial field dissipation results would reduce the un certainty in the risk assessment.

 Environmental Chemistry Methods (OPPTS Guideline 850.7100)

Environmental chemistry methods for parent an d degradates using a variety of instruments would aid the public in being able to monitor for acetamiprid and its degradates in use areas. These methods could be specific to acetam iprid, or multiresidue methods for multiple

### 78 compounds that include acetamiprid and/or its de gradates. These methods would add to the methods already available for monitoring.

14.2. Ecological Effects

Several ecological effects studies on acetamiprid are needed to bette r assess the potential risk of exposure to non-target organisms. Table 14-2 summarizes the data that have been submitted for the parent compound and also highlights additional studies that are needed for risk assessment. Additional rationale for requesting sp ecific studies is outlined below.

The following studies are needed to decrease un certainty in risk esti mation and characterization of acetamiprid:

Avian Toxicity

 Avian Reproductive Toxicity Study with Mallar d Duck – OCSPP 850.2300 [1 Study]

An avian chronic reproductive toxicity study (MRID 46369201) yiel ded a non-definitive endpoint. A NOAEC value was not derived in the study and effects were recorded at all concentrations tested. Establishmen t of a NOAEC is essential if the study is to be used in risk assessment. Therefore the extent of possible chro nic risk to birds cannot be determined until an additional avian reproduction study (OCSPP 850.2300) is submitted. EFED reviewed this avian reproduction study in August, 2005 and classified it as supplemental since it did not establish a NOAEC because statistically signifi cant effects on male body weight gain were observed at all treatment levels. EFED issued an additional document in 2012 (D325745) reconfirming that the study remains classified as supplemental. Th erefore, additional data on avian reproductive toxicity in mallard ducks are recommended.

Aquatic Invertebrate Toxicity

 28-day Chironomid Toxicity Test – Non-guideline [1 Study]

Based on a search of the Europ ean Pesticide Properties Databa se (PPDB), a 28-day chronic study with the non-biting midge ( Chironomidae ) exists. If this is a regi strant-sponsored study, EFED would appreciate submission of this study to be tter assess toxicity to sensitive non-target arthropods. Submission of these data could poten tially be used to avoi d relying on an acute-tochronic ratio for estimating chronic toxicity to ch ironomids. If this study is not available, a new study is not being requeste d for risk assessment.

 Freshwater invertebrate, acute toxic ity, Daphnia – OCSPP 850.1010 Test Substance EPA Registration Number 8033.116 and TEP for products used on cranberries

40 CFR § 158.630 footnote 9 recommends that acute aquatic toxicity testing data be obtained when, “An ingredient in the end- use formulation other than the act ive ingredient is expected to

### 79 enhance the toxicity of the active ingredient or to cause toxicity to aquatic organisms.” EPA Registration Number 8033-116 contai ns both acetamiprid and bife nthrin, which is toxic to aquatic organisms, and may be de posited directly into the aquatic environment via spray drift. Submission of these data will allow evaluation of the likelihood of risk to aquatic invertebrates exposed to this product via spray drift. Additionally, products with applications to cranberries may have direct applications to water. OCSPP 850.1010 on representative typical end-use products for these products are recommended.

Terrestrial Invertebrate Toxicity

 Honeybee Toxicity on Foliage Resi due Study – OCSPP 850.3030 [1 Study]

Based on current Agency policy, an accepta ble honeybee foliage residue study (OCSPP 850.3030) is recommended when the acute contact toxi city to bees is <11 μg/bee, as in the case of acetamiprid. A toxicity of residues on foliage study (MRID 44651875) was submitted for acetamiprid but was deemed unacceptable. While th is study design does not address the systemic nature of acetamiprid, it is re quested to provide a better understa nding of the residual toxicity associated with foliar applicati ons. It should be noted that a s econd foliage residue toxicity study was submitted in 2001 (MRID 45346901), but has not yet been reviewed by EFED.

 Honeybee Larval Toxicity Study – Non-guideline [1 Study]

Since at least one of the register ed uses of acetamiprid is as an ovicide, potential effects to young bees could exist. Toxicity studies with acet amiprid have only been submitted for young adult bees and do not address possible effects on brood (larvae and pupae) survival. In addition, since acetamiprid is a systemic fungicide, it may be tran sferred to pollen and nectar and subsequently brought back to hive where larvae and pupae ma y be exposed. Honeybee brood studies are not currently a data requirement in the U.S., how ever, a non-guideline honeybee larval toxicity study is recommended as a special study (see Appendix F for DCI justification table).

 Nectar and Pollen Residue Study – Non-guideline [1 Study]

Acetamiprid is a systemic compound, and there is uncertainty as to the extent that residues may translocate to pollen and nectar, where honeybee larvae and pupae may be exposed. However, this route of exposure will only be considered a potential concern if acetamiprid exhibits significant toxicity to larval bees. Therefore, EFED recommends residu e studies of pollen and nectar (and other plant products, as appropriate ) of pollinator-attrac tive crops on which the compound is registered for use (see Appendix F for DCI justification tables) pending the results of the non-guideline larval toxicity test. If the screening-level acute RQ exceeds 0.4 (based on larval toxicity data), then the pollen and nect ar residue study may be requested. EFED will also evaluate the HED magnitude of residue toxicity data to determine whether it can be used to supplement or replace studies estimating residue s of acetamiprid on plant pollen and nectar.

 Beneficial Insect Studies – Non-guideline [2 Studies]

### 80 Two beneficial insect studie s were identified in the European PPDB: one study with the parasitoid aphid ( Aphidius rhopalosiphi ) and one study with the predatory mite ( Typhlodromus pyri ). Both studies appear to report mortality e ndpoint data. If these studies were sponsored by the registrant, EFED would appreciate that they be submitted in order to characterize effects to terrestrial invertebrates.

Terrestrial Plant Toxicity

 Tier II Seedling Emergence Study – OCSPP 850.4100 [1 Study]

The Tier II seedling emergence study in terrestrial plants (OCSPP 850.4100; MRID 44988413) did not measure plant weight, which is one of the two major endpoints in this type of study, resulting in uncertainty regarding the effects of acetamiprid on plant growth. Therefore, an additional Tier II plant study should be submitte d which includes both plant weight and shoot length endpoint data from all 10 recommended species.

Table 14-2. Summary of Submitted Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects Studies and Data Gaps for Parent Acetamiprid.

Guideline Description—Test Substance MRID(s) Study Classification Are additional data needed for risk assessment? Comments

Avian and Mammalian Testing

850.2100 Avian acute oral toxicity, waterfowl—TGAI 44651859 Acceptable No

850.2100 Avian acute oral toxicity, passerine species—TGAI 48407701 Acceptable No

850.2200 Avian dietary toxicity, waterfowl species—TGAI 44651861 Supplemental No Definitive study tested less than five concentrations; mortalities

occurred. But available data suggest that dietary toxicity is low.

850.2200 Avian dietary toxicity, upland game bird—TGAI 44651860 Supplemental No Definitive study tested less than five concentrations; mortalities

occurred. But available data suggest that dietary toxicity is low.

850.2300 Avian reproduction, waterfowl species—TGAI 46369201 Supplemental Yes NOAEC not established due to effects on male body weight gain at all test levels.

850.2300 Avian reproduction, upland game bird species—TGAI 46555601 Acceptable No

850.2400 Wild mammal toxicity—TGAI None N/A No Not triggered based on ecotoxicity data, predicted EECs, fate properties, and use pattern criteria.

850.2500 Simulated or actual field testing—TEP None N/A No Not triggered based on ecotoxicity data, predicted EECs, fate properties, and use pattern criteria.

### 81 Guideline Description—Test Substance MRID(s) Study Classification Are additional data needed for risk assessment? Comments

Aquatic Animal Testing

850.1010 Freshwater invertebrate, acute toxicity, Daphnia —TGAI 44651866 Supplemental No Water hardness during test (216- 219 mg/L CaCO 3 is higher than guideline recommended value of 180 mg/L)

850.1010 Freshwater invertebrate, acute toxicity, Daphnia—TEP Yes Data needed on products that could result in spray drift into aquatic water bodies that contain multiple active ingredients. EPA Registration Number 8033-116 is a

liquid formulation that may be applied to soybean by aerial or

ground spray. Additionally, products applied to cranberries may be applied directly to water.

850.1020 Freshwater invertebrate, acute toxicity, Amphipod—TGAI 45932501 Supplemental No

Nonguideline Freshwater invertebrate, acute toxicity, Non-biting midge

(Chironomidae)—TGAI 45916201 Supplemental No

850.1025 Estuarine/Marine Mollusk acute toxicity—TGAI 44988410 Acceptable No

850.1035 Estuarine/Marine crustacean acute toxicity—TGAI 44651869 Acceptable No

850.1075 Freshwater fish, acute toxicity, warm water species—TGAI 44651863 Acceptable No

850.1075 Freshwater fish, acute toxicity, cold water species—TGAI 44651864 Acceptable No

850.1075 Estuarine/Marine fish acute toxicity—TGAI 44988411 Acceptable No

850.1300 Freshwater invertebrate, reproduction test—TGAI 44651871 Acceptable No

850.1350 Estuarine/marine invertebrate, reproduction test—TGAI 44651873 Acceptable No

Nonguideline 28-day toxicity to non-biting midge (Chironomidae)—TGAI None N/A No* This study was identified in the European Pesticide PropertiesDatabase. If this is a registrantsponsored study, submission of this

study to EPA is requested. If this study is not available, a new study is not being recommended.

850.1400 Freshwater fish, early life stage test—TGAI 44651872 Supplemental No

### 82 Guideline Description—Test Substance MRID(s) Study Classification Are additional data needed for risk assessment? Comments

850.1400 Saltwater fish, early life stage test—TGAI None N/A No Test not triggered under 40 CFR §158.630
850.1500 Freshwater fish life cycle test None N/A No Data requirement triggered because EEC >0.1 of NOAEC of mysid from life cycle tests (EEC = 0.7 mg/L and NOAEC=19.2 mg ai/L). However, EECs and the fish early life stage toxicity NOAEC (19.2 mg/L) are not similar. Additionally, NOAECs from early

life stage and fish full life cycle studies on thiacloprid (a neonicotinoid with a similar structure to acetamiprid) were similar; also, the reproductive NOAECs and parental NOAECs from avian and mammalian studies

with acetamiprid were similar. Weight of evidence suggests that

this study will not provide any critical new information (see discussion below). 850.1500 Estuarine/marine fish life cycle
test None N/A No

850.1950 Simulated or actual field testing for aquatic organisms None N/A No Higher tier testing to address risk uncertainties have not been identified at this time

Sediment Testing

850.1735 Whole sediment 10-d freshwater invertebrate—TGAI None N/A No Data requirement not triggered: K d <50 Log K OW <3 K OC <1,000

850.1740 Whole sediment 10-d estuarine/marine invertebrate— TGAI None N/A No Data requirement not triggered: K d <50 Log K OW <3 K OC <1,000

Agencywide guideline Whole sediment chronic freshwater and/or marine

invertebrate—TGAI None N/A No Data requirement not triggered: K d <50 Log K OW <3 K OC <1,000

### 83 Guideline Description—Test Substance MRID(s) Study Classification Are additional data needed for risk assessment? Comments

Terrestrial Invertebrates

850.3020 Honeybee acute contact toxicity—TGAI 44651874 Supplemental No A definitive LD 50 was not established due to lack of dose

response; however, study is

sufficient as a trigger for additional tiered bee studies

850.3030 Honeybee toxicity of residues on foliage—TEP 44651875 Invalid Yes While this study does not address the systemic nature of acetamiprid,

it is recommended to provide a

better understanding of the residual toxicity associated with

foliar applications. Note: an additional foliage residue toxicity study was submitted (MRID 45346901), but has not yet been reviewed by EFED

45346901 Not Reviewed N/A Review of this study could change the recommendation for additional foliage residue toxicity data
850.3040 Field testing for pollinators None N/A No

Nonguideline Honeybee semi-field tunnel study—TEP 45932504 45932505 Supplemental No

Nonguideline Honeybee larval toxicity study—TGAI None N/A Yes Recommended since acetamiprid is systemic and may be transferred to pollen and nectar and subsequently

brought back to hive

Nonguideline Honeybee pollen and nectar residue study—TEP None N/A Yes Recommended since acetamiprid is systemic and may be transferred to pollen and nectar and subsequently

brought back to hive

Nonguideline Toxicity to beneficial insects – parasitoid aphid and predatory mite (2 studies) None N/A No* These studies were identified in the European Pesticide Properties

Database. If they are registrantsponsored studies, their submission to EPA is requested. However, if these studies are not

available, new studies are not being recommended.

### 84 Guideline Description—Test Substance MRID(s) Study Classification Are additional data needed for risk assessment? Comments

Terrestrial Plants

850.4100

Tier II Seedling emergence (10 species) —TGAI 44988413 Supplemental Yes † Seedling weight was not measured. Additional study (with

10 recommended plant species) with seedling weight endpoint is recommended.

850.4150

Tier II Vegetative vigor (10 species) — TGAI 44988413 Acceptable No Study was acceptable for all plant species tested except for lettuce. Additional data have since been submitted for lettuce.

850.4150

Tier II Vegetative vigor (10 species) — TGAI 45921401 Supplemental No This study was submitted to supplement MRID 44988413

Aquatic Plants

850.4400

Tier I and/or II Tier II Aquatic plant growth, vascular plant — TGAI 44988415 Acceptable No

If future proposed registrations result in surface water EECs greater/equal to the highest concentration tested in studies, additional toxicity testing may be recommended. 850.5400

Tier I and/or II Tier II Aquatic Plant, freshwater green alga species — TGAI 44988414 Acceptable No

850.5400

Tier I and/or II Tier II Aquatic Plant, freshwater diatom—TGAI 44988417 Acceptable No

850.5400

Tier I and/or II Tier I Aquatic Plant, marine diatom — TGAI 44988418 Acceptable No

850.5400

Tier I and/or Tier II Tier II Aquatic Plant, cyanobacterium — TGAI 44988416 Acceptable No

* Study is being requested only if it has already been performed and is available from the registrant.



### Table 14-3. Summary of Submitted Aquatic a nd Terrestrial Animal Effects Studies and Data Gaps for Degradates of Acetamiprid.

Guideline Description—Test Substance MRID(s) Study Classification Data Gap Comments

Avian and Mammalian Testing

850.2200 Avian dietary toxicity, waterfowl species—IM-1-4 44651862 Supplemental No

Aquatic Animal Testing

850.1010 Freshwater invertebrate, acute toxicity, Daphnia —IC-0 44988409 Acceptable No

### 85 Guideline Description—Test Substance MRID(s) Study Classification Data Gap Comments

850.1010 Freshwater invertebrate, acute toxicity, Daphnia —IM-1-2 44651867 Acceptable No

850.1010 Freshwater invertebrate, acute toxicity, Daphnia —IM-1-4 44651868 Acceptable No

Nonguideline Freshwater invertebrate, acute toxicity, Non-biting midge— IM-1-5 46255610 Acceptable No

850.1035 Estuarine/Marine crustacean acute toxicity—IM-1-4 44651870 Acceptable No

850.1075 Freshwater fish, acute toxicity, cold water species—IM-1-4 44651865 Supplemental No

850.1300 Freshwater invertebrate, reproduction test—IM-1-5 46255609 Supplemental No

* Submission of additional data is recommended.



### The following studies are technically data gaps bu t are not deemed necessary for risk assessment of acetamiprid at this time:

 Avian Dietary Toxicity Studies – OCSPP 850.2200

Two avian subacute dietary toxicity studies were submitted for acetamiprid (MRID 44651860, bobwhite quail; MRID 44651861, mallard duc k). Both studies estimated the LC 50 

### to be greater than the highest concentration tested (>5,000 mg/ kg-diet). However, the bobwhite and mallard studies only tested two and three concentrations, respectiv ely. OCSPP 850.2200 guidance states that a minimum of five concentrations of the te st substance should be us ed during avian dietary toxicity definitive tests. Moreover, mortalities we re observed at one or more concentration levels in both studies, which triggers full ( i.e. , five concentrations) definitive tests in accordance with EFED’s non-definitive endpoint guidance polic y. Additionally, range-finding data were not submitted for the bobwhite quail study, which would help support the “greater than” LC 50 

### result. The mallard duck study was conducted during two di fferent time periods; initially, two test concentrations were evaluated followed by an additional test concentration two months later. However, given that the passerine oral toxicity data is at l east one order of magnitude lower (more sensitive) than the avian sub-acute dietary data, requesting additional dietary studies is not likely to change the outcome of the risk assessment. It should also be note d that an avian dietary toxicity study (MRID48844901) of acetamiprid in the zebra finch has recently been submitted and is currently under review.

### 86  Freshwater Fish Life Cycle Test – OCSPP 850.1500

40 CFR § 158.630 recommends that a freshwater fi sh life cycle test be conducted because EECs are greater than 0.1 multiplied by the NOAEC fr om mysid life cycle test (0.1 x NOAEC of Mysid shrimp 2.5 μg ai/L = 0.25; maximum EEC = 0.70 mg/L see Appendix H ). However, reproductive and parental NOAECs in avian and mammalian reproduction studies were similar, suggesting that a reproductive endp oint in fish may also not be more sensitive than the parental endpoints. Additionally, when surface water EECs (0.00072 – 0.70 mg/L) generated in this problem formulation ( Appendix H ) and in previous assessments are compare to the fish early life stage toxicity endpo int for the fathead minnow (19.2 mg ai/L), it appears unlikely that effects to freshwater fish will occur with chronic exposure to acetamiprid at current use rates. In addition, NOAEC values from a fish early lif e-stage study on rainbow trout (NOAEC=0.918; MRID 44927829) and a fish full life cycle study on fathead minnows (NOAEC=0.718 mg ai/L; MRID 44927904) with another cyan o-substituted neonicotinoid, thiacloprid, were similar, suggesting that a fish full life cy cle with acetamiprid is not likely to yield a substantially lower NOAEC than the ELS study. Therefore, based on the weight of evidence, re questing a freshwater fish life cycle test is not likely to ch ange the outcome of the risk assessment.

14.2.A. Testing on Typical End-Use Products (TEP)

A Typical End-Use Product is defined in the Pesticide Assessment Guidelines Subdivision J Hazard Evaluation: Nontarget plants on Part 120-2(1) on Page 18 as “a pesticide product that is representative of a majo r formulation category ( e.g ., emulsifiable concentrate, granular product, wettable powder) and pesticide group ( e.g ., herbicide, fungicide, insecticide etc .) and contains the active ingredient of the appl icant’s product.” (Holst and Ellw anger, 1982) Page 5 of these guidelines provides additional information on what TEP data should be tested for toxicity testing in the following excerpt:

“The Agency seeks to avoid impos ing a burden of dup licative testing on applicants for registration. Therefore, where 40 CFR Part 158 specifies that the test substance should be a representa tive end-use product, testing may be performed using the formulation in questi on (end-use product be ing registered) or similar, yet representative, end-use product. It is not necessary to repeat the test using other similar products.” (Holst and Ellwanger, 1982)

When TEP data are requested, data should be submitted for the different formulation types, e.g ., wettable powder, emulsifiable concentrate, granul ar, along with a rationale as to why the TEP is representative of other similar end-use products.

14.3. Additional Information Needed on Sp ecific Labels, Uses, and Formulation

Types

Some of the labels do not contain enough informati on to estimate the exposure for particular uses without several assumptions. When such inform ation is not provided, th e Agency must rely on

### 87 standard assumptions. Such assumptions may be high-end, so that the Agency does not run the risk of underestimating risks. The informati on in question is discussed briefly below:

 EPA Registration Number WA110010

The label for EPA registration number WA110010 allows for control of apple maggots in nonagricultural quarantine a nd pest free areas (inclu ding residential areas) on apples, crabapples, pears, ornamental plants and tr ees, and non-bearing fruit and nut trees. The product is applied to give the tree uniform spray coverage of the plan t. The label does not have a maximum single application rate. It does indica te that the product may be applie d every 12 days, up to 4 times a year, with a maximum of 0.55 lbs ai/A/year.

 EPA Registration Number 8033-22

The label for EPA Registration Number 8033-22 does not have a maximum single application rate for any of the uses on ornamental and flowering plants grown outdoors and in greenhouses, shadehouses, and lathouses. Use instructions give a number of water soluble packets per gallons. The following use restrictions are provided:

 Do not make more than five applications per year

 Do not reapply more than once every seven days

 Do not apply more than 0.55 lbs ai per year

 EPA Registration Number 8033-21

EPA Registration Number 8033-21 is a liquid re ady-to-use product that may be used on ornamentals, houseplants, vegeta bles, citrus fruits, and pome fru its. Neither a maximum single application rate nor a maximum nu mber of applications per crop cy cle or per year is provided on the label.

 EPA Registration Number 8033-108

EPA Registration Number 8033-108 is a product for homeowner use. Use sites include gardens and houseplants. No maximum single applicatio n rate, maximum number of applications, or maximum application rate per y ear or crop cycle are provided.

 EPA Registration Number 8033-107

EPA Registration Number 8033-107 is a homeowner product registered for use on gardens, vegetables, pome fruits, grapes and other climbing vine small fruit (except fuzzy kiwifruit), tuberous and corm vegetables, stone fruit, cucurbits, tree nuts, edible podded and legume vegetables, succulent shelled peas, beans, blue berries and other bush a nd cane berries, onions, bulb vegetables, and houseplants. No maximu m single application rate, maximum number of applications, or maximum application rate per year or crop cycle are provided.

### 88  Agricultural Uses

Many agricultural product labels do not specify maximum number of applications per crop cycle or year or maximum application ra te per year or crop cycle. A few uses on transplants provide a use rate in lbs ai/plant. As a high number of pl ants may be planted, this results in a very high estimated application rate per ac re. A maximum single application rate in lbs ai/A or maximum number of plants treated per ac re is needed to estimate expos ure. In the absence of this information, EFED will use estimates on the maximu m number of plants that may be planted per acre to estimate a maximum single application rate for these uses.

 Uses on Trees

Labels of two products allow for use of tree injections or basa l bark treatments (EPA Reg No. 8033-94 and 8033-106) on ornamental a nd non-bearing fruit and nut trees. The use parameters on the labels are not well-defined. Use rates fo r trees are provided only as recommendations on these labels. The maximum annual a pplication rate is not specified for any of the uses for trees. No maximum single or annual ra te is provided for bark trea tment. Minimum application intervals and the maximum number of applications per year are not specified. In addition, applications to individual trees are also not we ll-defined; a maximum amount of acetamiprid that can be applied per diameter of the tree is ne eded to determine expos ure and potential risks associated with applications to individual trees . Finally, it would also be helpful define a maximum amount of acetamiprid that can be applie d to individual trees pe r acre or info on a maximum number of trees that could be treated per acre with various diamet er at breast heights (DBH). It would also be useful to specify th e types of sites for which the product is intended ( e.g. , forest, tree production, residential, etc. ).

 Termiticides, Ant Control, and Control of other Pests

For termiticide, ant control, and the control of other miscellaneous pests around buildings, structures, equipment, paths, wood products, etc. , a maximum single application rate per acre, maximum number of applications, and maximum app lication per year should also be provided on labels. For mound treatments, in the absence of additional information, EFED will use estimates on the maximum number of mounds pe r acre that may occur to estim ate an application rate. For perimeter treatments, a maximum distance from the edge of the building that may be treated should be provided. In the absence if additiona l information provided on the labels, EFED will make conservative assumptions for these uses.

 Bait Treatments (Gels)

Some labels provide an applicati on rate per spot. A maximum singl e application rate per acre or other unit area, maximum number of applications , and maximum application per year should be provided on labels. In the absence of this in formation, EFED will use estimates on the maximum number of mounds per acre that may occur in order to estimate an application rate.

### 89  Seed Treatments

Acetamiprid may be used to treat mustard, canola, and potato seed pieces. For seed treatment uses, the following information is needed:

 Number of seeds (treated seed s, if encapsula ted) per pound

 Number of treated seeds per acre or pound of treated seed per acre

 Amount of active ingredient per treated seed or cwt of seed

 Minimum planting depth

 Identify where the treatment is for commercial use only or commercial and "on farm" treatments can be made

 Uses on Cranberries

Acetamiprid may be used on cranberries. The us e directions for cranberries are combined with use instructions for other berries that do not ha ve a portion of the crop that is flooded. More information is needed on the labels describing use of acetamiprid on cranberries because cranberries are grown in cranberry bogs and may involve direct applications to water. For uses that may involve direct applica tions to water, it is recommen ded that the following information be included on the label so th at exposure may be estimated.

 The maximum target concentration in water mu st be specified on the label (specify if there is a requirement to test the wate r body for stratificati on to calculate the application rate)

 Describe the period of time water mu st be held before it is released

 Granular Formulations

In order to assess the risk to te rrestrial organisms exposed to baits or granules not in a container or bait station the weight of one granule or numbe r of granules per unit weight for each granular formulation would be useful.

14.4. Other Information Needs

There is specific information that will assist the Agency in refini ng the ecological risk assessment, including any species-specific effect s determinations. The Agency is very much interested in obtaining the following information:

 Confirmation on the following label information

 Frequency of application, applicatio n intervals, and maximum number of applications per season

 Geographic limitations on use

 Use or potential use distribution ( e.g ., acreage and geographical distribution of relevant crops)

 Use history

### 90  Median and 90 th 

### percentile reported use rates (lbs. ai/acre) from usage data – national, state, and county

 Application timing (date of firs t application and application intervals) by crop – national, state, and county

 Sub-county crop location data

 Directly acquired county-level usage data (not derived from state level data)

 Maximum reported use rate (lbs. ai /acre) from usage data – county

 Percent crop treated – county

 Median and 90 th 

### percentile number of applications – county

 Total pounds per year – county

 The year the pesticide was last us ed in the county/sub-county area

 The years in which the pesticide was applied in the county/sub-county area

 State or local use restrictions

 Ecological incidents (non-target plant damage and avian, fish, reptilian, amphibian and mammalian mortalities) not alr eady reported to the Agency

 Monitoring data

15. References

15.1. Literature Cited

AERU. 2012. The FOOTPRINT Pesticide Properti es Database. Agriculture & Environment Research Unit (AERU). Available at http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/footprint/ (Accessed August 8, 2012).

Aliouane, Y., El Hassani, A. K., Gary, V., Armengaud, C., Lambin, M., & Gauthier, M. 2009. Subchronic exposure of honeybees to sublethal doses of pesticides: effects on behavior. Environ Toxicol Chem, 28 (1), 113-122.

Armitage, J. M., & Gobas, F. A. P. C. 2007. A terrestrial food-chain bioaccumulation model for POPs. Environmental Science and Technology, 41 , 4019-4025.

Atkins, E., Anderson, L., Kellum, D., & Neum an, K. 1976. Protecting Honey Bees From Pesticides. Univ. California, Div. Agric. Sci., Leaflet 2883

.

Beketov, M. A., & Liess, M. 2008. Potential of 11 pesticides to initiate downstream drift of stream macroinvertebrates. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol, 55 , 247-253.

Burns, L. A. 2000. Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS): User Manual and System Documentation. Revision G . EPA/600/R-00/81-023. September 2000. Ecosystems Research Division. National Exposure Research Laborator y. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

### 91 Carsel, R. F., Imhoff, J. C., Hummel, P. R ., Cheplick, J. M., & Donigian Jr., J. S. 1997. PRZM-3, A Model for Predicting Pesticide and Nitrogen Fate in Crop Root and Unsaturated Soil Zones: Users Manual for Release 3.0 . Memorandum From to Environmental Research Laboratory. Office of Resear ch and Development. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Echeverria, M., Jones, R. D., Peck, C., Ru hman, M., Shelby, A., Thawley, S., et al. 2012. Development and Use of Percent Cropped Ar ea and Percent Turf Area Adjustment Factors in Drinking Water Ex posure Assessments: 2012 Update . March 16, 2012. Environmental Fate and Effect s Division. Office of Pesticid e Programs. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models /water/pca_adjustment_dwa.html (Accessed April 25, 2012).

El Hassani, A. K., Dacher, M., Gary, V., La mbin, M., Gauthier, M., & Armengaud, C. 2008. Effects of sublethal doses of acetamiprid and thiamethoxam on the behavior of the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol, 54 (4), 653-661.

Fletcher, J. S., Nellessen, J. E., & Pfleeger, T. G. 1994. Literature-Review and Evaluation of the Epa Food-Chain (Kenaga) Nomogram, an Inst rument for Estimating Pesticide-Residues on Plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 13 (9), 1383-1391.

Gobas, F. A. P. C., Kelly, B. C., & Arnot, J. A. 2003. Quantitative structure activity relationships for predicting the bioaccumul ation of POPs in terrestrial food-webs. QSAR Comb. Sci, 22 , 329-336.

Hoerger, F., & Kenaga, E. E. 1972. Pesticide Resi dues on Plants: Correlation of Representative Data as a Basis for Estimation of their Magni tude in the Environment. In F. Coulston & F. Korte (Eds.), Environmental Quality and Safety : Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology (Vol. 1, pp. 9-28). New York: Academic Press.

Holst, R. W., & Ellwanger, T. C. 1982. Pesticide Assessment Guidelines. Subdivision J. Hazard Evaluation: Nontarget Plants . EPA-540/09-82-020. October 1982. Office of Pesticide Programs. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Iwasa, T., Motoyama, N., Ambrose, J. T., & Roe, R. M. 2004. Mechanism for the differential toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides in the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Crop Protection, 23 (5), 371-378.

Karlick, J. F., & McKay, A. H. 2002. Leaf Area Index, Leaf Mass Density, and Allometric Relationships Derived From Harvest of Blue Oaks in a California Oak Savanna . General

### 92 Technical Report PSW-GTR-184. USDA Forest Service.

Laurino, D., Porporato, M., Pa tetta, A., & Manino, A. 2011. Toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides to honey be es: laboratory tests. Bulletin of Insectology, 64 (1), 107-113.

Morrica, P., Fidente, P., & Seccia, S. 2005. Li quid chromatographic determination of nine Nmethylcarbamates in drinking water. Biomedical Chromatography, 19 (1), 107-110.

Spray Drift Task Force Spray Software . AgDRIFT (Version 2.01). Available at http://www.agdrift.com/AgDRIFt2/DownloadAgDrift2_0.htm

Sur, R., & Stork, A. 2003. Uptake, translocatio n and metabolism of imidacloprid in plants. Bulletin of Insectology, 56 (1), 35-40.

Teske, M. E., & Curbishley, T. B. 2003. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. AGDISP Version 8.07 User Manual . Prepared For United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. C.D.I. Technical Note No. 02-06. June 2003.

Tomizawa, M., & Casida, J. E. 2005. NEONICOTINOID INSECTICIDE TOXICOLOGY: Mechanisms of Selective Action. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 45 (1), 247-268.

USEPA. 1998. Government Printing Office. Guidelin es for Ecological Risk Assessment

. EPA/630/R-95/002F. United States Environmen tal Protection Agency (USEPA). Risk Assessment Forum. Office of Resear ch and Development. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12460 (Accessed June 19, 2009).

USEPA. 1999. Appendix VII. Addendum to the Drinking Water Memorandum to HED . October 6, 1999. Environmental Fate and Effects Divisi on. Office of Pesticide Programs. .

USEPA. 2001. Acetamiprid. Results of the HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee

. D278652. Memorandum From H. Bietlot, M. Doherty & P. Hurley to Y. Donovan. Office of Prevention, Pesticides , ans Toxic Substances. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

CFR. Part 2002. Acetamiprid Pesticide Fact Sheet . Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.

USEPA. 2002.D270368. EFED's Section 3 Risk A ssessment for Acetamiprid . D270368. Memorandum From F. N. Mastrota & C. A. Sutton to A. Abramovitch. March 4, 2002. Environmental Fate and Eff ects Division. Office of Chem ical Safety and Pollution

### 93 Prevention. United States Envir onmental Protection Agency.

USEPA. 2004.D304025. Ecological Risk Assessment for Proposed Use of Acetamiprid on Potatoes, Tobacco, and Residential (Outdoor) Use Sites . D304025. Memorandum From B. D. Kiernan & C. A. Sutton to A. Ab ramovitch. August 30, 2004. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

USEPA. 2004a. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessm ent Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs
, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (pp. 100). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Available at http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf (Accessed June 19, 2009).

USEPA. 2004b. Government Printing Office. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs . United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Environmental Fate a nd Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. Available at http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf (Accessed June 19, 2009).

USEPA. 2005.D319610. Acetamiprid New Use (Cucurbits, Stone Fruits, and Tree Nuts): Environmental Fate and Effects Risk Assessment . D319610. Memorandum From B. D. Kiernan & G. Orrice to A. Abramovitch. Ju ly 27, 2005. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Chemical Safety a nd Pollution Prevention. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

USEPA. 2006. User's Guide: TerrPlant version 1.2.2. Memorandum From to Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticid e Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, United States Environmen tal Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestri al/terrplant/terrpl ant_user_guide.html (Accessed May 13, 2011).

USEPA. 2008a. User's Guide: T-REX version 1.2.2. Memorandum From to Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Progams, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, United States Environmen tal Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/te rrestrial/trex/t_rex_user_guide.htm (Accessed May 13, 2011).

USEPA. 2008b. White paper on Methods for Assessing Ecol ogical Risks of Pesticides with Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Characteristics . In Submitted to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel for Review and Comment (Ed.), October 7, 2008 . Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP/meetings/ 2008/october/sap_pbt_whitepaper_final_Oct_

### 94 7_08d.pdf (Accessed January 27, 2010).

USEPA. 2009.D364328. Ecological Risk Assessment for the Section 3 New Uses of Acetamiprid on Red Clover, Small Fruit, and Climbing Vines (Except Kiwi) . D3643528. Memorandum From B. D. Kiernan & D. Lieu to J. Chao & J. Hebert. December 10, 2009. Environmental Fate and Eff ects Division. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

USEPA. 2009a. ECOTOXicology Database
, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) . Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/ (Accessed June 19, 2009).

USEPA. 2009b. Estimation Program Interface (EPI) Suite: United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exp osure/pubs/episuite.htm (Accessed August 24, 2012).

USEPA. 2009c. SAP Minutes No. 2009-01. A set of Scienti fic Issues Being Considered by the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding: Se lected Issues Associated with the Risk Assessment Process for Pesticides with Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Characteristics. October 28-31, 2008.
, January 29, 2009 . Available at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sa p/meetings/2008/102808_mtg.htm (Accessed July 9, 2009).

USEPA. 2010a. Guidance for Reporting on the Environm ental Fate and Transport of the Stressors of Concern in the Problem Formul ation for Registration Review, Registration Review Risk Assessments, Listed Species Litigation Assessments, New Chemical Risk Assessments, and Other Relevant Risk Assessments
, January 25, 2010

.

USEPA. 2010b. Section 3 Product Registration For Expans ion of Tree Species for Emammectin Boenzoate Tree Injection Use to Control Arthropod Pests. DP Barcode 381025. October 5, 2010. Environmental Fate and Effects Divisio n. Office of Pesticide Programs. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

USEPA. 2011a. Ecological Risk Assessment for the Propos ed Section 3 New Use of Acetamiprid on a Variety of Agricultural Crops and as Bait Near Animal Areas and Enclosed Dumpsters . In D. D389536, D394268, D394270 (Ed.), November 29, 2011

.

USEPA. 2011.D394234, D394479. Tier I Drinking Water Exposur e Assessment for the Section 3 New Use of Acetamiprid on Various Agri cultural Crops and as a Scatter Bait to Control Insects. D394234 & D394479. October 11, 2011. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Program s. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

### 95 USEPA. 2011b. U.S EPA Water Models . Memorandum From to Envi ronmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticid e Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/#przm (Accessed May 13, 2011).

USEPA. 2012. BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: Acetamiprid . Memorandum From D. Brassard, R. Prierto & M. Ranvill e to C. Britton. Marc h 1, 2012. Biological and Economic Analysis Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

USFWS/NMFS. 1998. Government Printing Office. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consu ltation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Sp ecies Act. Final Draft . United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fi sheries Service (NMFS). Available at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ consultations/s7hndbk/s7hndbk.htm (Accessed June 19, 2009).

USNLM. 2009. TOXNET Toxicology Data Ne twork. United States National Library of Medicine (USNLM). Available at http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ (Accessed July 9, 2009).

15.2. Submitted Studies

Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity 44651859 Johnson, A. (1994) NI-25: Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) to the Mallard Duck: Lab Project Number: NPS 62/932516. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd. 50 p.
48407701 Hubbard, P. (2011) Acetamiprid: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Zebra Finch (Taeniopygia guttata aka Poephila guttata). Unpublished study performed by Wildlife International, Ltd., Easton, Maryland. Laboratory Project ID: 437-119. Study sponsored by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan.



### Avian Dietary Toxicity 44651860 Johnson, A. (1994) NI-25: Subacute Dietary Toxicity (LC50) to the Bobwhite Quail: Lab Project Number: NPS 59/932525. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd. 37 p.
44651861 Johnson, A. (1994) NI-25: Subacute Dietary Toxicity (LC50) to the Mallard Duck: Lab Project Number: NPS 60/942075. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd. 40 p.
44651862 Brewer, L.; Taliaferro, M.; M iller, V. (1998) 5-Day Dietary Toxicity Test with IM-1-4 in the Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos): Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: 019803: EBA-019803. Unpublished study prepared by EBA, Inc. 166 p.



### Avian Reproduction
44988407 Taliaferro, M.; Brewer, L.; Miller, V. (1999) Reproduction Study with Acetamiprid in the Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus): Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: 029604. Unpublished

### 96 study prepared by EBA, Inc. 319 p.
44988408 Taliaferro, M.; Miller, V. (1999) Reproduction Study with Acetamiprid in the Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 29708. Unpublished study prepared by EBA, Inc. 346 p.
46369201 Stafford, J. (2004) Acetamiprid (NI-25) - Reproductive Toxicity Test with Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos). Project Number: 13798/4105. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Smithers Laboratories. 153 p.



### Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish 44651863 Suteau, P. (1997) Acetamiprid: Acute Toxicity (96 Hours) to Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) Under Flow-Through Conditions: Amended Report: Lab Project Number: SA 96120: R&D/CRSA/ANL/96- 011. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie. 72 p.
44651864 Saika, O. (1996) NI-25--Acute Toxicity Study in Rainbow Trout: Lab Project Number: H088. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 23 p.
44651865 McElligott, A. (1998) IM-1-4: Acute Toxicity (96 Hours) to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Under Semi-Static Conditions: Lab Project Number: SA 97231: R&D/CRSA/ANL/97-012. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Agro. 82 p.



### Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates 44651866 Saika, O. (1997) NI-25: Acute Toxicity Study in Daphnids: Lab Project Number: H100. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Inc. 22 p.
44651867 McElligott, A. (1997) IM-1-2: Acute Toxicity (48 Hours) to Daphnids (Daphnia magna) Under SemiStatic Conditions: Lab Project Number: SA 97046: R&D/CRSA/ANL/97-010. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie. 67 p.
44651868 McElligott, A. (1997) IM-1-4: Acute Toxicity (48 Hours) to Daphnids (Daphnia magna) Under SemiStatic Conditions: Lab Project Number: SA 97047: R&D/CRSA/ANL/97-012. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie. 67 p.
44988409 McElligott, A. (1997) IC-0: Acute Toxicity (4 8 Hours) to Daphnids (Daphnia Magna) Under SemiStatic Conditions: Lab Project Number: SA 97045: RND/CRSA/ANL/97-009. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie. 66 p. (OPPTS 830.1010)
45916201 Putt, A. (2003) Acetamiprid Technical--Acute Toxicity to Midge (Chironomus riparius) Under Static Conditions: Lab Project Number: 12681.6104: 012803/ASTM/MIDGE/NIPPON SODA. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Smithers Laboratories. 50 p.
45932501 Putt, A. (2003) Acetamiprid Technical--Acute Toxicity to Gammarids (Gammarus fasciatus) Under Static Conditions: Lab Project Number: 12681.6105: 012803/ASTM/GAMMARIDS/NIPPON SODA. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Smithers Laboratories. 50 p. (OPPTS 850.1020)



### Acute Toxicity to Estu arine/Marine Organisms44651869 Putt, A. (1998) Acetamiprid Technical--Acute Toxicity to Mysids (Mysidopsis bahia) Under FlowThrough Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 97-9-7100: 10566.0697.6424.515: 13529. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 70 p.
44651870 Putt, A. (1998) IM-1-4--Acute Toxicity to Mysids (Mysidopsis bahia) Under Static Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 98-3-7276: 10566.0198.6468.510: 110797/FIFRA/515/RHONE-

### 97 POULENC. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 74 p.
44988410 Dionne, E. (1999) Acetamiprid Technical--Acute T oxicity to the Eastern Oyst er (Crassostrea virginica) Under Flow-Through Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 97-10-7105: 10566.0697.6426.504: 13528. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 71 p.
44988411 Putt, A. (1998) Acetamiprid Technical--Acute Toxicity to Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) Under Flow-Through Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 97-10-7104: 10566.0697.6425.505: 13527. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 69 p.



### Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic In vertebrate Life Cycle Study 44651871 Suteau, P. (1997) Acetamiprid: Daphnia Magna Life Cycle (21-Day Static Renewal) Chronic Toxicity Study: Lab Project Number: SA 96122: R&D/CRSA/ANL/96-011. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie. 80 p.
44651872 Odin-Feurtet, M. (1997) Acetamiprid: Early Life Stage Toxicity Test to Fathead Minnow ( Pimephales promelas ): Lab Project Number: SA 96123: R&D/CRSA/ANL/96-011. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie. 89 p.
44651873 Sousa, J. (1998) Acetamiprid Technical--Chronic Toxicity to Mysids ( Mysidopsis bahia ) Under FlowThrough Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 98-2-7230: 10566.0897.6447.530: 060396/FIFRA/530. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 91 p.



### Acute oral toxicity in rats 44651821 Douds, D. (1997) An Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats with EXP 0667A: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: 3147.237. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 69 p.
44651827 Douds, D. (1998) An Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats with NI-25 Plus Carbaryl RTU: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 3147.251. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 23 p.
44651833 Mochizuki, N.; Kanaguchi, Y. (1998) Acetamipri d--Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: G-0820. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 52 p.
44651834 Wakefield, A. (1998) IM-1-4: Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: 6840-103: 18981-0-800: 22209. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories Inc. 36
p. 44651835 Mochizuki, N.; Goto, K. (1997) IM-1-2: Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: G963. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 28 p.
44988420 Mochizuki, N.; Goto, K. (1997) IC-0: Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: G-0941: 3686. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 26 p.
44988421 Mochizuki, N.; Goto, K. (1997) IM-0: Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: G-0887: 3662. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 45 p.
44988422 Mochizuki, N.; Goto, K. (1997) IM-2-1: Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: G931: 3684: 3692. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 45 p.



### Acute dermal toxicity in rabbits or rats 44651822 Douds, D. (1998) An Acute Dermal Toxicity Study in Rabbits with EXP 80667A: (Acetamiprid 70 WP): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 3147.238. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 31 p.

### 98 44651828 Douds, D. (1998) An Acute Dermal Toxicity Study in Rabbits with NI-25 Plus Carbaryl RTU: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 3147.252. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 30
p. 44651836 Mochizuki, N.; Fuji, Y. (1998) Acetamiprid: Acut e Dermal Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: G-0882. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 26 p.
44988423 Wakefield, A. (1998) IM-1-4: Acute Dermal Toxicity Study in Rats: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: 6840-104: 1891-0-810: 22209. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Inc. 39
p.



### Acute inhalation toxicity in rats 44651823 Bennick, J. (1997) NI-25 70% WP (EXP 80667A) Acute Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rats: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 3606-97. Unpublished study prepared by Stillmeadow, Inc. 20 p.
44651829 Douds, D. (1998) An Acute Nose Only Inhalati on Toxicity Study in Rats with NI-25 Plus Carbaryl RTU: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 3147.253. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 43 p.
44651837 Jackson, G. (1997) Acetamiprid: Acute (Four-Hour) Inhalation Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: NOD 4/970598. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd. 40 p.



### Primary eye irritation in rabbits 44651824 Douds, D. (1998) A Primary Eye Irritation Study in Rabbits with EXP 80667A (Acetamiprid 70WP): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 3147.239. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 29 p.
44651830 Douds, D. (1998) A Primary Eye Irritation Study in Rabbits with NI-25 Plus Carbaryl RTU: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 3147.254. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 28
p. 44651838 Mochizuki, N.; Goto, K. (1997) Acetamiprid--Primary Eye Irritation Study in Rabbits: Lab Project Number: G-0826: 1609. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 32 p.



### Primary dermal irritation 44651825 Douds, D. (1997) A Primary Skin Irritation Study in Rabbits with EXP 80667A (Acetamiprid 70WP): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 3147.240. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 29 p.
44651831 Douds, D. (1998) A Primary Skin Irritation Study in Rabbits with NI-25 Plus Carbaryl RTU: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: 3147.255. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 29 p.
44651839 Mochizuki, N.; Goto, K. (1997) A cetamiprid--Primary Dermal Irritati on Study in Rabbits: Lab Project Number: G-0827: 1605. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 27 p.



### Dermal sensitization 44651826 Douds, D. (1997) A Dermal Sensitization Study in Guinea Pigs with EXP 80667A (Acetamiprid 70WP) Modified Buehler Design: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 3147.241. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 44 p.
44651832 Douds, D. (1998) A Dermal Sensitization Study in Guinea Pigs With NI-25 Plus Carbaryl RTU

### 99 Modified Buehler Design: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 3147.256. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 43 p.
44651840 Coleman, D. (1997) Acetamiprid: Skin Sensitisa tion in the Guinea Pig: Lab Project Number: NOD/088: NOD 088/973169/SS. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd. 28 p.



### Acute neurotoxicity screen study in rats 44651841 Hughes, E. (1997) Acetamiprid: Dose Range Finding Neurotoxicity to Rats by Acute Oral Administration (including determination of time to peak effect): Lab Project Number: RNP 510/970145. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd. 49 p.
44651842 Hughes, E. (1997) Acetamiprid: Neurotoxicity to Rats by Acute Oral Administration: Lab Project Number: RNP/509: RNP 509/970851. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd. 252 p.
45130801 Cunny, H. (2000) Supplemental Statistical Analysis and Historical Background Data for the Report Titled: Acetamiprid--Neurotoxicity to Rats by Diet ary Administration for 13 Weeks (Huntington Study RNP/511 and MRID 44651845): Lab Project Number: RNP/511. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences. 15 p.



### Subchronic Oral Toxicity: 90-Day Study 44651843 Nukui, T.; Ikeyama, S. (1997) Acetamiprid--Thi rteen-Week Dietary Subchronic Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: G-0768: 0246. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 376 p.
44988424 Auletta, C. (1998) A Subchronic (3-Month) Oral Toxicity Study of NI-25 in the Dog via Dietary Administration: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 91-3727. Unpublished study prepared by Bio/Dynamics, Inc. 259 p. OPPTS 870.3150
44988425 Nukui, T.; Ikeyama, S. (1997) Acetamiprid*-Thirteen-Week Dietary Subchronic Toxicity Study in Mice: Lab Project Number: G-0769: 0249. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 341 p.
44988426 Ivett, J. (1999) 13-Week Dietary Subchronic To xicity Study with IM-1-4 in Rats: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 6840-102. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories Inc. 353 p.
44988427 Nukui, T.; Ikeyama, S. (1997) IM-0--Thirteen -Week Dietary Subchronic Toxicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: G-0889: 0259. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 265 p.
45245306 Auletta, C. (1998) A 4-Week Oral Toxicity Study of NI-25 in the Dog via Dietary Administration (Acetamiprid Technical): Final Report. Unpublished study prepared by Bio-dynamics, Inc. 142 p.



### 21-day dermal-rabbit/rat 44651844 Trutter, J. (1997) 21-Day Dermal Toxicity Study in Rabbits with Acetamipri d: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 6224-236. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories Inc. 212 p.



### Subchronic Neurotoxicity: 90-Day Study 44651845 Hughes, E. (1997) Acetamiprid: Neurotoxicity to Rats by Dietary Administration for 13 Weeks: Lab Project Number: RNP/511: RNP 511/971179. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd. 311 p.



### Chronic Toxicity

### 100 44651846 Auletta, C. (1998) A Chronic (12-Month) Oral Toxicity Study of NI-25 in the Dog via Dietary Administration: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 92-3117. Unpublished study prepared by Pharmaco LSR, Inc. 475 p.
44988428 Goldenthal, E. (1999) 18-Month Dietary Oncogenicity Study in Mice: NI-25: Lab Project Number: 449- 016. Unpublished study prepared by MPI Research, Inc. 1488 p. OPPTS 870.4200
44988429 Hatch, R. (1999) Two Year Dietary Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study in Rats: NI-25: Lab Project Number: 449-015. Unpublished study prepared by MPI Research, Inc. 2105 p. OPPTS 870.4200
45245304 Cunny, H. (2000) Supplemental Historical Background Data for the Acetamiprid Two-Year Study in Rats--MRID 44988429. Unpublished study prepared by Aventis CropScience. 62 p.
45245305 Cunny, H. (2000) Supplemental Historical Background Data for the Acetamiprid 18-Month Study in Mice--MRID 44988428. Unpublished study prepared by Aventis CropScience. 30 p.
45532301 Cunny, H.; Pallen, C.; Bouvier, G. (2001) Biological and Statistical Analysis of Mammary Gland Findings in the Chronic Rat Study on Acetamiprid. Unpublished study prepared by Aventis CropScience. 28 p.
45532302 Cunny, H. (2001) Supplemental Historical Control Data for the Chronic Rat Study on Acetamiprid. Unpublished study prepared by Aventis CropScience. 36 p.



### Oncogenicity 44988428 Goldenthal, E. (1999) 18-Month Dietary Oncogenicity Study in Mice: NI-25: Lab Project Number: 449- 016. Unpublished study prepared by MPI Research, Inc. 1488 p. OPPTS 870.4200
44988429 Hatch, R. (1999) Two Year Dietary Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study in Rats: NI-25: Lab Project Number: 449-015. Unpublished study prepared by MPI Research, Inc. 2105 p. OPPTS 870.4200
45245304 Cunny, H. (2000) Supplemental Historical Background Data for the Acetamiprid Two-Year Study in Rats--MRID 44988429. Unpublished study prepared by Aventis CropScience. 62 p.
45245305 Cunny, H. (2000) Supplemental Historical Background Data for the Acetamiprid 18-Month Study in Mice--MRID 44988428. Unpublished study prepared by Aventis CropScience. 30 p.
45532301 Cunny, H.; Pallen, C.; Bouvier, G. (2001) Biological and Statistical Analysis of Mammary Gland Findings in the Chronic Rat Study on Acetamiprid. Unpublished study prepared by Aventis CropScience. 28 p.
45532302 Cunny, H. (2001) Supplemental Historical Control Data for the Chronic Rat Study on Acetamiprid. Unpublished study prepared by Aventis CropScience. 36 p.



### Teratogenicity -- 2 Species 44651847 Nukui, T.; Fujii, Y. (1997) Acetamiprid--Teratogenicity Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: G-0829: 7071. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 279 p.
44651848 Nukui, T.; Fujii, Y. (1997) Acetamiprid--T eratogenicity Study in Rabbits: Lab Project Number: Amended: G-0830: 7074. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 165 p.
45245302 Cunny, H. (2000) Litter-Based Incidence of Fe tal Observations and Historical Control Data for the Study, Acetamiprid-Rat Teratology Study (Laboratory Project G-0829): EPA MRID 44651847: Lab Project Number: 958540. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 23 p.
45245303 Cunny, H. (2000) Litter-Based Incidence of Fe tal Observations and Historical Control Data for the Study, Acetamiprid--Rat Teratology Study (Laboratory Project G-0830): EPA MRID 44651848.

### 101 Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 23 p.



### 2-generation repro.-rat 44988430 Trutter, J. (1999) Two-Gene ration Reproduction Study with NI-25 in Rats (Reproduction and Fertility Effects): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 6840-108. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Inc. 1605 p. OPPTS 870.3800
45245301 Cunny, H. (2000) Mean Pup Weights Per Liter (Male and Females Combined) for the Study, TwoGeneration Reproduction Study with NI-25 Rats (Acetamiprid Technical): EPA MRID 44988430. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Inc. 15 p.



### Interaction with Gonadal DNA 44651849 Kanaguchi, Y. (1997) Acetamiprid--Reverse Mutation Study on Bacteria: Lab Project Number: G-0831: 9816. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 29 p.
44651850 Mochizuki, N.; Kanaguchi, Y. (1997) IM-1-2--Reverse Mutation Study on Bacteria: Lab Project Number: G-964: G964. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 25 p.
44651851 Mochizuki, N.; Kanaguchi, Y. (1997) IM-1-4--Reverse Mutation Study on Bacteria: Lab Project Number: G-940: G940. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 25 p.
44651852 Murli, H. (1998) Mutagenicity Test on NI-25 in an in vivo Mouse Micronucleus Assay: Second Amended Second Revised Final Report: Lab Project Number: 15901-0-455: 20996: 455. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton Washington, Inc. 32 p.
44651853 San, R.; Sly, J. (1997) Unscheduled DNA Synthesis (UDS) Test with Mammalian Liver Cells in vivo: Acetamiprid: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: G97AG26.381. Unpublished study prepared by Microbiological Associates, Inc. 69 p.
44651854 Durward, R. (1998) NI-25: Metaphase Analysis in the Rat Bone Marrow in vivo: Lab Project Number: 235/017R2. Unpublished study prepared by Safepharm Laboratories Limited. 32 p.
44651855 Kanaguchi, Y. (1997) Acetamiprid--Chromosomal Aberration Study in Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) Cells: Lab Project Number: G-0800: 9728. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Company, Ltd. 29 p.
44651856 Ham, A. (1998) Genotoxicity Test on NI-25 in the Assay for Unscheduled DNA Synthesis in Rat Liver Primary Cell Cultures with A Conf irmatory Assay: Second Amended Third Revised Final Report: Lab Project Number: 15901-0-447R: 20991: 447R. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton Washington, Inc. 41 p.
44651857 Adams, K. (1998) Acetamiprid: Mammalian Cell Mutation Assay: Lab Project Number: NOD 006/971139. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd. 27 p.
44988431 Cifone, M. (1998) Mutagenicity Test on IM-1-4 in the CHO/HGPRT Forward Mutation Assay: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 6840-106: 18981-0-435. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Inc. 52 p.
44988432 Mochizuki, N.; Kanaguchi, Y. (1997) IM-0--Reverse Mutation Study on Bacteria: Lab Project Number: G-949: 9862. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 25 p.
44988433 Mochizuki, N.; Kanaguchi, Y. (1997) IM-2-1--Reverse Mutation Study on Bacteria: Lab Project Number: G-932: 9851. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 25 p.
44988501 Curry, P. (1998) Mutagenicity Test on IM-1-4 in the In Vivo Mouse Micronucleus Assay: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 18981-0-455OECD. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Labs., Inc. 58 p.

### 102 44988502 Mochizuki, N.; Kanaguchi, Y. (1994) IC-0--Reverse Mutation Study on Bacteria: Lab Project Number: G-942: 9854. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 25 p.



### General metabolism 44651858 Cheng, T. (1997) Dermal Absorption of (carbo n 14) NI-25 in Male Rats (Preliminary and Definitive Phases): Final Report: Lab Project Number: COVANCE 6224-237: MC-5577. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories Inc. 160 p.
44988503 Mori, H.; Tanoue, T. (1997) (Carbon-14)-NI-25--Metabolism Study in Rats: (A Summary Report): Lab Project Number: EC-912. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co., Ltd. 47
p. 44988504 Mori, H.; Tanoue, T. (199 7) (Carbon-14)-NI-25--Metabolism Study in Rats: (Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Metabolites in Group C): Am ended Final Report: Lab Project Number: 95-108: EC-842-1. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co., Ltd. 81 p.
44988505 Mori, H.; Tanoue, T. (1997) (Carbon-14)-NI-25--Metabolism Study in Rats: Lab Project Number: EC724: 2-94. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co., Ltd. 661 p.
44988506 Premkumar, N.; Guo, C.; Vengurlekar, S. (1995) Adsorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Elimination, and Pharmacokinetics After Chronic Dosing of (carbon-14)-NI-25 in Rats: Lab Project Number: 42207. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 221 p.
44988507 Premkumar, N.; Guo, C. (1995 ) (Carbon-14)-NI-25--Biliary Excretio n in Rat: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 42206. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 96 p.



### Seed Germination/Seedline Emergence and Vegetable Vigor 44988413 Teixiera, D. (1999) Acetamiprid--Determination of Effects on Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor of Ten Plant Species: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 97-12-7184: 10566.0397.6416.610. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 265 p.
45921401 Teixeira, D. (2003) Acetamiprid--Determinati on of Effects on Vegetative Vigor of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa): Lab Project Number: 12681.6107. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Smithers Laboratories. 73 p. OPPTS 850.4150 and 850.4250



### Aquatic plant growth 44988414 Hoberg, J. (1997) Acetamiprid Technical--Toxi city to the Freshwater Green Alga Selenastrum capricornutum: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 97-5-6987: 10566.0297.6410.430. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 57 p.
44988415 Hoberg, J. (1997) Acetamiprid Technical--Toxicity to Duckweed, Lemna gibba: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 97-7-7029: 10566.0397.6415.410. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 63 p.
44988416 Hoberg, J. (1997) Acetamiprid Technical--Toxicityto the Fresh Water Blue-Green Alga, Anabaena flosaquae: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 97-6-7008: 10566.0397.6414.420. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 57 p.
44988417 Hoberg, J. (1997) Acetamiprid Technical-Toxicity to the Freshwater Diatom Na vicula pelliculosa: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 97-6-7005: 10566.0397.6412.440. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 58 p.
44988418 Hoberg, J. (1997) Acetamiprid Technical--Toxicity to the Marine Diatom Sk eletonema costatum: Final

### 103 Report: Lab Project Number: 97-6-7028: 10566.0397.6413.450. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 57 p.



### Seed germination/seedling emergence and vegetative vigor 44988413 Teixiera, D. (1999) Acetamiprid--Determination of Effects on Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor of Ten Plant Species: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 97-12-7184: 10566.0397.6416.610. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 265 p.
45921401 Teixeira, D. (2003) Acetamiprid--Determinati on of Effects on Vegetative Vigor of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa): Lab Project Number: 12681.6107. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Smithers Laboratories. 73 p. OPPTS 850.4150 and 850.4250



### Dissipation of Dislodgeab le Foliar & Soil Residues 45323001 Willard, T. (2001) Acetamiprid: Dissipation of Dislodgeable Residue on Cotton: Final Study Report: Lab Project Number: 97512640. Unpublished study prepared by Aventis CropScience. 371 p. OPPTS 875.2100



### Honey bee acute contact 44651874 Candolfi, M. (1997) NI-25 (Acetamiprid): Laboratory Oral and Contact Toxicity Test with the Honeybee, Apis mellifera: Lab Project Number: 96-045-1013: 1013.018.265: 3.5.96/BEE NI-25. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories (Europe) AG. 50 p.
45932503 Kling, A. (2003) Acute Contact and Oral Toxicity of EXP 60707A to the Bumble-Bee Bombus terrestris L. Under Laboratory Conditions: (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 20021073/02-BLEU: EXP 60707 A. Unpublished study prepared by GAB Biotechnologie GmbH. 33 p.



### Honey bee residue on foliage 44651875 Collins, M. (1998) Evaluation of Toxicity of Re sidues of Acetamiprid (NI-25) on Alfalfa to Honey Bees (Apis mellifera): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 98-1-7214: 10566.0897.6449.266: 1412-97-004-09- 21F-01. Unpublished study prepared by Landis International, Inc. and Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 80
p. 45346901 Hoberg, J. (2001) Evaluation of Toxicity of Residues of Acetamiprid (NI-25) and Procure 50WS on Alfalfa to Honey Bees (Apis mellifera): Lab Project Number: 13726.6123: 041100. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs., Inc. 40 p. OPPTS 850.3030
45932502 Saika, O. (2003) Acetamiprid: Toxicity of Foliar Residue to Honey Bees: Lab Project Number: RD03115. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 14 p.



### Field test for pollinators 45932504 Schur, A. (2002) A Semi-Field Study on the Effects on Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.) of Assail 70 WP (EXP61842A, Acetamiprid 70%) Straight and in Combination with the Fungicide Procure 50WS (Triflumizole 50%): (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 20011239/S1-BZEU: EXP61842A. Unpublished study prepared by GAB Biotechnologie GmbH. 54 p.
45932505 Schur, A. (2003) A Semi-Field Study on the Effects of a Foliar Application of EXP60707 A (Acetamiprid 20% SP) on the Brood Development of th e Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.): (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 20011073/01-BZEU: EXP60707A. Unpublished study prepared by GAB Biotechnologie GmbH. 88 p.

### 104 Fish early-life stage toxicity test 46729101 Saika, O. (2005) Response to Data Evaluation Report on the Toxicity of Acetamiprid (NI-25) to Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas), Fish Early Life Cycle (MRID 44651872). Project Number: NAI/06/002, SA/96123. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 83 p.



### Avian acute oral toxicity test 48407701 Hubbard, P. (2011) Acetamiprid: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Zebra Finch (Poephila guttata). Project Number: 437/119. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 76 p.



### Avian reproduction test 46014801 Brewer, L.; Bowers, L. (2003) Reply to EPA Data Evaluation Record (DER) for a Northern Bobwhite Reproduction Study with Acetamiprid. Project Number: NAI/03/001. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Smithers Laboratories.
46369201 Stafford, J. (2004) Acetamiprid (NI-25) - Reproductive Toxicity Test with Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos). Project Number: 13798/4105. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Smithers Laboratories. 153 p.
46555601 Temple, D.; Martin, K.; Beavers, J.; et. al. (2005) Acetamiprid: A Reproductive Study with the Northern Bobwhite. Project Number: 437/104. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 186 p.
46717701 Brewer, L. (2005) Response to EPA DER for Acetamiprid (NI-25) - Reproductive Toxicity Test with Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos). Project Number: NAI/05/001. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Smithers Laboratories. 17 p.



### Honey bee toxicity of residues on foliage 47737801 Walsh, D. (2009) Pollinator Pesticide Sa fety Trials 2007: Flonicamid. Project Number: IB/2009/PH/002/01. Unpublished study prepared by Washington State University. 19 p.



### Acute oral toxicity 46271906 Li, K. (2004) Acetamiprid (F5025) Ant & Roach Baits: Acute Oral Toxicity (in Rats) Studies and Waiver Request for Acute Dermal and Inhalati on Toxicity, Eye and Skin Irritation and Skin Sensitization Studies. Project Number: P/3680, 3223/30, A2003/5722. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp Agricultural Products Group and Charles River Laboratories, Inc. 109 p.
46342702 Allen, D. (1997) NI-25 WSG: Acute Oral Toxicity Test in the Rat. Project Number: 235/148. Unpublished study prepared by Safepharm Laboratories, Ltd. 32 p.
46432802 Cerven, D. (2004) F4688: Acute Oral Toxicity (In Rats) - Up and Down Procedure (UDP). Project Number: A2004/5837, 1010/01, MB/04/12712/01. Unpublished study prepared by MB Research Laboratories. 24 p.
46685502 Patterson, D. (2001) An Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats with Acetamiprid 50 SF (EXP 81141A). Project Number: 3522/19. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. (SLI). 65 p.
46794304 Rodabaugh, D. (2006) An Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats with Acetamiprid 0.075% Ant Bait (Up/Down Study Design). Project Number: KZH00078, 000TSC05512, A2005/5953. Unpublished study prepared by Charles River Laboratories, Inc. 45 p.
46794306 Nuber, D. (2006) Acetamiprid Gel Baits (0.35% and 0.075%) Waiver Request for Acute Inhalation Toxicity. Project Number: P/3813. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 18 p.

### 105 46860202 Oshio, I. (2005) Acute Oral Toxicity Study of Acetamiprid 9.25 SL in Rats. Project Number: H262. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 24 p.
46860203 Takaori, H. (2006) Acute Oral Toxicity Study of Acetamiprid 9.25 SL in Rats - Second Study. Project Number: H285. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 20 p.
47838505 Griffon, B. (2001) Acetamiprid CEL 26521 SL: Acute Oral Toxicity in Rats. Project Number: 22016/TAR, 22016/TAR/CEL/265/2 1/SL/SCOTTS/FRANCE/SAS. Unpublished study prepared by Centre International de Toxicologie. 24 p.
47848104 Griffon, B. (2003) UKSO48A: Acute Oral Toxicity in Rats: "Acute Toxicity Class Method". Project Number: 25496/TAR. Unpublished study prepared by Centre International de Toxicologie. 27 p.
47868802 Rodabaugh, D. (2009) An Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats with EQEF 303 F5688 Insecticide (Up/Down Study Design). Project Number: KZH00123, A2006/6091. Unpublished study prepared by Charles River Laboratories, Inc. 55 p.
48327303 Wrubel, J. (2010) F7180-8 Fly Sticker Insecticide: Request for Bridging of Acute Toxicity Data Requirements. Project Number: NAI/10/004. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso America, Inc. 5 p.
48404404 Durando, J. (2011) GWN-9857: Acute Oral Toxicity Up and Down Procedure in Rats. Project Number: 29853, P320/UDP. Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins/Product Safety Laboratories. 20 p.
48463104 Durando, J. (2011) RF2157 Bait: Acute Oral Toxi city Up and Down Procedure in Rats. Project Number: 30975, P320/UDP/WEL. Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins/Product Safety Laboratories. 16 p.
48584601 Wolf, T. (2011) "AMP 44 RB": Acute Oral Toxicity Study with Rats (Up-and-Down Procedure). Project Number: KW173. Unpublished study prepared by Seibersdorf Labor GmbH. 31p.



### Acute dermal toxicity 46342703 Allen, D. (1997) NI-25 WSG: Acute Dermal Toxi city (Limit Test) in the Rat. Project Number: 235/150. Unpublished study prepared by Safepharm Laboratories, Ltd. 18 p.
46432803 Gilotti, A. (2004) F4688: Acute Dermal T oxicity/LD50 in Rabbits. Project Number: A2004/5838, MB/04/12712/02, 1100/02. Unpublished study prepared by MB Research Laboratories. 25 p.
46685503 Patterson, D. (2001) An Acute Dermal Toxi city Study in Rabbits with Acetamiprid 50 SF (EXP81141A). Project Number: 3522/20. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. (SLI). 29 p.
46794305 Rodabaugh, D. (2006) An Acute Dermal Toxicity Study in Rats with Acetamiprid 0.075% Ant Bait. Project Number: KZH00079, A2005/5952, 000TSC05512. Unpublished study prepared by Charles River Laboratories, Inc. 53 p.
46794306 Nuber, D. (2006) Acetamiprid Gel Baits (0.35% and 0.075%) Waiver Request for Acute Inhalation Toxicity. Project Number: P/3813. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 18 p.
46860204 Sanders, A. (2006) Acetamprid 9.25 SL: Acute Dermal Toxicity (Limit Test) in the Rat. Project Number: 235/494R. Unpublished study prepared by Safepharm Laboratories Ltd. 19 p.
47838506 Griffon, B. (2001) CEL 26521 SL: Acute Derm al Toxicity in Rats. Project Number: 22017/TAR, 22017/TAR/CEL/265/21/SL/SCOTTS/FRANCE/SAS. Unpublished study prepared by Centre International de Toxicologie. 26 p.
47848105 Griffon, B. (2003) UKSO48A: Acute Dermal Toxicity in Rats. Project Number: 25497/TAR. Unpublished study prepared by Centre International de Toxicologie. 27 p.
47868803 Rodabaugh, D. (2009) An Acute Dermal Toxicity Study in Rats with EQEF 303 F5688 Insecticide.

### 106 Project Number: KZH00133, A2006/6093. Unpublished study prepared by Charles River Laboratories, Inc. 56 p.
48327303 Wrubel, J. (2010) F7180-8 Fly Sticker Insecticide: Request for Bridging of Acute Toxicity Data Requirements. Project Number: NAI/10/004. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso America, Inc. 5 p.
48404405 Durando, J. (2010) GWN-9857: Acute Dermal Toxicity Study in Rats: Limit Test. Project Number: 29854, P322/RAT. Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins/Product Safety Laboratories. 15 p.
48463105 Durando, J. (2011) RF2157 Bait: Acute De rmal Toxicity Study in Rats. Project Number: P322/RAT/WEL, 30976. Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins/Product Safety Laboratories. 15 p.



### Acute inhalation toxicity 46432804 Gilotti, A. (2004) F4688: Acute Inhalation Toxicity/LC50 in Rats. Project Number: A2004/5840, 1300/02, MB/04/12712/05. Unpublished study prepared by MB Research Laboratories. 35 p.
46685504 Patterson, D. (2001) An Acute Nose-Only Inhalatio n Toxicity Study in Rats with Acetamiprid 50 SF (EXP 81141A). Project Number: 3522/24. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. (SLI). 53 p.
46794306 Nuber, D. (2006) Acetamiprid Gel Baits (0.35% and 0.075%) Waiver Request for Acute Inhalation Toxicity. Project Number: P/3813. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 18 p.
46860205 Griffiths, D. (2005) Acetamprid 9.25 SL: Ac ute Inhalation Toxicity (Nose Only) Study in the Rat. Project Number: 235/492R. Unpublished study prepared by Safepharm Laboratories Ltd. 37 p.
47838507 Restum, J. (2009) Acetamiprid Concentrate Insecticide Waiver Request from Further Testing: Acute Inhalation Toxicity LC50. Project Number: NAI/09/004. Unpublished study prepared by The Scotts Company. 6 p.
47848106 Restum, J (2009) Acetamiprid + Triticonazole Co ncentrate Insecticide and Fungicide: Waiver Request from Further Testing: Acute Inhalation Toxicicty LC50. Project Number: NAI/09/003. Unpublished study prepared by The Scotts Company. 6 p.
47868804 Rodabaugh, D. (2006) An Acute Nose-Only Inhalation Study in Rats with EQEF 303 F5688. Project Number: KZH00136, A2006/6092. Unpublished study prepared by Charles River Laboratories, Inc. 71
p. 48327303 Wrubel, J. (2010) F7180-8 Fly Sticker Insecticide: Request for Bridging of Acute Toxicity Data Requirements. Project Number: NAI/10/004. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso America, Inc. 5 p.
48404406 Durando, J. (2010) GWN-9857: Acute Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rats. Project Number: 29855, P330. Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins/Product Safety Laboratories. 24 p.
48463106 Mizens, M. (2011) RF2157 Bait: Request for Waiv er of Tier 1 Pesticide Data Requirements. Project Number: 3948. Unpublished study prepared by Wellmark International. 16 p.



### Acute eye irritation 46342704 Allen, D. (1997) NI-25 WSG: Primary Eye Irritation Test in the Rabbit. Project Number: 235/152. Unpublished study prepared by Safepharm Laboratories, Ltd. 22 p.
46432805 Hoff, T. (2004) F4688: Acute Eye Irritation in Rabbits. Project Number: A2004/5806, MB/04/12623/04, 1200/02. Unpublished study prepared by MB Research Laboratories. 20 p.
46685505 Patterson, D. (2001) A Primary Eye Irritation Study in Rabbits with Acetamiprid 50 SF (EXP 81141A). Project Number: 3522/21. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. (SLI). 29 p.

### 107 46794306 Nuber, D. (2006) Acetamiprid Gel Baits (0.35% and 0.075%) Waiver Request for Acute Inhalation Toxicity. Project Number: P/3813. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 18 p.
46794307 Rodabaugh, D. (2006) A Primary Eye Irritation Study in Rabbits with Acetamiprid 0.075% Ant Bait. Project Number: KZH00080, A2005/5954. Unpublished study prepared by Charles River Laboratories, Inc. 45 p.
46860206 Oshio, I. (2005) Acute Eye Irritation/Corrosion Study of Acetamiprid 9.25 SL in Rabbits. Project Number: H263. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 20 p.
47838508 Griffon, B. (2001) CEL 26521 SL: Acute Eye Irritation in Rabbits. Project Number: 22019/TAL, 22019/TAL/CEL/265/21/SL/SCOTTS/FRANCE/SAS. Unpublished study prepared by Centre International de Toxicologie. 20 p.
47848107 Griffon, B. (2003) UKSO48A: Acute Eye Irritation in Rabbits. Project Number: 25499/TAL. Unpublished study prepared by Centre International de Toxicologie. 28 p.
47868805 Rodabaugh, D. (2006) A Primary Eye Irritation Study in Rabbits with EQEF 303 F5688 Insecticide. Project Number: KZH00124, A2006/6089. Unpublished study prepared by Charles River Laboratories, Inc. 47 p.
48327303 Wrubel, J. (2010) F7180-8 Fly Sticker Insecticide: Request for Bridging of Acute Toxicity Data Requirements. Project Number: NAI/10/004. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso America, Inc. 5 p.
48404407 Durando, J. (2010) GWN-9857: Primary Eye Irritation Study in Rabbits. Project Number: 29856, P324. Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins/Product Safety Laboratories. 17 p.
48463106 Mizens, M. (2011) RF2157 Bait: Request for Waiv er of Tier 1 Pesticide Data Requirements. Project Number: 3948. Unpublished study prepared by Wellmark International. 16 p.
48463107 Durando, J. (2011) RF2157 Bait: Primary Eye Irritation Study in Rabbits. Project Number: P324/WEL, 30977. Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins/Product Safety Laboratories. 11 p.



### Acute dermal irritation 46342705 Allen, D. (1997) NI-25 WSG: Primary Dermal Irritation Test in the Rabbit. Project Number: 235/151. Unpublished study prepared by Safepharm Laboratories, Ltd. 13 p.
46432806 Hoff, T. (2004) F4688: Acute Dermal Irritation in Rabbits. Project Number: A2004/5839, 1130/02, MB/04/12712/03. Unpublished study prepared by MB Research Laboratories. 22 p.
46685506 Patterson, D. (2001) A Primary Skin Irritation Study in Rabbits with Acetamiprid 50 SF (EXP 81141A). Project Number: 3522/22. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. (SLI). 28 p.
46794306 Nuber, D. (2006) Acetamiprid Gel Baits (0.35% and 0.075%) Waiver Request for Acute Inhalation Toxicity. Project Number: P/3813. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 18 p.
46794308 Rodabaugh, D. (2006) A Primary Skin Irritation Study in Rabbits with Acetamiprid 0.075% Ant Bait. Project Number: KZH00081, A2005/5955. Unpublished study prepared by Charles River Laboratories, Inc. 45 p.
46860207 Sanders, A. (2006) Acetamprid 9.25 SL: Ac ute Dermal Irritation in the Rabbit. Project Number: 235/495R. Unpublished study prepared by Safepharm Laboratories Ltd. 15 p.
47838509 Griffon, B. (2001) CEL 26521 SL: Acute Dermal Irritation in Rabbits. Project Number: 22018/TAL, 22018/TAL/CEL/265/21/SL/SCOTTS/FRANCE/SAS. Unpublished study prepared by Centre International de Toxicologie. 32 p.

### 108 47848108 Griffin, B. (2003) UKSO48A: Acute Dermal Irritation in Rabbits. Project Number: 25498/TAL. Unpublished study prepared by Centre International de Toxicologie. 22 p.
47868806 Rodabaugh, D. (2006) A Primary Skin Irritation Study in Rabbits with EQEF 303 F5688 Insecticide. Project Number: KZH00134, A2006/6090. Unpublished study prepared by Charles River Laboratories, Inc. 45 p.
48327303 Wrubel, J. (2010) F7180-8 Fly Sticker Insecticide: Request for Bridging of Acute Toxicity Data Requirements. Project Number: NAI/10/004. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso America, Inc. 5 p.
48404408 Durando, J. (2010) GWN-9857: Primary Skin Irritation Study in Rabbits. Project Number: 29857, P326. Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins/Product Safety Laboratories. 16 p.
48463108 Durando, J. (2011) RF2157 Bait: Primary Skin Irritation Study in Rabbits. Project Number: P326/WEL, 30978. Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins/Product Safety Laboratories. 16 p.



### Skin sensitization 46342706 Allen, D. (1997) NI-25 WSG: Buehler Delayed Contact Hypersensitivity Study in the Guinea Pig. Project Number: 235/153. Unpublished study prepared by Safepharm Laboratories, Ltd. 36 p.
46432807 Hall, D. (2004) F4688: Delayed Contact Dermal Sensitization Test - Buehler Method. Project Number: A2004/5841, MB/04/12712/06, 1160/02. Unpublished study prepared by MB Research Laboratories. 54
p. 46685507 Patterson, D. (2001) A Dermal Sensitization Study in Guinea Pigs with Acetamiprid 50 SF (EXP 81141A) - Modified Buehler Design. Project Number: 3522/23, 999/150. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. (SLI). 46 p.
46794306 Nuber, D. (2006) Acetamiprid Gel Baits (0.35% and 0.075%) Waiver Request for Acute Inhalation Toxicity. Project Number: P/3813. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corp. 18 p.
46794309 Rodabaugh, D. (2006) A Dermal Sensitization Study in Guinea Pigs With Acetamiprid 0.075% Ant Bait Modified Buehler Design. Project Number: KZH00082, A2005/5956. Unpublished study prepared by Charles River Laboratories, Inc. 65 p.
46860208 Sanders, A. (2006) Acetamprid 9.25 SL: Local Lymph Node Assay in the Mouse. Project Number: 235/496R. Unpublished study prepared by Safepharm Laboratories Ltd. 23 p.
47838510 Griffon, B. (2001) CEL 26521 SL: Skin Sensiti zation Test in Guinea Pigs; Buehler. Project Number: 22020/TSG, 22020/TSG/CEL/265/21/SL/SCOTTS/FRANCE/SAS. Unpublished study prepared by Centre International de Toxicologie. 32 p.
47848109 Griffon, B. (2003) UKSO48A: Skin Sensitiza tion Test in Guinea Pigs: (Modified Buehler Test: 9 Applications). Project Number: 25646/TSG. Unpublished study prepared by Centre International de Toxicologie. 37 p.
47868807 Rodabaugh, D. (2006) A Dermal Sensitization Study in Guinea Pigs with EQEF 303 F5688 Insecticide: Modified Buehler Design. Project Number: KZH00135, A2006/6094. Unpublished study prepared by Charles River Laboratories, Inc. 65 p.
48327303 Wrubel, J. (2010) F7180-8 Fly Sticker Insecticide: Request for Bridging of Acute Toxicity Data Requirements. Project Number: NAI/10/004. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso America, Inc. 5 p.
48404409 Durando, J. (2010) GWN-9857: Dermal Sensitization Study in Guinea Pigs (Buehler Method). Project Number: 29858, P328. Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins/Product Safety Laboratories. 28 p.
48463109 Durando, J. (2011) RF2157 Bait: Dermal Sensitization Study in Guinea Pigs (Buehler Method). Project

### 109 Number: P328/WEL, 30979. Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins/Product Safety Laboratories. 25 p.



### Developmental neurotoxicity study 46255619 Nemec, M. (2003) An Oral Developmental Neurotoxicity Study of Acetamiprid in Rats. Project Number: WIL/21193. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research Laboratories, Inc. 1643 p.
46779201 Nemec, M.; Beck, M.; Sloter, E. (2006) Rebutta l of Data Evaluation Record for Acetamiprid (WIL No. 21193, EPA Acetamiprid 099050, MRID 46255619). Project Number: NAI/06/004, WIL/21193B. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research Laboratories, Inc. 313 p.
46779202 Nemec, M. (2004) A Dose Range-Finding Study for a Developmental Neurotoxicity Study of Acetamiprid in Rats. Project Number: WIL/21192. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research Laboratories, Inc. 599 p.
46779203 Schaefer, G. (2006) Validation of Developmental Neurotoxicity Endpoints in Rats Administered Methimazole in Drinking Water. Project Number : WIL/99199. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research Laboratories, Inc. 40 p.
46779204 Pitt, J. (2006) A Validation Study for Deve lopmental Neurotoxicity Endpoints at WIL Research Laboratories, Inc.: Effect of Proylthiouracil (PTU ) on Developmental Neurotoxicity Endpoints in Crl:CD (SD) IGS BR Rats (WIL-99126). Project Number: WIL/99126. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research Laboratories, Inc. 17 p.
47237401 Li, A.; Lau, E. (2007) Acetamiprid DNT St udy (WIL-21193; MRID 46255619): Response to EPA CEB Statistical Analyses and Weight of Evidence Supp orting NOAEL of 10 mg/kg bwt/day. Project Number: WD0771/000/E0T0. Unpublished study prepared by Exponent Inc. 51 p.



### Immunotoxicity 48113401 Brown, L. (2010) Acetamiprid: 4-Week Dietary Immunotoxicity Study in the Mouse. Project Number: LGG0005. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 176 p.

48113402 Moore, E. (2010) Acetamiprid: 4-Week Dietary Imm unotoxicity Study in the Rat. Project Number: LGG0004. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 193 p.



### Aquatic invertebrate acute toxi city, test, freshwater daphnids
46255608 Saito, S. (2002) IM-1-5 (N-((6-Chloro- 3-Pyridyl) methyl)-N-Methylacet amidine): Acute Toxicity to Daphnia magna. Project Number: NCAS/02/197. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co., Ltd. 23 p.



### 15.2.A. Physical Chemical and Fate Data Solubility 44651810 Gomyo, T.; Kobayashi, S. (1997) NI-25--Sol ubility in Organic Solvents: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: NISSO 2-83: EC-376-3: 2-83. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co., Ltd. 32 p.
44651811 Gomyo, T.; Kobayashi, S. (1997) NI-25--Sol ubility in Water: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: NISSO 2-81: EC-377-3: 2-81. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co., Ltd. 37 p. 

### Vapor Pressure 44651812 Gomyo, T.; Kobayashi, S. (1997) NI-25--Vapor Pressure: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number:

### 110 NISSO 2-79: EC-372-2: 2-79. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co., Ltd. 43 p.



### Dissociation Constant 44651813 Gomyo, T.; Kobayashi, S. (1997) NI-25--Dissociation Constant in Water (pKa): Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: NISSO 2-88: EC-371-2: 2-88. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co., Ltd. 30 p.



### Oct/Water partition Coef. 44651814 Gomyo, T.; Kobayashi, S. (1997) NI-25--Oct anol/Water Partition Coefficient: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: NISSO 2-84: EC-378-2: 2-84. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co., Ltd. 34 p.



### Hydrolysis 44651876 Gomyo, T.; Kobayashi, S. (1997) NI-25--Hydrolysis: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: NISSO 2-89: EC-375-2: 2-89. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co., Ltd. 126 p.
44651877 Class, T. (1997) Hydrolysis of IM-1-4 and IC-0 (Two Degradates of Acetamiprid) as a Function of pH: Lab Project Number: P 225 G: B 225 G: 97-32. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL Europe. 24 p.



### Photodegradation-water 44988509 Hausmann, S.; Class, T. (1998) Aqueous Photodegradation of (carbon-14)-Acetamiprid at pH 7 and Determination of Quantum Yield: Lab Project Number: P196G: B196G: 96-82. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL, West PTRL, Europe. 124 p.
44988510 Emeric, G. (1998) Acetamiprid- -Verification of the Iden tity of the Photolyte Obtained at pH 7--Study: Lab Project Number: 98-47. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Agro. 36 p.
44988511 Mamouni, A. (1997) Aqueous Photolysis of (carbon-14)-IM-1- 4 Under Laboratory Conditions: Lab Project Number: 671332: 97-166. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie. 64 p.



### Photodegradation-soil 44988508 Mislankar, S. (1998) Acetamiprid (NI-25) Soil Photolysis: Lab Project Number: EC-97-359: F97125- 806: EC-97-359-HP. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. 149 p.



### Aerobic soil metabolism 44651879 Feung, C. (1998) Acetamiprid (NI-25): Aerobic Soil Metabolism: Lab Project Number: EC-96-351. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. 122 p.
44651880 Feung, C. (1998) Acetamiprid (NI-25): Metabolism in Collombey Soil: Lab Project Number: EC-97- 406. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. 78 p.
44651881 Burr, C. (1997) (Carbon 14)-NI-25: Rate of Aerobic Degradation in Three Soil Types at 20 (degrees Centigrade) and One Soil Type at 10 (degrees Centigrade): Lab Project Number: 11256: 201445. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Agriculture Limited. 213 p.
44651882 Lowden, P.; Oddy, A.; Jones, M. (1997) NI-25: Rate of Degradation of the Acid Metabolite, (carbon 14)-IC-O in Three Soils: Lab Project Number: 11257: 20147. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-

### 111 Poulenc Agriculture Limited. 153 p.
44699101 Morgenroth, U. (1997) (Carbon 14)-NI-25: Metabolism in One Soil Incubated Under Aerobic Conditions: Lab Project Number: 373994. Unpublishe d study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie AG. 125
p.



### Anaerobic aquatic metab. 44988512 Feung, C. (1999) Acetamiprid (NI-25): Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism: Lab Project Number: EC-97- 404. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co. 128 p.



### Aerobic aquatic metab. 44988513 Andrawes, N. (1999) Acetamiprid (NI-25): Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism: Lab Project Number: EC-96- 352. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co. 143 p.



### Leach/adsorp/desorption 44651883 Liu, A. (1997) Acetamiprid (NI-25): Soil Adsorption/Desorption Study: Lab Project Number: EC-97- 381: F97525-001: RP397ACL. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. 180 p.
44651884 Liu, A. (1997) 6-Chloronicotinic Acid (Acetamiprid Metabolite): Soil Adsorption/Desorption Study:Lab Project Number: EC-97-370: F97525-001: RP397ACL. Unpublished study prepared by RhonePoulenc Ag Company. 195 p.
44651885 Liu, A. (1998) (Carbon 14)-N-methyl-(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)- methylamine IM-1-4 (Acetamiprid Metabolite): Soil Adsorption/Desorption Study: Lab Project Number: EC-97-382: F97525-001: RP397ACL. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. 168 p.
44651886 Morgen roth, U. (1997) (Carbo n 14)-NI-25: Leaching Char acteristics of Aged Residues in One Soil: Lab Project Number: 374005. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 95 p.
46255604 Simmonds, M. (2003) (Carbon 14) - Acetamiprid: Aged Residue Column Leaching Study in Two Calcareous Soils. Project Number: CX/02/018, CX02018. Unpublished study prepared by Battelle Agrifood, Ltd. 159 p.



### Terrestrial field dissipation 44988514 Norris, F. (1999) Acetamiprid: Terrestrial Soil Dissipation of Acetamiprid Following Applications of EXP 80667A 70WP to Ornamental Crops: Lab Project Number: 45752: 97512637. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co. and Agvise, Inc. 798 p.
44988515 Norris, F. (1999) Acetamiprid: Terrestrial Soil Dissipation of Acetamiprid (EXP 80667A) Under Agricultural Field Conditions Crops: Lab Project Number: 45753: 975126643: 12643-06. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co . and ACDS Research, Inc. 788 p.
44988516 Yang, J. (1999) Method Validation Report for Acetamiprid (NI-25): Performance Summary of Methods of Analysis for NI-25 and its Metabolites IC-0, IM-1-4, and IM-1-2 in US Soil Using LC/MS/MS: Lab Project Number: 45841: 45453: 9752643. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co. 572 p. OPPTS 850.7100
44988517 Zheng, S. (1999) Independent Laboratory Validation of Analytical Methods NI-25: Method of Analysis and its Metabolite, IC-0, Using LC/MS/MS; NI-25: Methods of Analysis for IM-1-2 a Metabolite of NI25 in Soil Using LC/MS/MS; and NI-25: Method of An alysis for IM-1-4, a Metabolite of NI-25, in Soil Using LC/MS/MS: Lab Project Number: 019-016: 98P-019-016: EC-98-447. Unpublished study prepared by Centre Analytical Labs., Inc. 152 p. OPPTS 850.7100

### 112 44988625 Cosgrove, D. (1999) A Terrestrial Field Dissipation Study with Acetamiprid, Canada, 1999: Final Study Report: Lab Project Number: 99086DC: 99001: 99002. Unpublished study prepared by Enviro-Test Lab., Inc. 388 p.



### Confined rotational crop 44988623 Mislankar, S.; Mackie, S. (1999) (Carbon-14)-Acetamiprid: Foliar Treatment Confined Accumulation Study in Rotational Crops: Lab Project Number: EC-97-368. Unpublished study prepared by American Agricultural Services, Inc. and Agvise Labs. 345 p. OPPTS 860.1850



### General Considerations for efficacy of invertebrate control agents 47536601 Smitley, D.; Davis, T.; Newhouse, K. (2007) A cetamiprid: Emerald Ash Borer Tree Trunk Injections and Sprays. Project Number: NAI/08/001. Unpublished study prepared by Michigan State University. 13
p. 47558701 Newhouse, K.; Smitley, D.; Davis, T. (2007) Acetamiprid: Emerald Ash Borer Tree Trunk Injections and Sprays; Amendment to MRID 47536601. Project Number: NAI/08/001/01. Unpublished study prepared by Michigan St ate University. 15 p.



### Dissociation constants in water 46255602 Takashima, K. (2002) Dissociation Constant of IM-1-5. Project Number: NCAS/02/132. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co., Ltd. 18 p.



### Photodegradation of parent and degradates in soil 48563501 Sugiyama, K. (2011) Photodegradation of [(Carbon 14)] Acetamiprid on Soil by Artificial Sunlight. Project Number: 2126W. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, Inc. 235p.



### Aerobic soil metabolism 46255603 Simmonds, M. (2002) (Carbon 14)-Acetamiprid: Rate of Degradation in Three Calcareous Soils at 20 (Degrees) C. Project Number: CX/01/013. Unpublished study prepared by Battelle Agrifood, Ltd. 198 p.



### Anaerobic soil metabolism 48554501 Hiler, T. (2011) (Acetamiprid Technical): Anaerobic Soil Metabolism of Carbon 14 Acetamiprid on Two Soil Types. Project Number: 2105W, 2111W. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, Inc. 170p.



### Non-Guideline Study 44651801 Davis, E.; Davis, W. (1998) Reduced Risk and OP Replacement Rationale for Acetamiprid: Lab Project Number: RPAG-NI-25-98. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone Poulenc Ag Company. 148 p.
44651818 Morishima, Y. (1997) NI-25 (PAI)--Spectra (U V/VIS, IR, NMR, MS) of NI-25: Lab Project Number: 2- 9713: PTL 2-9713. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 20 p. OPPTS 830.7050
44651878 Higashida, S. (1998) Stability of IM-1-5 in Water: Lab Project Number: NCAS 98-012NG. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co., Ltd. 16 p.
44988401 Christian, M. ; Cunny, H.; Davis, W. et al. (1999) Re duced Risk and Organophosphate Replacement Rationale for Acetamiprid-Agricultural Uses: Lab Project Number: RR/09/CROP-1. Unpublished study

### 113 prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. 370 p.
44988402 Cunny, H.; Davis, E.; Davis, W. et al. (1999) Reduced Risk and Organophosphate Replacement Rationale for Acetamiprid-Orname ntal and Home Garden Uses: La b Project Number: RR/OP/ORN-2. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. 258 p.
44988403 Cunny, H.; Davis, W.; Heintzelman, R. et al. (1999) Acetamiprid: OECD Tier II and Tier III Summary and Assessment of the Active Substance and Formul ations, Documents M and N: Lab Project Number: 111599. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. 559 p.
44988405 Phillips, J. (1999) Exposure Estimates and Risk Assessment for Acetamiprid. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone Poulen c Ag Company. 20 p.
44988412 Johnson, A. (1994) NI-25: Acute Toxicity to the Earthworm (Eisenia foetida): Lab Project Number: NPS 63/932526. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd. 22 p.
44988536 Tokieda, M. (1997) Analytical Method for the Determination of Acetamiprid in Water (Validation Study): Lab Project Number: NCAS97-007: 171-4B. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co., Ltd. 68 p. OPPTS 860.1400
45039702 Yang, J. (1999) Stability of Acetamiprid and Its Metabolites in Soil Duri ng Prolonged Freezer Storage: Lab Project Number: 97512642: 45754. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. 299 p. OPPTS 860.1380
45900500 Nippon Soda Co., Ltd (2003) Submission of Reduced-Risk, Residue, Risk, and Exposure Data in Support of the Amended Registrations of Acetamiprid Technical and Assail 70WP Insecticide and the Petition for Tolerance of Acetamip rid on Tuberous and Corn Vege tables Crop Group and Tobacco. Transmittal of 9 Studies.
45900501 Christian, M.; Cunny, H.; Heintzelman, R.; et al. Reduced-Risk Pesticide Rationale for Acetamiprid: Lab Project Number: ACET-RR-01. Unpublished Study. 138 p.
45900502 Christian, M. (2003) Reduced-Risk Pesticide Rationale for Acetamiprid: Lab Project Number: ACETRR-02. Unpublished Study. 4 p.
45900503 Yang, H.; Werner, G. (2003) Reduced-Risk Pes ticide Rationale for Acetamiprid: Lab Project Number: ACET-RR-03. Unpublished Study. 15 p.
45921400 Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. (2003) Submission of Fate Data in Support of FIFRA 6(a)(2) Data Requirements for Assail 70 WP Insecticide. Transmittal of 1 Study.
46056901 Li, K. (2003) Acetamiprid Exposure and Risk Assessment: Uses on General Household Pests. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corporation. 22 p.
46056902 Li, K. (2003) Acetamiprid Exposure and Risk Assessment: Termiticide Uses. Unpublished study prepared by FMC Corporation. 13 p.
46093700 Gowan Company (2003) Submi ssion of Efficacy Data in Support of the Reregistration of Phosmet. Transmittal of 2 Studies.
46093701 Brunner, J. (2001) Control of the Codling Moth with Acetamiprid (Assail) and Phosmet (Imidan), 2001. Project Number: IMI/102/01. Unpublished study prepared by Washington State University. 6 p.
46229601 Sances, F. (2003) Evaluation of Assail 70 W for Negative Effects on Lettuce. Project Number: NAI/04/001. Unpublished study prepared by Pacific Agricultural Research Corp. 97 p.
46229602 Sances, F. (2003) Addendum Report: Evaluation of Assail 70 W for Negative Effects on Head Lettuce, Butter Varieties. Project Number: NAI/04/002. Unpublished study prepared by Pacific Agricultural Research Corp. 82 p.

### 114 46255600 Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. (2004) S ubmission of Risk/Exposure, Fate, Toxicity and Efficacy Data in Support of the Amended Registrations of Acetamiprid Technical and ASSAIL 70 WP Insecticide and the Petition for Tolerance of Acetamiprid on Curc urbits, Stone Fruit and Tree Nut Crop Groups. Transmittal of 19 Studies.
46255605 Kawai, H.; Fujii, Y.; Saika, O. ; et. al. (2003) Position Statement on Persistence and Mobility of IM-1-5 in Soil. Project Number: NAI/04/003. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co Ltd. 74 p.
46255607 Kawai, H. (2003) Position Paper: IM-1-4, Persistence in Sediment. Project Number: RD/03199. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co Ltd. 9 p.
46255609 Putt, A. (2003) IM-1-5: Full Life-Cycle Toxicity Test with Water Fleas, Daphnia magna, Under StaticRenewal Conditions. Project Number: 13798/6112. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Smithers Laboratories. 62 p.
46255610 Putt, A. (2003) IM-1-5: Acute Toxicity to Midge (Chironomus riparius) Under Static Conditions. Project Number: 13798/6111. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories Inc. 48 p.
46255611 Schmitzer, S. (2003) Effects of IM-1-5 on Reproduction of Rove Beetles Aleochara bilineata in the Laboratory: (Final Report). Project Number: 1572207 0. Unpublished study prepared by Institut fuer Biologische Analytik und Consulting IBACON GmbH. 30 p.
46255612 Klein, S. (2003) Effects of IM-1-5 on Reproduction of the Collembola Folsomia candida in Artificial Soil. Project Number: 15721016, C029622. Unpublis hed study prepared by Institut fuer Biologische Analytik Und Consulting IBACON GmbH. 27 p.
46255613 Rodgers, M. (2002) IM-1-5: Acute Toxicity (LC50) to the Earthworm. Project Number: NOD/217/024192. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 17 p.
46255614 Luhrs, U. (2003) Effects of IM-1-5 on Reproduction and Growth of Earthworms Eisenia fetida in Artificial Soil. Project Number: 15723022. Unpublished study prep ared by Institut fuer Biologische Analytik Und Consulting IBACON GmbH. 33 p.
46255615 Hatano, R. (2002) Insecticidal Activities of A cetamiprid Metabolites: IM-1-5 and IM-1-5-HCL. Project Number: NAI/04/004. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 7 p.
46255620 Fujii, Y. (2002) Acetamiprid Suspended in Co rn Oil: Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats. Project Number: H221. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 33 p.
46255621 Fujii, Y. (2002) IM-1-5: Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats. Project Number: H220. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 30 p.
46255622 Saito, H. (2002) Metabolism Study of Acetamiprid in Rat (Determination of IM-1-5). Project Number: NSM/02/024. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 112 p.
47523404 Iwasa, T.; Motoyama, N.; Ambrose, J.; et al . (2003) Mechanism for the Differential Toxicity of Neonicotinoid Insecticides in the Honey Bee, Ap is mellifera. Crop Protection 23(2004): 371-378.
47800502 Nauen, R.; Ebbinghaus-Kintscher, U.; Schmuck, R. (2001) Toxicity and Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Interaction of Imidacloprid and its Metabolite s in Apis mellifera (Hyme noptera: Apidae). Pest Management Science 57(7):577-586.
47800507 Aliouane, Y.; el Hassani, A.; Gary, V.; et al. (2009) Subchronic Exposure of Honeybees to Sublethal Doses of Pesticides: Effects on Behavior. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 28(1):113-122.
47800509 Guez, D; Belzunces, L. P.; Maleszka, R. (2003) Effects of Imidacloprid Metabolites on Habituation in Honeybees Suggest the Existence of Two Subtypes of Nicotinic R eceptors Differentially Expressed during Adult Development. Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior 75:217-222.

### 115 47838500 Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. (2009) Submission of Product Chemistry and Toxicity Data in Support of the Application for Registration of Acetamiprid Conc entrate Insecticide. Transmittal of 10 Studies.
47848100 Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. (2009) Submission of Product Chemistry and Toxicity Data in Support of the Application for Registration of Acetamiprid + Tritic onazole Concentrate. Transmittal of 9 Studies.
48498301 Laurino, D.; Porporato, M.; Patetta, A.; et al. (2011) Toxicity of Neonicotinoid Insecticides to Honey Bees: Laboratory Tests. Bulletin of Insectology 64(1): 107-113.
48499800 Interregional Research Project No. 4 (2011) Submission of Pesticide Use Data in Support of the Proposed New Crop Group 24 - Stalk, Stem and Leafy Petiole. Transmittal of 1 Study.

### 116 Appendix A. Supplemental Environmental Fate Information

Table A1. Structures of Acetamiprid and It s Environmental Transformation Products. Code Name/ Synonym/ Chemical Name/ Formula/MW/ SMILES Chemical Structure

Acetamiprid

IUPAC: (E)-N 1 -[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]-N 2 -cyanoN 1 -methyl

CAS: (1 E )- N -[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]- N '-cyano- N

methylethanimidamide

CAS No.: 135410-20-7 Formula: C 16 H 11 CLN 4 MW: 222.68 g/mol SMILES: Clc1ncc(cc1)CN(\C(=N\C#N)C)C
IM-1-2 IUPAC: N 2 -carbamoyl-N 1 -[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]- N 1 -methylacetamidine

Formula: C 10 H 13 ClN 4 O MW: 240.69 g/mol SMILES: C/C(=N\C(=O)N)/N(C)Cc1ccc(nc1)Cl

IM-1-3 IUPAC: N-[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]-Nmethylacetamide

Formula: C 9 H 11 ClN 2 O MW: 198.65 g/mol SMILES: CC(=O)N(C)Cc1ccc(nc1)Cl

IM-1-4 IUPAC: N-methyl(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methylamine MW: 155.5 g/mole SMILES: C1=C(C=CC(=C1)CN(C)[H])Cl

### 117 Code Name/ Synonym/ Chemical Name/ Formula/MW/ SMILES Chemical Structure

IM-1-5 IUPAC: (E)-N1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)-methyl]-N2- cyano-N1-methylacetamidine SMILES: C1=CC(=NC=C1CN(C)C(C)=N)Cl



### N Cl N NH

IC-0
IUPAC: 6-Chloronicotinic acid

Formula: C 6 H 4 ClNO 2 MW: 157.55 g/mol SMILES: c1cc(ncc1C(=O)O)Cl

IM-0 IUPAC: ( 6-Chloro-3-pyridyl)methanol

Formula: C 6 H 6 ClNO MW: 143.57 g/mol SMILES: c1cc(ncc1CO)Cl

IM-2-1
IUPAC: N 1 -[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]-N 2

- cyanoacetamidine

Formula: C 9 H 9 ClN 4 MW: 208.65 g/mol SMILES: C/C(=N\C#N)/NCc1ccc(nc1)Cl

IM-2-3
IUPAC: N-[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]acetamide

Formula: C 8 H 9 ClN 2 O MW: 184.62 g/mol SMILES: CC(=O)NCc1ccc(nc1)Cl

Abbreviations MW =molecular weight; IUPAC: Interna tional Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry name; SMILES: Simplified Molecular-input Line-entry System

### 118 Table A2

. Maximum amount of applied radioactivity present as a specified compound in environmental fate studies submitted on acetamiprid.

Compound Max %AR (Sampling Interval) Final %AR (Sampling Interval) Comment Study Type MRID

Acetamiprid Not Applicable 95 (35 days) pH 4 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 97. (35 days) pH 5 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 93 (35 days) pH 7 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 88 (35 days) pH 9 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 54 (30 days) Water Aqueous Photolysis 44688509 27 (24 days) Loamy sand Soil Photolysis 48563501 1 (187 days) Sandy Loam 01/07 Aerobic Soil 46255603 1 (187 days) Clay loam 01/08 Aerobic Soil 46255603 1 (187 days) Clay loam 01/10 Aerobic Soil 46255603 <1 (112 days) Collumbey soil Aerobic Soil 44699101 <1 (365 days) Loamy sand Aerobic Soil 44651879 nd (7 days) Sandy Loam Aerobic Soil 44651880 46 (182 days) Clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 3 (182 days) Sandy loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 <1 (182 days) Silty clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 4 (178 days) Clay loam, 10 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 2 (125 days) Sandy loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 17 (127 days) Clay loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 5 (300 days) Sandy loam Aerobic Aquatic 44988513 52 (365 days) Loamy sand Anaerobic Aquatic 44988512 IM-1-4 <1 (0 days) <1 (35 days) pH 4 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 <1 (0 days) <1 (35 days) pH 5 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 <1 (35 days) <1 (35 days) pH 7 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 15 (35 days) 15 (35 days) pH 9 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 nd nd Water Aqueous Photolysis 44688509 32 (24 d) 32 (24 d) Loamy sand Soil Photolysis 48563501 21 (7 days) 1 (187 days) Sandy Loam 01/07 Aerobic Soil 46255603 21 (7 days) <1 (187 days) Clay loam 01/08 Aerobic Soil 46255603 18 (7 days) 1 (187 days) Clay loam 01/10 Aerobic Soil 46255603 61 (7 days) 26 (112 days) Collumbey soil Aerobic Soil 44699101 73 (120 days) 61 (365 days) Loamy sand Aerobic Soil 44651879 16 (7 days) 16 (7 days) Sandy Loam Aerobic Soil 44651880 56 (14 days) 37 (182 days) Clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 73 (14 days) 42 (182 days) Sandy loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 67 (3 days) 1 (182 days) Silty clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 73 (30 days) 54 (178 days) Clay loam, 10 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 64 (61 days) 61 (125 days) Sandy loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 49 (93 days) 46 (127 days) Clay loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 64 (60 days) 34 (300 days) Sandy loam Aerobic Aquatic 44988513 27 (270 days) 27 (270 days) Loamy sand Anaerobic Aquatic 44988512 IM-1-5 na na pH 4 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 na na pH 5 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876

### 119 Compound Max %AR (Sampling Interval) Final %AR (Sampling Interval) Comment Study Type MRID

na na pH 7 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 na na pH 9 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 nd nd Water Aqueous Photolysis 44688509

na na 

### Loam y sand Soil Photol y sis 48563501 16 (187 days) 16 (187 days) Sandy Loam 01/07 Aerobic Soil 46255603 12 (187 days) 12 (187 days) Clay loam 01/08 Aerobic Soil 46255603 13 (7 days) 8 (187 days) Clay loam 01/10 Aerobic Soil 46255603 na na Collumbey soil Aerobic Soil 44699101 na na Loamy sand Aerobic Soil 44651879 na na Sandy Loam Aerobic Soil 44651880 na na Clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 nd nd Sandy loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 22 (13 days) 13 (182 days) Silty clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 nd nd Clay loam, 10 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881

na na Sandy loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501

na na Clay loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 na na Sandy loam sediment Aerobic Aquatic 44988513 na na Loamy sand sediment Anaerobic Aquatic 44988512 IC-0 na na pH 4 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 na na pH 5 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 na na pH 7 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 na na pH 9 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 nd nd Water Aqueous Photolysis 44688509 16 (24 days) 16 (24 days) Loamy sand Soil Photolysis 48563501 5.2 (7 days) nd (187 days) Sandy Loam 01/07 Aerobic Soil 46255603 7 (7 days) nd (187 days) Clay loam 01/08 Aerobic Soil 46255603 10 (7 days) nd (187 days) Clay loam 01/10 Aerobic Soil 46255603 11 (4 days) 1 (112 days) Collumbey soil Aerobic Soil 44699101 5 (60 days) 3 (365 days) Loamy sand Aerobic Soil 44651879 11 (2 days) 10 (7 days) Collumbey Sandy Aerobic Soil 44651880 11 (120 days) 4 (182 days) Clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 4 (120 days) 3 (182 days) Sandy loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 12 (7 days) nd (182 days) Silty clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 3 (178 days) 3 (178 days) Clay loam, 10 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 3 (125 days) 3 (125 days) Sandy loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 1 (127 days) 1 (127 days) Clay loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 19 (180 days) nd (300 days) Sandy loam sediment Aerobic Aquatic 44988513 nd nd (187 days) Loamy sand sediment Anaerobic Aquatic 44988512 IM-1-2 na na pH 4 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 na na pH 5 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 na na pH 7 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 na na pH 9 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 nd nd Water Aqueous Photolysis 44688509 0.7 (7 d) nd (24 d) Loamy sand Soil Photolysis 48563501 36 (1 day) nd (187 days) Sandy Loam 01/07 Aerobic Soil 46255603

### 120 Compound Max %AR (Sampling Interval) Final %AR (Sampling Interval) Comment Study Type MRID

29 (3 days) nd (187 days) Clay loam 01/08 Aerobic Soil 46255603 28 (1 days) nd (187 days) Clay loam 01/10 Aerobic Soil 46255603 8 (1 day) nd (112 days) Collumbey soil Aerobic Soil 44699101 nd nd Loamy sand Aerobic Soil 44651879 55 (1 day) nd (7 day) Collumbey Sandy Aerobic Soil 44651880 <LOQ (2 days) nd (182 days) Clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 nd nd Sandy loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 <LOQ (1 day) nd (182 days) Silty clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 <LOQ (2 days) nd (182 days) Clay loam, 10 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 4 (5 days) Nd (125 days) Sandy loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 3 (7 days) Nd (127 days) Clay loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 21 (30 days) 0.74 (300 days) Sandy loam sediment Aerobic Aquatic 44988513 1 (90 days) nd (365 days) Loamy sand sediment Anaerobic Aquatic 44988512 IM-0 na na pH 4 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 na na pH 5 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 na na pH 7 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 na na pH 9 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 nd nd Water Aqueous Photolysis 44688509 nd nd Loamy sand Soil Photolysis 48563501 nd nd Sandy Loam 01/07 Aerobic Soil 46255603 2.21 (7 days) nd (187 days) Clay loam 01/08 Aerobic Soil 46255603 1 (14 days) nd (187 days) Clay loam 01/10 Aerobic Soil 46255603 na na Collumbey soil Aerobic Soil 44699101 na na Loamy sand Aerobic Soil 44651879 na na Collumbey Sandy Aerobic Soil 44651880 na na Clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 na na Sandy loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 na na Silty clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 na na Clay loam, 10 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 2 (1 day) nd (125 days) Sandy loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 nd nd Clay loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 na na Sandy loam sediment Aerobic Aquatic 44988513 na na Loamy sand sediment Anaerobic Aquatic 44988512 IM-1-3 <1 (15 days) <1 (35 days) pH 4 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 <1 (35 days) <1 (35 days) pH 5 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 4 (22 days) 4 (35 days) pH 7 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 61 (35 days) 61 (35 days) pH 9 all temps Hydrolysis 44651876 nd nd Water Aqueous Photolysis 44688509 4 (24 days) 4 (24 days) Loamy sand Soil Photolysis 48563501 nd nd Sandy Loam 01/07 Aerobic Soil 46255603 3 (7 days) nd (187 days) Clay loam 01/08 Aerobic Soil 46255603 2 (7 days) nd (187 days) Clay loam 01/10 Aerobic Soil 46255603 3 (4 days) nd (112 days) Collumbey soil Aerobic Soil 44699101 3 (60 days) <1 (365 days) Loamy sand Aerobic Soil 44651879 nd nd (7 days) Collumbey Sandy Aerobic Soil 44651880

### 121 Compound Max %AR (Sampling Interval) Final %AR (Sampling Interval) Comment Study Type MRID

3 (28 days) <1 (182 days) Clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 <LOQ (14 days) <LOQ (14 days) Sandy loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 2 (7 days) 0.71 (182 days) Silty clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 2 (122 days) 2 (122 days) Clay loam, 10 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 3 (5 days) 3 (125 days) Sandy loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 2 (24-127 days) 2 (127 days) Clay loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 1 (90 days) nd (300 days) Sandy loam sediment Aerobic Aquatic 44988513 8 (180 days) 6 (365 days) Loamy sand sediment Anaerobic Aquatic 44988512 IM-2-1 3 (17 days) 2 (24 days) Loamy sand Soil Photolysis 48563501 nd nd Sandy loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 nd nd Clay loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 IM-2-3 nd nd Loamy sand Soil Photolysis 48563501 2 (5 days) nd (125days) Sandy loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 1 (11 days) nd (127 days) Clay loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 Unidentified Compound 3 (14 days) nd (187 days) Sandy Loam 01/07 Aerobic Soil 46255603 1 (14 days) nd (187 days) Clay loam 01/08 Aerobic Soil 46255603 4 (187 days) 4 (187 days) Clay loam 01/10 Aerobic Soil 46255603 4 (4 days) nd (112 days) Collumbey soil Aerobic Soil 44699101 2 (3 days) nd (365 days) Loamy sand Aerobic Soil 44651879 12 (7 days) 12 (7 days) Collumbey Sandy Aerobic Soil 44651880 3 (56 days) 2 (182 days) Clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 <1 (56 days) <1 (56 days) Sandy loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 <1 (7 days) nd (182 days) Silty clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 <1 (182 days) <1 (182 days) Clay loam, 10 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 Unextracted Residues 26 (118 days) 19 (187 days) Sandy Loam 01/07 Aerobic Soil 46255603 31 (28 days) 20 (187 days) Clay loam 01/08 Aerobic Soil 46255603 29 (14 days) 28 (187 days) Clay loam 01/10 Aerobic Soil 46255603 16 (112 days) 16 (112 days) Collumbey soil Aerobic Soil 44699101 21 (365 days) 21 (365 days) Loamy sand Aerobic Soil 44651879 14 (7 days) 14 (7 days) Collumbey Sandy Aerobic Soil 44651880 40 (182 days) 40 (182 days) Clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 26 (182 days) 26 (182 days) Sandy loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 21 (28 days) 18 (182 days) Silty clay loam, 20 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 25 (178 days) 25 (178 days) Clay loam, 10 o C Aerobic Soil 44651881 31 (91 days) 30 (125 days) Sandy loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 42 (93 days) 36 (127 days) Clay loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 38 (300 days) 38 (300 days) Sandy loam sediment Aerobic Aquatic 44988513 17 (270 days) 17 (365 days) Loamy sand sediment Anaerobic Aquatic 44988512 CO 2 3 (16-24 days) 3 (24 days) Loamy sand Soil Photolysis 48563501 52 (118 days) 50 (187 days) Sandy Loam 01/07 Aerobic Soil 46255603 54 (91 days) 54 (187 days) Clay loam 01/08 Aerobic Soil 46255603 57 (118 days) 51 (187 days) Clay loam 01/10 Aerobic Soil 46255603 <1 (30 days) <1 (30 days) Water Aqueous photolysis 44688509 56 (112 days) 56 (112 days) Collumbey soil Aerobic Soil 44699101 19 (270 days) 12 (365 days) Loamy sand Aerobic Soil 44651879

### 122 Compound Max %AR (Sampling Interval) Final %AR (Sampling Interval) Comment Study Type MRID

44 (7 days) 44 (7 days) Collumbey Sandy Aerobic Soil 44651880 1 (9 days) 0.3 (125 days) Sandy loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 0.6 (3 days) 0.4 (127 days) Clay loam Anaerobic Soil 48554501 5 (300 days 5 (300 days) Sandy loam Aerobic Aquatic 44988513 1 (365 days) 1 (365 days) Loamy sand sediment Anaerobic Aquatic 44988512 na=not analyzed; nd=not detected; AR=applied radioactivity If a study is not listed under a specific analyte, it was not analyzed in the study.123Table A3. Summary of environmental fateand transport properties of IC-0 (6-chloronicotinic acid), a degradate ofacetamipridParameterValue(s)SourceStudyClassificationCommentAerobic SoilMetabolism HalflifeHalf-life, linear regression1:2.5 days (sandy loam soil at 20oC)1.7 days (clay soil at 20oC)6.6 days (loam soil at 20oC)MRID44651882Supplemental British soils and USDA classification could not bedetermined. Unextractedresidues ranged from 3.1-20.7% of applied radioactivity. Half-lives calculatedusing a subset of data for clay and loam soils.Solid-waterdistributioncoefficient (Kd)Average Kdin L/kg at 20oC:0.44, loamy sand, pH 4.40.83, loam sand II, pH 6.20.28, silt loam, pH 6.60.28, clay, pH 7.52.36, sandy loam sediment, pH 5.6MRID44651884AcceptableFreundlich solidwater distributioncoefficient (KF)KFin L/kg (1/n) at 20oC:0.40 (0.91), loamy sand, pH 4.40.79 (1.0), loam sand II, pH 6.20.26 (0.94), silt loam, pH 6.60.19 (0.82), clay, pH 7.51.81 (0.86), sandy loam sediment, pH 5.6MRID44651884Acceptable Freundlich exponents indicate that sorption wasdependent on concentration in some soils.Organic-carbonnormalizeddistributioncoefficient (KOC)Average KOCin L/kg OC at 20oC:177, loamy sand, pH 4.456, loam sand II, pH 6.264, silt loam, pH 6.634, clay, pH 7.594, sandy loam sediment, pH 5.6MRID44651884Acceptable None

### 124 Appendix B. Summary of Available Effects Studies

Aquatic Organisms

Tables B1 to B7 contain all available aquatic toxicity endpoints from registrant-submitted studies. Below is a brief summary of available aquatic toxicity studies.

Fish and Aquatic-Phase Amphibians

Two acute toxicity studies ( Table B1 ) have been submitted examining the effect of acetamiprid on freshwater fish. A 96-hr flow-thr ough study with the bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ; MRID 44651863) was conducted at measured c oncentrations of 0 (control), 11.8, 20.0, 35.4, 65.0 and 119.3 mg ai/L. No mortality was observed in any of the test con centrations with the LC 50 

### >100 mg ai/L. Darkened body pigmentation wa s observed in all fish at all treatments, therefore the NOAEC for the study, based on alterati ons in fish coloration is <11.8 mg ai/L. A 96-hr flow-through study was c onducted with rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ; MRID 44651864) at nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 25, 35, 50, 70 and 100 mg ai/L. Mortality was limited to 20% at the highe st concentration, with the LC 50 

### >100 mg ai/L. However, sublethal effects, including darkened body pigmentation, sw ollen abdomen and loss of equilibrium were reported in 20% of the fish at both the 50 and 70 mg ai/L concentrations and 90% at the 100 mg ai/L concentration. The NOAEC for the study is 35 mg ai/L. Acetamiprid is classified as practically nontoxic to freshwater fish on an acute exposure basis, how ever sublethal effects were noted.

A 96-hr static renewal acute e xposure study of the effects of th e degradate IM-1-4 on rainbow trout is available (MRID 44651865) ( Table B1 ). The fish were exposed at measured concentrations of 4.3, 8.5, 16.9, 33.8, 69.3 and 98.1 mg ai/L. The 98.1 mg ai/L concentration was buffered and conducted separately after mort ality of 100% was observed in the unbuffered 69.3 mg ai/L concentration. The pH of the 69.3 mg ai/L replicates ranged from 9.0 to 9.3, which may account for the mortality. No mortalities we re reported in the ot her concentrations. Sublethal effects, including darkened body pigmentation and surface swimming were observed in all concentrations above 4.3 mg ai/L (the NOAEC for the study). The LC 50 

### is >98.1 mg ai/L; the degradate IM-1-4 is classified as practically nontoxic to fres hwater fish on an acute exposure basis.

### 125 Table B1. Acute toxicity of technical gr ade acetamiprid and de gradate IM-1-4 to freshwater fish.

Species Test substance LC 50 mg ai/L Toxicity Category MRID Study Classification

Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) Technical acetamiprid >100 Practically non-toxic 44651864 Acceptable

Bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ) Technical acetamiprid >100 Practically non-toxic 44651863 Acceptable

Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) 94.5%
IM-1-4 degradate >98.1 Practically non-toxic 44651865 Supplemental



### In a 96-h flow-through acute toxicity study ( Table B2 ), estuarine/marine sheepshead minnows ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) were exposed to measured acetamipri d concentrations of 0 (control), 19, 32, 54, 90 and 150 mg ai/L. Mortality was 10% in the 90 mg ai/L a nd 100% in the 150 mg ai/L test concentrations. Lethargy was observed in all of the surviving fish at the 90 mg ai/L treatment level. No other subletha l effects were reported. The 96-hr LC 50 

### is 100 mg ai/L, which classifies acetamiprid as slightly toxic to es tuarine/marine fish on an acute exposure basis.

Table B2. Acute toxicity of technical grad e acetamiprid to estu arine/marine fish.

Species Test Substance LC 50 mg ai/L Toxicity Category MRID Study Classification Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) Technical acetamiprid 100* Slightly toxic 4 4988411 Acceptable

* Most sensitive endpoint


### A 35-day flow-through fish early life stage toxicity study (M RID 44651872) was submitted to evaluate the effect of chronic exposur e on freshwater fish. Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) were exposed to acetamiprid at meas ured concentrations of 9.9, 19.2, 38.4, 76.0, and 147.5 mg ai/L. Mortalities were reported at 5% 20% and 100% in conc entrations 38.4, 76.0 and 147.5 mg ai/L, respectively. Weights were reduc ed 17% and 62% at concentrations 38.4 and 76.0 mg ai/L. The lowest obser ved adverse effect concentra tion (LOAEC) for the study is 38.4 mg ai/L based on decreased survival a nd growth. The NOAEC is 19.2 mg ai/L ( Table B3 ).

No chronic toxicity data have been submitted for estuarine/marine fish.

Table B3. Early life-stage t oxicity of technical grade acet amiprid to freshwater fish.

Species Test Substance NOAEC LOAEC Endpoints Affected MRID Study Classification
Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas) Technical acetamiprid 19.2 mg ai/L* 38.4 mg ai/L Embryo and larval survival, larval growth (wet-weight and length) 44651872 Supplemental

* Most sensitive endpoint

### 126 Aquatic Invertebrates

An acute toxicity study was submitted to asse ss the effect of acetamiprid on the water flea ( Daphnia magna ; MRID 44651866) at nominal concentrat ions of 0 (control), 12.5, 25, 50, 100 and 200 mg ai/L. Immobile daphnids were observed at 20%, 45%, 85% and 100% at concentrations of 25, 50, 100 and 200 mg ai/L. The LC 50 

### for daphnids is 50 mg ai/L and the NOAEC, based on immobility, is 12.5 mg ai/L ( Table B4 ).

A 96-hr acute toxicity study (MRID 45932501) was submitted for the freshwater amphipod,

Gammarus fasciatus . Test organisms were exposed at m easured concentrations of 0 (control), 9.4, 18, 33, 76 and 140 μg ai/L. Mortality was 5% in the control and 0, 10, 40, 35 and 70%, in the treatment groups respectively. Lethargy was observed at the 33 μg ai/L concentration and higher. The LC 50 

### is 80 μg ai/L and the NOAEC is 18 μg ai/L based on lethargy. The slope of the dose-response curve is 1.89. Based on a 96-hr LC 50 

### value of 80 μg ai/L, acetamiprid is classified as very highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis.

The 48-hour acute toxicity of acet amiprid (technical) to the midge, Chironomus riparius , was studied under static conditions (MRID 45916201). Test organism s were exposed to negative control, solvent (acetone) control and test chemical at a single dosing nomin al concentrations of 6.3, 13, 25, 50, and 100 μg/L (corresponding mean-measured concentrations were 6.0, 14, 26, 46 and 110 μg ai/L) in overlying water. Mortalit y was recorded at 0, 24 and 48 hours. After 48 hours of static exposure to acetamiprid in the presence of sediment, the 48-hr LC 50 

### is 20.9 μg ai/L based on mean-measured concentrations. The NOAEC is 6 μg ai/L, based on mortality.

An aquatic invertebrate study with acetamiprid was identified in the ECOTOX database (Beketov and Liess, 2008). In this study, amphipods ( Gammarus pulex ), black fl y larvae ( Simulium latigonium ), and may fl y larvae ( Baetis rhodani ) were exposed to as single concentration of acetamiprid for 96 hours under static conditions; LC 50 

### values were subsequently determined. The results and scientific soundness of this study will be evaluated prior to endpoint selection for the upcoming acetamiprid registration review risk assessment.

The 48-hr-acute toxicity of the IM-1-4 degradate to Daphnia magna was studied under static renewal conditions at mean measured con centrations of 6.9, 13.9, 28.0, 55.9 and 113.0 mg ai/L. The 48- hour EC 50 

### was 43.9 mg ai/L. The NOAEC based on mortality/immobilization was 6.9 mg ai/L. Based on the results of this study, IM -1-4 is classified as slightly toxic to Daphnia
magna . Two other acute exposure studies evaluating th e toxicity of acetamiprid degradates IC-0 and IM-1-2 to daphnids are available, and resulted in EC 50 

### values that were greater than the highest concentration tested; theref ore, these degradates are classifi ed as practically non-toxic to daphnids on an acute exposure basis.

In a 48-hour static acute toxic ity study, effects of the acetami prid degradate IM-1-5 to the sediment-dwelling freshwater midge, Chironomus riparius , were assessed (MRID 46255610). Test organisms were exposed to mean-measured concentrations (in the overlying water) of 0 (control), 6.0, 14, 26, 46 and 110 μg ai/L. The 48-hr LC 50 

### is 68 mg ai/L based on meanmeasured concentrations. The NOAEC is 49 mg ai/L, based on mortality. The acetamiprid degradate IM-1-5 is classified as slightly toxi c to freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure

### 127 basis.

Table B4. Acute toxicity of acetamiprid and degradates to freshwater invertebrates.

Species Test substance EC 50 /LC 50 mg ai/L Toxicity Category MRID Study Classification

Waterflea (Daphnia magna) Technical acetamiprid 50 Slightly toxic 44651866 Supplemental

Amphipod (Gammarus fasciatus) Technical acetamiprid 0.08 Very highly toxic 45932501 Supplemental

Midge ( Chironomus riparius ) Technical acetamiprid 0.021* Very highly toxic 45916201 Supplemental

Waterflea (Daphnia magna) 99.7% IC-0 degradate >95.1 Practically nontoxic 44988409 Acceptable

Waterflea (Daphnia magna) 99.6%IM-1-2 degradate >99.8 Practically nontoxic 44651867 Acceptable

Waterflea (Daphnia magna) 98.7% IM-1-4 degradate 43.9 Slightly toxi c 44651868 Acceptable

Midge ( Chironomus riparius ) 98.9% IM-1-5 degradate 68 Slightly toxic 46255610 Acceptable

* Most sensitive endpoint


### In a 96-hr acute flow-through t oxicity study, mysid shrimp ( Americamysis bahia ) were exposed to mean measured concentrations of 0 (control), 13, 23, 36, 64 and 110 μ g ai/L. Mortality was 5%, 10% and 35% and 90% in the 23, 36, 64 and 110 μ g ai/L treatment levels respectively. Lethargy was reported in a ll of the surviving mysids exposed to the 64 and 110 μ g ai/L treatment levels. The LC 50 

### is 66 μ g ai/L and the NOAEC is 13 μ g ai/L based on lethargy; acetamiprid is classified as very highly toxic to my sid shrimp on an acute exposure basis ( Table B5 ).

In a 96-hr-acute flow-through t oxicity study, Eastern oysters ( Crassostrea virginica ) were exposed to mean measured concentrations of 0 (control), 14, 24, 38, 58 and 100 mg a.i/L. No mortality was observed. Shell growth among oyste rs exposed to the 24, 38, 58 and 100 mg ai/L test concentrations was 2.1, 1.7, 0.80 and 0.41 mm respectively, which was significantly reduced compared to control growth (2.9 mm). The 96-hr EC 50 

### for shell growth inhibition is 41 mg a.i/L; therefore, acetamiprid is classifi ed as slightly toxic to eastern oysters on an acute exposure basis.

In a 96-hr static acute toxicity study w ith the degradate IM-1-4, mysid shrimp ( A. bahia ) were exposed to mean measured concentrations of 0 (control), 3.2, 6.7, 14, 27, 55 and 110 mg a.i/L. Mortality was 5%, 35%, 65%, 95% and 100% in the 6.7, 14, 27, 55 and 110 mg a.i/L treatment levels, respectively. Lethargy was reported in all of the surviving mysids exposed to the 27 and 55 mg ai/L treatment levels. The LC 50 

### is 19 mg a.i/L and the NOAEC is 3.2 mg a.i/L; IM-1-4 is classified as slightly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebra tes on an acute exposure basis.

### 128 Table B5. Acute toxicity of acetamiprid and de gradates to estuarine/marine invertebrates.

Species Test substance LC 50 mg ai/L Toxicity Category MRID Study Classification Eastern oyster shell deposition

(Crassostrea

virginica) Flow-through Technical acetamiprid 41 Slightly toxic 44988410 Acceptable

Mysid (Americamysis bahia) Technical acetamiprid 0.066* Very highly toxic 44651869 Acceptable

Mysid (Americamysis bahia) 99.6% IM-1-4 19 Slightly toxic 44651870 Acceptable

* Most sensitive endpoint



### A 21-day chronic toxicity study wa s conducted with daphnids at con centrations of 0 (control), 2, 5, 9, 18, 37 and 74 mg ai/L (MRID 44651871). Survival was reduced to 57% at the highest test concentration. Significant re duction in length (8%), weight (24%) and mean number of offspring (50%) were observed at 9 mg ai/L, the LOAEC. The NOAEC is 5 mg ai/L based on reduced growth and reproduction ( Table B6 ).

A 21-day chronic toxicity study of degradate IM-1-5 was conducted with daphnids at nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 6.3, 13, 25, 50 and 100 mg ai/L (MRID 44651871). Significant reduction in mean number of o ffspring (30%) was observed at 50 mg ai/L, the LOAEC. The NOAEC is 25 mg ai/L based on impaired reproduction.

A 28-day flow-through chronic t oxicity study was conducted with mysid shrimp exposed at mean measured concentrations of 0 (control), 0.93, 1.4, 2.5, 4.7, 10 and 20 μ g ai/L. Survival rates of 85%, 80%, 92%, 93%, 93% and 63% was observed in the 0.93, 1.4, 2.5, 4.7, 10 and 20
μ g ai/L treatment levels respectively. Only the 20 μ g ai/L was statistically significant different from the control in terms of reduced survival, and further analyses were not conducted on this concentration. Reduction in male dry body wei ght was the most sensitive endpoint; the NOAEC is 2.5 μ g ai/L and the LOAEC is 4.7 μ g ai/L.

Table B6. Chronic toxicity of acetamipri d and degradates to aquatic invertebrates.

Species Test Substance NOAEC LOAEC Endpoints Affected MRID Study Classification
Waterflea (Daphnia magna) Technical acetamiprid 5.0 mg ai/L 9.0 mg ai/L Reduced offspring production 44651871 Acceptable

Waterflea (Daphnia magna) 98.9% IM-1-5 degradate 25 mg ai/L 51 mg ai/L Number of
young per

female 46255609 Supplemental

Mysid (Americamysis bahia) Technical acetamiprid 0.0025 mg ai/L* 0.0047 mg ai/L Reduced body weight in males 44651873 Acceptable

* Most sensitive endpoint

### 129 Aquatic Plants

Tier 1 toxicity testing with aquatic nonvascular plants indicates that ace tamiprid had no effect on the growth of green algae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata , cyanobacteria Anabaena flos-aquae, freshwater diatoms Navicula pelliculosa or marine diatoms Skeletonema costatum at the highest concentrations tested (ra nge: 1.0 to 1.3 mg ai/L) ( Table B7 ). Tier 1 toxicity testing with aquatic vascular plants indicates that acetamipri d had no effect on the growth of duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) at the highest concentration tested, i.e ., 1.0 mg ai/L.

Table B7. Toxicity of acetam iprid to aquatic plant species.

Species Test substance NOAEC (mg ai/L) EC 50 (mg ai/L) MRID Study Classification

Aquatic Vascular Plants

Duckweed ( Lemna gibba) Technical acetamiprid 1.0 >1.0 4498 8415 Acceptable

Aquatic Non-vascular Plants Green algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) Technical acetamiprid 1.3 >1.3 4498 8414 Acceptable

Marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum) Technical acetamiprid 1.0 >1.0 4498 8418 Acceptable

Freshwater diatom (Navicula pelliculosa) Technical acetamiprid 1.1 >1.1 4498 8417 Acceptable

Cyanobacteria ( Anabaena flos-aquae ) Technical acetamiprid 1.3 >1.3 4498 8416 Acceptable



### Terrestrial Organisms

Tables B8 to B15 contains all available te rrestrial toxicity endpoint s from registrant-submitted studies. Below is a brief summary of av ailable terrestrial toxicity studies.

Birds

The acute oral toxicity of acetamipri d to 4-to-8-month-old zebra finches ( Taeniopygia guttata aka poephila guttata ) was assessed over 14 days. Acetamip rid was administered to birds at nominal doses of 1.8, 2.5, 3.6, 5, 7, and 10 mg ai/kg bw. The 14-day acute oral LD 50 

### is 5.68 mg ai/kg bw ( Table B8 ). At least one clinical sign of toxicity or observa tion of abnormal behavior was recorded in all treatment groups, but not in the control group. Symptoms ranged from transient ruffled appearance in the lowest dos e group (1.8 mg ai/kg bw) to lethargy, wing droop, prostrate posture, loss of coor dination, loss of righting reflex, depressed behavior, and minor muscle fasciculation in higher dose groups. Acetam iprid is therefore classified as very highly toxic to zebra finches on an acute oral exposure basis.

The acute oral toxicity of acetamiprid to mallard ducks ( Anas platyrhynchos ) was assessed over 14 days at measured doses of 0 (control), 43, 64, 85, 124, and 181 mg ai/kg-bw. Mortality was 0% in the control and 43 mg ai/kg-bw dos es, and 40%, 40% 80% and 100% in the 64, 85, 124

### 130 and 181 mg ai/kg-bw doses. Sublethal effect s, including abnormal behavior and loss of coordination, were reported at all doses. The 14-day LD 50 

### is 84.4 mg ai/kg-bw; the NOAEL is <43 mg ai/kg-bw based on impaired behavior. Acet amiprid is classified as moderately toxic to mallard ducks on an acute oral exposure basis ( Table B8 ).

Table B8. Acute oral toxicity of technical grade acetamiprid to birds.

Species Test Substance LD 50 (mg ai/kg-bw) Toxicity Category MRID Study Classification
Zebra finch ( Taeniopygia guttata ) Technical acetamiprid 5.68* Very highly toxic 48407701 Acceptable

Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) Technical acetamiprid 84.4 Moderately toxic 44651859 Acceptable

* Most sensitive endpoint



### The subacute dietary toxicity of acetamiprid to ma llard duck was assessed at concentrations of 0 (control), 200, 1000 and 5000 mg a.i/kg-diet. Mort ality was 10% at the 1000 mg ai/kg-diet concentration and 40% at the 5000 mg ai/kg-diet concentration. Subl ethal effects including imbalance and reduced food consumption were repor ted at in all surviving birds at the 1000 and 5000 mg ai/kg-diet concentrati ons. The subacute dietary LC 50 

### is >5000 mg ai/kg-diet. The NOAEC is 200 mg ai/kg-diet based on reduced su rvival, behavioral effects and reduced food consumption. Acetamiprid is classified as slight ly toxic to birds on a subacute dietary exposure basis ( Table B9 ).

The subacute dietary toxicity of acetamiprid to 10-day old bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) was assessed at concentrations of 0 (control), 1000 and 5000 mg a i/kg-diet. Mortality was 20% at the 5000 mg ai/kg-diet concentration, the only mortalities in the study. Food consumption was markedly depressed in the 5000 mg ai/kg-diet treatment group, the onl y sublethal effect reported. The LC 50 

### is >5000 mg ai/kg-diet and the NOAEC is 1000 mg ai/kg-diet based on reduced survival and decreased food consumption. Acetamip rid is classified as practically nontoxic to bobwhite quail on a subacu te dietary basis.

The subacute dietary toxicity of the acetamipri d degradate IM-1-4 to mallard duck was assessed at test concentrations of0 (control), 5, 50, 500, 2500 and 5000 mg ai/kg-diet. No mortalities or sublethal effects were reporte d. The subacute dietary LC 50 

### is >5000 mg ai/kg-diet. The NOAEC is 5000 mg ai/kg-diet. IM-1-4 is classified as practically nontoxic to bi rds on a subacute dietary exposure basis.

### 131 Table B9. Subacute dietary toxi city of acetamiprid to birds.

Species Test substance LC 50 (mg ai/kg-diet) Toxicity Category MRID Study Classification

Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) Technical acetamiprid >5000 Practically non-toxic 44651861 Supplemental

Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) Technical acetamiprid >5000 Practically non-toxic 44651860 Supplemental

Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) IM-1-4 degradate >5000 Practically non-toxic 44651862 Acceptable



### Chronic toxicity to birds was uncertain in past risk assessments because of deficiencies in the avian reproduction studies with both the ma llard (MRID 44988408) and the northern bobwhite quail (MRID 44988407). The initial mallard duck reproduction study provided an estimated NOAEC of 125 mg ai/kg diet base d on reductions in adult female body weight. The previous bobwhite quail reproduction study sh owed significant reductions in hatchling body weights at all treatment concentrations and thus failed to establish a NOAEC; the LOAEC was 250 mg ai/kgdiet. Subsequent stud ies were submitted ( Table B10 ).

In a one-generation repr oductive toxicity study (MRID 46369204), acetamiprid was administered to mallard ducks at measured concentrations of 0 (control), 60.2, 134, 258, and 461 mg ai/kg-diet. Both male and female body weight gains were statistically-reduced compared to the controls; the male body weights were affected at all treatment leve ls (70% at lowest treatment), while female body weight gains we re reduced at the 258 and 461 mg ai/kg-diet treatment levels (roughly 50%). No other eff ect on any adult parameter was observed. The number of eggs laid was statistically-reduced at the 461 mg ai/kg-diet level compared to the control (673 versus 896 eggs for 17 laying pairs) . In addition, the number of eggs set, the number of viable embryos, and hatchling weight s were statistically-reducedat the 461 mg ai/kgdiet level. No other effect on any reproductive endpoi nt was observed. Base d on as statistically significant 3% decrease in male bodyweight gain in the lowest treatment group, a NOAEC was not established for the study, i.e., NOAEC<60.2 mg ai/kg diet; the LOAEC is 60.2 mg ai/kg-diet. The NOAEC for reproductive effect s is 258 mg ai/kg-diet.

In a one-generation repr oductive toxicity study (MRID 46555601), acetamiprid was administered to bobwhite quail at measured concentrations of 0 (control), 89.7, 184, 385 and 775 mg ai/kg-diet. No treatment-related eff ects were observed on adult survival or food consumption, or upon terminal necropsy of all decedent and surviving birds. There was a significant reduction (18%) in adu lt female body weight change at the highest treatment level. There were significant reductions in eggs set, viable embryos, viab le embryos to eggs set, live embryos, number hatched, number of hatchlings to eggs laid, hatchling survival, hatchling survival to eggs set and hatchling survival to number hatched. The NOAEC and LOAEC for the study are 89.7 and 184 mg ai/kg-diet, respectively

### 132 Table B10. Reproductive chronic toxicity of technical grade acetamiprid to birds.

Species Test Substance NOAEC (mg ai/kg diet) LOAEC (mg ai/kg-diet) MRID Study Classification

Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) Technical acetamiprid <60.2* 60.2 46369201 Supplemental

Northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) Technical acetamiprid 89.7 184 4655 5601 Acceptable

* Most sensitive endpoint



### Mammals

The available data indicate that acetamiprid is moderately toxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis (LD 50 

### =146 mg ai/kg-bw). The original S ection 3 risk assessment reported an LD 50 

### =167 mg ai/kg. Acute oral toxicity tests we re also conducted on several metabolites and degradation products of acetamiprid. Results of these tests show that these compounds are considerably less toxic than th e parent compound, and are classi fied as slightly toxic or practically nontoxic to mammals ( Table B11 ).

Table B11. Acute toxicity of acet amiprid and degradates to mammals.

Species Test substance LD 50 (mg ai/kg-bw) Toxicity Category MRID Classification

Laboratory rat
Rattus rattus Technical acetamiprid 146 Moderately toxic 44651833 Acceptable

Laboratory rat
Rattus rattus IM-1-4 (99.6%) degradate 1088 Slightly toxic 44651834 Acceptable

Laboratory rat
Rattus rattus IM-1-2 (99.9%) degradate 2176 Practically nontoxic 44988422 Acceptable

Laboratory rat
Rattus rattus IM-1-2 (99.6%) degradate >5000 Practically nontoxic 44651835 Acceptable

Laboratory rat
Rattus rattus IM-0 degradate 1792 Practically nontoxic 44988421 Acceptable

Laboratory rat
Rattus rattus IC-0 degradate >5000 Practically nontoxic 44988420 Acceptable



### Consistent results were reported for two chr onic studies and a 13-week subchronic study of acetamiprid in rats ( Table B12 ). Reduction in growth, as measur ed by body weight, weight gain, and food consumption, were observed at test concentrations of 400-800 mg ai/kg-diet and greater, whereas test concentra tions of 160-280 mg ai/kg-diet cau sed no significant effects. In

### 133 addition to growth endpoints, repr oductive effects were also observ ed at 280 mg ai/kg-diet in a two-generation study (MRID 44988430). The NOAEC (160 mg /kg diet) that will be used for risk assessment will be based on the growth endpoints from the 2-year chronic feeding study (MRID 44988429).

Table B12. Chronic toxicity of acetamiprid to mammals. Species (Test Type) Test Substance Measured Effect NOAEC (mg ai/kg diet) LOAEC (mg ai/kg-diet) MRID

Laboratory Rat

(Subchronic Dietary: 13

weeks) Technical acetamiprid Body weight, weight gain, and food consumption 200 800 44651843

Laboratory Rat (Chronic feeding: 24 months) Technical acetamiprid Female body weight, female weight gain 160 400 44988429; 45245304

Laboratory Rat (Two-generation

reproduction) Technical acetamiprid Parental Toxicity : Body weight, weight gain, food consumption 280 800

44988430 Offspring Toxicity : Pup weight, litter size, viability and weaning indices, age to

maturation 280 800

Reproductive Toxicity : Litter size, pup weights 280 800



### Terrestrial Invertebrates

Supplemental acute oral and contact honeybee ( Apis mellifera ) toxicity tests are available ( Table B13 ). Honeybees were exposed to acetamiprid in an oral study as follows: 0 (control), 1.38, 2.6, 4.9, 10.21, 20.0 and 39.17 μg ai/bee. Mortality at 48-hrs averaged 6.7, 26.7, 36.7, 40, 26.7 and 30.0%, respectively. The study was carried out to 72-hrs, when the mortality averaged 10, 30, 36.7, 46.7, 50.0 and 30.0%, respectively. Both the 48 and 72-hr mortality in the dimethoate toxic reference averaged 50%. Dimethoate is co mmonly used as a positive control in honeybee studies to ensure the population of bees in the study demonstrates expected susceptibility to a known toxicant. Since none of the concentratio ns had greater than 50% mortality, it is not possible to calculate an LD 50 

### value for acetamiprid; however, roughly 50% mortality was observed in the 20 μg ai/bee treatment. The NOAEC is 1.38 μg ai/bee based on decreased survival. With an LD 50 

### of greater than 10.21 μg ai/bee, acetamip rid is classified as practically non-toxic to honeybees on an acute exposure basis.

In the acute contact toxicity test, the per cent mortality was 40, 66.7, 46.7, 63.3, and 60% for the 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 μg ai/bee test groups, respectively. The LC 50 

### for the contact study was reported as 8.1 μg/bee. However, there is uncertainty in this LC 50 

### value since no clear doseresponse relationship was apparent. Since perc ent mortality was 66.7% at 12.5 μg ai/bee, the median mortality concentration is co nsidered to be below this value ( i.e. , <12.5) suggesting that

### 134 acetamiprid should be considered moderately toxic to honeybees on an acute contact exposure basis.

In addition to honeybees, the effect of acetamiprid on bumble bees, Bombus terrestris, was investigated. Bumble bees were exposed to ac etamiprid for 48 hours in both an acute oral and acute contact toxicity test. Measured concentrati ons in the oral toxicity test were 0 (control), 3.36, 6 76, 10.37, 21.36, and 31.78 μg ai/bee. By 48 hours in the oral test, there was 0.0, 18.2, 1.0, 37.5, and 100.0% mortality in the 3.36, 6.76, 10.37, 21.36, and 31.78 μg ai/bee concentrations and 8.3% in the control. The calculated LD 50 

### is 22.32 μg ai/bee and the NOAEC is 10.37 μg ai/bee, despite the mortality noted in the 6.76 μg ai/bee test concentration. The contact nominal concentration wa s 100 μg ai/bee and a negative control. At 48-hrs there was 3.3% mortality in both groups. The contact LD 50 

### is >100 μg ai/bee and the NOAEC is 100 μg ai/bee. Based on these results, acetamiprid is cla ssified as practically no ntoxic to bumble bees on both an acute oral and contact exposure basis.

Table B13. Acute toxicity of technical gr ade acetamiprid to non-target terrestrial invertebrates.

Species Test substance LD 50 (μg ai/bee) Toxicity Category MRID Study Classification

Honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) Technical acetamiprid >10.21 (oral) Slightly-toxic 44651874 Supplemental

Technical acetamiprid <12.5 (contact) Moderately toxic 44651874 Supplemental

Bumble bee

( Bombus terrestris ) Technical acetamiprid 22.32 (oral) Practically nontoxic 45932503 Supplemental

Technical acetamiprid >100 (contact) Practically nontoxic 45932503 Supplemental



### A toxicity of residues on foliage study fo r honeybees was submitted (MRID 44651875) but was deemed unacceptable due to low recovery of ace tamiprid on treated foliage. A second residues on foliage toxicity study was submitted, but ha s not yet been reviewed by EFED (MRID 45346901). Two semi-field studies conducted to eval uate the possible effect of acetamiprid on honeybee behavior were also submitted (M RIDs 45932504; 45932505), and we re classified as supplemental 26 

### . Both studies used tents to expose hone ybees via contact with forage and/or overspray, and applications rates were equivalent to 0.15 and 0.09 lbs ai/A, which is in line with single application rates for many re gistered and proposed crop uses . Mortality, flight frequency, and foraging behavior were evaluated relative to a control and a known toxic standard. No significant effects on any endpoints were observed in either study from acetamiprid treatments.

In the ECOTOX database, Iwasa et al. , 2004, report an LD 50 

### of 7.07 μg ai/bee in a 24 hr contact study. This endpoint was based on nominal concentrations, but indicates that acetamiprid is moderately toxic to honeybees. A seve n day study with sp eckled cutworm moth larvae ( Lacanobia subjuncta ) in a leaf litter substrate, Doerr et al ., 2004, reported an LC 50 

### of 71.3 mg/L. These values are provided for qualitative risk characterizat ion. DERs have not yet been generated, but the papers have been submitted for evaluation, and will be re viewed as needed for

26 Note: non-guideline studies cannot be rated “accep table” since there are no guideline standards

### 135 the upcoming registration review risk assessment.

Several open literature studies of acetamiprid effects on honeybees are av ailable for acetamiprid. These studies will be thoroughly reviewed as pa rt of the upcoming registration review risk assessment, but are briefly su mmarized here. El Hassani et al. (2008) exposed bees to 0.1, 0.5, and 1 μg of active ingredient, and recorded increases in sucr ose responsiveness, locomotor activity (total length walked), and responsiveness to water (p roboscis extension reflex after stimulation by water), which are all considered ac tivating effects since they signify increases in specific functions. Conversely, th e lowest dose of acetamiprid ( i.e. , 0.1 μg/bee) also impaired olfactory-related learning performa nce. A follow-up study by Aliouane et al . (2009) supported the previous water responsiveness finding. Laurino et al. (2011) found increased mortality in bees that ingested 50 and 100 ppm (ng/μl) of a formulation containing acetamiprid (5% ai). Mortality attributed to acetamiprid in the hi gher dose group was 50.85% compared to the control group, but these effects were only seen in bees th at were starved for two hours before dosing. In the same study, bees fed sugar did not show any significant mortality from oral or indirect contact exposure to acetamiprid over a 72-hour observation period. In the above studies, acetamiprid generally exhibited lower toxicity to bees than a small sample of other neonicotinoids insecticides ( e.g ., clothianidin). This supports a previous open literature laboratory study suggesting that nitro guanidine substituted neonicotinoids ( e.g. , clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and dinotefuran) are mo re toxic to bees than their cyano-substituted neonicotinoids ( e.g. , acetamiprid, thiacloprid) (Iwasa et al. , 2004). However, El Hassani et al. (2008) did show that acetamiprid, but not th iamethoxam, had a detectable impact on bee behavior at sublethal doses.

Effects of the acetamiprid degrad ate IM-1-5 on adult collembola, Folsomia candida , were examined at concentrations of 0 (control), 0.1, 0.5. 2.5, 12.5 and 62.5 mg/kg artificial soil over a 28- day exposure period (MRID 46255612). Re production was the measured endpoint. Reproduction was reduced by 15, 14, 8, 6 and 24% in the 0.1, 0.5, 2.5, 12.5 and 62.5 mg/kg treatments, respectively; reductions at the 2.5 and 12.5 mg/kg treatment levels were not statistically significant. The EC 50 

### for the study is >62.2 mg/kg-soil and the NOAEC is <0.1 mg/kg-soil.

Rove beetles, Aleochara bilineata , were exposed to the degradate IM-1-5 at concentrations of 0 (control), 0.1, 2.5 and 62.5 mg/kg sand substrat e over an 87-day period (MRID 46255611). Fly pupae ( Delia antique ) were introduced on days 7, 14 and 21(as food) to evaluate beetle reproduction. Adult beetles were removed on day 28, and fly pupae were removed on day 35. Beetle emergence was observed from day 39 to 87. Number of emerged beetles was the measurement endpoint. There was a 19% reduction in emerge nce at the highest test concentration. The EC 50 

### for the study is >62.5 mg/kg subs trate and the NOAEC is 2.5 mg/kg substrate.

In a 14-day acute toxicity study, earthworms ( Eisenia foetida ) were exposed to acetamiprid at 0 (control), 4, 8, 15, 30 or 60 mg ai/kg dry wei ght of artificial substrate (MRID 44988412). The reference chemical used was chloroacetamide at 37 mg ai/kg of the substrate. The 14-day LC 50 

### was 9.12 mg ai/kg-substrate. The 7-day LC 50 

### was 10 mg ai/kg substrate. The NOEC and LOEC values were not determined. Acetamiprid is c onsidered to be toxic to earthworms up to/and above a concentration of 4 mg ai/kg substrate.

### 136 Earthworms ( Eisenia foetida ) were exposed to IM-1-5 at no minal test concentrations of 0 (control), 4, 8, 15, 30, and 1000 mg/kg (MRID46255613). By 14 days, there were no mortalities. Reductions in body weight by day 14 were 2.9% in the 1000 mg/kg treatment group. No body weight reductions were observe d in the control or the 4, 8, 15, and 30 mg/kg treatment groups. The LC 50 

### was >1000 ppm; a NOEC value was estimated at 1000 mg/kg.

Earthworms ( Eisenia foetida ) were exposed to the IM-1-5 de gradate over an 8-week period at nominal test concentrations of 0 (control) , 0.1, 0.5, 2.5, 12.5, and 62.5 mg/kg in artificial soil (MRID 46255614). By 28 days, there were no mortal ities in the control or treatment groups. There were no significant differe nces in adult body weight changes or number of juveniles produced in any treatment group co mpared to the control. The LC 50 

### was >62.5 mg/kg and the NOEC value was 62.5 mg/kg.

Terrestrial Plants

The effect of acetamiprid on the seedling emerge nce and vegetative vigor of monocot: corn ( Zea
mays ), oat ( Avena sativa ), onion ( Allium cepa ), perennial ryegrass ( Lolium perenne ), and dicot: cabbage ( Brassica oleracea ), cucumber ( Cucumis sativus ), lettuce ( Lactuca sativa ), soybean ( Glycine max ), tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum ), and turnip ( Brassica rapa ) crops was studied at nominal concentrations (MRID 44988413). For the seedling emergence study, nominal concentrations were as follows: cabbage, cucumber, onion and tomato: 0.041, 0.081, 0.16, 0.33 and 0.65 lbs ai/A; corn, lettuce, oat, perennial ry egrass, soybean and turnip: 0.65 lbs ai/A. For the vegetative vigor study, nominal concentration were as follows: cabbage, oat, onion, soybean and tomato: 0.65 lbs ai/A; corn and cucumber : 0.041, 0081, 0.16, 0.33 and 0.65 lbs ai/A; lettuce: 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.041, 0.081 and 0.16 lbs ai/A; pere nnial ryegrass: 0.041, 0.081, 0.16, 0.33 and 0.65 lbs ai/A; and turnip: 0.02, 0.041, 0.081, 0.16, 0.33 and 0.65 lbs ai/A.

The seedling emergence part of this study was cl assified as supplemental because the weight of the seedlings was not measured. Measurement of both plant weight and plant height are required, but only plant height wa s measured in this study. The percent seedling emergence was not affected in all spec ies tested after exposure to acetamipri d. There was, however, reduction in shoot length of cucumber, onion, and tomato exposed to acetamiprid at 0.15, 0.32 and 0.62 lbs ai/A. The most sensitive monocot species was onion with an EC 25 

### of 0.23 lbs ai/A. The most sensitive dicot species was cucumber, with an EC 25 

### of 0.16 lbs ai/A ( Table B14 ). The NOEC based on the seedling emergence (shoot length) in cucumber (dicot) and onion (monocot) was 0.077 lbs ai/A.

The vegetative vigor part of this study was accep table for all species except lettuce. The test with lettuce was classified as supplemental becau se significant adverse phytotoxic effects were observed in the control plants. In the vegetative vi gor test, the shoot length in all species was not affected by acetamiprid treatment. Plant weight was also not affected in cabbage, corn, cucumber, oat, onion, soybean and tomato exposed to the compound. There was, however, a reduction in the plant weight of lettuce, perennial ryegrass, and turnip exposed to various concentrations of acetamiprid. The most sensitive monocot species in the vegetative vigor test was perennial ryegrass, with an EC 25 

### of 0.46 lbs ai/A and a NOAEC of 0.31 lbs ai/A. The most sensitive dicot species was lettuce, with a EC 25 

### of 0.016 lbs ai/A and a NOEC of 0.0094 lbs ai/A.

### 137 A subsequent study was submitted concerning the effect of acetamiprid on vegetative vigor on lettuce alone (MRID 45921401). In this study, the EC 25 

### and NOAEC for plant weight were 0.012 and <0.0025 lbs ai/A, respectively. Shoot lengt h was the more sensitive parameter with an EC 25 

### of 0.0056 and a NOAEC of 0.0025 lbs ai/A. Two other studies more closely examined the phytotoxic effects of acetamiprid on lettu ce. Both studies (MRID 46229601 and 46229602) reported that the variety of lettuce used in the first two studies, butte rcrunch, accounted for the greater sensitivity of lettuce relative to othe r species tested, and ot her varieties of lettuce exhibited reduced sensitivities.

Table B14. Summary of endpoints (lbs ai/A) in terrestrial plant toxici ty studies submitted for acetamiprid.

Species Seedling emergence Vegetative vigor

NOAEC EC 25 NOAEC EC 25

Monocots Oat 0.62 >0.62 0.67 >0.67

Corn 0.62 >0.62 0.59 >0.59

Onion 0.077* 0.23* 0.65 >0.65

Ryegrass 0.62 >0.62 0.31* 0.46*

Dicots Cucumber 0.077* 0.16* 0.59 >0.59

Soybean 0.62 >0.62 0.65 >0.65

Turnip 0.62 >0.62 0.031 † 0.2

Lettuce 0.62 >0.62 0.0025* 0.0056*

Tomato 0.077 0.16 0.65 >0.65

Cabbage 0.62 >0.62 0.67 >0.67
* Most sensitive endpoint † EC 05 is used when calculated EC 25 is less than derived NOAEC.

### 138 Appendix C. Example ECOSAR Output

Output for IM-1-5 SMILES : c1cc(ncc1CN(C)C(C)=N)CL CHEM : CAS Num: ChemID1: ChemID2: ChemID3: MOL FOR: C9 H12 CL1 N3 MOL WT : 197.67 Log Kow: -0.68 (KowWin estimate) Melt Pt: Wat Sol: 1.7E+005 mg/L (WskowWin estimate)

ECOSAR v1.00 Class(es) Found

------------------ ------------ Halopyrdines Predicted ECOSAR Class Organism Duration End Pt mg/L (ppm)

========================= == ================== ======== ======

========== Halopyrdines : Fish 96-hr LC50 0.184 Halopyrdines : Daphnid 48-hr LC50 1.369 Halopyrdines : Fish 32-day ChV 27.067 Halopyrdines : Daphnid ChV 0.752 !

========================= == ================== ======== ======

========== Neutral Organic SAR : Fish 96-hr LC50 28010.680 (Baseline Toxicity) : Daphnid 48-hr LC50 11695.474 : Green Algae 96-hr EC50 1681.517 : Fish ChV 2821.084 : Daphnid ChV 672.943 : Green Algae ChV 373.311

Note: * = asterisk designates: Chemical may not be soluble enough to measure this predicted effect.

Note: ! = exclamation designates: Th e toxicity value was determined from a predicted SAR using establis hed acute-to-chronic ratios and ECOSAR regression techniques which ar e documented in the supporting Technical Reference Manual. When possi ble, this toxicity value should be considered in a weight of evidence approach.

Halopyrdines :

### 139 ------------- For Fish and Daphnid Acute Toxicity Values: If the log Kow of the chemical is greater than 5.0, or if the com pound is solid and the LC50 exceeds the water solubility by 10X, no effects at saturation are predicted for these endpoints.

For Green Algae Acute Toxicity Values : If the log Kow of the chemical is greater than 6.4, or if the compound is solid and the EC50 exceeds the water solubility by 10X, no effects at satura tion are predicted for these endpoints.

For All Chronic Toxicity Values: If the log Kow of the chemical is greater than 8.0, or if the compound is solid a nd the ChV exceeds the water solubility by 10X, no effects at saturation ar e predicted for these endpoints.

ECOSAR v1.00 SAR Limitations:

--------------- ------------- Maximum LogKow: 5.0 (LC50) Maximum LogKow: 6.4 (EC50) Maximum LogKow: 8.0 (ChV) Maximum Mol Wt: 1000

Baseline Toxicity SAR Limitations:

------------------ --------------- Maximum LogKow: 5.0 (Fish 96-hr LC50; Daphnid LC50) Maximum LogKow: 6.4 (Green Algae EC50) Maximum LogKow: 8.0 (ChV) Maximum Mol Wt: 1000

### 140 Appendix D. Reference List for OPPTS 835 Guidelines

The Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and T oxic Substances (OPPTS) became the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (O CSPP) in 2011. The guide lines have not been updated since the name change a nd the titles sti ll use OPPTS.

OPPTS Guideline Citation Hydrolysis 835.2120 (161-1) USEPA. 2008. Fate, Transport, and Transformation Guidelines. OPPTS 835.2120 Hydrolysis . E. 712-C-08-012. October 2008. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs /publications/Test_Guidelines/s eries835.htm (Accessed May 5, 2012). Aqueous Photolysis 835.2240 (161-2) USEPA. 2008. Fate, Transport, and Transformation Guidelines. OPPTS 835.2240 Photodegradation in Water . E. 712-C-08-013. October 2008. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. United States Envir onmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs /publications/Test_Guidelines/s eries835.htm (Accessed May 5, 2012). Soil Photolysis 835.2410 (161-3) USEPA. 2008. Fate, Transport, and Transformation Guidelines. OPPTS 835.2410 Photodegradation in Soil . E. 712-C-08-015. October 2008. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. United States Envir onmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs /publications/Test_Guidelines/s eries835.htm (Accessed May 5, 2012).
Aerobic Soil Metabolism 835.4100 (162-1) USEPA. 2008. Fate, Transport, and Transformation Guidelines. OPPTS 835.4100 Aerobic Soil Metabolism; OPPTS 835.4200 Anaerobic Soil Metabolism . EPA712-C-08-016 & E. 712-C-08-017. October 2008. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, an d Toxic Substances. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs /publications/Test_Guidelines/s eries835.htm (Accessed May 17, 2012). Anaerobic Soil Metabolism 835.4200 (162-2) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 835.4300 (162-4) USEPA. 2008. Fate, Transport, and Transformation Gu idelines. OPPTS 835.4300 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism; OPPTS 835.4400 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism . EPA 712-C-08-018 & E. 712-C-08- 019. October 2008. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs /publications/Test_Guidelines/s eries835.htm (Accessed May 17, 2012). Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism 835.4400 (162-3) Sorption coefficients 835.1230 (163-1) USEPA. 2008. Fate, Transport, and Transformation Guidelines. OPPTS 835.1230 Adsorption/Desorption (Batch Equilibrium) . E. 712-C-08-009. October 2008. Office or Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs /publications/Test_Guidelines/s eries835.htm (Accessed May 5, 2012). Leaching and Aged Column Leaching 835.1240 USEPA. 2008. Fate, Transport, and Transformation Guidelines. OPPTS 835.1240 Leaching Studies

. E. 712-C-08-010. October 2008. Office of Preven tion, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. United States Environmental Protec tion Agency. Available at http://www.regulations.gov/#! documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2 009-0152-0007 (Accessed May 5, 2012).

### 141 OPPTS Guideline Citation
Terrestrial Field Dissipation 835.6100 USEPA. 2008. Fate, Transport, and Transformation Guidelines. OPPTS 835.1230 Adsorption/Desorption (Batch Equilibrium) . E. 712-C-08-009. October 2008. Office or Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs /publications/Test_Guidelines/s eries835.htm (Accessed May 5, 2012). Aquatic Field Dissipation 835.6200 USEPA. 2008. Fate, Transport, and Transformation Test Guidelines. OPPTS Aquatic (Sediment) Field Dissipation . EPA 712-C-08-021. October 2008. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. United States Environmental Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs /publications/Test_Guidelines/s eries835.htm (Accessed May 15, 2012).
Bioconcentration Factor 850.1730 USEPA. 1996. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines. OPPTS 850.1730 Fish BCF . E. 712-C-96-129. April 1996. Environmental Fate and Effects Division . Office of Pesticide Programs. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/opptsmnt/pubs/frs/publicati ons/OPPTS_Harmonized/850_Ecological_Effects_T est_Guidelines/Draft s/850-1730.pdf (Accessed May 14, 2012).
Environmental Chemistry Method USEPA. 1996. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines. OPPTS 850.7100 . E. 712-C-96-348. April 1996. Office of Prevention, Pe sticides, and Toxic Substances. Available at http://www.epa.gov/opptsmnt/pubs/frs/publicati ons/OPPTS_Harmonized/850_Ecological_Effects_T est_Guidelines/Draft s/850-7100.pdf (Accessed May 17, 2012).

### 142 Appendix E. Results from Screening Imbibition Program (SIP) and the Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk Assessment (STIR)

The S creening I mbibition P rogram (SIP v.1.0, Released June 15, 2010) was used to calculate an upper bound estimate of exposure using acetamip rid’s solubility (4250 mg/L, MRID 44651803), the most sensitive acute and chronic avian toxicity endpoints (Zebra finch with LD 50 

### of 5.68 mg ai/kg-bw and Mallard duck NOAEC of less than 60.2 mg/kg-diet) and the most sensitive acute and chronic mammalian toxi city endpoints (Rat LD 50 

### of 146 mg ai/kg-bw and NOAEC of 7.1 mg ai/kg-bw/day or 160 mg ai/kg-diet). Based on the output, exposure throu gh drinking water alone is potential acute and chronic risk to small birds and a potential chronic risk to small mammals. Results from SIP are shown below.

Inhalation is another po tential exposure route for terrestria l vertebrates. Based on the vapor pressure of acetamiprid (7.5 × 10 -10 

### Torr at 25 o 

### C), acetamiprid is nonvolatile from dry nonadsorbing surfaces and non-volatile from water and moist surfaces, and therefore risk from inhalation is not expected (AERU, 2012). The 4-hr LC 50 

### inhalation study using rats was greater than 1.15 mg/L (MRID 44651837). The STIR model (Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk) was used to evaluate inhalation risk to birds and mammals. The endpoints discussed above were used in the model. Results from STIR are shown below.

### 143 Results from SIP version 1.0

### 144 Results from STIR Version 1.0.xlsx

### 145 Appendix F. Agency risk quoti ent (RQ) metrics and levels ofconcern (LOC) for Federallylisted (listed) threatened/endangered and non-listed species per risk class

Risk Class Risk Description RQ LOC
Aquatic Animals (fish and invertebrates)

Acute Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 1 0.5

Acute Restricted Use Potential for effects to animals from acute
exposures Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification Peak EEC/LC 50 1 0.1

Acute Listed Species Listed species may be potentially affected by acute exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 1 0.05

Chronic Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals from chronic exposures 60-day EEC/NOEC (fish)

1 21-day EEC/NOEC (invertebrates)

Terrestrial Animals (mammals and birds)

Acute Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute exposures EEC 2 /LC 50 (Dietary)
0.5 EEC/LD 50 (Dose)

Acute Restricted Use Potential for effects to animals from acute
exposures Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification EEC 2 /LC 50 (Dietary)

0.2 EEC/LD 50 (Dose)

Acute Listed Species Listed species may be potentially affected by acute exposures EEC 2 /LC 50 (Dietary)
0.1 EEC/LD 50 (Dose)

Chronic Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals from chronic exposures EEC 2 /NOAEC 1

Plants

Non-Listed Potential for effects to non-target, non-listed plants from exposures EEC/ EC 25 1

Listed Plant Potential for effects to non-target, listed plants from exposures EEC/ NOEC 1 EEC/ EC 05

### 146 Appendix G. Data Call-In Justification Ta bles for Non-Guideline Ecological Effects Studies

Study Title: Pollinator Larval Toxicity Study Guideline Number: Non-guideline Test Substance: Acetamiprid Rationale for Requiring the Data Acetamiprid is a systemic insecticide and is moderately toxic to young adult honey bees on an acute contact exposure basis. Previously s ubmitted studies of acetamiprid do not provide information on the potential toxicity to deve loping honeybee brood (larvae and pupae). Since acetamiprid is a systemic pesticide, there is the po tential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with the product and subsequently brought back to the hive where larvae may be exposed. Therefore, a non-guideline honeybee larval toxicity study is recommended. The registrant should submit a proposed protocol for review and appr oval by EFED prior to initiation of the study. Practical Utility of the Data How will the data be used? Data will be used to assess risk to non-target lis ted and non-listed terrestrial invertebrate species. This study would allow the Agency to refine the screening-level hazard a ssessment for beneficial terrestrial invertebrates. The effects data will be used to determine the potential for adverse effects on beneficial terrestrial i nvertebrates through direct effects on larval bees.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making? EPA is required by section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (E SA) to ensure that any action it authorizes or takes “... is not likely to jeopardize the con tinued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in th e destruction or adverse modificati on of critical habitat” and “to use the best scientific data ava ilable” in carrying out this obliga tion. The data EPA intends to call in are necessary to inform the determination requ ired by ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is or is not likely to jeopardize the species or its critical habitat. The lack of these data will limit the flexibility th at the Agency and registrants have in coming into compliance with ESA and could result in use restric tions that are unnecessarily severe . In addition, the lack of these data may result in an uncertain assumed risk a nd potential mitigation of acetamiprid formulations under FIFRA.

Study Title: Residues in Pollen and Nectar/Field Residue Analysis Study Guideline Number: Non-guideline Test Substance: Acetamiprid Rationale for Requiring the Data Acetamiprid is a systemic insecticide and is moderately toxic to young adult honey bees on an acute contact exposure basis. The systemic natu re of the compound necess itates the quantification of pollinator-relevant residues in treated flowerin g plants, since pollinators will be exposed to residues from either current or prior season applications (due to the potential for residues to accumulate in plants and trees). Residues in edib le/transportable-to-hive pa rts of treated trees and plants, particularly pollen-she dding and nectar producing parts ( i.e. , flowers and, if present, extrafloral nectaries) of plants ma y inform the potential for risk.

### 147 The Agency will consider multiple crops based on certain selective criteria, including, but not limited to, the estimated usage, the applicati on method, and whether the crop is attractive to pollinators. Furthermore, the Agency will consid er a semi-field, full-field, or greenhouse-based protocol lasting at least two years with multiple sampling time-steps. The protocol will depend on application type and crop. The re gistrant should consult the Agen cy on the design of the protocol prior to the initia tion of the study. Practical Utility of the Data How will the data be used? To assess risk to non-target listed and non-listed terrestria l invertebrate species. These data would allow the Agency to refine the screening level risk assessment for beneficial terrestrial invertebrates. Exposure data is an integral part of determining th e potential for risk to beneficial terrestrial invertebrates through dir ect exposure from their food sources.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making? EPA is required by section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (E SA) to ensure that any action it authorizes or takes “... is not likely to jeopardize the con tinued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in th e destruction or adverse modificati on of critical habitat” and “to use the best scientific data ava ilable” in carrying out this obliga tion. The data EPA intends to call in are necessary to inform the determination requ ired by ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is or is not likely to jeopardize the species or its critical habitat. The lack of these data will limit the flexibility th at the Agency and registrants have in coming into compliance with ESA and could result in use restric tions that are unnecessarily severe . In addition, the lack of these data may result in an uncertain assumed risk a nd potential mitigation of acetamiprid formulations under FIFRA.

### 148 Appendix H. Preliminary Estimate of Surfa ce Water Concentrations for Ecological Risk Assessment

An EEC was estimated using the hi ghest single application rate of 23.4 lbs a.i./A. An EEC for both a residential use setting and for perimete r treatment are both estimated using different assumptions. The perimeter treatment scenario resulted in higher EECs. The estimated application area for a perimeter tr eatment is up to 10 feet from the building and up to 3 foot on the surface of the building. A treated area factor was estimated using a housing density of four 2000 ft 2 

### houses per acre. Each house has a perime ter of 180 ft and treated area of 2340 ft 2 

### (180 ft x 13 ft). The estimated trea ted area per acre is then 9360 ft 2 

### which results in an estimated 21% of an acre (9360ft 2 

### /43560ft 2 

### /acre). The EEC from the residen tial scenario was multiplied by 0.21 to estimate an EEC to use as a screen for the pe rimeter treatment scenario. For other residential uses, it was assumed that half of a lot could be treated. Finally, the rice model was used to evaluate potential exposure for a cranberry use. Below are the output files from PRZM/EXAMs, GENEEC, and the rice model w ith EECs shown in Table H1.

Table H1. Preliminary Screening EECs for Acetamiprid Use in Residential Areas, Perimeter Treatments, and for Use on Cranberries

Scenario Model Area Treated Factor Estimated Environmental Concentration (mg/L)_ Peak 21-day 60-day Residential GENEEC 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Perimeter GENEEC 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Residential PRZM/EXAMS ** 0.72 0.71 0.70 Perimeter PRZM/EXAMS 0.21 0.17 0.17 0.17 Cranberry Rice Model 1.0 0.10 0.10 0.10 **PRZM/EXAMs was used to estimate exposure in a residen tial setting in California. The scenario was created specifically for California and it may not be conservative fo r the entire United States. The assumptions made were that there was half of the area was pervious and half impe rvious. It was assumed that half of the pervious surface was treated and 10% of the impervious su rface was treated. Time series files fr om runs with an impervious surface scenario and residential scenario were combined to arrive at the final EEC.

RUN No. 1 FOR acetamiprid ON resident * INPUT VALUES *

-------------------------------------------------------------------- RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO-SPRAY INCORP ONE(MULT) INTERVAL Koc (PPM ) (%DRIFT) (FT) (IN)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 23.400( 23.400) 1 1 227.0 4250.0 GRHIFI( 6.6) .0 .0

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED (FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) (POND-EFF) (POND) (POND)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 383.00 2 N/A 34.00- 4216.00 ****** 1344.49

GENERIC EECs (IN MILLIGRAMS/LITER (PPM)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001

-------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY
GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC

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

### 149 1.01 1.01 1.00 .98 .96

stored as acetres.out Chemical: acetamiprid PRZM environment: CAresidentialRLF.txt modified Tueday, 20 February 2007 at 13:04:34 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Wedday, 15 November 2006 at 13:47:26 Metfile: w23234.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:04:22 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 39.37 39.29 39.24 39.07 38.9 32.79 1962 124 123 122 120 119 106 1963 211 211 209 207 206 192 1964 273 272 269 266 265 256 1965 270 270 270 270 269 265 1966 280 279 279 279 279 274 1967 508 506 498 488 483 449 1968 494 494 491 489 489 476 1969 537 536 535 531 528 509 1970 562 561 559 554 553 535 1971 529 529 528 528 528 518 1972 507 507 507 507 506 499 1973 582 581 579 577 575 554 1974 561 561 560 559 558 548 1975 569 569 568 565 563 548 1976 554 553 552 552 551 540 1977 567 567 565 563 563 555 1978 619 618 616 612 611 592 1979 678 677 675 671 668 644 1980 682 682 680 678 675 655 1981 693 692 689 685 683 662 1982 923 920 909 900 896 864 1983 894 893 890 889 887 856 1984 821 821 819 818 817 802 1985 796 795 794 793 793 776 1986 825 824 822 817 815 786 1987 802 801 799 795 794 774 1988 759 758 757 755 755 741 1989 713 713 712 709 709 698 1990 692 692 690 689 688 674

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 923 920 909 900 896 864 0.0645161290322581 894 893 890 889 887 856 0.0967741935483871 825 824 822 818 817 802 0.129032258064516 821 821 819 817 815 786 0.161290322580645 802 801 799 795 794 776 0.193548387096774 796 795 794 793 793 774 0.225806451612903 759 758 757 755 755 741 0.258064516129032 713 713 712 709 709 698 0.290322580645161 693 692 690 689 688 674 0.32258064516129 692 692 689 685 683 662

### 150 0.354838709677419 682 682 680 678 675 655 0.387096774193548 678 677 675 671 668 644 0.419354838709677 619 618 616 612 611 592 0.451612903225806 582 581 579 577 575 555 0.483870967741936 569 569 568 565 563 554 0.516129032258065 567 567 565 563 563 548 0.548387096774194 562 561 560 559 558 548 0.580645161290323 561 561 559 554 553 540 0.612903225806452 554 553 552 552 551 535 0.645161290322581 537 536 535 531 528 518 0.67741935483871 529 529 528 528 528 509 0.709677419354839 508 507 507 507 506 499 0.741935483870968 507 506 498 489 489 476 0.774193548387097 494 494 491 488 483 449 0.806451612903226 280 279 279 279 279 274 0.838709677419355 273 272 270 270 269 265 0.870967741935484 270 270 269 266 265 256 0.903225806451613 211 211 209 207 206 192 0.935483870967742 124 123 122 120 119 106 0.967741935483871 39.37 39.29 39.24 39.07 38.9 32.79

0.1 824.6 823.7 821.7 817.9 816.8 800.4 Average of yearly averages: 546.026333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - November 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: acetres Metfile: w23234.dvf PRZM scenario: CAresidentialRLF.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: acetamiprid Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 222.68 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 5.2E-14 atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 7.5E-10 torr Solubility sol 4250 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 227 mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 34 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1974 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 4116 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 383 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 26.22 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 01-01 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1
UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT
PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond

### 151 Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

stored as acetimp1.out Chemical: acetamiprid PRZM environment: CAImperviousRLF.txt modified Tueday, 20 February 2007 at 13:05:44 EXAMS environment: pond298.exe modified Wedday, 15 November 2006 at 13:47:26 Metfile: w23234.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:04:22 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 13.94 13.84 13.43 12.65 12.22 10.08 1962 20.15 20.06 19.77 19.2 18.87 17.26 1963 36.5 36.33 35.63 34.45 33.78 30.14 1964 31.34 31.32 31.21 30.98 30.82 29.72 1965 51.3 51.14 50.46 49.09 48.31 44.99 1966 59.57 59.4 58.76 58.33 57.81 54.67 1967 96.46 96.12 94.63 91.86 90.34 82.55 1968 98.5 98.32 97.67 96.4 95.57 90.78 1969 94.55 94.49 94.13 93.5 93.01 89.44 1970 91.67 91.61 91.34 90.67 90.19 86.78 1971 86.87 86.81 86.55 86.01 85.65 82.77 1972 82.58 82.52 82.32 81.82 81.45 78.75 1973 105 105 104 102 101 95.05 1974 118 118 117 115 114 108 1975 109 109 108 108 107 104 1976 106 106 106 106 105 102 1977 113 113 112 111 110 105 1978 107 107 107 106 105 101 1979 104 104 103 103 102 98.21 1980 101 101 100 99.61 99.11 95.47 1981 92.38 92.34 92.16 91.87 91.64 88.68 1982 97.7 97.56 97 95.99 95.37 91.44 1983 102 102 102 101 99.84 95.19 1984 96.4 96.34 96.01 95.4 94.93 91.36 1985 97.17 97.04 96.57 96.12 95.64 91.79 1986 101 101 101 99.62 98.91 94.6 1987 104 104 103 102 102 97.12 1988 99.71 99.61 99.22 98.44 97.91 94.06 1989 100 99.96 99.52 98.7 98.13 94.09 1990 107 106 106 105 104 99.42

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 118 118 117 115 114 108 0.0645161290322581 113 113 112 111 110 105 0.0967741935483871 109 109 108 108 107 104 0.129032258064516 107 107 107 106 105 102 0.161290322580645 107 106 106 106 105 101 0.193548387096774 106 106 106 105 104 99.42 0.225806451612903 105 105 104 103 102 98.21 0.258064516129032 104 104 103 102 102 97.12 0.290322580645161 104 104 103 102 101 95.47 0.32258064516129 102 102 102 101 99.84 95.19 0.354838709677419 101 101 101 99.62 99.11 95.05

### 152 0.387096774193548 101 101 100 99.61 98.91 94.6 0.419354838709677 100 99.96 99.52 98.7 98.13 94.09 0.451612903225806 99.71 99.61 99.22 98.44 97.91 94.06 0.483870967741936 98.5 98.32 97.67 96.4 95.64 91.79 0.516129032258065 97.7 97.56 97 96.12 95.57 91.44 0.548387096774194 97.17 97.04 96.57 95.99 95.37 91.36 0.580645161290323 96.46 96.34 96.01 95.4 94.93 90.78 0.612903225806452 96.4 96.12 94.63 93.5 93.01 89.44 0.645161290322581 94.55 94.49 94.13 91.87 91.64 88.68 0.67741935483871 92.38 92.34 92.16 91.86 90.34 86.78 0.709677419354839 91.67 91.61 91.34 90.67 90.19 82.77 0.741935483870968 86.87 86.81 86.55 86.01 85.65 82.55 0.774193548387097 82.58 82.52 82.32 81.82 81.45 78.75 0.806451612903226 59.57 59.4 58.76 58.33 57.81 54.67 0.838709677419355 51.3 51.14 50.46 49.09 48.31 44.99 0.870967741935484 36.5 36.33 35.63 34.45 33.78 30.14 0.903225806451613 31.34 31.32 31.21 30.98 30.82 29.72 0.935483870967742 20.15 20.06 19.77 19.2 18.87 17.26 0.967741935483871 13.94 13.84 13.43 12.65 12.22 10.08

0.1 108.8 108.8 107.9 107.8 106.8 103.8 Average of yearly averages: 81.4803333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006 Data used for this run: Output File: acetimp1 Metfile: w23234.dvf PRZM scenario: CAImperviousRLF.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: acetamiprid Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 222.68 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 5.2E-14 atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 7.5E-10 torr Solubility sol 4250 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 227 mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 34 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1974 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 4116 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 383 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.2622 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 01-01 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1
UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT
PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)153