1 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

DP Barcode: D415164 Date: June 25, 2014 PC Code: 122304

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk A ssessment for Foliar, Soil Drench, and Seed Treatment Uses of the New In secticide Flupyradifurone (BYI 02960)

TO: Jessica Rogala, Risk Manager Meredith Laws, Branch Chief Insecticide-Rodenticide Branch Registration Division, 7505P

FROM: Scott Glaberman, Ph.D., Biologist Katrina White, Ph.D., Biologist Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

REVIEWED Jim Carleton, Ph.D., Senior Scientist BY: Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

APPROVED BY: Sarah Winfield, Acting Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed a review of the new systemic insecticide flupyradifurone (BYI 02960; PC Code 122304). Attached is the environmental fate and ecological risk assessment chap ter written in support of the registration d ecision for foliar, soil drench, and deed treatment uses of the compound.

# Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Foliar, Soil Drench, and Seed Trea tment Uses of the New Insecticide Flupyradifurone (BYI 02960)

Flupyradifurone

CAS 907204-31-3 PC Code 122304



### June 25, 2014

P

repared b y Scott Glaberman, Ph.D., Biologist Katrina White, Ph.D., Biologist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) Environmental Risk Branch IV

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Mail Code 7507P Washington, DC 20460 

### Reviewed by Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor Jim Carleton, Ph.D., Senior Scientist Sarah Winfield, Acting Branch Chief

### Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. .............................. 6 2. Problem Formulation ........................................................................................................... ........................... 10 Chemical Class and Mode of Action ............................................................................................. .............. 10 Overview of Pr oposed Us es ..................................................................................................... .................... 10 Identification of Resi dues of Concern ......................................................................................... ................ 10 Receptors ..................................................................................................................... ................................ 10 Assessment En dpoints .......................................................................................................... ....................... 11 Conceptual Model .............................................................................................................. .......................... 11 2.6.1. Risk Hypothesis ............................................................................................................... .................. 11 2.6.2. Conceptual Model .............................................................................................................. ............... 11 Analysis Plan ................................................................................................................. .............................. 13 2.7.1. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments .................................................................................. 1 4 2.7.2. Data Gaps ..................................................................................................................... ..................... 14 2.7.3. Measures of Exposure .......................................................................................................... ............. 15 2.7.4. Measures of Effect ............................................................................................................ ................. 15 2.7.5. Integration of Expo sure and Effects ........................................................................................... ....... 16 3. Analysis ...................................................................................................................... ....................................... 16 Use Character izatio n .......................................................................................................... .......................... 16 Exposure Charact eriza tion ..................................................................................................... ...................... 18 Terrestrial Exposure .......................................................................................................... ........................... 49 Ecological Effects Characteri zation ........................................................................................... .................. 59 3.5.1. Ecotoxicity Data .............................................................................................................. .................. 59 3.5.1. Incident Report s .............................................................................................................. .................. 88 4. Risk Characterization ......................................................................................................... ............................. 88 Risk Estim ation ............................................................................................................... ............................. 88 4.1.1. Aquatic Organisms ............................................................................................................. ............... 88 4.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms ......................................................................................................... ............... 94 Risk Description and Conclusions .............................................................................................. ............... 105 4.2.1. Aquatic Organisms ............................................................................................................. ............. 105 4.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms ......................................................................................................... ............. 107 4.2.3. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... .................. 113 5. Additional Description of Assumptions, Li mitations, Uncertainties, Strengths ....................................... 114 Label Uncert ainties ........................................................................................................... ......................... 114 Aquatic Exposure .............................................................................................................. ......................... 115 5.2.1. Unextracted residues .......................................................................................................... ............. 115 5.2.2. Soybean Seed Planting Depth and Applicatio n Rate ....................................................................... 115 5.2.3. Model Input Values ............................................................................................................ ............. 116 5.2.4. EPA Pond ...................................................................................................................... .................. 117 5.2.5. Dilution of Sediment .......................................................................................................... ............. 118 5.2.6. A Well-Mixe d Pond ............................................................................................................. ........... 118 5.2.7. Lack of Averaging Time for Exposure ........................................................................................... . 118 Terrestrial Exposure .......................................................................................................... ......................... 118 Effects Assessment Uncertainties .............................................................................................. ................ 118 6. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern ........................................................ 119 Action Ar ea ................................................................................................................... ............................. 119 Taxonomic Groups Pote ntially at Risk .......................................................................................... ............ 119 7. References .................................................................................................................... ................................... 121 Literature Cite d .............................................................................................................. ............................ 121



### List of Figures

Figure 1. Example of a biphasic d ecline curve with an initial rapid rate of loss that slows over time ....................... 22Figure 2. Decline curve for aerobi c soil metabolism in the Neosolo soil ...................................................... ............. 23 Figure 3. Decline curve for aerobic aquatic me tabolism in the German gravel pit sediment ..................................... 23 Figure 4. Flupyradifurone dissipation in the terrest rial field dissipation stud y completed in Florida ........................ 29 Figure 5. Potential degradation pathways of fl upyradif urone ................................................................... ................... 32 Figure 6. Measured flupyradifurone residues on various crops over time after foliar application. .......................... 10 4 Figure 7. Relationship between the measured K oc and the flupyradifurone equilibrium concentration in water in the Argissolo soil (1/n =0.81) .................................................................................................... .................... 117



### List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of risk conclusi ons for non-target animals for proposed uses of flupyradifurone. .......................... 8 Table 2. Summary of risk conclusi ons for non-target plants for pro posed uses of flupyradifurone. ............................. 9 Table 3. List of the various models and the related taxa for which the models will be used to assess risk. ................ 13 Table 4. Proposed uses of flupyradifurone .................................................................................... ............................. 17 Table 5. Summary of physical-chemical properties of flupyradifurone 1 .................................................................... 19 Table 6. Maximum amount of une xtracted residues observed in aerobic metabolism studies ................................... 21 Table 7. Abiotic and biotic transformation kinetics of flupyradifurone, flupyradifurone plus M48 plus M47, and flupyradifurone plus une xtracted residues. .................................................................................... ............ 24 Table 8. Biotic degradatio n kinetics for 6CNA and DFA ........................................................................ ................... 26 Table 9. Summary of submitted sorption studies for flupyradifurone and its degradates 2-chloronicotinic acid (6CNA), and difluoroacetic acid (DFA) ......................................................................................... ........... 27 Table 10. Summary of terrestrial field di ssipation study results for flupyradifurone ......................................... ........ 30 Table 11. Summary of DT 50 and DT 90 of flupyradifurone in outdoor mi crocosm studies (MRID 48843673) ........... 31 Table 12. Summary of maximum amount of transfor mation products observed in fate studies ................................. 33 Table 13. Use site group, associated crops, and PRZM scenarios used to calculate EDWC for the use site group ... 36 Table 14. Summary of scenario alteratio ns of the Flcarrot scenario for the mul tiple crop cycle per year analysis .... 39 Table 15. Proposed uses with possi ble multiple crop cycles per year 1 ....................................................................... 40 Table 16. SCI-GROW (v2.3) input parameter values for total residues of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues (abbreviated as “FLU-UN”) and for flupyra difurone alone (abbreviated as “FLU”) 1 ............................... 40 Table 17. Tier I PRZM -GW input parameters .................................................................................... ........................ 40 Table 18. Input values used for Tier II surface water m odeling with SWCC ..................................................... ........ 41 Table 19. Summary of EECs estimated for radishes assumi ng a different number of crop cycles per year ............... 44 Table 20. Comparison of representative model inputs fo r parent and parent plus unextracted residues .................... 45 Table 21. Comparison of EEC for re sidues of FLU-UN versus FLU ................................................................ ......... 46 Table 22. Estimated concentrations of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues (FLU-UN) and flupyradifurone alone (FLU) in su rface water* ................................................................................................. .................. 46 Table 23. Estimated concentrations of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues (FLU-UN) or flupyradifurone alone (values designated with an asterick) in groundwater source irrigation water ................................... 48 Table 24. Terrestrial EECs as food residues for animals exposed to flupyradifurone as a result of the proposed foliar

uses. ......................................................................................................................... .................................. 50 Table 25. Terrestrial dose-based EECs for the range of seed treatment uses proposed for flupyradifurone. .............. 52 Table 26. Summary of contact and dietary exposure estimates used for foliar applicati on, soil treatment, and seed treatment uses of pesticides for ho neybee Tier I ri sk assessment. ............................................................. 53 Table 27. Screening-level EECs for h oneybees based on foliar, drench, an d seed treatment applications ................. 54 Table 28. Empirical pollen, nectar, and flower residue data for applications of flupyradifurone formulations to different crops ............................................................................................................... ............................. 56 Table 29. EECs for non-target terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants based on proposed uses of flupyradifurone based on TERRPLANT. ................................................................................................................. ..................... 59 Table 30. Acute toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for fish and aquatic invertebrates exposed to flupyradifurone. ................................................................................................... .................... 63 Table 31. Chronic toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for fish and aquatic invertebrates exposed to flupyradifurone. ................................................................................................... .................... 65 Table 32. Toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for aquatic plants exposed to flupyradif urone. .............................................................................................................. ........................... 66 Table 33. Acute toxicity endpoints used in risk estima tion and characterization for terrestrial animals exposed toflupyradif urone. .............................................................................................................. ........................... 69 Table 34. Chronic toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for terrestrial animals exposed to flupyradif urone. .............................................................................................................. ........................... 75 Table 35. Additional non-guideline toxicity data for hazard characterization of beneficial arthropods exposed to flupyradif urone. .............................................................................................................. ........................... 76 Table 36. Toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation an d characterization for terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants exposed to flupyradifurone. ................................................................................................... .................... 77 Table 37. Summary of higher tiered honeybee semi -field and field studies fo r flupyradifurone. .............................. 8 2 Table 38. RQ values for aquatic invertebrates expose d to flupyradifurone TGAI in the water column. ..................... 90 Table 39. RQ values for sedime nt-dwelling invertebrates exposed to flupyradifurone TGAI. ................................... 92 Table 40. Acute and chronic RQ values for birds exposed to flupyradifurone as a resu lt of the proposed uses. ........ 94 Table 41. Chronic dietary and dose-based RQ values for mammals exposed to flupyradifurone as a result of the proposed uses. ................................................................................................................ ............................ 96 Table 42. Chronic dietary RQ values for mammals exposed to flupyradifurone following the proposed seed

treatment uses. ............................................................................................................... ............................ 98 Table 43. Comparison of EECs (foliar and soil drench) and body-weight adjusted NOAELs for DFA (degradate). . 99 Table 44. Screening level RQ va lues for insect pollinators. ................................................................... ................... 100 Table 45. Refined Tier I RQ values for honeybees based on empirical residue data fr om pollen and nectar. .......... 101 Table 46. Impact of different foliar dissipation half-lives on terrestr ial vertebra te RQs. ................................... ...... 109 Table 47. Potential effects to federally listed taxa asso ciated with the proposed us es of flupyradifurone. .............. 120



### Appendices

Appendix A. Fate Data Ta ble for Flupyradifurone .............................................................................. ..................... 137 Appendix B. Effects Data Table for Flup yradifurone............................................................................ ................... 142 Appendix C. Summary of A quatic Modeling Completed ............................................................................ ............. 148 Appendix D. Example Aqua tic Modeling Output for th e Groundwater Modeling ................................................... 1 53 Appendix E. Example Aquatic Modeling Output for the SWCC ..................................................................... ........ 155 Appendix F. Estimation of Exposure of Terrestrial Plants to Flupyradifurone and Unextracted Residues in Groundwater Used as Irrigation Water .......................................................................................... .......... 180 Appendix G. Example STIR (v. 1.0) input and output data ...................................................................... ................ 181 Appendix H. Example T-REX (v. 1.5.2) input and output data. .................................................................. ............. 182 Appendix I. Toxicity Comparisons of Flup yradifurone and Transf ormation Products. ........................................... 1 84 Appendix J. OECD and OPP Rating System for Da ta Evaluation Records a nd/or Monographs ............................. 187

### 6 

## 1. Executive Summary

Flupyradifurone, a butenolide insecticide, is an ac tive ingredient proposed for registration as both a foliar treatment on many agricu ltural crops and a seed treatm ent for soybeans. The compound can be taken up and systemically distributed in plan ts. Flupyradifurone is characterized as being persistent to very persistent and is moderate ly mobile to mobile depending on soil conditions; therefore, it has the po tential to reach aquatic environmen ts, including surface and groundwater, for several months or more following applic ation. Flupyradifurone is nonvolatile, and thus movement through air will not consti tute a major transport pathway. 1 

### The available fate data suggest that flupyradifurone is li kely to dissipate from the point of application through various transport mechanisms, including runoff, erosion, and leaching to groundwater, although times to 90% decline of pesticide mass (DT 90 

### ) from surface soils in terrest rial field dissipation studies often exceeded one year (see Section 3.2 fo r the Exposure Characterization).

Based on a log octanol-water partition coefficient (log K ow 

### ) of 0.08 and organic-carbon normalized soil-water distribution coefficients (K oc 

### ) ranging from 80 to 283 L/kg-organic carbon, a higher percentage of flupyr adifurone is expected in the water column as compared to sediment, although the chemical’s persistence in aquatic environments will lead to some diffusive transfer into sediment pore water.

For aquatic organisms, the primary risks of conc ern in this assessment are for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrate s inhabiting both the water colu mn and benthic environments. Flupyradifurone is very highly toxi c to both freshwater insects a nd estuarine/marine crustaceans on an acute exposure basis. Acute risk to federa lly threatened and endangered (listed) species and chronic risk Levels of Con cern (LOCs) for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates were exceeded for the majority of proposed uses in this assessment. Flupyradifurone is mobile to moderately mobile and persistent in the aquatic environment, and as a result, there is the potential for both short-term and long-term exposur e to aquatic organisms. After the contribution of spray drift was removed from aquatic exposur e estimates, many proposed uses still exceeded the acute risk to listed species and chronic ri sk LOCs. Therefore, the proximity of foliar applications from a water body are not likely to substant ially change the potential for risks of concern to aquatic organisms. While any setback buffer between an aquatic water body and the treated field is expected to reduce exposure, methodologies are not available to determine the distance that is needed to eliminate the risk concer n from transport in runoff. In this assessment, the influence of multiple crop cycles on aquatic i nvertebrates from multiple foliar applications of flupyradifurone was considered. In general, the us e of a single crop cycle (2 applications at 0.18 lbs ai/A) did not lead to acute risks of concern to non-listed fresh water invertebrates; however, multiple crop cycles ( i.e.

, ≥ 2) did lead to risks of concern for this group.

Although flupyradifurone is classified as rangin g between practically no ntoxic and moderately toxic to birds on acute oral expos ure basis, and is classified as slightly toxic to birds on a subacute dietary exposure basis, risk estimates ex ceeded the acute risk to listed birds LOC for all proposed foliar and soil drench uses, as does th e proposed seed treatment use of flupyradifurone

1 Flupyradifurone is classified as non-volatile under fiel d conditions (according to the classification system in Guideline 835.6100) (USEPA, 2008). Based on results of the Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk model, exposure through inhalation is not a potential pathway of concern fo r either avian or mammalian species on an acute basis.

### 7 on soybean. In addition, the acute risk LOC fo r non-listed birds was exceeded for the seed treatment use and all foliar and drench uses , except for hops. The modeling of multiple crop cycles generally increased the number of dietar y items for which the acute risk to non-listed species LOC was exceeded. Flupyradifurone is cla ssified as practically nontoxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis; however, chronic ri sks of concern (based on reductions in growth following long-term exposure) were identified for multiple size classes of mammals foraging on multiple dietary items and for all proposed uses evaluated.

Consistent with the fact that the compound is an insecticide, terrestrial invertebrates are relatively sensitive to the compound as well. Howe ver, while flupyradifurone is highly toxic to honeybees on an acute oral exposure basis, the compound is practically n ontoxic to adult bees on an acute contact exposure basis. Th ese data indicate that the prim ary exposure route of concern is through ingestion of residues in pollen/nectar ra ther than through cont act. Although laboratorybased studies with individual adul t bees indicate that 50% of be es will be subject to acute mortality following ingestion of residues at relatively low exposure levels, semi-field studies with whole colonies, in which applications were made while bees were actively foraging at full bloom using maximum proposed foliar application rates, only identified relatively transient increases in adult bee mortality within hours to several days of treatment as compared to untreated control colonies. Col onies exposed to flupyradifurone did not exhibit any detectable long-term effects. Field studi es examining colonies through overwintering did not demonstrate any adverse effects in the treated colonies.

Other than for bees, this assessment does not evalua te risk to terrestrial invertebrates. However, in non-guideline toxicity studies submitted for te rrestrial arthropods exposed to formulated flupyradifurone (BYI 02960 SL 200 G), reduced surv ival was observed at exposure levels below the maximum proposed label application rate for fl upyradifurone, in some cases several orders of magnitude lower. The most sensitive non-target arthropod was the parasitoid wasp. These data indicate that potential for e ffects of flupyradifurone to non-ta rget terrestrial arthropods is possible at or below prop osed application rates.8Table 1. Summary of risk conclusions for non-target animals for proposed uses of flupyradifurone.GroupRQs Risks of ConcernRefinements Used UncertaintiesAcute1,2,3,4Chronic5(Effects)Acute:ListedAcute:Non-listedChronicFreshwaterVertebratesNC6≤0.01(fry survival)None None None --Estuarine/MarineVertebratesNC6NC7None NoneNotexpected7No chronictoxicity dataavailable7FreshwaterInvertebrates0.05-10.87-18.8(emergence/development rates)All uses≥2 cropcycles perseasonMost usesEstuarine/MarineInvertebrates0.01-0.260.22-4.70(young/female/day)Most uses None Most usesBirds, Reptiles, andTerrestrial PhaseAmphibians<0.01-1.130.01-1.49(parental survival & bodyweight; multiple reproductiveendpoints)All UsesAll Uses(excepthops)SeedtreatmentonlyMammals NC60.01-5.6(pup body weight and weightgain)NotExpectedNotExpectedAll usesDays exceeding chronicLOC calculated(spray/drench applications);examined influence of foliardissipation half-life on RQsHoneybees <0.01-4.8 0.02-12.58NAAll foliarUses9All foliaruses9RQs refined based onempirical residue data;higher-tiered studiesavailableNo chronic oraleffects near doseat which acuteoral mortalityobservedNC = Not calculated; NA = Not applicable1Acute risk to listed species LOC = 0.05 for all animals.2Acute risk to non-listed species LOC = 0.5 for aquatic animals.3Acute risk to non-listed species LOC = 0.1 for terrestrial vertebrates.4Acute risk to non-listed species LOC= 0.4 for terrestrialinvertebrates.5Chronic risk LOC = 1 for all animals.6RQs could not be calculated because toxicity endpoints are non-definitive (i.e., greater than the highest concentration tested)7Chronic toxicity dataare not available for estuarine/marine fish; however, based on risk estimations for freshwater fish, chronic risks to this group of organisms are not expected.8No effects at highest concentration tested.9Although laboratory-based studies with individual adult bees indicate that50% of bees will be subject to acute mortality following ingestion of residuesat relatively low exposurelevels, semi-field studies with whole colonies, in which applications were made whilebees were actively foraging at full bloomusing maximum proposed foliar application rates,only identified transient increases in adult bee mortality within hours to several days of treatment as compared to untreated control colonies. Colonies exposed to flupyradifuronedid not exhibit any detectable long-term effects. Field studies examining coloniesthrough overwintering did not demonstrate any adverse effects in the treated colonies.9Table 2. Summary of risk conclusions for non-targetplants for proposed uses of flupyradifurone.GroupRQs Risks of ConcernUncertaintiesListed Spp.1Non-Listed Spp.1Listed Spp. Non-Listed Spp.Aquatic Vascular Plants <0.01 NC None Not expectedAquatic Non-Vascular Plants <0.01 NC None Not expectedTerrestrialMonocotyledonous Plants<0.01-0.5 NC2None Not expectedTerrestrial DicotyledonousPlantsNC3NC2Uncertain3Not expectedNOAEC not established inseedling emergence orvegetative vigor studiesNC = Not calculated1Risk to aquatic and terrestrial plant listed and non-listed LOC is 1.2RQs could not be calculated because toxicity endpoints are non-definitive (i.e., greater than the highest concentration tested)3RQs could not be calculated because a NOAEC was not established in seedlingemergence or vegetative vigor studies.

### 10 

## 2. Problem Formulation

Chemical Class and Mode of Action

Flupyradifurone (PC Code 122304, 2(5H-(furanone ), 4-{{(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl](2,2- difluoroethyl)amino]-, also known as BYI 02960) is a new active ingredient proposed for use as a systemic insecticide. The chemical belongs to the butenolide class of insecticides and the insecticidal activity of flupyradifurone is similar to the neonicotinoids with agonist activity in nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, making it a member of the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) Group 4 insecticide class (IRAC, 2012).

Overview of Proposed Uses

Flupyradifurone has proposed foliar uses on crop group 15 cereal grains (e xcept rice), cotton, nongrass animal feeds (forage, fodder, straw, hay) , peanut, root vegetabl es (except sugarbeet), tuberous and corm vegetables, l eafy vegetables (except Brassica), Brassica (cole leafy vegetables), legume vegetables (succulent or dr ied), fruiting vegetables , cucurbit vegetables, hops, citrus fruit, pome fruit, bushberry (exc ept cranberry), low growing berry (except cranberry), small fruit vine climbing group (excep t fuzzy kiwifruit), tree nuts, prickly pear, and soybean seeds. The registrant (Bayer CropScien ce) is seeking registra tion of flupyradifurone on two labels:

 SivantoTM 200 SL (Sivanto) for use as a fo liar and soil drench a pplication to various agricultural crops, and

 BYI 02960 480 FS (BYI 02960), a systemic seed treatment insecticide for use on soybean seeds. Both are liquid formulations and each only has th e one active ingredient. Sivanto is proposed for application to agricultural crops before bloom, during bloom, or following bloom up to the stated pre-harvest interval (PHI). Sivanto may be app lied via ground, airblast, aerial, or chemigation equipment while BYI 02960 is proposed for applic ation to soybean seeds via commercial seed treatment application only.

Identification of Residues of Concern

Based on available data for degradates, the resi dues of concern for estimating aquatic exposure are flupyradifurone (parent) and unextracted resi dues that have not been characterized. The residues of concern for terrestrial vertebrates include parent and difluoroacetic acid. Only flupyradifurone (parent) is consid ered a residue of concern for te rrestrial invertebrates based on honeybee toxicity data. Justificati on of the residues of concern ar e further discussed in Section 3.2.5 and 3.5.

Receptors

The receptor is the biological entity that is exposed to the stressor (USEPA, 1998). For this

### 11 assessment, the receptor includes terrestrial animals inhabiting fields where flupyradifurone foliar applications occur or treated seeds are planted, and non-target areas to where flupyradifurone is transported (via spray drif t, runoff or leaching to groundwater) where terrestrial and aquatic animals ma y be exposed. Consistent with the process described in the Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), the risk asse ssment uses a surrogate species approach in its evaluation. Toxicological data generated from surrogate test species, which are intended to be representative of broad taxonomic groups, are used to extrapolate to poten tial effects on a variety of species (receptors) included unde r these taxonomic groupings.

Assessment Endpoints

Assessment endpoints represent the ac tual environmental value that is to be protected, defined by an ecological entity (species, community, or othe r entity) and its attributes (USEPA, 1998). For flupyradifurone, the ecological enti ties include birds (as well as reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibian for which birds serve as surrogates), mammals, freshwater fish (as well as aquaticphase amphibians for which fish serve as surrogates) and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, terrestrial plants, insects, a nd aquatic vascular and nonvascular plants. The attributes evaluated for each of these entities ma y include growth, reproduc tion, and survival.

Conceptual Model

A conceptual model provides a written descriptio n and visual representation of the predicted relationships between flupyradifur one, the potential routes of e xposure, and the predicted effects for each assessment endpoint. A conceptual model consists of two major components: the risk hypothesis and the conceptual diagram (USEPA, 1998).

2.6.1. Risk Hypothesis

For flupyradifurone, the followi ng ecological risk hypothesis is employed for this risk

assessment:

Given the uses of flupyradifurone and its environmental fate properties, there is a likelihood of exposure to non-target terrestrial and/or aquatic organism s. Flupyradifurone may be transported to surface water and groundwater via runoff, leaching, and spray drift. It may be transported to offsite terrestrial en vironments via spray drift. When used in accordance with the label, flupyradifurone may result in potential adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Based on the reduced risk assessment (USEPA, 2013, D408685), there will be potential direct risks to aquatic inverte brates and birds.

2.6.2. Conceptual Model

The environmental fate properties of flupyradifurone indicate that for foliar applications, spray drift, runoff, and leaching are potential trans port mechanisms to aquatic habitats where nontarget organisms may be exposed. It is expect ed that non-target terrest rial organisms can be exposed to foliar applications of flupyradifur one through consumption of exposed plants and

### 12 invertebrates on the treated field. Additio nally, flupyradifurone may reach terrestrial environments off the field via spray drift, a nd via application of i rrigation water containing residues of flupyradifurone. With regards to the seed treatme nts, flupyradifurone may reach aquatic habitats via leaching of the chemical fr om the seed coat, and subsequent transport via runoff and/or infiltration. It is expected that non-tar get terrestrial organisms can be exposed to flupyradifurone through consumption of treated s eeds. A summary of the transport pathways and the models used for those pathwa ys in the assessment are provided in Table 3

.

As flupyradifurone is nonvolatile, atmospheric tr ansport is not a majo r transport pathway. Additionally, the Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR) version 1.0 (November 23, 2010) indicates that exposure via inhala tion is not likely to be a ri sk concern for birds and mammals ( Appendix G ). These results combined with the estimat ed atmospheric half-life of less than two days indicate that long-range transport in the va por phase is not an exposure pathway of concern for terrestrial and aquatic organism s. Additionally, the octanol-air K OA 

### and octanol-water K OW 

### partition coefficients suggest that flupyrad ifurone is not likely to bioconcentrate or bioaccumulate in aquatic or terrestrial organisms. 2 

### Organic-carbon normalized sorption coefficient (K OC 

### ) values range from 80 to 283 L/kg- OC 

### indicating that fl upyradifurone is classified as mobile to moderately mobile under the FAO mobility classification system. Therefore, flupyradifurone does have the pot ential to leach to groundwater. While flupyradifurone does not have K oc 

### values that indicate most flupyradifurone will quickly move into sediment, some flupyradifurone will be transported to sediment and pore water and flupyradifurone is toxic to aquatic invertebrates. Therefore, risk to sediment dwelling organisms due to exposure to flupyradifurone in pore water is evaluated in this assessment. Flupyradifurone may be applied as a flowable or seed treatment; sp ray drift is expected to result in significant exposure to organisms off of the field with broa dcast applications of liquids (both aerial and ground boom spray). Spray drift is not modeled for seed treatments.

The exposure pathways may result in exposure to various aquatic and terr estrial organisms. With exposure, the following attribute ch anges have the pote ntial to occur:

 effects to individual organisms,

 effects to the food chain (reduction in prey and food, modification of primary constituent elements (PCE) related to prey availability), and

 effects to habitat integrity (reduction in primary productivity, reduced cover, community change, and modification of PCE related to habitat).

2 A recent scientific advisory 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 w ithout reservations” (SAP, 2009). This was also supported by Armitage and Gobas’s work completed in 2007 (Armitage and Gobas, 2007).

### 13 Table 3. List of the various models and the related ta xa for which the models will be used to assess risk.

Environment Taxa of Concern Exposure Media Exposure Pathway Model(s) or Pathway Attribute Change

Aquatic Vertebrates/ Invertebrates Surface water/ sediment Runoff and spray drift to water and sediment SWCC Individual Organisms Food Chain Habitat Integrity

Aquatic Plants (vascular and nonvascular) Food Chain Habitat Integrity

Riparian plants See terrestrial exposure pathways Habitat Integrity

Terrestrial Vertebrate Dietary items Ingestion of residues in/on dietary items, including treated seeds as a result of direct application T-REX Individual Organisms Food Chain Habitat Integrity

Consumption of aquatic organisms Residues taken up by aquatic

organisms Not a major transport pathway ---

Plants Spray drift/runoff Runoff and spray drift to plants TERRPLANT

Food Chain Habitat Integrity Surface water Residues in irrigation water

leaching to groundwater SWCC

Groundwater SCIGROW

PRZM-GW

Bees and other terrestrial invertebrates 1 Dietary items Spray contact and ingestion of

residues in/on dietary items as a result of direct application Multiple models Individual Organisms Colony/Population Integrity

All Environments All Movement through air to aquatic and terrestrial media Spray drift AgDRIFT (Spray drift) Individual Organisms Food Chain Habitat Integrity AgDISP (Spray drift)

Atmospheric

transport Not a major transport pathway Text in italics represent transport pathways that are not of concern.

1 See pollinator SAP white paper for full list of modelling approaches for evaluating exposure used in this assessment (USEPA, 2012d).



### Analysis Plan

The analysis plan is the final step in Problem Formulation. During this step, an assessment design is developed, the scope of the assessm ent is outlined, the methods for conducting the assessment are determined, measurements of effect s and exposure to eval uate the risk hypothesis are delineated, and initial data gaps and assumptions required to address them are identified.

### 14 2.7.1. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments

A reduced risk assessment has been completed fo r flupyradifurone. The reduced risk assessment was completed prior to reviewing all available data . Additionally, the toxi city endpoints used in the reduced risk assessment were not the same as those used in this risk assessment. The reduced risk assessment was specific for use on pome fr uit, citrus, cotton, and vegetables, and indicated that flupyradifurone had less environm ental risk as compared to some alternatives but not others. The flupyradifurone request for reduced risk wa s granted based on the full comparison of all potential risk as compared to alternatives (inc luding considerations for risk to human health).

2.7.2. Data Gaps

The following environmental fate and ecological effects data gaps are identified in this

assessment:

 The test on photodegradation in water (OCSPP Guideline 835.2240 3 

### ) did not fully characterize potential degradates.

 Terrestrial field dissipation studies (OCSPP Guideline 835.6100 4 

### ) are currently available on bare ground sites only, and did not track some of the major degradates observed in photolysis studies.

 Submitted adsorption/desorption data (OCSPP Guideline 835.1230 5 

### ) did not include sorption of flupyradifurone to an aquatic sediment , as is recommended in the guideline.

 There are no acceptable chronic toxicity data for estuarin e/marine fish (OCSPP Draft Guideline 850.1400). However, the potential for ch ronic risk to this group of organisms is considered low.

 At the time of this assessment, there are no acceptable toxicity data for several aquatic nonvascular plants including di atoms (freshwater or estuar ine/marine) and freshwater cyanobacteria (OCSPP Guidelines 850.4500 and 850.4550). Although risks of concern to aquatic plants from proposed uses of flupyrad ifurone are not anticipated based on available toxicity data for green algae, toxicity data for additional species would allow for a more robust risk conclusion for this groups of organisms.

 Definitive no observed adverse effects concen trations (NOAEC) were not established for terrestrial dicotyledonous plants as the lowest observed ad verse effects concentrations (LOAEC) occurred at the only concentration tested in submitted seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies. Without additional to xicity data on terrestr ial plants, risks of concern to listed dicotyledonous plants cannot be ruled out.

Appendix A and Appendix B contain data tables with detail s on whether additional data are needed to address the uncertainties for these data gaps.

3 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docume ntDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0152-0012

4 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docume ntDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0152-0040

5 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docume ntDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0152-0006

### 15 2.7.3. Measures of Exposure

Screening-level assessments are intended to be protective of wildlife on a national level, as opposed to being regionally- or locally-specific. Therefore, this assessment is not intended to represent a spatially- or temporally-specific anal ysis. Maximum application rates are used to model estimated environmental concentrations (EECs). Measures of exposure are based on aquatic and terrestrial models that calculate EEC s using proposed applica tion rates and methods. Exposure modeling assumes that the seed treatment use will not resu lt in spray drift. Particulate drift (also known as “dust-off” or “fugitive dust”), which may occur from abrasion of treated seeds during field application, is not assessed in screening-le vel exposure models. Groundwater is assessed, due to the mobility of flupyradif urone and the potentia l that contaminated groundwater could be used as irri gation water on crops. As this is a new registration, there are currently no monitoring data fo r flupyradifurone for comparis on with model-generated EECs.

The Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC, version 1.1) is used to calculate surface water EECs and EECs for sediment-dwelling invert ebrates. The SWCC is a graphical user interface that runs the Pestic ide Root Zone Model (PRZM, version 5, November 15, 2006) and the Variable Volume Water Body Model (VVWM, 3/6/2014) (USEPA, 2006). Groundwater concentrations are estimated using the Screening Concentrat ion in Groundwater (SCI-GROW, version 2.3, 7/30/2003) model and th e Pesticide Root Zone Mode l for Groundwater (Pesticide Root Zone Model for Groundwater, version 1.07 , August 31, 2012). The Terrestrial Residue Exposure Model (T-REX, version 1.5.2, 06/06/2013) is used to derive terrestrial EECs on food items for terrestrial vertebrates (USEPA, 2012c ). The TerrPlant model (v. 1.2.2, 12/26/2006) is used to derive runoff EECs for estimating exposures to terrestrial plants inhabiting dry and semiaquatic areas (USEPA, 2009). AgDRIFT (version 2.1.1) was used to evaluate exposure to all taxa via spray drift according to guidance on modeling spray drift (USEPA, 2013b). Exposure models are parameterized using relevant use an d environmental fate data according to EFED input parameter guidance for water modeling (USEPA, 2009), EFED guidance on calculating degradation kinetics (NAFTA, 2012; USEPA, 2 012b), and the EFED input parameter guidance specific to PRZM-GW (USEPA, 2013a; USEPA and Health Canada, 2013). Information on EFED models is available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm . The registrant provided a suite of Office of Chem ical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) guideline-compliant environmental fate and product chemistry studies that provide data for these various estimates of exposure.

2.7.4. Measures of Effect

Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of registrant-submitted guideline studies which are conducted with a limited number of surrogate specie s. The test species ar e not intended to be representative of the most sensitive species but rath er are selected based on their ability to thrive under laboratory conditions. For example, toxicity testing repor ted in this risk assessment utilizes surrogate species to represent all freshwater fish (>2000 species) and birds (>680 species) identified in the U.S. Open literature searches are no t conducted to identify data for potential use in this risk assessment because flupyradifurone is a new active ingredient.

The acute measures of effect used in this scr eening-level assessment include the median lethal

### 16 dose (LD 50 

### ), median lethal concentration (LC 50 

### ), and the median effect concentration (EC 50 

### ). These are measures of acute toxicity which resu lt in 50% of the respective effect in tested organisms. The endpoints for chronic measures of effect are the No Observed Adverse Effects Concentration (NOAEC) and the No Observed Adverse Effects Level (NOAEL). Toxicity studies are submitted for freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, aquatic and terr estrial plants, birds, mammals and honeybees. The measurement endpoints used for risk characterization are deri ved from studies which underwent review and are classified as “fully reliable” (conducted und er guideline conditions and considered to be scientifically sound) or “reliabl e with restrictions” (conditions de viated from guidelines but the results are scientifica lly sound). Please see Appendix J for more information on the study classification system.

2.7.5. Integration of Exposure and Effects

The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated to evaluate the risks of a dverse ecological effects on non-target species. For the screening-level assess ment of flupyradifurone, the deterministic, risk quotient (RQ) method is used to compare estimated exposure and measured toxicity values. The RQ method involves dividi ng EECs by acute and chronic toxicity values. The resulting RQs are then compared to the Agen cy’s levels of concern (LOCs) (USEPA, 2004). When the RQ is greater than the LOC, it indicates that applications of flupyradifurone have the potential to cause adverse effect s to non-target organisms when used as directed on the label.

Although risk is often described in terms of the likelihood and magnitude of adverse effects, the risk quotient-based approach does not provide a quantitative estimate of likelihood or magnitude of an adverse effect, but rather provides a “yes” or “no” an swer depending upon whether or not LOCs are exceeded.



## 3. Analysis

Use Characterization

The registrant (Bayer CropScience) is seeking registration of several uses (described in Table 4 ) of flupyradifurone on two labels:

 SivantoTM 200 SL (Sivanto) for use as a fo liar and soil drench a pplication to various agricultural crops.

 BYI 02960 480 FS (BYI 02960), a seed treatment in secticide for use on soybean seeds.

Both are liquid formulations. Sivanto is propos ed for application to agricultural crops before bloom, during bloom, or following bloom up to the stat ed pre-harvest interval (PHI). Sivanto is proposed for application via gr ound, airblast, aerial, or chem igation equipment; BYI 02960 is proposed for application to soybean seeds vi a commercial seed treatment only.

Most uses have the same proposed maximum si ngle and seasonal applica tion rates of 0.18 lbs active ingredient per acre (lbs ai/A) and 0.37 lbs ai/A per seas on, respectively. A few crops (fruiting vegetables, cucurbit vegetables, citrus fruit, small fruit and vine climbing group) have

### 17 both proposed maximum single and seasonal applica tion rates of 0.37 lbs ai/A. The number of proposed seasonal or annual applica tions is not specified for any use, and retreatment intervals range from “not specified” to 10 days. Th e proposed labels include a maximum seasonal application rate and thus the maximum number of applications per season may be estimated by dividing the maximum seasonal application ra te by the maximum singl e application rate.

Table 4. Proposed uses of flupyradifurone

Use Site Single App. Rate in lbs. ai/A (kg ai/ha) # of App Seasonal App. Rate lbs. ai/A (kg ai/ha) MRI (days) PHI (days) Geographic Restriction

s Comments

Crop Group 15: Cereal Grains (except Rice) 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 7 7 forage and sweet

corn -- foliar 21 dried grain --

Cotton 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 10 14 -- foliar

Nongrass Animal

Feeds (Forage, Fodder, Straw, Hay) 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 10 7 forage, silage, hay or seed of alfalfa -- foliar

14 all others --

Peanut 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 10 7 -- foliar

Root Vegetables (except Sugarbeet) 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 10 7 -- foliar

Tuberous and Corm Vegetables 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 7 7 West of MS river

Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica ) 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 7 1 -- foliar

Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 7 1 -- foliar

Legume Vegetables (Succulent or Dried) 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 10 7 forage, leaves, vines, pods, cutting

for hay or seed -- foliar

21 dry soybean seed -- foliar

Fruiting Vegetables 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 7 1 West of MS river foliar

0.27 – 0.37 (0.31 – 0.41) NS 0.365 (0.409) NS 45 -- soil, chemigation to root zone, injection below seed line, potting

hole drench at transplanting, post-transplant drench following setting and covering

Cucurbit Vegetables 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 7 1 West of MS river foliar

### 18 Use Site Single App. Rate in lbs. ai/A (kg ai/ha) # of App Seasonal App. Rate lbs. ai/A (kg ai/ha) MRI (days) PHI (days) Geographic Restriction

s Comments

0.27 – 0.37 (0.31 – 0.41) NS 0.365 (0.409) 7 21 -- soil, chemigation to root zone, injection below seed line, potting

hole drench at transplanting, post-transplant drench following setting and covering

Hop 0.09 – 0.14 (0.10 - 0.15) NS 0.14 (0.15) NS 21 -- foliar

Citrus Fruit 0.27 – 0.37 (0.31 – 0.41) NS 0.365 (0.409) 10 30 -- Soil, chemigation into root zone through low pressure drip, trickle, micro-sprinkler; basal drench in sufficient water to move into root zone 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 10 1 -- foliar

Pome Fruit 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 10 14 -- Foliar, combine with horticultural oil for early season applications targeting San Jose scale and Pear psylla

Bushberry 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 7 3 -- foliar

Low Growing Berry 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 10 0 -- foliar

Small Fruit Vine Climbing (except Fuzzy Kiwifruit) 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS

0.365 (0.409) 10 0 -- foliar

0.27 – 0.37 (0.31 – 0.41) NS NS 30 -- Soil, chemigation into root-zone through low pressure drip, trickle, micro-sprinkler or equivalent equipment; basal drench in sufficient water to move into root zone.

Tree Nut 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 14 7 -- foliar

Prickly Pear/Cactus

pear 0.09 - 0.18 (0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 14 7 -- foliar, ground only

Soybean Seeds 0.037 (0.041) NA 0.365 NA NS -- Maximum single application rate calculated from la bel restriction

of 0.068 mg ai/seed and an assumption of 250,000 seeds planted per acre which may occur in North Dakota (USEPA, 2011). App=application; MRI=minimum retreatment interval; PHI=preharvest interval; NA=not applicable; NS=not specified; ai=active ingredient; A=acre *Application limitations were on a single and seasonal application ba sis. It is possible that the chemical could be applied ov er multiple seasons to one field.



### Exposure Characterization

3.2.1. Physical-Chemical Properties

Table 5 summarizes the identity information and physical-chemical properties of flupyradifurone. While flupyrad ifurone reportedly does not di ssociate at environmentally relevant pH values, water solubility does decr ease from 3200 mg/L at pH 4 and 7 to 3000 mg/L

### 19 at pH 9. Based on its vapor pressure, water so lubility, octanol-water partition coefficient (K OW 

### ), and solid-water distribution coefficients (K d 

### ), flupyradifurone is clas sified as non-volatile from water, moist soils, and dry surfaces (OPPTS Gu ideline 835.6100 classification system). Based on flupyradifurone’s log K OW 

### value of 0.08, and log octanol-air partition coefficient (K OA 

### ) values of 11, it is not likely to bioconcen trate in terrestrial organisms. 6 

### This conclusion is strengthened by the chemical’s predicted reactivity in the vapo r phase (estimated atmospheric decay half-life of 0.4 days, Table 7) . Compounds with log K OW 

### of three and above are generally considered to have the potential to bioconcentrate in aquati c organisms. Because flupyradifurone’s log K OW 

### falls well below this at 0.08, it is not expected to bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms.

Table 5. Summary of physical-chemical properties of flupyradifurone 1

Parameter Value and Units Source and/or Comment PC Code 122304 -- CAS Number 951659-40-8 --

SMILES Code C1=CC(=NC=C1CN(CC(F)F)C2=CC(OC2)= O)Cl --

Chemical Name Flupyradifurone --

Empirical Formula C 12 H 11 ClF 2 N 2 O 2 --

Molecular Weight 288.68 g/mole --

UV/Visible Absorption λ max (nm): 213 and 259 nm MRID 48843628

Water Solubility at 20 o C (mg/L) pH Solubility

MRID 48843644 4 3200 7 3200 9 3000

Vapor Pressure o C Vapor Pressure MRID 48843650. Non-volatile under field conditions Pascal Torr 20 9.1×10 -7 6.8×10 -9

25 1.7×10 -6 1.3×10 -8 Henry’s Law constant at 20 o C 8.1×10 -13 atm-m 3 /mol (pH 4 and 7) Estimated from vapor pressure and water solubility at 20 o C.

Log Dissociation Constant (pK a ) No dissociation between pH 1 -12 MRID 48843634. Not expected to ionize in natural waters

Octanol-water partition coefficient (K ow ) at 25 o C 1.2 (log K OW =0.08) pH 4, 7, and 9 MRID 48843639. Not likely to bioconcentrate.

Air-water partition coefficient (K AW ) 3.3×10 -11 (log K AW = -11) Estimated from vapor pressure and water solubility at 20 o C and pH 7.

Nonvolatile from water. Octanol-air partition coefficient (K OA ) 3.6×10 10 (log K OA = 11) Estimated from K AW and K OW

.

6 A recent scientific advisory 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 w ithout reservations” (SAP, 2009). This was also supported by Armitage and Gobas’s work completed in 2007 (Armitage and Gobas, 2007).

### 20 Parameter Value and Units Source and/or Comment

Solubility in organic solvents Methanol >250 g/L n-Heptane 0.0005 g/L

Toluene 3.7 g/L Dichloromethane >250 g/L Acetone >250 g/L Ethylacetate >250 g/L Dimethyl sulfoxide >250 g/L

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 Assessments ” (USEPA, 2010).



### 3.2.2. Transformation Rates in Laboratory Studies

Table 7 summarizes abiotic and biotic transfor mation data. Study results indicate that flupyradifurone is persiste nt to very persistent 7 

### in soil, sediment and water. Measured aerobic soil DT 50 

### (time interval where mass has declined by 50 %) values of 38 to 401 days are uncertain because of high amounts (greater than 10% applie d radioactivity) of unextracted residues which may or may not constitute residu es of concern. Aerobic soil DT 50 

### values calculated assuming that the unextracted residues cons titute residues of concern range from 79 to 799 days and are approximately double those for parent alone. Flupyr adifurone is stable to hydrolysis at pH 4, 7, and 9, though it does degrade via aqueous photolysis, with a DT 50 

### of 2.5 days. Aqueous photolysis would be limited to surface waters that are shallow and clear. Under aerobic aquatic conditions, DT 50 

### values ranged from 237 to 365 days for parent alone, and from 676 to 893 days for parent plus unextracted residues. 8 

### Estimated DT 50 

### values for soil photolysis (1 soil), anaerobic soil metabolism (4 soils), and anaerobic aquatic metabolism (2 sediments) were all very high ( i.e ., >391 days) or not quantifiable ( i.e. , stable), indicating that these degradation pathways contribute little to the degradation of flupyradifurone. Based on graphical analysis and visual inspection, there was not a relationship between pH or percent organic carbon and degradation rates

Unextected residues were present at greater than 10% applied radioactivit y (AR) in the aerobic soil and aerobic aquatic studies. They were also present at greater than 10% applied radioactivity in the anaerobic soil and anaerobic aquatic studies; however, the amount of unextracted residues were relativel y constant after the system was anaerobic. In most studies, the extraction procedure involved shaking one time in each of the following solvent systems: 50:50 acetonitrile:wat er, 80:20 acetonitrile:water , and 100% acetonitrile. Finally, soils were extracted once in a microwave at 70 o 

### C with 80:20 acetonitrile:water. The extraction procedure did not include a range of polar and nonpolar so lvents with a sufficient range of chemical properties. Therefore, it is un certain whether all potentially available residues were extracted. There were different percentages of unextracted residues in studies with the same soil but with different radiolabels, indicating th at a portion of the unextracted resi dues are likely degradates(s).

7 According to the Toxic Release Invent ory Classification System, chemicals with half-lives greater than 60-days are classified as persistent and chemicals w ith half-lives greater than 180 days are classified as very persistent (USEPA, 2012a).

8 Unextracted residues in aerobic aquatic metabolism studies were greater than 10% applied radioactivity and it is uncertain whether the extraction proced ures were sufficiently exhaustive.

### 21 However, it is unknown what portion may be degr adate and what portion may be parent. Thus, degradation kinetics and risk we re explored with assuming that the unextracted residues were parent and with assuming they we re not a residue of concern.

Table 6. Maximum amount of unextracted res idues observed in aerobic metabolism studies

Study (number of test systems)* Maximum %AR associated with unextracted residues Aerobic Soil (18) 12.7 – 33.8 Anaerobic Soil (5) 13.6 – 30.8 Aerobic Aquatic (6) 13.9 – 27.3 Anaerobic Aquatic (2) 5.4 – 12.0 *The number of test systems reflects the individual studies with different radiolabels.



### Many of the decline curves were biphasic with an initial rapid rate of decline that slows as time passes. The curves where this occurred were generally described using the indeterminate order rate equation (IORE) and the double first order in parallel (DFOP) models and can be understood by considering both the DT 50 

### and DT 90 

### values. Figure 1 gives an example of a biphasic decline curve. Half or the initial concentration dec lined over 59 days. This was followed by a 10% loss of flupyradifurone over the next 61 days. As shown in Table 7 , the majority of decline curves for metabolism were biphasic.

EFED exposure models require first-order inputs for pesticide transformation processes even though pesticide transformations in soil and aq uatic systems often do not follow a single exponential decline pattern. For this reason, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) guidance introduced a "representative half-life (t R 

### )", to estimate a single first order (SFO) half-life for model input from a degrada tion curve that does not follow the SFO equation. 9 

### These values are shown in Table 7 . The representative half-life considers both the initial and the slower portions of the decline curv e and is not necessarily numerically similar to the value of the DT 50 

### , rather it provides a conservative i nput value for modeling. The actual DT 50 

### and DT 90 

### from the representative degradation ki netic equations for the curve ar e used for descriptive purposes and understanding the decline curve and the repr esentative half-life is used in modeling.

9 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/degrad ation_kinetics/NAFTA_Deg radation_Kinetics.htm

### 22 Figure 1. Example of a biphasic decline curve with an initial rapid rate of loss that slows over time The curve shown is an aerobic soil metabolism study conducted on the German AX soil (MRID 48843674).



### The DT 50 

### for the Neossolo soil and parent flupyradifu rone alone was determined using the DFOP model. However, the SFO model was used to describe the decline curve for residues of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues. B ecause different equations were used, the DT 50 

### and DT 90 

### for parent plus unextracted re sidues were shorter than the DT 50 

### and DT 90 

### for parent alone. This is an artifact of the methodology used to se lect which equation is used to describe the decline curve and the tool used to fit the curves . In the Neossolo soil, the DFOP model did not regress correctly in the R program ( i.e. , a negative values calculated for the slow rate) and the IORE results were very high re sulting in a very high recommende d representative model input half-life (T IORE 

### ) of 7.12×10 7 

### days. Finally, 70% of residues we re remaining at the end of the 120 day study. Therefore, the SFO model was chosen as the representative model for that soil. Figure 2 shows the decline curve for this soil. While it is counterintuitive that the DT 50 

### and DT 90 

### are shorter for parent plus unextracted resi dues, the overall the value is the result for one soil. When calculating the input parameters for modeling, results from all 10 soils were used and the estimated model input value for both fl upyradifurone alone and flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues is conservative. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140PercentFlupyradifuroneRemaining

Time (days)

### 23 Figure 2. Decline curve for aerobic soil metabolism in the Neosolo soil



### A similar situation occurred in the aerobic aquatic metabolism study with sediment from a German gravel pit. In this case, all of the equations converg ed appropriately and the equation recommended using the NAFTA procedure was us ed to characterize degradation kinetics. Again, the important thing is that both selected values are reas onable based on available data and the model input chosen to represent aer obic aquatic metabolism is conservative.

Figure 3. Decline curve for aerobic aquatic metabolism in the German gravel pit sediment 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140PercentRemaining

Time (days) Parent plus unextracted residues Parent alone

70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140PercentRemaining

Time (days)

Parent alone Parent plus unextracted residues

### 24 Table 7. Abiotic and biotic transfor mation kinetics of flupyradifurone, flupyradifurone plus M48 plus M47, and flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues.Study System Details (Kinetic Equation) Kinetic Equation Fitted 1 Value 1 Representative Half-life to Derive Model Input (days) 2 Reference Or (MRID), Study Classification 3 And Comments DT 50 (days) DT 90 (days)Hydrolysis(50oC) pH 4 No significant degradation Stable MRID 48843667, Fully Reliable pH 7

pH 9AtmosphericDegradation Hydroxyl Radical (SFO) 0.4 NA Not applicable Estimated using EPIWEB v.4.1 for 12-hour day, 1.5x10 6 OH- molecules/cm 3

. Flupyradifurone is not expected to undergo

long range transport in the vapor phase.Aqueous Photolysis(25oC) pH 7 Sterile 40 o N sunlight (SFO, SFO**) 2.5 13.0** 8.2 43.2** 2.5 13.0** MRID 48843669, Fully reliable. Corrected for 40 o N latitude. Furanone ring labeled.

pH 8 Natural water 40 o N sunlight (SFO, SFO**) 2.5 9.6** 8.4 31.9** 2.5 9.3** MRID 48843670, Fully reliable. Corrected for 40 o N latitude. Furanone ring labeled.SoilPhotolysis CA loam pH 6.5, 20 o C (SFO) 449 1495 Not applicable MRID 48843672, Fully reliable. Soil photolysis is of minor importance for the degradation of BYI 02960 under outdoor conditions and a major phototransformation product is not expected.Aerobic Soil Metabolism (20oC) German AX pH 6.8, 1.2% OC (DFOP, DFOP*) 62.9 169* 468 767* 178 258*

MRIDs 48843674, 48843676, 48843677, 48843679, 48843681, 48843682, 48843683. Reliable with restrictions. Results are shown for combined study results for the German and

U.S. soils. The furanone label soils had a higher percentage of unextracted residues than the other labels. The differences suggest that at least some of the un extracted residues are degradate. The German DD soil had some divergence in the results for different labels, DT 50 ranged from 34 to 56 days for the individual studies. German HF pH 7.0, 1.8%OC (IORE, IORE*) 37.5 78.8* 260 1292* 78.4 389*

German HN pH 5.9, 2.3%OC (DFOP, DFOP*) 112 303* 562 1100* 194 343*

German DD pH 7.7, 4.6%OC (IORE, IORE*) 45.4 96.7* 249 1510* 75 455*

NE silt loam pH 6.7, 2.3%OC (DFOP, SFO*) 215 355* 743 1179* 227 355*

CA sandy loam pH 7.4, 0.57%OC (IORE, IORE*) 56.6 173* 378 3139* 114 945*

Argissolo pH 6.0, 2.8 %OC

(SFO, SFO*) 202 296* 671 982* 202 296*

Latossolo pH 5.2, 1.8 %OC

(DFOP, SFO*) 134 291* 364 966* 97.9 291*

### 25Study System Details (Kinetic Equation) Kinetic Equation Fitted 1 Value 1 Representative Half-life to Derive Model Input (days) 2 Reference Or (MRID), Study Classification 3 And Comments DT 50 (days) DT 90 (days) Neossolo pH 4.9, 0.21%OC

(DFOP, SFO*) 170 221* 1293 734* 484 221*

Gleissolo pH 4.1, %OC 7.8

(SFO, SFO*) 401 799* 1331 2655* 401 799*Anaerobic Soil Metabolism (20oC) German HF soil pH 6.4, %OC 2.7

(DFOP, SFO*) 632 3793* 2098 12601* 711 3793* MRID 48843686. Reliable with restrictions. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were near 1 mg/L at some time points. Unextracted residues exceeded 10%AR but were relatively

constant post flood. An overall DFOP DT 50 and DT 90 are not available for parent only. The values shown are the results for the SFO model.

Sanger, CA pH 7.2, %OC 0.45 (SFO) 392 1303 392 MRID 48843687. Reliable with restrictions. Oxygen concentrations were near 1 mg/L at

some time points after flooding but redox conditions were appropriate days 30-121 post flood. Unextracted residues were greater than

10%AR but were relatively constant during the anaerobic phase.

NE soil pH 6.7, %OC 1.9 Essentially stable over 30 days MRID 48843688. Reliable with restrictions. Study terminated 60 days after flooding. No loss over 30 days of appropriate redox conditions.Aerobic Aquatic(20oC) German pond HW pH 7.4, 3.59 %OC 20 o C (IORE, SFO*) 237 893* 1818 2965* 547 893* MRID 48843690 and 48843692. Reliable with restrictions due to presence of unextracted residues at greater than 10%AR. Results are shown for combined study results. German gravel pit (AW) pH 7.0, 1.20 %OC 20 o C (IORE, SFO*) 365 676* 5793 2247* 1740 676*Anaerobic Aquatic(24oC) KS pond Water: pH 8.3, 7.8% OC

(SFO) 1999 Stable* 6640 Stable* 1999 Stable* MRID 48843689. Reliable with restrictions. Up to 12%AR present as unextracted residues in NC system and it is uncertainty whether the extraction procedure was sufficiently exhaustive. NC pond Water: pH 7.4, 11.9%OC (SFO, SFO*) 416 2470* 1381 8204* 416 2470*

AR=applied radioactivity; OC=organic carbon; DT X =time for concentration/mass to decline by X percentage; SFO=single first order; DFOP=double first order in parallel; IORE=indeterminate order (IORE); SFO DT 50 =single first order half-life; T IORE =the half-life of a SFO model that passes through a hypothetical DT 90 of the IORE fit; DFOP slow DT 50 =slow rate half-life of the DFOP fit, NA=not available, AR=applied radioactivity

* Value calculated for parent and unextracted residues which may or may not be parent. These values are relevant in understanding the uncertainty in data due to unextracted residues. ** Value calculated for parent plus M47 plus M48.

1 DT 50 and DT 90 values were calculated using nonlinear regression and SFO, DFOP, or IORE equations. The

### 26 equations can be found in the document, Standard Operating Procedure for Using the NAFTA Guidance to Calculate Representative Half-life Values and Characterizing Pesticide Degradation (USEPA, 2012b)

. 2 The value used to estimate a model input value is the calculated SFO DT 50 , T IORE , or the DFOP slow DT 50 from the DFOP equation. The model chosen is consistent with that recommended using the, Guidance for Evaluating and Calculating Degradation Kinetics in Environmental Media (NAFTA, 2012) . The same kinetic equation used to determine the representative model input value was used to describe the DT 50 and DT 90 results based on standard kinetic equations.

3 See Appendix J for a comparison of OPP and OECD classificati on systems. OECD classifications were used because the monograph was harm onized with other countries.



### Four degradates were present in one or more fate studies at greater than 10% of applied radioactivity (AR):

 6-chloronicotinic acid (6-CNA) 10



### ,

 difluoroacetic acid (DFA),

 BYI 02960-succinamide (M48), and

 BYI 02960-azabicyclosuccinamide (M47).

Table 8 summarizes available degradation studies for 6-CNA and DFA; 6-CNA is degraded rapidly in three aerobic soil systems (DT 50 

### ranged from 3 to 7 days). The degradate DFA was persistent to very persistent in two aerobic aquatic systems (DT 50 

### ranged from 121 to 951 days). More information on the amount formed and sorpti on of these degradates is available in other sections. Degradation studies were not conducted with M47 a nd M48; however, they were detected at maximum amounts at the end of the a quaeous photolysis study. This suggests that M47 and M48 have the potential to be persistent in aqueous environments.

Table 8. Biotic degradation kinetics for 6CNA and DFA

Study System Details (Kinetic Equation) DT 50 (days) DT 90 (days) Representative Half-life to Derive Model Input (days) 2 Reference Or (MRID), Study Classification

Aerobic Soil Metabolism – 6CNA UK sandy loam, 20 o C pH 6.7, 3.1%OC (IORE) 3.5 8.6 2.6

MRID 44651882. Reliable with restrictions. UK clay, 20 o C pH 7.8, 3.8%OC (IORE) 2.7 7.1 2.1

UK loam, 20 o C pH 7.2, 2.9%OC (IORE) 6.5 13.2 4.0

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism - DFA German pond HW, 20 o C pH 7.4, 3.59 %OC (SFO, SFO*) 121 226* 403 752* 121 226* MRID 48843691. Reliable with restrictions. Unextracted residues were less than 10%AR in the AW system and 16% in the HW system, except for an outlier presumed

due to experimental error. There was one outlier at the same sampling point in both systems that resulted in high mass balances. German gravel pit (AW), 20 o C pH 7.0, 1.20 %OC (SFO) 951 3159 951

10 6-chloronicotinic acid is a degradate for flupyradifurone, acetamiprid, and imidacloprid.

### 27 OC=organic carbon; DT 50 =time for concentration/mass to decline by 50%; SFO=single first order; DFOP=double first order in parallel; IORE=indeterminate order (IORE)

* Value calculated for parent and unextracted residues which may or may not be parent. These values are relevant in understanding the uncertainty in data due to unextracted residues.

1 DT 50 values were calculated using nonlinear regression and SFO, DFOP, or IORE equations. The equations can be found in the document, Standard Operating Procedure for Using the NAFTA Guidance to Calculate Representative Half-life Values and Characterizing Pesticide Degradation (USEPA, 2012b)

. 2 The value used to estimate a model input value is the calculated SFO DT 50 , T IORE , or the DFOP slow DT 50 from the DFOP equation. The model chosen is consistent with that recommended using the, Guidance for Evaluating and Calculating Degradation Kinetics in Environmental Media (NAFTA, 2012) . The same kinetic equation used to determine the representative model input value was used to describe the DT 50 and DT 90 results based on standard kinetic equations.



### 3.2.3. Sorption and Mobility

Unlike degradation, study results indicate that so il sorption of flupyradifurone is influenced by percent organic carbon ( Table 9 ). Nevertheless, based on orga nic-carbon water normalized soilwater distribution coefficients (K oc 

### ) ranging from 80 to 283 L/kg-organic carbon (measured in 10 soils), flupyradifurone is clas sified as mobile to modera tely mobile (FAO, 2000) (MRID 48843662, 48843663, 48843664). Flupyradifurone therefore has the potential to move with runoff, and/or to infiltrate the soil and leach into groundwater. The aquatic field dissipation results indicate that most flupyradifurone residues will not be quickly transported into sediment and sediment pore water; however, some residues will occur in sediment. While K oc 

### values indicate that flupyradifurone has a higher affinity for organic matte r than water, they are well below 1000 L/kg. In most aquatic environments, a greater percentage of flupyradifurone is expected to be present in the wate r column as compared to sediment.

The degradate, 6-CNA, is mobile to moderately mobile, with K oc 

### values ranging from 17.2 to 134 L/kg in five soils and one sediment (F AO, 2000) (MRID 44651884). DFA is highly mobile, with K oc 

### values ranging from 1.55 to 8.75 L/kg in five soils (FAO, 2000) (MRID 48843665). Both 6-CNA and DFA thus also have the potentia l to runoff or leach to groundwater. Sorption data are not available for M47 or M48.

Table 9. Summary of submitted sorption studies for flupyradifurone and its degradates 2-chloronicotinic acid (6CNA), and difluoroacetic acid (DFA)

Soil texture Source % OC soil pH Regressed K d (L/kg-soil) K OC (L/kg-OC) K F (mg/L)(mg/kg) -1/n 1/n K FOC (mg/L) (mg/kg)

-

1/n Parent, 20 o C, MRID 48843662, Fully Reliable Sandy loam AX, Germany 2.1 6.2 2.193 104.4 2.077 0.8445 98.9

Loam HF, Germany 2.4 6.6 2.353 98.05 2.213 0.8682 92.2

Loam HN, Germany 2.2 5.3 2.506 113.9 2.354 0.8643 107.0

Loam DD, Germany 5.1 7.2 4.118 80.74 3.822 0.8648 74.9

Parent, 20 o C, MRID 48843663, Fully Reliable Sandy loam California 0.7 6.8 0.627 89.5 0.597 0.9021 85.2

Silt loam, 1.9 6.5 2.824 148.6 2.512 0.8505 132.2

### 28 Soil texture Source % OC soil pH Regressed K d (L/kg-soil) K OC (L/kg-OC) K F (mg/L)(mg/kg) -1/n 1/n K FOC (mg/L) (mg/kg)

-

1/n Nebraska Parent, 20 o C, MRID 48843664, Fully Reliable Clay, Argissolo, Brazil 2.8 5.66 7.104 254 6.7 0.8153 241

Clay,Latossolo, Brazil 1.7 4.59 1.462 86 1.5 0.9263 86

Loamy sand, Neossolo, Brazil 0.5 4.93 0.563 113 0.6 0.9246 115

Silty clay loam, Gleissolo, Brazil 7.8 3.51 22.07 283 21.1 0.8317 270

2-chloronicotinic acid, MRID 44651884, Fully Reliable Loamy sand 1 NC 0.25 4.4 0.335 134 0.377 0.803 151

Loamy sand 2 NC 1.5 6.2 0.863 57.6 0.818 1.11 54.5

Silt loam MS 0.44 6.6 0.244 55.4 0.274 0.808 62.3

Clay MS 0.82 7.5 0.205 17.2 0.21 0.96 17.6

Clay loam CA 1.2 8.3 0.168 20.5 0.191 0.794 23.3

Sandy loam sediment NC 2.5 5.6 1.64 65.7 1.8 0.762 72.1

DFA, MRID 48843665, Fully Reliable Silt loam HF Germany 2.4 6.5 0.210 8.75 0.229 0.910 9.53

Loam HN Germany 2.9 5.8 0.211 7.27 0.230 0.816 7.94

Clay loam DD Germany 4.5 7.4 0.361 8.03 0.372 0.964 8.26

Sandy loam CA 0.5 6.0 0.030 6.05 0.034 0.703 6.83

Silty clay loam NE 1.7 6.5 0.026 1.55 0.025 0.719 1.46

NR=not reported

### 29 3.2.4. Field Dissipation

Several terrestrial field dissi pation studies have been completed for flupyradifurone ( Table 10 ). Studies were all completed on bare ground sites in the United Stat es (California, Florida, and Idaho), Canada (Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan) and Europe (Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain). Th e application rate at each No rth American site was a single application of 0.6 kg ai/ha (0.54 lbs ai/A). Th is is higher than the highest proposed single application rate of 0.41 kg ai/ha ( 0.37 lbs ai/A) in the United States . For each of the European sites, the application rate was 0.25 kg ai/ha (0.22 lbs ai/A). The study completed for the European sites did not have an independent la boratory validation (ILV) and consequently the levels detected and study conclu sions are not considered fully reliable. However, available information suggests that other than this, th e analytical chemistry method was acceptable. Values of DT 50 

### for flupyradifurone and for the whole so il profile ranged from 8 to 310 days. Time to 90% loss (DT 90 

### value) values for flupyradifurone ra nged from 205 to greater than 1000 days. The difference between the DT 50 

### and DT 90 

### show that there was an initial fast rate of dissipation in the first few months followed by a slow rate of dissipa tion. This is consistent with the results observed in the laboratory aerobic soil metabolism studies. As you can see in Figure 4 , the dissipation of flupyradifurone sl owed down substantially after 50 days.

Figure 4. Flupyradifurone dissipation in the te rrestrial field dissipation study completed in Florida

At all sites most residues (f lupyradifurone and degradates) we re observed in the top 15 cm; however, a small portion of flupyradifurone was obs erved up to a depth of 40 cm. Field sites varied in percent organic matter (range from 0.8 to 4.4%OM), soil properties, and pH (range from 5.5 to 8.2) and based on graphical analys is, there was not a relationship between DT 50 

### values for flupyradifurone and pH or %OM. Carryover of flupyradifurone at the end of the sampling period ranged from 8 to 59% applied flupyradifurone, indicatin g that a portion of applied flupyradifurone does have the potential to build up in soil with subsequent applications from year to year. Two of the major degrad ates observed in laborat ory studies, 6-CNA and DFA, were also observed in the field studies; degradates M47 and M48 were not evaluated in the 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Flupyradifurone(g/ha)

Time (days)

### 30 field dissipation studies. Based on available data, the DT 50 

### and DT 90 

### observed in terrestrial field dissipation studies is likely due to a combination of leaching (b ased on the flupyradifurone being mobile to moderately mobile) and degrada tion (shown by the presence of degradates and observed degradation in laboratory studies). As the studies were conducted on bare ground, these results do not reflect dissipation on a cropp ed plot. Foliar interception and uptake would likely contribute substantially to dissipation of flupyradifurone in a cropped plot.

Table 10. Summary of terrestrial field di ssipation study results for flupyradifuroneMRID(Year) Study Site, Crop Application Rate

Formulation % Parent remaining

at final sampling interval (Days) DT 50 (days

) DT 90 (days) Average Max Conc in Soil (μg/kg-soil) Max Depth detected (cm) Comments

Parent DFA 6CNA48843693(2012) Tulare Co. California, USA pH 8.2, 0.9 %OM 28 (272) 55.9 + 767 + 200.6 30 12.4 60* 5.6 15

Reliable with restrictions. No cropped plots. All

plots were bare ground and used a flowable formulation.48843694(2012) Jefferson Co. Florida, USA pH 6.5, 0.8%OM 19 (275) 9.62 + 577 + 304.5 15 8.2 15 5.2 1548843695(2012) Blaine Co. Idaho, USA pH 8.0, 1.4%OM 30 (280) 45.6 + 566 + 416.5 30 5.0 106* 10.8 1548843696(2012) Ontario CANADA pH 7.0, 4.4%OM 25 (337) 99.6 + 751 + 275.2 30 10.9 30* 3.8 15

Prince-EdwardIsland CANADA pH NA, 3.6%OM 33 (345) 87.8 + 897 + 220.2 30 8.0 30* 4.8 15

Saskatchewan CANADA pH 7.6, 2.5%OM 59 (337) 304 # 1.4×10

4# 238.5 30 4.7 15 2.1 1548843697 (2011) Monheim, Germany pH 6.3, 1.2%OM 27 (354) 38.4 + 743 + 236.6 30 11.2 30 NA Reliable with restrictions. Missing

ILV but available information suggests methods were

acceptable. Application rate (250 g ai/ha) much lower

than maximum proposed rate. All

plots were bare ground and used a flowable formulation. Great Chishill, United Kingdom pH 5.8, 2.2%OC 45 (394) 310 + 4651 + 235.9 30 7.2 20 NA

Burscheid, Germany pH 6.3, 0.9%OC 22 (357) 42.0 + 476 + 244.9 30 10.1 30 NA

Albaro, Italy pH 7.4, 1.3%OC 8 (360) 8.3 + 278 + 267.5 30 8.7 30 NA

Vilobi d’Onyar, Spain pH 5.9, 0.7%OC 9 (357) 27.7 # 205 # 239.6 40 6.1 20 NA

### 31MRID(Year) Study Site, Crop Application Rate

Formulation % Parent remaining

at final sampling interval (Days) DT 50 (days

) DT 90 (days) Average Max Conc in Soil (μg/kg-soil) Max Depth detected (cm) Comments

Parent DFA 6CNA

Hanscheider Hof, Germany pH 5.5, 1.5%OC 19 (357) 40.8 # 477 # 252.9 20 13.5 30 NA

NA=not analyzed, ILV=independent laboratory valid ation, OC=organic carbon, OM=organic matter; Conc=concentration *Detected below the LOQ at the depth. + The DFOP equation was used to calculate dissipation kinetics. # The IORE equation was used to calculate dissipation kinetics.



### A study was also conducted examining dissipation of flupyradifurone in water and sediment in four outdoor microcosms spiked at two different concentrations (10 and 100 μg/L). Dissipation half-lives are summarized in Table 11

. 

### The DT 50 

### values in the water and whole system ranged from 64 to 109 days and DT 90 

### values ranged from 212 to 363 days. Concentrations of transformation products were not followed in th e study. Two to 11% of applied material was observed in sediment. Overall, this indicates th at most flupyradifurone re sidues will be observed in the water column but exposure may also occur in sediment. Degradation rates in the sediment could not be determined because concentrations in the sediment continued to increase over the duration of the study. This indicates transfer fr om the water column was occurring at a greater rate than transformation in sediments over this period. These results are consistent with the persistence observed in the labora tory sediments. Finally, regard less of the initial exposure concentration, dissipation rates were relatively similar.

Table 11. Summary of DT 50 and DT 90 of flupyradifurone in outdoor microcosm studies (MRID 48843673)

Nominal Test Concentration μg/L Water Phase Whole System

DT 50 (days) DT 90 (days) DT 50 (days) DT 90 (days)

10 63.9 212 74.0 246 100 95.0 316 109 363



### 3.2.5. Transformation Products of Toxicological and Exposure Concern

As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the following four transformation products were measured in environmental fate studies at 10% or greater of applied radi oactivity: 6-CNA, DFA, M48, and M47.

The following three transformation products were also measured in environmental fate studies, at less than 10% of app lied radioactivity:

 BYI 02960-deschlorohydroxysuccinamide (DCHS);

 BYI 02960-des-difluoroe thyl (M19); and,

 BYI 02960-chloro (M01).

Finally, BYI 02960-difluoro-ethylamino-furanone (DFEAF) was observed in studies conducted to evaluate residues in flowers, pollen, and nectar after drench and foliar applications to different

### 32 commodity crops that are potentially of use for refining exposure if initia l screening-level risk estimates exceed LOCs for honeybees. DFEAF was also observed in the plant metabolism studies submitted to the Health Effects Division.

IUPAC names, molecular weights, formula’s, and SMILES codes are available for these compounds in the document titled, Data on Flupyradifurone and Its Environmental Transformation Products in Support of the ROCKs (USEPA, 2013, D415161) .

Figure 5 shows potential degradation pathways of flupyradifurone ba sed on chemical structures and observed transformation pr oducts in various studies.

Figure 5. Potential degradation pathways of flupyradifurone Bolded values were present at greater than 10% of applied ra dioactivity and the asterisk indicates the compound was observed in a field study. Abbreviations are defined in text above figure.



### Table 12 shows the maximum percent applied radio activity for each identified transformation product and corresponding study type. The tr ansformation products DFA and 6-CNA were observed in aerobic environments, especially soils, while M48 a nd M47 were present in aqueous photolysis studies. All other transformation pr oducts were present at less than 10% applied radioactivity. There is some un certainty as to whether additi onal major transformation products

### 33 would have been identified had the unextracted residues been characteri zed (which is why the unextracted residues have been included in th e modeling runs). Often the maximum amount of AR associated with a degradate was observed at th e final sampling interval. This indicates that the maximum amount of degradate that could form may not have been observed or captured during the study. The transforma tion products evaluated in fiel d studies were DFA and 6-CNA and they were observed at less than 15 μg/kg- soil, at concentrations much lower than flupyradifurone concentrations (maximum of 416 μg/kg-soil).

Table 12. Summary of maximum amount of transformation products observed in fate studies

Compound Maximum % of Applied Radioactivity Associated with Degradate (Time of Peak) Amount Detected at Final Samplin g Interval in Corresponding StudyHydrolysisSoilPhotolysisAerobic SoilAnaerobicSoilAqueousPhotolysisAerobicAquaticAnaerobicAquaticObserved inFieldDissipation

DFA NE NE 35 (48d) 24 (117d) 27 (37d) 27 (153d) NE NE NE Yes

6-CNA NE NE 22 (64d) 6.2 (120d) 15 (14d) 13 (121d) NE NE NE Yes

M48 (succinamide) NE NE NE NE 39 (35hr) a NE NE NA

M47 (azabicyclosucc inamide) NE NE NE NE 15 (28hr) a NE NE NEA

BYI 02960-desdifluoroethyl NE NE 0.5 (59d) ND (120d) NE NE NE NE NE

BYI 02960- chloro NE NE 1.8 (120d) a 2.8 (59d) 2.4 (121d) NE NE NE NE

DCHS NE NE NE NA 2.8 (35hr) a NE NE NE Unextracted Residues NE 1.1(4d) 0.7 (8d) 34 (120d) a 31 (120d) 30 (123d) NE 27 (120d) a 12 (102d) a NE

CO 2 NE 2.3 (8d) 59 (120d) a 27 ND 9 (119d) a 0.1(102d) a NE NE=not evaluated; ND=not detected

a Peak at final sampling interval in some studies.

b In some aerobic soil metabolism studies, significant mineralization occurred while in others minimal mineralization occurred (max CO 2 in one soil was 4% of AR).



### Residues of concern are chosen ba sed on available toxicity data for parent and degradates (see Section 3.5 for a discussion of toxicity data and Appendix I for summary information of toxicity data of parent and degradates) a nd structural similarity to the pa rent or to other structures of known toxicity concern. Based on the available ecotoxicity da ta, none of the transformation products of flupyradifurone tested appear to be mo re toxic than the parent to freshwater fish (rainbow trout, Onchorhynchus mykiss ), freshwater aqua tic invertebrates ( Daphnia magna; nonbiting midges, Chironomus spp. ), terrestrial invert ebrates (honeybees, Apis mellifera ; earthworms, Eisenia fetida ) and freshwater aquatic algae (green algae; Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ). However, in some cases, toxicity studi es with transformation products were not carried out at high enough concentr ations to definitively conclude that they are not of equal or greater toxicity to the organisms tested as compared to the parent compound.

### 34 HED data on degradates indicates that degradates are less toxic than the parent. There is one exception for DFA. When comparing the NOAEL and LOAEL for DFA for a study to a similar 90-day oral study with the parent compound (MRID 48844111; NOAEL and LOAEL of 38 and 156 mg/kg bw, respectively), on a molar basis, the NOAELs and LOAELs of DFA and the parent are comparable, however, the effects are different. Therefore, DFA was considered a residue of concern for risk to mammals. See th e Section 3.5 for more discussion on the toxicity of DFA.

DFEAF residues made up 10% applied radioactiv ity or less in plant metabolism studies, and given the low acute toxicity of DFEAF to honeyb ees, they are not consid ered a residues of

concern.

Aquatic Exposure

3.3.1. Input Parameters

As aquatic EECs were anticipated to exceed ecol ogical LOCs based on the reduced risk analysis (USEPA, 2013, D408685), the SWCC (Tier II mode ling) was used to estimate EECs in surface water. Groundwater EECs for evaluation of re sidues of flupyradifurone in groundwater-derived irrigation water were generated using SCI-GROW and PRZM-GW. EECs were generated based on maximum labeled use rates ( Table 4 ), and fate input parameters ( Table 8 and Table 9 ) selected in accordance with EFED’s guidance documents:

 Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Mo deling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides , Version 2.1 11 

### (USEPA, 2009),

 G uidance for Selecting Input Parameters for Modeling Pesticide Concentrations in Groundwater Using the Pesticide Root Zone Model , Version 1 (USEPA and Health Canada, 2013),

 Guidance for Evaluating and Calculating De gradation Kinetics in Environmental Media 12 

### (NAFTA, 2012; USEPA, 2012b), and

 Guidance on Modeling Offsite Deposition of Pesticides Via Spray Drift for Ecological and Drinking Water Assessmen t 13 

### (USEPA, 2013b)

Summaries of the model input parameter valu es used in SCI-GROW, PRZM-GW, and SWCC are presented in Table 16

, Table 17 , and Table 18 , respectively.

Sorption Coefficients

Coefficients of variations (CV) were lowe r for organic carbon normalized solid-water distribution coefficients (K OC 

### ; CV=53%) as compared to solid-water distribution coefficients (K d 

### ; CV=140%). Therefore, and consistent with the input parameter guidance, the mean K oc 

### (137 L/kg- OC 

### ) was used to estimate flupyradifurone concentrations with PRZM-GW and the SWCC, and the median K oc 

### (109 L/kg-oc) was used to estimat e groundwater concen trations with

11 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm (accessed April 11, 2014)

12 http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/international/naftatwg/guidance/degradation-kin.pdf (accessed April 11, 2014)

13 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0676 (accessed April 11, 2014)

### 35 SCI-GROW.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism

The aerobic soil metabolism input value used in PRZM-GW and the SWCC was calculated as the 90 percent upper confidence limit on the mean of ten representative ha lf-life values. The aerobic soil metabolism input value used in SCI-GROW was the median of the same representative half-l ife values. Consistent with the input parameter guidance, the representative half-life for PRZM-GW was adju sted to a temperature of 25 o 

### C (USEPA and Health Canada, 2012). Temperature adjustments were not comp leted for inputs to the SWCC; however, the temperature that the studies were conducted at were input into the SWCC. The temperature simulation option was not selected.

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism

The aerobic aquatic metabolism input value used in the SWCC was calculate d as the 90 percent upper confidence limit on the mean of two representa tive half-life values. The temperatures that the studies were conducted at we re inputs for the SWCC. Temperature adjustments for aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism are automatically simulated in the SWCC.

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism

The anaerobic aquatic metabolism input value used in the SWCC was calculated as the 90 percent upper confidence limit on th e mean of two representative half-life values for residues of parent alone; stability was assumed for residues of parent plus unextra cted residues. The temperatures that the studies were conducted at were inputs for the SWCC. Temperature adjustments for aerobic and anaerobic aquatic me tabolism are automatically simulated in the SWCC.

Scenarios and Application Dates Chosen for SWCC modeling

Scenarios are used to specify so il, climatic, and agronomic inputs in PRZM (a component of the SWCC), and are intended to represent runoff-vulne rable soil conditions th at result in high-end water concentrations associated with a particul ar crop and pesticide with in a geographic region. Each PRZM scenario is specific to a location. Soil and agronomi c data specific to the location are built into the scenario, and a specific me teorological station provi ding 30 years of daily weather values is associ ated with the location. Table 13 identifies the use sites associated with each PRZM scenario. For foliar and soil applic ations to agricultural crops, the date of application was chosen as the day when the crop was present on the field, and during a period of generally high rainfall as it is expected that fl upyradifurone may be used when the crop is on the field and during periods of high rainfall. Crop-specific management practices were used for modeling, including maximum proposed applica tion rates, maximum proposed numbers of applications per year, minimum proposed re-applicat ion intervals, and the first application date for each crop. For the seed treatment use, the application date ( i.e ., the planting date) was chosen as two weeks before crop emergence. The in corporation depth was based on information on the label.

### 36 Table 13. Use site group, associat ed crops, and PRZM scenarios used to calculate EDWC for the use site

group Use Site Crops Associated with Use Site Crop Cycles per year 1 Scenarios

Crop Group 15: Cereal Grains (except Rice) Barley; buckwheat; corn; millet, pearl; millet, proso; oats; popcorn; rye; sorghum (milo); teosinte; triticale; wheat -- IAcornSTD ILcornSTD INcornSTD KSsorghumSTD

MNCornSTD MScornSTD NCcornESTD NEcornESTD NDwheatSTD OHcornSTD PAcornSTD

Cotton Cotton -- CAcottonWirrigSTD MScottonSTD NCcottonSTD Peanut peanut -- NCpeanutSTD

Root Vegetables (except Sugarbeet) Arracacha; arrowroot; artichoke, Chinese; artichoke, Jerusalem; beet, garden; beet, sugar; burdock, edible; canna, edible; carrot; cassava, bitter and sweet; celeriac; chayote (root); chervil, turnip-rooted; chicory; chufa; dasheen

(taro); ginger; ginseng; horseradish; leren; parsley, turnip-rooted; parsnip; potato; radish; radish, oriental; rutabaga; salsify; salsify, black;

salsify, Spanish; skirret; sweet potato; tanier; turmeric; turnip; yam bean; yam, true. 3-5 cc/yr in CA for radish

1cc/yr for carrot

3-4 cc/yr for turnip greens

1-2 cc/yr rutabaga

1-2 cc/yr national for red beet

Rotated with other crops FlcarrotSTD IDpotatowirrigSTD MEpotatoSTD MIasparagusSTDv2 MNsugarbeetSTD ORmintSTD NCSweetPotatoSTD

Tuberous and Corm Vegetables Arracacha; arrowroot; artichoke, Chinese; artichoke, Jerusalem; canna, edible; cassava, bitter and sweet; chayote (root); chufa; dasheen (taro); ginger; leren; pota to; sweet potato; tanier; turmeric; yam bean; yam, true -- IDNpotato_WirrigSTD MEpotatoSTD NCsweetpotatoSTD

Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica ) Amaranth (Chinese spinach); arugula (roquette); cardoon; celery; celery, Chinese; celtuce; chervil; chrysanthemum, edible-leaved; chrysanthemum, garland; corn salad; cress, garden; cress, upland; dandelion; dock (sorrel); endive (escarole); fennel, Florence; lettuce, head and leaf; orach; parsley; purslane, garden; purslane, winter; radicchio (red chicory); rhubarb; spinach; spinach, New Zealand; spinach, vine; Swiss chard 2 cc/yr in NC and CA for lettuce

1-3 cc/yr national for spinach

Rotated with cole crops FLcucumberSTD FLtomatoSTD_v2

CAlettuceSTD FLcabbageSTD

Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables Broccoli; broccoli, Chinese (gai lon); broccoli raab (rapini); Brussels sprouts; cabbage;Chinese (bok choy); cabbage, Chinese (napa); cabbage, Chinese mustard(gai choy); cauliflower; cavalo

broccolo; collards; kale; kohlrabi; mizuna; mustard greens; mustard spinach; rape greens 2 cc/yr in NC and CA for cole

crops

Rotated with leafy vegetables

Legume Vegetables (Succulent or Dried) Bean (Lupinus) (includes grain lupin, sweet lupin, white lupin, and white sweet lupin); bean (Phaseolus) (includes field bean, kidney bean, lima bean, navy bean, pi nto bean, runner bean, Beans: 1-3 cc/yr national. 1 cc/yr (processing), 1-3 cc/yr (fresh market) for snap beans.

1 cc/yr in CA - due to pest MIbeansSTD ORsnbeansSTD

### 37 Use Site Crops Associated with Use Site Crop Cycles per year 1 Scenarios snap bean, tepary bean, wax bean); bean (Vigna) (includes adzuki bean, asparagus bean, blackeyed pea, catjang, Chinese longbean, cowpea, crowder pea, mo th bean, mung bean,

rice bean, southern pea, urd bean, yardlong bean); broad bean (fava); chickpea (garbanzo); guar; jackbean; lablab bean; lentil; pea (Pisum) (includes dwarf pea, edible-podded pea, English pea, field pea, garden p ea, green pea, snowpea, sugar snap pea); pigeon pea; soybean; soybean (immature seed); sword bean problems, succulent beans are typically not planted back to back. Snap beans have a fall crop & a spring crop in desert areas. Up to 3 fresh snap bean

seasons listed for FL GA.

Fruiting Vegetables (except cucurbits) Eggplant; groundcherry (Physalis spp); pepino; pepper (includes bell pepper, chili pepper, cooking pepper, pimento, sweet pepper); tomatillo; tomato 1-3 cc/yr national for peppers. 3 cc/yr in FL for bell peppers grow in some areas all times, up to 3 seasons

1 cc/yr national. Production in Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 CAtomatowirrigSTD FLtomatoSTD_V2

PAtomatoSTD FLpeppersSTD

Cucurbit Vegetables Chayote (fruit); Chines e waxgourd (Chinese preserving melon); citron melon; cucumber;

gherkin; gourd, edible (includes hyotan, cucuzza, hechima, Chin ese okra); Momordica spp (includes balsam apple, balsam pear, bittermelon, Chinese cucumber); muskmelon

(includes cantaloupe); pumpkin; squash, summer; squash, winter (includes butternut squash, calabaza, hubbard squash, acorn squash, spaghetti squash); watermelon These crops are often rotated in the same field with Solanaceous crops ( e.g ., tomatoes, peppers) in the southeastern US. In northern regions (north of NC) 1 crop per year is probably standard, with no such rotation. FLcucumberSTD NJmelonSTD MImelonSTD MOmelonSTD

Hop Hop -- ORhopsSTD

Citrus Fruit Calamondin; citrus citron; citrus hybrids (includes chironja, tangelo, tangor); grapefruit; kumquat; lemon; lime; mandarin (tangerine); orange, sour; orange, sweet; pummelo; Satsuma mandarin -- Cacitrus_WirrigSTD FLcitrusSTD

Pome Fruit Apple; azarole; crabapple; loquat; mayhaw; medlar; pear; pear, Asian; quince; quince, Chinese; quince, Japanese; tejocote; cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these -- NCappleSTD ORappleSTD PAappleSTD CAfruit_WirrigSTD

Bushberry Blueberry, highbush and lowbush; currant; elderberry; gooseb erry; huckleberry -- OrberriesOP NYgrapesSTD

Low Growing Berry (excluding Cranberry) Bearberry; bilberry; blueberry, lowbush; cloudberry; lingonberry; muntries; partridgeberry; strawberry; cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these -- Flstrawberry_WirrigST D ORberriesSTD

Small Fruit Vine Climbing (except Fuzzy Kiwifruit) Amur river grape; gooseberry; grape; kiwifruit, fuzzy; kiwifruit, hardy; maypop; schisandra berry; cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these -- ORberriesOP NYGrapesSTD

-- Cagrapes_wirrigSTD

Tree Nut African nut-tree; almond; beechnut; Brazil nut; Brazilian pine; bunya; bur oak; butternut; Cajou

nut; candlenut; cashew; chestnut; chinquapin; coconut; coquito nut; dika nut; ginkgo; Guiana chestnut; hazelnut (filber t); heartnut; hickory nut; Japanese horse-chestnut; macadamia nut; CAalmond_WirrigSTD ORfilbertSTD GApecanSTD

### 38 Use Site Crops Associated with Use Site Crop Cycles per year 1 Scenarios mongongo nut; monkey-pot; monkey puzzle nut;

Okari nut; Pachira nut; peach palm nut; pecan; pequi; Pili nut; pine nut; pistachio; Sapucaia nut; tropical almond; walnut, black; walnut, English; yellowhorn; cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these Prickly Pear/Cactus pear Prickly pear -- CAcitrus_WirrigSTD

Nongrass Animal

Feeds (Forage, Fodder, Straw, Hay) Alfalfa; bean, velvet; clover (Trifolium , Melilotus); kudzu; lespedeza; lupin; sainfoin; trefoil; vetch; vetch, crown; vetch, milk -- CArangelandhayRLF_ V2 NCalfalfaOP PAalfalfaOP TXalfalfaOP ILalfalfaNMC MNalfalfaOP Soybean Seeds Soybea n -- MSsoybeanSTD

1 Information provided by BEAD in support of diazinon



### Currently approved standard PRZM crop scenarios were used in modeling when available. Low growing berries include both berries grown on the ground ( i.e ., strawberries) and berries grown on shrubs ( i.e ., blackberries). The ORberriesOP and the Flstrawberry_WirrigSTD scenarios were used to represent the low growing berry subgroup. The ORberriesOP scenario (this scenario was developed for th e organophosphate (OP) cumulative assessment) was prepared for use on blackberries, and is represen tative of berries grown on shrubs . Flupyradifurone is not an OP class chemical; however, the OP berry scenario is the only scenario available for this type of crop. The Root Vegetables Crop Group includes the following: garden beet, burdock, carrot, celeriac, turnip-root chervil, ch icory, ginseng, horseradish, turnip rooted parsley, parsnip, radish, Oriental radish, rutabega, salsify, black salsif y, Spanish salsify, skirret, and turnip. The following scenarios were chosen for this cr op group: FlcarrotSTD, IDpotatowirrigSTD, MEpotatoSTD, MIasparagusSTDv2, and ORmint. Th e asparagus and sugarbeet scenarios were chosen to be representative of use on ginseng. ORmintSTD was chosen to be representative of use on parsley. To represent use on turnip greens, the FlcarrotSTD scenario and the MEpotatoSTD were chosen. There are currently no standard scenarios that are available to represent nongrass animal feeds. Therefore, the following scenario s were used to be representative of this crop group: CArange landhayRLF_V2, Ncalfa lfaOP, PaalfalfaOP, TxalfalfaOP, ILalfalfaNMC, MnalfalfaOP.

Unlike EFED’s standard crop scenarios, the OP-cumulative scenarios were not developed specifically to repres ent high-end exposure ( i.e ., vulnerable) sites. Inst ead, these scenarios were developed by first identifying areas of high combined use of the entire OP class of chemicals that coincided with drinking water inta kes that draw from surface wate r sources. Within these high OP-use areas, major crop uses were identified and scenarios were developed to represent high runoff-prone soils known to support the crops in these areas. In some instances, these scenarios may represent the major growing area for a part icular crop. In other instances, the major crop area may be elsewhere, and the scenario in the hi gh OP-use area may represent a "fringe" area of the crop in question. It has not been determin ed how the vulnerability of a crop scenario developed for the OP cumulative assessment compar es to a standard scenario developed for the

### 39 same crop; therefore, the OP scenarios may repres ent either greater or le sser vulnerability than standard scenarios. Because the OP scenario s focused on areas that coincided with drinking water intakes, their suitability as high-e nd vulnerable scenarios for ecological exposure assessments is less certain. The California red legged frog ( Rana draytonii ) scenarios were developed in support of risk assessments conducte d to evaluate potential risks to this listed species in California. These scenarios have sim ilar issues as the scenarios developed for the OP assessments, except that they were not chosen ba sed on proximity to drinking water intakes, but rather to evaluate specific uses of pesticides in California. Th ey may not be representative of vulnerable areas across the United States. The CArowcropRLF, CAcolecropRLF, CAstrawberry-noplastic, and CAwinegrapesRLF were us ed with the appropriate crop groups in this assessment. The scenarios ending in NMC were developed to support the N-methyl carbamate risk assessments.

Multiple Crop Cycles Per Year

The number of seasons per year was not specif ied on the proposed la bel and, depending on the crop, flupyradifurone could be used for multiple seasons per year on one site. Therefore, simulations were run assuming one, two, three four, and five seasons per year to characterize the uncertainty associated with multiple crops grow n and treated with flupyradifurone on the same site in a year. This multiple crop cycle per y ear analysis was conducted with only one PRZM scenario, and provides a conservative estimate of the possible resulting exposure. The range of 1-in-10 year peak, 21-day, and 60-day EECs acro ss the crops where multiple crop cycles per year may occur is relatively small (13 to 20 μg /L). Estimating EECs for one PRZM scenario ( i.e ., FLcarrotSTD to represent use on radishes) should provide a reasonable estimate of the possible values that may be observed for all crops where multiple crop cycles per year may occur. Radishes may be harvested three to four weeks after planting and they may have as many as five crop cycles per year in Florida (USDA, 2008). Therefore, root vegetables were modeled with five crop cycles per year. To do this, the FLcarrotSTD scenario was modified. It was assumed that the dates of emergence, maturati on, and harvest occurred over October through March, the full growing season for radishes (USDA, 2008). Application dates were assumed to occur at the beginning of each month for five mont hs. The runoff routine was modified to reflect a curve number (shown by CN in the SWCC) and USLE crop factor (shown by C in the SWCC) when the crop was present and when the crop was not present. The curve numbers of 87 was used to represent when the crop was present a nd a curve number of 91 was used to represent when the crop was not present. The average USLE crop factor was calculated from the original scenario during when the crop was present (0.77 4) and when the crop was not present (0.632). The updated scenario was saved as FLcarSTD5cc.SCN.

For modeling multiple crop cycles per year for gr oundwater, the scenarios were not altered as the presence of the crop has little influence on gr oundwater EECs. The number of applications was simply doubled or tripled as appr opriate, to derive a better unde rstanding of pot ential exposure.

Table 14. Summary of scenario alt erations of the Flcarrot scenario fo r the multiple crop cycle per year analysis Growth Descriptors on the Crop/land tab (Day – Month) Emerge Mature Harvest 01-10 15-10 01-03

### 40 Application Date (Day-Month) First application Second Application 01-10 09-10 01-11 09-11 01-12 09-12 01-01 09-01 01-02 09-02 Runoff Day Month CN C N 16 10 87 0.774 0.011 1 3 91 0.632 0.011

Table 15. Proposed uses with po ssible multiple crop cycles per year 1 Crop Group Crop cycles per year Root Vegetables (except Sugarbeet) 1-5 Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica ) 1-3 Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables 1-2 Legume Vegetables (Succulent or Dried) 1-3 Fruiting Vegetables (except cucurbits) 1-3 Cucurbit Vegetables 1-3

1 Based on information provided by BEAD in support of diazinon



### Tables summarizing input parameters

Table 16. SCI-GROW (v2.3) input parameter values fo r total residues of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues (abbreviated as “FLU-UN”) and for fl upyradifurone alone (abbreviated as “FLU”) 1

Parameter Residues Value Source Comments Application Rate (lbs residue/acre) FLU-UN FLU See Table

23 Proposed label Maximum application rate for active ingredient # of Applications --

K oc (mL/g) FLU FLU-UN 109 MRIDs 48843662, 48843663, and

48843664 Median of 10 K OC values. There is not a three-fold difference in observed values.

Aerobic SoilMetabolism Halflife (days) FLU-UN 349 MRIDs 48843674, 48843676, 48843677, 48843679, 48843681, 48843683 Median of 10 values. There is a five-fold difference between the lowest (75 days) and highest representative half-lives (484 days)

for FLU. There is not a 5-fold difference for TTR-UN. No temp erature conversion was completed. FLU 186

FLU-UN: Value for total residues of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues. FLU: Value for total residues of flupyradifurone.

Table 17. Tier I PRZM-GW input parameters

Parameter (units) Residues Input Value Data Source Comments Application Rate (kg residue/ha) FLU-UN FLU See Table 23

Proposed label Maximum application rate for flupyradifurone. Number of Applications FLU-UN FLU -- Application Date(s) FLU-UN FLU The following were considered when determining the date of applications:

### 41 timing of crop in scenario, a timing of

rainfall in scenario, and application type. Applications Occur Every FLU-UN FLU 1/year and from year 1 to the last

year --

Application Method FLU-UN FLU Above canopy (2) Soil (1) seed

treatment --

Hydrolysis Halflife (days) FLU-UN FLU Stable (0) MRID 48843667 --

Soil Metabolism Half-life at 25 o C (days) FLU-UN 371 MRIDs 48843674, 48843676, 48843677, 48843679, 48843681, 48843683 The 90 percent upper confidence bound on the mean of tenrepresentative half-life values. Halflife values adjusted from 20 o C to 25 o C according to input parameter guidance. FLU 124

K oc (L/kg-OC) FLU-UN FLU 137 MRIDs 48843662, 48843663, 48843664 Mean of ten K OC values for flupyradifurone.

FLU-UN: Value for total residues of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues. FLU: Value for total residues of flupyradifurone.

Table 18. Input values used for Tier II surface water modeling with SWCC

Parameter (units) Residue Value (s) Source Comments

Organic-carbon Normalized Soil-water Distribution Coefficient (K OC (L/kg- OC )) FLU-UN FLU 137 MRIDs 48843662, 48843663, 48843664 Mean of ten K OC values for flupyradifurone. EECs were also explored by assuming the KOC value

was twice 2x 137 to determine the impact of a data gap on sediment sorption data. Water Column Metabolism Half-life or AerobicAquatic Metabolism Halflife (days) and Reference Temperature FLU-UN 1118 at 20 o C MRID 48843690, 48843692 Represents the 90 percent upper confidence bound on the mean of two representative half-life values. FLU 2979 at 20 o C

Benthic Metabolism Halflife or Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life (days) and Reference Temperature FLU-UN Stable (0) MRID 48843689 One available value was stable. The other value was 2470.

FLU 3643 at 20 o C Represents the 90 percent upper confidence bound on the mean (1208) of two representative half-life values.

Aqueous Photolysis Halflife @ pH 7 (days) and Reference Latitude FLU-UN FLU 2.5 at 40 o N MRID 48843669 The aqueous photolysis half-life input value was adjusted for continuous illumination as well as for latitude/season to reflect photolysis in

summer sunlight at 40 o N latitude

Hydrolysis Half-life (days) FLU-UN FLU Stable (0) MRID: 46235726 --

Soil Half-life or Aerobic FLU-UN 525 at 20 o C MRIDs The 90 percent upper confidence

### 42 Parameter (units) Residue Value (s) Source Comments Soil Metabolism Half-life (days) and Reference Temperature FLU 265 at 20 o C 48843674, 48843676, 48843677, 48843679, 48843681, 48843683 bound on the mean of ten half-life values. No temperature conversion was performed.

MWT or Molecular Weight (g/mol) FLU-UN FLU 288.68 -- --

Vapor Pressure (Torr) at 25 o C FLU-UN FLU 1.3×10 -8 MRID 48843650 -- Solubility in Water @ 20

O C, pH not reported (mg/L) FLU-UN FLU 3200 MRID 48843644 20 o C and pH 7

Foliar Half-life (days) All 0 d-1 Default --

Number of Applications FLU-UN FLU See Table 22 Proposed label --

Dates FLU-UN FLU Assumed based on type of application Absolute dates were used in modeling. For foliar applications, dates were chosen to occur in a month when the crop was present and a high average rainfall occurred. For seed treatment the date of application was chosen as 14 days before crop emergence. For those scenarios that resulted in the

highest EECs (except the seed treatment use) using the above scenario, a batch analysis over the application window (when the crop

was present) was completed to determine the maximum EEC that could reasonably occur. The batch analysis was ran every 2 to 3 days depending on the length of the batch

run.

Amount FLU-UN FLU Proposed label Maximum single application rate for the crop

Application method FLU-UN FLU Foliar for ground and aerial applications

Incorporate

for seed

treatment Proposed label Incorporation depth was assumed to be 1.27 cm. Soybean seeds are typically

planted at a depth of 1 to 2 inches (2.54 – 5.08 cm). However, the actual planting depth will vary. The minimum planting depth recommended was 0.5 inches (1.27

cm) (Staton, 2013). Runoff only occurs from the top 2 cm of soil (Carsel et al. , 1997).

Application Efficiency FLU-UN FLU Aerial: 0.95 Ground: 0.99 Airblast: 0.99 Seed Treatment: 1.0

Spray drift only exposure: 0 Input parameter guidance (USEPA,

2009) --

### 43 Parameter (units) Residue Value (s) Source Comments

Drift FLU-UN FLU Aerial: 0.125 Ground:0.062 Airblast:0.042 Seed Treatment: 0

No drift: Offsite transport guidance (USEPA,

2013b) EECs were also explored for applications without drift ( e.g ., this value was set to zero).

PRZM Scenario All See Table 22 -- Screening scenario that is expected to result in a high end EEC. FLU-UN: Value for total residues of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues. FLU: Value for total residues of flupyradifurone.



### 3.3.2. Aquatic Modeling Results

The uses on agricultural crops al low for aerial, ground (including ai rblast), and seed treatment applications of a flowable material and EECs were estimated for all of these application methods. The applications directly to soil (including soil drench) were modeled as ground applications without spray drift. As noted prev iously, the maximum number of seasons per year was not specified on the proposed label and flupyr adifurone could be used for multiple seasons per year on one site. Therefore, simulations were run assuming up to five seasons per year for a single crop and considered representative of othe r crops with multiple crop cycles per year. Standard simulations assume spray drift will oc cur, however some simulations were also run omitting spray drift, to explore the possibility of mitigating with spray drift buffers. Simulations were completed reflecting residues of flupyradif urone plus unextracted residues (FLU-UN) and flupyradifurone alone (FLU). Finally, EECs were also calculated based upon transport of flupyradifurone via spray drift alone ( i.e. , with zero runoff); this EEC can be used to estimate exposure to the end-use product alone.

Estimated 1-in-10 year FLU-UN and FLU concentr ations in surface water and groundwater that are used to calculate RQs are summarized in Table 19

, Table 22, and Table 23 . A complete summary of all modeling is available in Appendix C . Example output files for the SWCC are provided in Appendix E and groundwater modeling output files are available in Appendix D

.

Surface Water

For surface water, the highest peak EEC was derived for the use on the crop group for nongrass animal feeds including forage, fodder, straw and hay (0.18 lbs ai/A, 2 applications, 7-day retreatment interval, foliar, and aerial application) where 1-in -10 year peak, 21-day, and 60-day average FLU EECs are 25.2, 24.0, and 22.1 μg/L and are not substantially different from one another in terms of the magnitude of residues in water. The corres ponding peak and 21-day average sediment pore-water FLU concentrations are 17.2 μg/L and reflect that FLU may be found to occur in pore water and that residues are relatively constant over a long time frame. Time series simulation results show that EECs did not continuously increase over the 30-year simulations in the static water body used to si mulate aquatic exposure. The effective water column half-life was 330.1 days and photolysis was the predominant driver of loss; losses attributed to photolysis would likely be accentuat ed in shallow, clear surface water though.

Eliminating spray drift from the scenarios that resulted in the highest EECs had a range of

### 44 impacts on the calculated EEC. EECs calculated without spray drift we re 38 to 93% of EECs calculated with spray drift. This is applicab le to applications where spray drift may occur (ground and aerial applicati ons); the applications with targeted applications to the root zone and the soil are not expected to have substantial spray drift. The variation in the contribution of spray drift to EECs is likely due to a variety of factors including how much rainfall occurs near the time of application. Values calculated without spray drift ma y be used to determine whether mitigation with a spray drift buffer could eliminate a risk concern.

Modeling two to five crop cycles per year increased EECs (peak, 21-day and 60-day) for radishes by 2 to 4 fold, compar ed with results based on a sing le crop cycle per year. While multiple crop cycles were only simulated for radish, they may also occur for other root vegetables (1 to 5 crop cycles per year), leafy vegetables (1-3 crop cycl es per year), Brassica leafy vegetables (1 to 2 crop cycl es per year), legume vegetables (1 to 3 crop cycles per year), fruiting vegetables (1 to 3 crop cy cles per year), and cucurbit vege tables (1 to 3 crop cycles per year). Similar trends as those observed for radi sh are expected for the other crop groups where multiple crop cycles per year may occur. It is speculated that it is relatively rare for five crop cycles per year to be planted due to the possibi lity of increased pest pressures that may occur when planting the same crop back to back.

Table 19. Summary of EECs estimated for radishes as suming a different number of crop cycles per year

Number of crop cycles

per year EECs for parent in μg/L

Water Column Pore Water

Peak 21-day

average 60-day

average Peak 21-day

average 1 18.9 18.3 16.6 13 12.9

2 a

39.3 37.6 34 27.9 26.8

3 b 43 41.7 38.4 32.1 30.8

4 c 45.8 44.5 41.1 35.1 33.8

5 d

63.8 62.1 62.1 56.2 55.9

a Simulation for two seasons per year. Applic ations occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, and 11/9. The modified FLcarrotSTD scenario was used for this simulation.

b Simulation with three seasons a year. Applications occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, 11/9, 12/1, and 12/9. The modified FLcarrotSTD scenario was used for this simulation.

c Simulation with four seasons a year. A pplications occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, 11/9, 12/1, 12/9, 01/01, and 01/09. The modified FLcarrotSTD scenario was used for this simulation.

d Simulation with five seasons a year. A pplications occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, 11/9, 12/1, 12/9, 01/01, 01/09, 02/01, and 02/09. The modified FLcarrotSTD scenario was used for this simulation.



### Groundwater

PRZM-GW predicted the highest EEC s for the foliar application at a rate of 0.18 lbs ai/A with two applications, and a 7-day retreatment interv al. The maximum single-day concentration of FLU-UN residues was 96.0 μg/L, and the maximu m post-breakthrough (long-term average after the chemical reached groundwat er) concentration was 89.7 μg/L. The maximum single-day FLU-UN concentration in groundwater for othe r uses ranged from 30 to 109 μg/L. Postbreakthrough average concentrations for these uses ranged from 17 to 96 μg/L. The average simulation breakthrough time ( i.e. , the time required, following application, for the pesticide to

### 45 reach groundwater) in the PRZM-GW simulations ranged from 3.6 to 8.8 years. These results indicate that it could take years following init iation of the use of flupyradifurone before the compound reaches groundwater in meaningful quantities (although preferential flow could substantially shorten such times). Assuming two to three seasons per year resulted in EECs that, correspondingly, were approximately two to th ree times the magnitude of those estimated assuming only a single season per year. Specify ing the number of crop seasons per year on the label would reduce uncertainty in the EECs.

Unextracted Residues

Unextracted residues were conservatively assumed to comprise residues of concern in most of the modeling, though the extent to which une xtracted residues are actually parent flupyradifurone is not known. The scenarios that resulted in th e highest EECs using half-lives based on inclusion of unextracted residues were therefore also modeled using half-lives calculated based on residues of parent alone, i.e ., employing the less conservative assumption that none of the unextracted residues are pare nt compound. Model inputs corresponding to both sets of assumptions ( i.e ., half-lives for parent only, and for parent plus unextr acted residues) are shown in Table 20

. Table 21 compares some results for FLU-UN and FLU. Not unexpectedly, the inclusion of unextracted residues in degr adation half-life calcu lations impacts EECs, especially for simulations with the PRZM-GW model, wherein concen trations increased by approximately 64 to 66%. It should be noted that the amount of unext racted residues observed may be a result of the quality of the extracti on procedure, rather th an the propensity for a compound to sorb to soil and sediment. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that some unextracted residues will be mobile. By comparison, the im pact on surface water EECs was relatively minor, with a change in EECs near or less than 1 μg/L, flupyradifurone only EECs were up to 6% higher than flupyradifurone plus unextracted EECs. Surface water EECs for FLU were all higher than those calculated for FLU-UN. This is because different degradation kinetic equations were selected to calculate the repr esentative half-life for different residues, the representative half-l ives are shown in Table 20 and the reason for the counterintuitive results is discussed in detail in Section 3.2.2. The representative water colu mn half-life for parent plus unextracted residues was 1118 days (3.1 years) and the correspondi ng value for parent alone was 2979 days (8.1 years). 14 

### The two values used to calculate th e parent representative input value were very different (547 vers us 1740) resulting in a high 90 th 

### percentile of the mean representative half-life values. Additionally, in one study the repr esentative half-life from the parent alone was higher (1740 days, T IORE 

### value) than the half-life for parent plus unextracted residues (676 days, SFO model) in the same study.

Table 20. Comparison of representative model in puts for parent and parent plus unextracted residues

Input Parameter Representative Half-life Used in Modeling (days) Parent Alone Parent Plus Unextracted Residues Water column 2979 1118 Benthic 3643 Stable Soil 265 525

14 The DT 90 in the aquatic microcosm studies was a maximum or 363 days, which is considerably lower than the simulated value. The modeled system is very different then the aquatic microcosm system, and the values are not expected to be similar.

### 46 Table 21. Comparison of EEC for residues of FLU-UN versus FLU

Model Peak EEC 60-day EEC or Post Breakthrough AverageFLUUN FLU % Difference FLUUN FLU % Difference

PRZM-GW 95.7 63.5 51% 89.4 57.7 55%

SWCC* 23.6 25.2 -6% 22.8 23.7 -4% % Difference = (FLU-UN EEC- FLU EEC)/FLU EEC × 100 *TXalfalfaOP (09-05) scenario; see Table 22

.

Table 22. Estimated concentrations of flupyrad ifurone plus unextracted residues (FLU-UN) and flupyradifurone alone (FLU) in surface water*Use SiteSingle App. Rate(kg ai/ha), # ofApp, MRI in daysApp TypeDrift/ No Drift Parent Only Parent plus Unextracted Residues

Water Column Pore Water Water Column Pore WaterPeak21-dayaverage60-dayaveragePeak21-dayaveragePeak21-dayaverage60-dayaveragePeak21-dayaverage

Crop Group 15:

Cereal Grains 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d A Drift 23.5 22.8 21.6 18.9 19.0 22.4 21.4 20.6 17.9 18

No Drift 19.4 18.8 18 15.5 15.6

-- -- -- -- --

F, G Drift 22.2 21.6 20.5 17.9 17.9 -- -- -- -- -- No Drift 20.2 19.6 18.8 16.2 16.3 -- -- -- -- --

Cotton 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 19.6 19 18.1 15.9 15. 9 19.1 18.4 17.5 15.4 15.4

No Drift 16.2 15.6 15.1 13.3 13.3 -- -- -- -- --

F, G Drift 18.6 17.9 17.2 15.1 15. 1 18.1 17.5 16.6 14.7 14.7

No Drift 16.9 16.3 15.7 138 13.8 -- -- -- -- --

Peanut 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 10.9 10.4 9.81 8.11 8. 1 10.5 10 9.52 7.72 7.71

No Drift 7.31 6.97 6.69 5.44 5.44 -- -- -- -- --

F, G Drift 10.9 10.4 10.1 8.46 8.47 9.09 8.62 8.36 6.67 6.66

No Drift 9.13 8.95 8.59 7.14 7.15 -- -- -- -- -- Root Veg.

(except Sugarbeet) and Tuberous and Corm

Veg. 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 18.9 18.3 16.6 13 12.9 18 17.5 15.8 12.3 12.2

No Drift 16 15.3 13.8 10.7 10.6 -- -- -- -- --

F, G Drift 18.2 17.4 15.8 12.3 12. 2 17.4 16.7 15.1 11.6 11.5

No Drift 16.7 15.9 14.4 11.1 11 -- -- -- -- --

Legume

Veg. (Succulent or Dried) 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 16.8 16.1 15.3 15.1 15.2 16 15.3 14.3 14.2 14.3

No Drift 12.3 11.8 11.7 11.6 11.7 15.9 15.1 13.7 10.4 10.4

F, G Drift 19.1 19.7 17.9 13.8 13.7 17.7 17 15.9 14.2 14.4

No Drift 17.8 18.2 16.5 12.7 12.5 -- -- -- -- --

Fruiting Vegetables 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 19.9 18.9 17.3 13.3 13. 3 19.1 18.1 16.4 12.6 12.5

No Drift 16.5 15.6 14.3 11 11 15.9 15.1 13.7 10.4 10.4

F, G Drift 19.8 20.5 18.7 14.5 14. 4 18.7 19.6 17.8 13.7 13.5 No Drift 17.1 17.5 15.8 12. 1 12 16.3 16.9 15.1 11.5 11.4

### 47Use SiteSingle App. Rate(kg ai/ha), # ofApp, MRI in daysApp TypeDrift/ No Drift Parent Only Parent plus Unextracted Residues

Water Column Pore Water Water Column Pore WaterPeak21-dayaverage60-dayaveragePeak21-dayaveragePeak21-dayaverage60-dayaveragePeak21-dayaverage

0.40, 1x S, G No Drif t 14.8 15.1 15.4 11.7 11.7 -- -- -- -- --

Cucurbit Vegetables 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 19.8 20.5 18.7 14.5 14. 4 18.7 19.6 17.8 13.7 13.5

No Drift 17.1 17.5 15.8 12. 1 12 16.3 16.9 15.1 11.5 11.4

F, G Drift 19.1 19.7 17.9 13.8 13.7 18.2 19 17.1 13 12.9

No Drift 17.8 18.2 16.5 12.7 12.5 -- -- -- -- -- 0.37 (0.40), 1x S, G No Drift 16.9 17.6 18.8 13.8 13.2 -- -- -- -- --

Hops 0.14 (0.15), 1x F, A Drift 5.57 5.41 5.41 4.73 4. 73 5.4 5.24 5.22 4.52 4.52

No Drift 2.14 2.07 1.99 1.74 1.74 -- -- -- -- --

F, G Drift 3.98 3.89 3.84 3.32 3.32 3.85 3.75 3.67 3.16 3.16 No Drift 2.29 2.22 2.11 1.84 1.84 -- -- -- -- --

Citrus Fruit 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 24.4 25.1 23.7 18.1 17.8 22.8 23.6 22.8 17.2 17

No Drift 22 22.5 20.8 15.8 15.5 20.6 21.3 20.1 15.1 14.9

Drift Only,

No Runoff 3.45 -- -- 2.38 -- -- -- -- -- --

F, AB Drift

-- -- -- -- -- 22.2 23 21.9 16.4 16.2

F, G Drift 22.6 23.3 22.3 16.8 16.6 -- -- -- -- -- 0.37 (0.40), 1x S, G No Drift 23.1 22.2 21.1 16.2 16 -- -- -- -- --

Pome Fruit 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 12.5 11.8 10.9 9.34 9. 36 12.2 11.5 10.5 8.98 9

No Drift 8.73 8.26 7.59 6.4 6.39 -- -- -- -- -- F, AB Drift 10.5 9.99 9.19 7.72 7.72 10.2 9.6 8.87 7.37 7.37

F, G Drift 11 10.4 9.56 8.05 8.05 -- -- -- -- --

No Drift 9.1 8.61 7.9 6.59 6.58 -- -- -- -- --

Bushberry 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 9.65 9.43 9.67 9.88 10 9.3 9.05 9.11

+ 9.38 9.52

No Drift 6.06 6.04 6.2 6.46 6.56 -- -- -- -- --

F, G Drift 7.98 7.96 8.18 8.48 8.55 7.64 7.5 7.73

+ 8.03 8.16

No Drift 6.32 6.29 6.46 6.73 6.84 -- -- -- -- --

Low Growing

Berry (excluding Cranberry) 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 12.9 12.8 11.6 8.78 8.21 -- -- -- -- --

No Drift 10.2 9.66 8.68 6.39 6.15 -- -- -- -- --

F, G Drift 14.3 16.2 15.4 9.38 9.23 -- -- -- -- --

No Drift 10.6 10.1 9.04 6.66 6.41 -- -- -- -- --

### 48Use SiteSingle App. Rate(kg ai/ha), # ofApp, MRI in daysApp TypeDrift/ No Drift Parent Only Parent plus Unextracted Residues

Water Column Pore Water Water Column Pore WaterPeak21-dayaverage60-dayaveragePeak21-dayaveragePeak21-dayaverage60-dayaveragePeak21-dayaverage

Small Fruit Vine Climbing (except Fuzzy Kiwifruit) 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 9.65 9.43 9.67 9.88 10 8.26 7.97 7.63 6.59 6.6

No Drift 6.06 6.04 6.2 6.46 6.56 5.71 5.72 5.89 6.2 6.3

F, G Drift 8.28 8.14 7.64 6.38 6. 39 7.9 7.88 7.43 6.17 6.17

No Drift 6.31 6.03 5.66 4.67 4.66 -- -- -- -- --

Tree Nut 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 9.73 9.26 8.75 8.9 8. 9 9.52 8.98 8.21 8.49 8.6

No Drift 6.55 6.51 6.8 6.53 6.54 -- -- -- -- -- F, G Drift 6.82 6.54 6.15 4.98 4.97 -- -- -- -- --

Prickly

Pear 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, G Drift 2.98 2.86 2.68 2.22 2. 22 2.8 2.67 2.49 2.14 2.14

No Drift 1.24 1.22 1.27 1.04 1.04 -- -- -- -- --

Nongrass Animal Feeds (Forage, Fodder, Straw, Hay) 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 25.2 24 22.1 17.2 17. 2 23.6 22.4 20.5 15.7 15.8

No Drift 21.8 20.8 19.2 14.8 14.9 20.4 19.3 17.7 13.5 13.5

Drift Only,

No Runoff 3.55 -- -- 2.47 -- -- -- -- -- --

F, G Drift 23.5 22.3 20.6 15.9 15.9 -- -- -- -- -- No Drift 21.8 20.7 19.1 14.7 14.8 -- -- -- -- -- Soybean Seed Treatment 0.37 (0.40), 1x S, G No Drift 6.97 6.61 6.05 4.7 4.7 6.9 6.53 5.93 4.61 4.6

Abbreviations: App=Application; A=aeri al application; AB=airblast application; Ave=average; Veg.=vegetables; MRI=Minimum retreatment interval sNo Drift= Simulation without spray drift. Drift Only, No Runoff= Simulation was completed assuming 0% a pplication efficiency. This essentially estimates EECs that could result from spray drift alone. This value may be used to evaluate the toxicity of end-use products.

+ * The 1 in 10 year 21-day average value reported is higher than the 1 in 10 year peak EECs. This may occur because the 21- day average calculation may include days from another year but at least one day is in the year of interest, while the calculati on of the peak concentration is only based on values in that year. ∞

Table 23. Estimated concentrations of flupyradifurone pl us unextracted residues (FLU-UN) or flupyradifurone alone (values designated with an asterick) in groundwater source irrigation water

Use Site (Timing of App) Single App. Rate lbs. ai/A (kg ai/ha) # of App Ret. Int. Days App. Type EEC for flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues EEC for flupyradifurone alone* (μg/L)SCIGROW PRZM-GW

Peak Scenario Daily Peak Post Breakthrough Average Ave Breakthrough Time (Days) Foliar Application (10 days post emergence) 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A 2.10 1.09* WI 95.7 63.5* 190a 284b 89.4 57.7* 178a 26b 4205

Soil Application(10 days postemergence) 0.37 (0.40) 1 -- G 2.16 WI 96.0 89.6 4205

### 49 Use Site (Timing of App) Single App. Rate lbs. ai/A (kg ai/ha) # of App Ret. Int. Days App. Type EEC for flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues EEC for flupyradifurone alone* (μg/L)SCIGROW PRZM-GW

Peak Scenario Daily Peak Post Breakthrough Average Ave Breakthrough Time (Days) Seed Treatment(14 days preemergence) 0.37 (0.40) 1 -- G 2.16 1.01* 4.31 α WI 95.7 63.1* 89.7 58.0* 4205

Abbreviations: App=Application; A=aerial application; AB=airbl ast application; NJ/DE=Delmar va Sweet Corn; NC=NC cotton; WI=Wisconsin Corn; GA=Georgia Peanuts; Ave .=average; Ret. Int.=retreatment interval * Results are for residues of flupyradifurone alone. All other values reflect residues of flupyradifurone plus M47 plus M48 pl us unextracted residues. a Simulation for two seasons per year. b Simulation with three seasons a year.



### Terrestrial Exposure

Birds and Mammals

Terrestrial wildlife exposure estimates are typically calculated for birds and mammals, emphasizing a dietary exposure route for uptake of pesticide active ingredients. Avian exposures are considered surrogates for e xposures to terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. For exposure to terrestrial organisms, such as bi rds and mammals, pestic ide residues on food items are estimated, based on the assumption that organi sms are exposed to pesticide residues in a given exposure use pattern. For flupyradifurone, a pplication methods for the registered uses include foliar spray and soil drench. Non-target terrestrial organisms may also be exposed to flupyradifurone via treated seeds. For terrestr ial animals, the T-REX model (Version 1.5.1) 15 

### is used to calculate dietary- and dose-based EECs of flupyradifurone for mammals and birds feeding on the site of applic ation. Input values for T-REX include the maximum single application rates, number of applications, and retr eatment interval for a given use and are located in Table 24 . In this assessment, EFED uses a default fo liar dissipation half-life of 35 days as an input for terrestrial expos ure modeling in T-REX.

Upper-bound Kenega nomogram values based on Hoerger and Kenega (1972) as modified by Fletcher et al . (1994) are used to derive EECs for fl upyradifurone exposures to terrestrial mammals and birds based on dietary- and dose-ba sed exposures from foliar applications of flupyradifurone ( Table 24). A one-year time period is simulate d. Consideration is given to different types of feeding strategies for mammals and birds, including herbivores, insectivores and granivores. For dose-based exposures, thr ee weight classes of mammals (15, 35, and 1000 g) and birds (20, 100, and 1000 g) are considered. T-REX is also used to calculate dose-based EECs of flupyradifurone for birds and mammals that consume treated seeds. Seeding rates and the maximum application rate based on the propose d label are used to calculate dose-based EECs and the mass of flupyradifurone per unit area (mg ai/ft 2 

### ) available for consumption by birds and mammals ( Table 25) . For more information on estimating exposure to terrestrial organisms from seed treatments, please see the T-REX User’s Guide 16



### .

15 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/

16 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/trex/t_rex_user_guide.htm50Table 24. Terrestrial EECs as food residues for animals exposed to flupyradifurone as a result of the proposed foliar uses.Food TypeDietary Based(mg/kg diet)(mammals andbirds)Dose Based(mg/kg bw)(birds)Dose Based(mg/kg bw)(mammals)All Size ClassesSmall(20 g)Medium(100 g)Large(1000 g)Small(15 g)Medium(35 g)Large(1000 g)Foliar: Cereal Grains (except Rice), Tuberousand Corm Vegetables, Leafy Vegetables (exceptBrassica),Brassica(Cole) Leafy Vegetables, FruitingVegetables, Cucurbits, Bushberries(0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 7-day interval)Short grass 80.81 92.03 52.48 23.50 77.04 53.25 12.35Tall grass 37.04 42.18 24.05 10.77 35.31 24.41 5.66Broadleaf plants/small insects 45.45 51.77 29.52 13.22 43.34 29.95 6.94Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 5.05 5.75 3.28 1.47 4.82 3.33 0.77Arthropods 31.65 36.05 20.55 9.20 30.18 20.86 4.84Seeds (granivore) N/A 1.28 0.73 0.33 1.07 0.74 0.17Foliar: Cotton, Nongrass Animal Feeds, Peanut, Root Vegetables (except Sugarbeet), Legume Vegetables, Citrus, Pome Fruit, Low Growing Berries, SmallFruit Vine Climbing(0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 10-day interval)Short grass 78.64 89.56 51.07 22.87 74.98 51.82 12.01Tall grass 36.04 41.05 23.41 10.48 34.36 23.75 5.51Broadleaf plants/small insects 44.23 50.38 28.73 12.86 42.17 29.15 6.76Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 4.91 5.60 3.19 1.43 4.69 3.24 0.75Arthropods 30.80 35.08 20.00 8.96 29.37 20.30 4.71Seeds (granivore) N/A 1.24 0.71 0.32 1.04 0.72 0.17Foliar: Tree Nut, Prickly Pear/Cactus Pear(0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 14-day interval)Short grass 75.94 86.49 49.32 22.08 72.40 50.04 11.60Tall grass 34.81 39.64 22.60 10.12 33.18 22.93 5.32Broadleaf plants/small insects 42.72 48.65 27.74 12.42 40.73 28.15 6.53Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 4.75 5.41 3.08 1.38 4.53 3.13 0.73Arthropods 29.74 33.87 19.32 8.65 28.36 19.60 4.54Seeds (granivore) N/A 1.20 0.68 0.31 1.01 0.69 0.16Foliar: Hop(0.14 lbs ai/A; 1 application)Short grass 33.60 38.27 21.82 9.77 32.04 22.14 5.13Tall grass 15.40 17.54 10.00 4.48 14.68 10.15 2.35Broadleaf plants/small insects 18.90 21.53 12.27 5.50 18.02 12.45 2.89Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 2.10 2.39 1.36 0.61 2.00 1.38 0.32Arthropods 13.16 14.99 8.55 3.83 12.55 8.67 2.0151Food TypeDietary Based(mg/kg diet)(mammals andbirds)Dose Based(mg/kg bw)(birds)Dose Based(mg/kg bw)(mammals)All Size ClassesSmall(20 g)Medium(100 g)Large(1000 g)Small(15 g)Medium(35 g)Large(1000 g)Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.53 0.30 0.14 0.44 0.31 0.07Soil/Drench/Chemigation: Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits,Citrus, Small Vine Climbing Fruit, Soybean Seeds(0.37 lbs ai/A; 1 application)Short grass 88.80 101.13 57.67 25.82 84.66 58.51 13.57Tall grass 40.70 46.35 26.43 11.83 38.80 26.82 6.22Broadleaf plants/small insects 49.95 56.89 32.44 14.52 47.62 32.91 7.63Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 5.55 6.32 3.60 1.61 5.29 3.66 0.85Arthropods 34.78 39.61 22.59 10.11 33.16 22.92 5.31Seeds (granivore) N/A 1.40 0.80 0.36 1.18 0.81 0.19Foliar: Root Vegetables(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 2 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval between cycles)Short grass 122.05 139.00 79.27 35.49 116.37 80.42 18.65Tall grass 55.94 63.71 36.33 16.27 53.33 36.86 8.55Broadleaf plants/small insects 68.6578.19 44.59 19.9665.46 45.24 10.49Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 7.63 8.69 4.95 2.22 7.27 5.03 1.17Arthropods 47.80 54.44 31.05 13.90 45.58 31.50 7.30Seeds (granivore) N/A 1.93 1.10 0.49 1.62 1.12 0.26Foliar: Root Vegetables(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 3 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval between cycles)Short grass 146.02 166.30 94.83 42.46 139.21 96.22 22.31Tall grass 66.92 76.22 43.46 19.46 63.81 44.10 10.22Broadleaf plants/small insects 82.1393.54 53.34 23.8878.31 54.12 12.55Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 9.13 10.39 5.93 2.65 8.70 6.01 1.39Arthropods 57.19 65.13 37.14 16.63 54.53 37.68 8.74Seeds (granivore) N/A 2.31 1.32 0.59 1.93 1.34 0.31Foliar: Root Vegetables(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 4 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval between cycles)Short grass 159.25 181.36 103.42 46.30 151.83 104.93 24.33Tall grass 72.99 83.13 47.40 21.22 69.59 48.09 11.15Broadleaf plants/small insects 89.58 102.02 58.17 26.05 85.40 59.03 13.69Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 9.95 11.34 6.46 2.89 9.49 6.56 1.52Arthropods 62.37 71.03 40.51 18.14 59.47 41.10 9.53Seeds (granivore) N/A 2.52 1.44 0.64 2.11 1.46 0.3452Food TypeDietary Based(mg/kg diet)(mammals andbirds)Dose Based(mg/kg bw)(birds)Dose Based(mg/kg bw)(mammals)All Size ClassesSmall(20 g)Medium(100 g)Large(1000 g)Small(15 g)Medium(35 g)Large(1000 g)Foliar: Root Vegetables(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 5 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval between cycles)Short grass 166.55 189.68 108.17 48.43 158.79 109.75 25.45Tall grass 76.34 86.94 49.58 22.20 72.78 50.30 11.66Broadleaf plants/small insects 93.68 106.70 60.84 27.24 89.32 61.73 14.31Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 10.41 11.86 6.76 3.03 9.92 6.86 1.59Arthropods 65.23 74.29 42.36 18.97 62.19 42.98 9.97Seeds (granivore) N/A 2.63 1.50 0.67 2.21 1.52 0.35N/A = Not applicable.Table 25. Terrestrial dose-based EECsfor the range of seed treatment uses proposed for flupyradifurone.UseApp Rate(lbs ai/A)SeedApp Rate(mg ai/kg seed)Animal SizeDose-Based EEC(mg ai/kg-bw/day)Spatial EEC(available ai perunit area)(mg ai /ft2)BirdsMammalsSoybeans 0.0371450Small 113.89 95.340.39Medium 64.94 65.89Large 29.08 15.28App = Application1Estimated based on proposed label rate of 0.068 mg ai/seed and assumption of 250,000 seeds planted per acre2Based on proposed label rate of 45 g ai/100 kg seed

### 53 Honey bees

Potential risk to bees is assessed in this docum ent according to the tiering process described in the White Paper in Support of the Proposed Risk Asse ssment Process for Bees submitted to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Ac t (FIFRA) Scientific A dvisory Panel (SAP) for review and comment in September 2012 (USEPA, 2012d) . As part of the Tier I risk assessment, screening-level exposures are estimated in pollen and nectar us ing generic residue data generated from other chemicals as well as ot her plant parts as described in Table 26 and Table 27 . For dietary exposures resulting from foliar applicatio ns, it is assumed that pe sticide residues on tall grass (from the Kenaga nomogram of T-REX) are a suitable surrogate for residues in pollen and nectar of flowers that are dire ctly sprayed during application. For soil applications, pesticide concentrations in pollen and nectar are assumed to be consistent with chemical concentrations in the xylem of barley (calculated using the Bri ggs’ model). For seed treatments, pesticide concentrations in pollen and nectar are based on concentrations in leaves and stems of treated plants (based on the European and Mediterranea n Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) default value discussed in the White Paper), assumed to be 1 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) or 1 part per million (ppm). More details on these met hods are available in the White Paper (USEPA, 2012d) and in the T-REX User’s Guide 17



### .

The Tier I method is intended to generate “rea sonably conservative” estimates of pesticide exposure to honeybees which are th en refined using empirical resi due data from a variety of crops, which are available for flupyradifurone. The Tier I exposure method is intended to account for the major routes of pesticide exposure that are relevant to bees ( i.e ., through diet and contact). Exposure routes for bees differ based on application type. Under the approach used in this assessment, bees foraging in a field treat ed with a pesticide th rough foliar spray could potentially be exposed to the pesticide through direct spray, i.e. , contact, as well through consuming flupyradifurone residues in pollen and nectar. For honeybees foraging in fields treated with a pesticide through direct application to soil ( e.g. , drip irrigation) or through seed treatments, direct spray onto b ees is not expected. For these application methods, pesticide exposure through consumption of residues in nectar and pollen are expected to be the dominant routes. Foraging honeybees may also be exposed to pesticides via contact with dust from seed treatments or via consumption of water from surface water, puddles, dew droplet formation on leaves and guttation fluid; howev er, exposures via these routes are not quantified in this

assessment.

Table 26. Summary of contact and dietary exposure esti mates used for foliar applic ation, soil treatment, and seed treatment uses of pesticides for honeybee Tier I risk assessment. Measurement

Endpoint Exposure Route Exposure Estimate 1

Foliar Applications Individual Survival (adults) Contact APP*(2.7 μ g ai/bee)

Individual Survival (adults) Diet APP*(110 μ g a.i /g)*(0.292 g/day)

Brood size and success Diet APP*(110 μ g a.i /g)*(0.124 g/day) Soil Treatments Individual Survival (adults) Diet (Briggs EEC)*(0.292 g/day)

17 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/te rrestrial/trex/t_rex_user_guide.htm

### 54 Measurement

Endpoint Exposure Route Exposure Estimate 1

Brood size and success Diet (Briggs EEC)*(0.124 g/day) Seed Treatments Individual Survival (adults) Diet (1 μ g a.i /g)*(0.292 g/day) Brood size and success Diet (1 μ g a.i /g)*(0.124 g/day) APP = application rate in lbs ai/A

1 Based on food consumption rates for larvae (0.124 g/day) and adult (0.292 g/day) worker bees and concentration in pollen and nectar.

Table 27. Screening-level EECs for honeybees based on foliar, drench, and seed treatment applications

Use Single Maximum Application Rate Life-stage Exposure Route EEC (μg ai/bee/day) Cereal Grains (except Rice), Tuberous and Corm Vegetables, Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica), Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables, Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits, Bushberries, Cotton, Nongrass Animal Feeds, Peanut, Root Vegetables (except Sugarbeet), Legume Vegetables, Citrus, Pome Fruit, Low Growing Berries, Small Fruit Vine Climbing, Tree Nut, Prickly Pear/Cactus Pear 0.18 lbs ai/A Adults Contact 0.49

Adults Diet 5.78

Brood Diet 2.46

Hops 0.14 lbs ai/A Adults Contact 0.38 Adults Diet 4.50 Brood Diet 1.91 Soil/Drench/Chemigation: Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits, Citrus, Small Vine Climbing Fruit 0.37 lbs ai/A Adults Diet 0.02

Brood Diet 0.01

Soybean Seeds 0.365 lbs ai/A 1 Adults Diet 0.29 Brood Diet 0.12

1 Based on maximum label rate per year for seed treatments.



### In cases where RQs exceed the LOC for acute risk to insect pollinators, estimates of exposure are refined using measured pesticide concentrations in pollen and nect ar of treated crops, and further calculated for other castes of b ees using their respective food consumption rates. The most conservative (highest) exposure estimates for contact and/or dietary exposur e routes are selected for the refined Tier I screening-level assessment. These exposure estimates are based on adult and larval bees with the highest food consumption rates among b ees. This is accomplished using food consumption rates based on work descri bed in the White Paper (USEPA, 2012d) and updated to reflect comments from the Sc ientific Advisory Panel (SAP).

A number of studies were conduc ted to evaluate residues of fl upyradifurone and the degradate BYI 02960-difluoro-ethylamino-furanone (DFEAF) in flowers, pollen, and nectar after drench and foliar applications to diffe rent commodity crops that are potentially of use for refining exposure if initial screening-leve l risk estimates exceed LOCs ( Table 28 ). Many of the foliar studies consisted of two applic ations of BYI 02960 SL 200 G: one pre-bloom application (early flowering) and a second at full flowering. In all studies, DFEAF residues were low (<0.1 mg/kg), and given the low acute toxicity of DFEAF to honeybees (LD 50 

### >81.5 μg/bee), they are not characterized further in this assessment. For folia r applications, flower a nd nectar residues of flupyradifurone typically reached their maxima within a few days following the second (full

### 55 bloom) application; pollen residu es varied among studies, someti mes increasing until the end of the study ( e.g ., citrus) and sometimes reaching a maximum in the few days following the second application, similar to flowers a nd nectar. These data may indicate that systemic translocation of residues in some plants may lead to residues in pollen in the weeks following application. Many of the studies used honeybee-collected pollen (dis lodged from the legs of forager bees using pollen traps affixed to the front of colonies) and nectar (rem oved directly from the honey stomachs of forager bees) to eval uate residues in bee-relevant ma trices. Studies generally did not measure residues during the interval between the first and second a pplications, which is a source of uncertainty; however, since app lications were made just prior to full bloom and at full bloom, the residues in pollen and nectar are considered to represent those that were systemically distributed to pollen and nectar through uptake an d translocation by the plant as well as those residues directly landing on the surface of pollen and nectar as a result of application.

Measured residues from a variety of pollinator-attra ctive crops indicate that the concentration of residues in pollen were higher than those in nectar by factors ranging from 3.5-106x. However, cotton was a noticeable exception where total residue s in nectar were roug hly 50-fold higher than in pollen. The maximum residue in pollen wa s measured in blueberries (67.6 mg ai/kg) following application at early bloom of 0.36 lbs a i/A followed by a second application at 0.37 lbs ai/A at bloom; however, these applications we re mistakenly made at twice the proposed label rate for pre-bloom and bloom applications (0.18 lbs ai/A). The highest residues measured in nectar were from cotton (21.8 mg ai/L); however, these elevated residues were associated with extrafloral nectaries as opposed to peak residues in nectar (0.39 mg ai/L) derived from floral sources. In general, peak residue s in nectar (other than for co tton) were less than 1.5 mg ai/L.

Although exposure to bees through re sidues in guttation fluid are not considered quan titatively in this assessment, data were also available on fl upyradifurone residues in oilseed rape following bare soil treatments followed by the sowing of tr eated seeds. Residues on guttation fluid were measured following planting in au tumn and again in the spring. Residues in the autumn ranged from 0.039

- 21 mg ai/L while those in the following spring ranged between 0.014

- 0.21 mg ai/L. Based on the available data, the e xposure levels in spring were up to several orders of magnitude lower than in autumn indicating that residues were dissipating presumably due in part to growth dilution. Given that peak residues in nectar from cotton overlap with peak values measured in guttation fluid, this assessment is considered protective for this potential route of exposure. Furthermore, there is uncertainty regarding the extent to which bees avail themselves of guttation fluid since the fluid may not be at tractive to a large number of bees during times of peak foraging activity.56Table 28. Empirical pollen, nectar, andflower residue data for applications of flupyradifurone formulations to different cropsNo. of applications/rateper applicationTestSubstanceFlupyradifurone residues in mgai/kgCommentsMRIDTomato (drench)1 at 0.18 lbs ai/A(200 g ai/ha)1BYI 02960SL 200 G(17.2%)Pollen (max): 0.107Pollen (mean): 0.0839Flowers (max): 0.315Flowers (mean): 0.246[Predicted: 19.8]4Pollen collected from bumble bees; pollen residueshighest in first week after flower emergence.48844521Watermelon (drench)3 at 0.134(150 g ai/ha)BYI 02960SL 200 G(17.2%)Pollen (max): 0.006Nectar (max): <0.001Flowers (max): 1.56Plan Tissue (max): 54.3[Predicted: 14.7]4Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees; 7 daysbetween applications; applications; 1st applicationoccurred just after transplanting48844522Watermelon (drench)1 at 0.18 lbs ai/A(200 g ai/ha)1BYI 02960SL 200 G(17.2%)Pollen (max): 0.002Nectar (max): <0.001Flowers (max): 0.056Flowers (mean): 0.017[Predicted: 19.8]4Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees; singleapplication occurred just after transplanting48844523Citrus: orange(foliar)2 at 0.18 lbs ai/A(205 g ai/ha)BYI 02960SL 200 G(17.05%)Pollen, traps (max): 1.8Pollen, legs (max): 1.3Nectar2(max): 0.2Blossoms (max): 2.0[Predicted: 19.8]4Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees; 2ndapplication occurred whenflowers were 10-30%open; the highest citrus blossom residues occurred 3days after the 2nd application; the highest nectarresidues occurred 1 day after the 2nd application; thehighest pollen residues occurred near the time of lastsampling (5-7 days after 2nd application), which is asource of uncertainty.48844524Citrus: orange(foliar)1 at 0.365 lbs ai/A(410 g ai/ha)BYI 02960SL 200 G(17.05%)Pollen, traps (max): 1.1Pollen, legs (max): 0.48Nectar2(max): 0.31Blossoms (max): 5.1[Predicted: 40.5]4Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees;application occurred whenflowers were 10-30%open; the highest citrus blossom and nectar residuesoccurred 3 days after application; the highest pollenresidues occurred at the last sampling (7 days afterapplication), which is a source of uncertainty.48844524Melon(drench)1 at 0.365 lbs ai/A(410 g ai/ha)BYI 02960SL 200(17.05%)Pollen (max): 0.50Nectar2(max): 0.76Blossoms (max): 0.38[Predicted: 40.5]4Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees;application occurred aftertransplanting; the highestblossom, nectar, and pollen residues occurred 32, 26,and 28 days after application.48844525Melon(foliar)BYI 02960SL 200Pollen (max): 1.5Nectar2(max): 0.36Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees; 1stapplication occurred when nine flowers on main48844525572 at 0.18 lbs ai/A(205 g ai/ha)(17.05%) Blossoms (max): 2.8[Predicted: 19.8]4stem open and 2nd application occurred at initialonset of fruit; the highest blossom residues occurred1 day after the 2nd application; the highest nectarresidues occurred 1 day before the 2nd application,and the highest pollen residues occurred one dayafter the 1st application.Cotton(foliar)2 at 0.18 lbs ai/A(205 g ai/ha)BYI 02960SL 200(17.11%)Pollen (max): 0.432Nectar, total(max): 21.83Nectar, floral (max): 0.386Nectar, inner-bracteal (max): 12.2Nectar, sub-bracteal (max): 15.9Nectar, pink floral (max): 0.311Blossoms (max): 12.1[Predicted: 19.8]41st application occurred at 20% flowering and the2nd application at full flowering (10 day intervalbetween applications); the highest blossom residuesoccurred 3 days after the 2nd application; the highesttotal nectar residues occurred 3 days after the 2ndapplication, and the highest pollen residues occurredon the day of the 2nd application; residues were notrecorded during the period between the first and 2ndapplications; all residues appear to have declinedsignificantly by 14 days after the 2nd application48844527Blueberry(foliar)1 at 0.36 lbs ai/A(404 g ai/ha) and 1 at0.37 lbs ai/A (411 gai/ha)BYI 02960SL 200(16.9%)Pollen (max): 67.6Nectar2(max): 0.64Blossoms (max): 6.49[Predicted: 40.5]4Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees; 1stapplication occurred at 10% flowering and the 2ndapplication at full flowering (9 day interval betweenapplications); the highest blossom and nectarresidues occurred on day of 2nd application, and thehighest pollen residues occurred one day after 2ndapplication; residues were not recorded during theperiod between the first and 2nd applications; allresidues appear to have declined by at least one orderof magnitude from the highest daily average by theend of the study (10 days after 2nd application).Note: this study was mistakenly carried out at twicethe proposed pre-bloom and bloom application rates(0.18 lbs ai/A).48844528Apple(foliar)2 at 0.18 lbs ai/A(205 g ai/ha)BYI 02960SL 200(17.05%)Pollen, trap (max): 22Pollen, leg (max): 39Nectar2(max): 1.5Blossoms (max): 113[Predicted: 19.8]4Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees; 1stapplication occurred whenmost flowers with petalsforming a hollow ball and the 2nd application at fullflowering to flowers fading (8 day interval betweenapplications); the highest resides for all matriceswere recorded 1 day after the 2nd application;residues were not recorded during the periodbetween the first and 2nd applications48844530Apple(foliar)BYI 02960SL 200Pollen (max): 8.3-26.23Nectar (max): 0.3-1.23Three field trials were conducted in NY, OR, andWA states; pollen and nectarcollected directly from48844529582 at 0.18 lbs ai/A(205 g ai/ha)(16.9%) Blossoms (max): 20.1-27.73[Predicted: 19.8]4plants; 2nd application occurred at full flowering 7 to12 days after 1st application; the highest blossomresidues occurred 1 day after the 2nd application; thehighest nectar residues occurred near the time of the2nd application; the highest pollen residues wasvariable among field trials; residues were notrecorded during the period between the first and 2ndapplicationsOil-seed rape(foliar)Bare soil application:0.28 lbs ai/A (310 gai/ha)Seed treatment: 9.9 gai/kg seeds, 5.98 kgseed/haBare soilapplication:BYI 02960SL 200 G(16.9%)Seedtreatment:BYI 02960FS 480 G(39.9%)Guttation liquid residues:Fall (2010, range):0.039-11 mg ai/LSpring (2011, range):0.014-0.21 mg ai/LStudy performed in Germany; bare soil treatmentwas made on same day as treated seeds were sown(and was followed by immediate mechanicalincorporation); droplets of guttation liquid werecollected from the surface ofthe treated winter oilseed rape plants; residues were sampled in fall 2010(after planting) and following spring (2011);generally, residues of BYI 02960 declined by abouttwo orders of magnitude during the approximately 5-week autumn sampling period.48844537Oil-seed rape(foliar)Bare soil application:0.28 lbs ai/A (311 gai/ha)Seed treatment: 10.11 gai/kg seeds, 6.89 kgseed/haBare soilapplication:BYI 02960SL 200 G(16.9%)Seedtreatment:BYI 02960FS 480 G(39.9%)Guttation liquid residues:Fall (2010, range):0.087-21 mg ai/LSpring (2011, range):0.062-0.15 mg ai/LStudy performed in France; bare soil treatment wasmade on same day as treated seeds were sown (andwas followed by immediate mechanicalincorporation); droplets of guttation liquid werecollected from the surface ofthe treated winter oilseed rape plants; residues were sampled in fall 2010(after planting) and following spring (2011); in thefall, residues of BYI 02960 declined by about twoorders of magnitude during the approximately 5-week autumn sampling period, but residues increasedduring the spring 2011 sampling period; noexplanation for the increases in spring residues wasprovided by the study authors.48844538Max = maximum residues (generally represented by the highest daily average residues during study)1Application rate used in study is half of the maximum single drench (soil) application rate proposed.2Nectar samples were collected from bee honey stomachs3Values represent range of average daily maximum residuesacross three field trials (New York, Oregon, Washington)4Generic predicted residues of flupyradifurone on bee matrices are based onTable 26and are calculated by multiplying the application rate (in lbs ai/A) by theestimated tall grass EEC of 110 mg/kg for applications at 1 lbs ai/A. Note: predicted residues are only based on a single sprayapplication and do not account formultiple spray events.

### 59 Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants

TERRPLANT (Version 1.2.2) 18 

### is used to calculate EECs for non- target plants that inhabit dry and semi-aquatic areas. In this assessment, expos ure to non-target plants is calculated based on the potential runoff and spray drift of foliar applications of flu pyradifurone and potential runoff after soil and seed treatment applications ( Table 29 ). Potential exposure resulting from spray drift is not calculated for chemigation and seed treatment applications because any spray drift is expected to be negligible. TERRPLANT does not account for particulate drift.

Table 29. EECs for non-target terrestr ial and semi-aquatic plants based on proposed uses of flupyradifurone based on TERRPLANT.

Uses Application Technique Single Max. App. Rate (lbs ai/A) EECs (lbs ai/A)

Semi-Aquatic Areas (Total) Spray Drift Dry Areas (Total) Cereal Grains (except Rice), Tuberous and Corm Vegetables, Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica), Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables, Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits, Bushberries,

Cotton, Nongrass Animal Feeds, Peanut, Root Vegetables (except Sugarbeet), Legume Vegetables, Citrus, Pome Fruit, Low Growing Berries, Small Fruit Vine Climbing, Tree Nut, Prickly Pear/Cactus Pear Foliar 0.18 0.1 0.009 0.018

Hops Foliar 0.14 0.08 0.007 0.014 Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits, Citrus, Small Vine Climbing Fruit Soil, Chemigation 0.37 0.19 N/A 0.019

Soybeans Seed 1 0.365 0.19 N/A 0.019 App = Application; N/A = Not applicable

1 Incorporation was not accounted for in EEC s since the label only specifies that seeds should be incorporated to at least 0.5 inches; TERRPLANT accounts for incorporation at >1 inch.



### Ecological Effects Characterization

3.5.1. Ecotoxicity Data

Toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for the proposed new uses of flupyradifurone are shown in Table 30 through Table 36 . In the current risk assessment, the most sensitive endpoints available from registrant -submitted toxicity studies classified as fully reliable ( i.e. , acceptable) or reliable with restrictions ( i.e. , supplemental) are the endpoints selected for quantitative use in risk estimation 19



### .

18 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/

19 Only studies classified as “Supplemental” for quantitative use are used for risk quotient calculations in EFED assessments; supplemental studies that ar e not deemed useful for qu antifying risks are used for risk characterization purposes only.

### 60 3.3.1.1. Aquatic Organisms

Acute toxicity data for fish and a quatic invertebrates are summarized in Table 30

.

Based on the available data, flupyr adifurone technical grade active ingredient (TGAI) is slightly toxic to the rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ), fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ), sheepshead minnow ( Cyprindon variegatus ), and African clawed frog ( Xenopus laevis ) on an acute exposure basis. For all a quatic vertebrates (fish and aquatic -phase amphibians) tested, the acute 96-hr LC 50 

### value exceeded the highest concentration tested, i.e , the acute toxicity estimates were non-definitive values at or close to th e limit test concentr ation of 100 mg ai/L. Flupyradifurone is slightly toxic to Daphnia magna and the Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) with non-definitive acute toxicity estima tes; however, the compound is very highly toxic to non-biting midges ( Chironomus riparius ) and highly toxic to mysid shrimp ( Americamysis bahia ) on an acute exposure basis.

Several acute toxicity tests we re also carried out with the flupyradifurone formulation BY02960 SL 200 G (17.1% ai) indicating that it is practically non

- toxic to rainbow trout, common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ), and D. magna on an acute exposure basis. Ho wever, it should be noted that acute toxicity tests with the fo rmulation were not carri ed out with mysid shrimp or chironomids, which are the most sensitive aquati c animals to flupyradifurone TGAI.

Acute toxicity was also evaluated for severa l transformation products of flupyradifurone for freshwater vertebrates and invertebrates ( Table 30 ); none of these stud ies indicate that the degradates tested are more toxic than the pa rent compound. Based on to xicity tests using the most sensitive freshw ater invertebrate, C. riparius , M47, M48, and 6-CNA degradates are less toxic than the parent compound by several orders of magnitude.

Chronic toxicity data for fish and aquatic invertebrates exposed to flupyradifurone are summarized in Table 31

.

In a 35-day early life-stage toxi city test with fathead minnows exposed to flupyradifurone TGAI (MRID 48843714), fry survival in the lowest (0.62 mg ai/L) and highest (8.40 mg ai/L) treatment groups was significantly lower than the negative control group. The difference observed for the lowest treatment group was not considered to be biologically significant because of the lack of a dose-response relationship for fry survival. The re duction in fry survival in the highest treatment group as compared to the negative control was approximately 7%. There were no other statistically or biologically si gnificant effects for other endpoin ts, which included hatchability, larvae survival, or growth (length and weight). Gi ven that a slight reduction in fry survival was the only effect detected in this study, it is un certain whether this test provides sufficient characterization of the effects of the chemical on fish early life stages. This uncertainty will be considered further in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2 ) by determining whether the test was conducted at high enough concentrations relative to environmental exposur e concentrations to alleviate potential chronic risk co ncerns for aquatic vertebrates.

### 61 In a 21-day chronic life-cycle study with D. magna (MRID 48843711), the NOAEC and LOAEC were 3.42 and 6.73 mg ai/L, respec tively, based on reduced (4.8%) parental body length at test termination.

A 21-day chronic toxicity study with D. magna was also carried out with the transformation product, BYI 02960-succinamide (M48; MRID 48843712). The NOAEC and LOAEC were determined to be 46.3 and 106 mg/L, based on in creased parental age of first offspring. Therefore, the BYI 02960-succinamide degr adate appears to be less toxic to D. magna than the parent compound on a chronic exposure basis.

No chronic toxicity data are available for estuar ine/marine fish. Furtherm ore, an acute-to-chronic ratio from freshwater fish ca nnot be used to derive a ch ronic toxicity endpoint for estuarine/marine fish because the available acute toxicity endpoints for freshwater fish are nondefinitive ( i.e. , greater than the highest concentration tested).

In a 28-day life cycle toxicity test with mysid shrimp ( A. bahia ; MRID 48843713), there was a statistically significant d ecrease (p<0.05) in repro duction of 60% in the 23.6 μ g ai/L treatment group. The NOAEC and LOAEC for reproduction were determined to be 13.2 and 23.6 μg ai/L, respectively.

Several degradates were also evaluated in chro nic toxicity tests with aquatic invertebrates ( Table 31 ); none of these studies indica ted that the transformation produc ts are more toxic than the parent compound on a chronic exposure basis. For the succinamide degradate (M48), D. magna are an order of magnitude less sensitive as compared to the parent compound. Based on the chronic toxicity tests using C. riparius , the sodium difluoroacetate and 6-chloronicotinic acid degradates are less toxic than the pare nt compound by three orders of magnitude.

Toxicity endpoints for aquatic plants exposed to flupyradifurone and its formulations are shown in Table 32

.

The freshwater vascular plant duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) was exposed to flupyradifurone TGAI (MRID 48843731) over a 7-day period; the EC 50 

### regarding growth inhibition was determined to be >67.7 mg ai/L for both frond number and dr y weight. The NOAEC was determined to be 34.2 and 67.7 mg ai/L for frond number and dry weight, respectively.

The effects of flupyradifurone TGAI (MRID 48843732) on the growth of the freshwater green alga, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

, were tested; the 96-hour EC 50 

### and NOAEC were determined to be >80 and 80 mg ai/L, respectiv ely, based on nominal test concentrations. It should be noted that 80 mg ai/L was the highest concentration tested and was reported to be at the practical limit of solubility for flupyradifurone.

The effects of several transformation products of flupyradifurone (MRID 48843733 to 48843735) were also tested on green algae. Although none of the studies showed adverse effects at any of the concentrations tested, some degradates were not tested at high enough concentrations to demonstrate that they are less t oxic than the parent compound. However, similar to the parent compound, all of the toxicity tests with green algae provided non-definitive

### 62 endpoints in which the 72-hr EC 50 

### value exceeds the highest concentration tested.63Table 30. Acute toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation andcharacterization for fish and aquatic invertebrates exposed to flupyradifurone.Study Type Species Test MaterialEndpoints1,2(mg ai/L)(Study Duration)Toxicity Classification(MRID)(Study Classification)Acute toxicity to freshwatervertebratesRainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss)TGAI(96.2%)LC50> 74.295% CI = N/A(limit test)(96 hour test)Slightly toxic(488843705)(Fully Reliable)BYI 02960 SL 200 G(17.1%)LC50> 10095% CI = N/A(96 hour test)Practically non-toxic(48844510)(Fully Reliable)BYI 02960Succinamide (M48)(97.8%)LC50> 11495% CI = N/A(96 hour test)Practically non-toxic(48843708)(Fully Reliable)SodiumDifluoroacetate(>99%)LC50> 10.35(96 hour test)Slightly toxic(48843709)(Fully Reliable)Fathead minnow(Pimephales promelas)TGAI(96.2%)LC50> 70.595% CI = N/A(96 hour test)Slightly toxic(48843706)(Fully Reliable)Common carp(Cyprinus carpio)BYI 02960 SL 200 G(17.1%)LC50> 10095% CI = N/A(limit test)(96 hour test)Practically non-toxic(48844511)(Fully Reliable)African clawed frog(Xenopus laevis)TGAI(96.2%)LC50> 74.295% CI = N/A(48 hour test)Slightly toxic(48843737)(Reliable with Restrictions)Acute toxicity to freshwaterinvertebratesWater flea(Daphnia magna)TGAI(96.2%)EC50> 77.695% CI = N/A(48 hour test)Slightly toxic(48843701)(Fully Reliable)BYI 02960 SL 200 G(17.1%)EC50= 11595% CI = 85-179(48 hour test)Practically non-toxic(48844509)(Fully Reliable)SodiumDifluoroacetateEC50> 10.2(48 hour test)Slightly toxic(48843702)64Study Type Species Test MaterialEndpoints1,2(mg ai/L)(Study Duration)Toxicity Classification(MRID)(Study Classification)(>99%) (Fully Reliable)6-chloronicotinic acid(99.7%)EC50> 95.1(48 hour test)Slightly toxic(44988409)(Fully Reliable)Non-biting midge(Chironomus riparius)TGAI(96.2%)EC50= 0.063995% CI = 0.0431 – 0.1113Slope=4.1(48 hour test)Very highly toxic(48843738)(Reliable with Restrictions)BYI 02960Succinamide (M48)(97.8%)EC50> 104.5(48 hour test)Practically non-toxic(48843739)(Reliable with Restrictions)BYI 02960Azabicyclosuccinamide(M47)(48%)EC50> 114.5(48 hour test)Practically non-toxic(48843740)(Reliable with Restrictions)Non-biting midge(Chironomus tentans)6-CNA (97%)EC50> 1(96 hour test)Practically non-toxic(44558901)(Reliable with Restrictions)Acute toxicity toestuarine/marine fishSheepshead minnow(Cyprinidon variegatus)TGAI(96.2%)LC50> 83.995% CI = N/A(96 hour test)Slightly toxic(48843710)(Fully Reliable)Acute toxicity toestuarine/marine crustaceansMysid shrimp(Americamysis bahia)TGAI(96.2%)LC50= 0.2595% CI = N/ASlope=4.2(96 hour test)Highly toxic(48843704)(Fully Reliable)Toxicity to estuarine/marinemollusks – shell depositionEastern oyster(Crassostrea virginica)TGAI(96.2%)LC50> 2995% CI = N/A(96 hour test)Slightly toxic(48843703)(Fully Reliable)1Boldedvalues are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a given taxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation.65Table 31. Chronic toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for fish and aquatic invertebrates exposed toflupyradifurone.Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpoints1(mg ai/L)Effects(MRID)(Study Classification)Early life stage toxicity tofreshwater fishFathead minnow(Pimephales promelas)TGAI(96.2%)NOAEC = 4.41LOAEC = 8.40Fry survival(48843714)(Fully Reliable)Chronic toxicity to freshwaterinvertebratesWater flea(Daphnia magna)TGAI(96.2%)NOAEC = 3.42LOAEC = 6.73Reduced parental length; livingneonates/adult; averageoffspring/surviving female(48843711)(Fully Reliable)BYI 02960Succinamide (M48)(97.8%)NOAEC = 46.3LOAEC = 106Increased parental age at firstoffspring emergence(48843712)(Fully Reliable)Non-biting midge(Chironomus riparius)TGAI(96.2%)NOAEC = 0.00332LOAEC = 0.00852Emergence rate; development rate(48843741)(Reliable with Restrictions)BYI 02960 SL 200 G(17.1%)NOAEC = 0.012LOAEC = 0.024Emergence rate; development rate(48844519)(Reliable with Restrictions)SodiumDifluoroacetate(>99%)NOAEC = 105LOAEC >105(single concentration test)No effects at single concentrationtested(48843742)(Reliable with Restrictions)6-CNA (97%)NOAEC = 102LOAEC >102(single concentration test)No effects at single concentrationtested(48843743)(Reliable with Restrictions)Chronic toxicity toestuarine/marine crustaceansMysid shrimp(Americamysis bahia)TGAI(96.2%)NOAEC = 0.0132LOAEC = 0.0236Mean number of young produced perreproductive day per female(48843713)(Reliable with Restrictions)1Boldedvalues are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a given taxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation.2Time-weighted average pore water concentration at 0.01 and 0.02 mg ai/L nominal testlevels for NOAEC and LOAEC, respectively.66Table 32. Toxicity endpoints used in risk estimationand characterization for aquatic plants exposed to flupyradifurone.Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpoints1(mg ai/L)Effects(MRID)(Study Classification)Toxicity to vascular aquaticplantsDuckweed(Lemna gibba)TGAI(96.2%)EC50> 67.795% CI = N/ANOAEC = 34.2Mean frond counts; meancumulative biomass and meangrowth rate based on frondnumber(48843731)(Reliable with Restrictions)Toxicity to nonvascular aquaticplantsGreen algae(Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata)TGAI(96.2%)EC50> 8095% CI = N/ANOAEC = 80(96 hour test)No effects up to highestconcentration tested(48843732)(Fully Reliable)BYI 02960 SL 200 G(17.1%)EC50> 42.895% CI = N/ANOAEC = 42.8(96 hour test)No effects up to highestconcentration tested(48844518)(Fully Reliable)SodiumDifluoroacetate(>99%)EC50> 10.295% CI = N/ANOAEC = 10.2(72 hour test)(single concentration test)No effects at singleconcentration tested(48843733)(Reliable with Restrictions)BYI 02960Succinamide (M48)(97.8%)EC50> 11.495% CI = N/ANOAEC = 11.4(72 hour test)(single concentration test)No effects at singleconcentration tested(48843734)(Reliable with Restrictions)6-CNA (97%)EC50> 10095% CI = N/ANOAEC = 100(72 hour test)No effects up to highestconcentration tested(48843735)(Reliable with Restrictions)1Boldedvalues are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a given taxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation.

### 67 3.3.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms

Birds and Mammals: Acute

Acute toxicity data for birds, mammals, honeybees, and earthworms ( Eisenia foetida ) exposed to flupyradifurone are summarized in Table 33

.

Based on the available data, flupyradifurone is moderately toxic to bi rds (bobwhite quail, Colinus virginianus ; canary, Serinus canaria ) on an acute oral exposure basis and slightly toxic to birds (bobwhite quail, C. virginianus ; mallard duck, Anas platyrhynchos ) on a subacute dietary exposure basis. Several of the acute oral and subacute di etary toxicity studies indicate effects on feed consumption, body weight, or body we ight gain suggesting that the chemical can affect either the willingness of birds to consume diets containing elevated levels of flupyradifurone or to consume food ( i.e ., anorexia). In a 28-day acute oral toxicity test conducted with chickens ( Gallus gallus domesticus ) exposed to flupyradifurone TGAI (MRID 48843717), there was nearly complete cessation in feed c onsumption at the limit dose (2000 mg ai/kg bw), which was associated with reduced body weight in treated birds relativ e to controls throughout the study period. Similarly, in an acute oral toxi city study with chickens exposed to the BYI 02960 SL 200 G formulation (MRID 48844513), all dosed birds avoided food almost completely after treatment, but all five birds tested commen ced feeding by test Day 7. In a bobwhite quail acute oral toxicity study (MRID 48843715), ther e was reduced body weight and body weight gain at concentrations ≥ 200 mg ai/kg bw. In avian sub acute dietary st udies (MRIDs 48843718, 48843719), there was reduced body weight and body we ight gain in bobwhite quail and mallard ducks at dietary concentrations of ≥ 1133 and ≥ 2238 mg ai/kg diet, respec tively, during the 5-day exposure period; however, there were no treatment -related mortalities in either study and there was some evidence of recovery at lower test concentrations during the 3-day post-exposure period. When corrected for percent active ingredie nt, flupyradifurone TGAI appears to be more toxic than the BYI 02960 SL 200 G formulation to bobwhite quail on an acute oral exposure basis. Although there is uncertainty regarding the potential effects of flupyradifurone on food consumption, it is important to note that these e ffects are not well characterized in the subacute dietary toxicity studies since the studies are not typically designed to support hypothesis testing.

Flupyradifurone is classified as practically nontox ic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis. No mortality was observed at the limit dose (2000 mg/kg bw) in an acute oral toxicity study with the rat ( Rattus norvegicus ), which was the most sensitive ma mmalian species tested; therefore, the 96-hr LD 50 

### is non-definitive, i.e ., LD 50 

### >2,000 mg ai/kg bw. The US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Health Effects Division (HED) has conc luded that flupyradifurone exhibits low acute toxicity to mammals by all exposure routes (E PA Toxicity Category II I or IV) (USEPA, 2014).

Terrestrial Invertebrates: Acute

Flupyradifurone TGAI is practically non-toxic to young adult honeybees ( Apis mellifera ) on an acute contact basis; however, the compound is hi ghly toxic to young adult bees on an acute oral exposure basis. In the acut e contact toxicity test (M RID 48843722), some bees showed movement coordination problems or lethargy at the two highest concentrations (100 and 200 μg

### 68 ai/bee) starting at 48 hours of exposure. In the acute oral toxi city test (MRID 48843722), behavioral abnormalities ( e.g ., movement coordination problems and lethargy) were observed in bees at doses >0.34 μg ai/bee only within the first four hours of dosi ng. In addition, the acute oral test resulted in a steep dose response rela tionship in which 0 and 100 percent mortality were observed at 0.34 and 2.8 μg ai/bee, respectively.

Several formulations and transformation produc ts of flupyradifurone were also tested on honeybees on acute contact and oral exposure bases (MRIDs 48844514, 48844515, and 48843723 to 48843727). The major formulation of flupyradifurone (BYI 02960 SL 200 G) was shown to be approximately eight times more toxic to honeybees than the TGAI on an acute contact exposure basis, but of similar toxicity to honeybees on an acute oral exposure basis. Acute contact and oral toxicity data were al so generated for a mixt ure containing BYI 02960 SL 200 G (17.1%) + tebuconazole EW 250C G (17%) at a ratio of 1:7.5, respectively. Results indicate that the toxicity of BYI 02960 SL 200 G increased by 116-fold and 6.1-fold via the contact and oral exposure routes, respectively, and that the toxicity of the formulation containing tebuconazole increased by >22-fold via contact. Th e rationale for mixing the two formulations in the particular ratio tested was not provided. For all transformation products tested, the acute oral and contact LD 50 

### values for all tests were non-definitive va lues and were greater than the highest dose tested, although some studies resulted in mortalities at the doses tested.

### 69 Table 33. Acute toxicit y endpoints used in risk estima tion and characterization for t errestrial animals exposed to flup y radifur o

Study Type Species Test Material Endpoints 1

Acute oral toxicity to birds Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) TGAI (96.2%) LD 50 = 232 mg ai/kg bw 95% CI = 173-313 mg ai/kg bw Probit Slope=5.9

BYI 02960

SL 200 G (17.1%) LD 50 = 459 mg ai/kg bw 95% CI = 339-6616 mg ai/kg bw

Chicken ( Gallus gallus

domesticus ) TGAI (96.2%) LD 50 > 2000 mg/kg bw 4 (limit test)

BYI 02960

SL 200 (17.1%) LD 50 > 2000 mg/kg bw 4 (limit test)

Canary ( Serinus canaria ) TGAI (96.2%) LD 50 = 330 mg ai/kg bw 3 95% CI = 215-625 mg ai/kg bw Probit Slope=2.3

Subacute dietary toxicity to birds Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) TGAI (96.2%) LC 50 >4,876 mg ai/kg diet LD 50 >470 mg/kg/day

Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) TGAI (96.2%) LC 50 >4,741 mg/kg diet LD 50 >825 mg/kg/day

Acute oral toxicity to mammals 5 Norway rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) TGAI (96.2%) LD 50 >2000 mg/kg bw

Acute contact and oral toxicity to honeybees Honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) TGAI (99.5%) LD 50 = 122.8  g ai/bee (contact) LD 50 = 1.2  g ai/bee (oral) P

BYI 02960

SL 200 G (17.0%) LD 50 = 15.7  g ai/bee (contact)

LD 50 = 3.2  g ai/bee (oral) P70Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpoints1Toxicity Classification(MRID)(Study Classification)BYI 02960FS480GLD50= 68.6g ai/bee (contact)LD50= 3.4g ai/bee (oral)Practically non-toxic (contact)Highly toxic (oral)(48844711)(Fully Reliable)BYI 02960SL200G (17.0%) +Tebuconazole EW250C G (25.4%)LD50= 1g ai/bee (contact)LD50= 0.2g ai/bee (oral)Highly toxic (contact)Highly toxic (oral)(4844515)(Fully Reliable)BYI0296Difluoroethyl-aminofuranone (DFEAF)(99.2%)LD50> 100g ai/bee (contact)LD50> 81.5g ai/bee (oral)Practically non-toxic (contact)Practically non-toxic (oral)(48843723)(Fully Reliable)BYI 02960Hydroxy(95.5%)LD50> 100g ai/bee (contact)LD50> 105.3g ai/bee (oral)Practically non-toxic (contact)Practically non-toxic (oral)(48843724)(Reliable with Restrictions)DFA(95.8%)LD50> 100g ai/bee (contact)LD50> 107.9g ai/bee (oral)Practically non-toxic (contact)Practically non-toxic (oral)(48843725)(Fully Reliable)6-CNA(98.8%)LD50> 100g ai/bee (contact)LD50> 107.1g ai/bee (oral)Practically non-toxic (contact)Practically non-toxic (oral)(48843726)(Fully Reliable)6-chloropicolylalcohol(98.9%)LD50> 100g ai/bee (contact)LD50> 106.7g ai/bee (oral)Practically non-toxic (contact)Practically non-toxic (oral)(48843727)(Fully Reliable)14-day toxicity to earthwormsEarthworm(Eisenia foetida)TGAI(96.2%)LC50= 213.2 mg ai/kg soilNOAEC < 5 mg ai/kg soilLOAEC = 5 mg ai/kg soilNA(48843746)(Reliable with Restrictions)BYI 02960SL 200 G(17.1%)LC50= 709 mg ai/kg soilNOAEC < 100 mg ai/kg soilLOAEC = 100 mg ai/kg soilNA(48844547)(Reliable with Restrictions)71Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpoints1Toxicity Classification(MRID)(Study Classification)DFA(95.8%)LC50> 1,000 mg ai/kg soilNOAEC = 31.3 mg ai/kg soilLOAEC = 62.5 mg ai/kg soilNA(48843747)(Reliable with Restrictions)6-CNA(99.7%)LC50> 1,000 mg ai/kg soilNOAEC = 1,000 mg ai/kg soilLOAEC > 1,000 mg ai/kg soilNA(48843748)(Reliable with Restrictions)1Boldedvalues are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a given taxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation.2Dose-response slope data not available.The default value of 4.5 (with 95% confidence intervals of 2.0 and 9.0) is used to derive the probability of anindividual effect (Urban and Cook 1986).3Uncertainty surrounding endpoint since 50% mortality was observed at the 175 mg ai/kb bw treatment level.4Almost complete reduction in food consumption in all dosed birds at limit dose (2000 mg ai/kg bw).5Mammalian toxicity data were reviewed by OPP Health Effects Division (USEPA) as part of the Global Joint Review for flupyradifurone.

### 72 Birds and Mammals: Chronic

Chronic laboratory toxicity data for birds and mammals exposed to flupyradifurone are shown in Table 34

.

In an avian reproduction study with mallard duc ks (MRID 48843721) exposed to flupyradifurone in the diet, there was neither mortality nor si gnificant clinical symptoms or compound-related adverse effects observed at any treatment level over the 20-week test period up to the highest concentration tested (NOAEC = 845 mg ai/kg diet). There is some uncertainty surrounding this study since adverse growth effects were observed at concentrations >1175 mg ai/kg diet in the avian dietary study with mallard ducks, although no effects to pare ntal growth were reported in the reproduction study. In addition, avian repr oduction tests should typically capture a reproductive effect or test up 5,000 mg ai/kg-diet. This uncertainty will be further addressed in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2 ).

In a 23-week avian reproduction study with th e bobwhite quail (MRID 48843720), at the highest concentration tested (999 mg ai/kg-diet), there were statistically signif icant (p<0.05) effects on parental survival and female body weight gain (69% reduction), a biologically significant effect on female parental body weight (13% reduction) , as well as effects to several reproductive parameters including regressed ovaries and/or fewer maturing follicles, the number of eggs laid (44% reduction) and the number of eggs set (47% reduction), the number of viable embryos (45% reduction) and the numb er of live embryos (44% redu ction), number hatched (49% reduction), percent number hatched of eggs lai d, percent number hatche d of live embryos (8% reduction), initial hatchling body weight (14% reduction), and fo r 14-d survivor body weight (11% reduction) and 14-day survivors. Theref ore, the NOAEC for both parental toxicity and reproduction endpoints is 302 mg ai/kg diet.

In mammals, reductions in body weight with asso ciated decreases in body weight gains and sometimes food consumption were commonly seen in various studies and in all species of the test animals (rats, mice, dogs a nd rabbits) with repeated dosing.

In a rat 2-generation study evaluated by HED (MRID 48844119), the most sensitive effects were decreased body weights and body weight gains in F2 pups at 38.7 mg/kg/day, resulting in an offspring NOAEL of 7.7 mg/kg/da y. Some reproductive effects, in cluding decrease d litter size, occurred at higher dietary concentrations ( 137 mg/kg/day), resulting in a reproductive NOAEL of 38.7 mg/kg/day.

Parental body weight gain and food consump tion effects were also observed in the rat developmental toxicity study (MRID 48844116) at 150 mg/kg/day, resulting in a study NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day. In addition, decreased body weight and body weight gain also occurred in rat and mice chronic carcinogenicity studi es (MRIDs 48844122 and 48844123) at 81 and 224 mg/kg/day, respectively, resulting in NOAELs of 15.8 and 43, respectively. In a rabbit developmental toxicity study (MRID 48844117), ther e were reductions in both maternal and fetal body weights at 80 mg/kg/day, re sulting in a NOAEL of 40 mg/kg/day.

### 73 HED analysis (USEPA, 2014) indicates that most major metabolites of flupyradifurone exhibit lower toxicity to mammals than the parent co mpound except for DFA. A 90-day oral feeding study with DFA in rats (MRID 48844153) resulted in a variety of effects to non-apical endpoints ( i.e. , not directly relatable to su rvival, growth, or reproductive effects), including the production of black foci in the stomach, focal glandular er osion/necrosis, as well as slight decreases in hemoglobin, mean corpuscular vo lume, mean corpuscu lar hemoglobin, and hematocrit were also found. In addition to these effects, reduced body weight (10% on Week 13) and decreased food consumption occurred at doses of 66.2 and 78.8 mg /kg bw for males and females, respectively, resulting in NOAEL values of 12.7 and 15.6 mg/kg bw for males and females, respectively. It is noted that when comparing the NOAEL and LOAEL of this study to a similar 90-day oral study with the parent compound (MRID 48844111; NOA EL and LOAEL of 38 and 156 mg/kg bw, respectively), on a molar basis, the NOAELs and LOAELs of DFA and the parent are comparable, however, the effects are different. Furthermore, it is noted that in the rat metabolism study with flupyradifurone, DFA was fo rmed and detected as approximately 6% of the administered dose. Since 90-day rat oral toxi city data are not typi cally used by EFED to quantify chronic effects to mammals, a comparison is made in the Risk Characterization between the estimated exposure of mammals to DFA follo wing applications of fl upyradifurone and the dose at which effects to apical endpoints were observed in the 90-day ra t oral study with DFA.

Terrestrial Inverte brates: Chronic

Chronic laboratory toxicity data for honeyb ees exposed to flupyradifurone are shown in Table 34

.

Several 10-day laboratory feed ing studies with caged adult honeybees were performed for flupyradifurone TGAI (MRID 48843762) and fo r several degradates (MRIDs 48843763 to 48843767). In these studies, bees were exposed to sucrose solution c ontaining one or more concentrations of the test subs tance continuously for 10 days and mortality and sublethal effects were observed. None of the studie s showed prolonged (>1 day) tr eatment-related effects in any of the treatment groups. However, it should be no ted that the 10-day study with the TGAI was carried out at 4.64 μg ai/bee over 10 days whic h corresponds to 0.464 μg ai/bee/day, which is only 2.5 times lower than the 48-hour oral LD 50 

### for the TGAI (1.2 μg ai/bee), suggesting that a minimum threshold may be needed to result in mortality.

A 22-day in vitro laboratory toxicity test was carried out with honey bee larvae exposed to flupyradifurone TGAI (MRIDs 48843768) . Individual larvae were expo sed to the test substance on Days 4-6 of the test through artificial spiked diet at nom inal concentrations of 150, 600, 2500 and 10,000 μ g ai/kg diet. Five independent test runs were performed, all of which comply with the validity criteria as proposed by the IN RA-method (January, 2008) for testing pesticide toxicity to honeybee brood in laboratory condi tions. However, control mortality was generally high (range: 16.7 to 32.4% across test runs and may have affected the ability of the study to detect effects to mortality. No statistically significant effects (p <0.05) on mortality were detected up to Day 22 in any of the test runs. Therefore, the NOAEC for this test is >10,000 μg ai/kg-diet (0.44 μg ai/bee/day) indicating that the compound di d not appear to affect larval development or adult emergence at the concentrations tested; howe ver, the wide range of mortality rates in the control larvae is a so urce of uncertainty.

### 74 A foliage residue toxicity te st (MRID 48843728) was carried out on honeybees exposed to plant foliage (alfalfa) treated with BYI 02960 200 SL (17.1% ai) after weathering for various time periods (3, 8, and 24 hours). Mortal ity and sublethal effects such as changes in behavior were evaluated. All foliage was treated at a nominal ap plication rate of 0.18 lbs ai/A, which represents the single maximum foliar a pplication rate in the propos ed label for BYI 02960 200 SL formulation. Honeybees showed no treatment-rela ted effects on behavior or survival when exposed for 24 hours to alfalfa foliage collected af ter any of the weatheri ng intervals; therefore the RT 25 

### for this study is <3 hours.

Additional non-guideline contact t oxicity data on non-ta rget terrestrial ar thropods exposed to formulated flupyradifurone (BYI 02960 SL 200 G) are considered supplemental information in the current risk assessment and are summarized in Table 35

. Species tested include the predatory mite ( Typhlodromus pyri) , the parasitoid wasp ( Aphidius rhopalosiphi ), ladybird beetles ( Coccinella septempunctata ), rove beetles ( Aleochara bilineata ) and the flower bug ( Orius laevigatus ), all of which are routine OECD test species. Of these, the wasp was the most sensitive with median lethal rate (LR 50 

### ) equivalent to an applicat ion rate of 0.5 g ai/ha (0.0004 lbs ai/A). These studies are further ch aracterized in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2 ).

Terrestrial Plants

Toxicity data for terrestrial plants exposed to flupyradifurone form ulation BYI 02960 SL 200 are shown in Table 36

.

A 21-day vegetative vigor study (MRID 48843730) wa s carried out on eleven terrestrial plant species (seven dicotyledonous and four monocotyledonous species) sprayed once with a single application rate of BYI 02960 SL 200 of 0.365 lbs ai/A (410 g ai/ha). There were no adverse effects on survival in all the species tested. Slight phytotoxicity was observed in Brassica napus (oilseed rape), Cucumis sativus (cucumber), Lycopersicon esculentum (tomato) and Zea mays (corn). Inhibition in shoo t length and shoot dry weight were below 25% in all the species tested. There was statistically significant (p<0.05) inhibition in shoot dry weight in Fagopyrum esculentum (buckwheat) and B. napus , with 12% and 7% reductions as compared to control plants.

A 21-day seedling emergence study (MRID 48843729) was carried out on eleven terrestrial plant species (seven dicotyledonous and four monocotyledonous species) sprayed once with a single application rate of BYI 02960 SL 200 of 0.365 lbs ai/A (410 g ai/ha). Effects on emergence, survival, and shoot length did not exceed 25% in any of the species tested; therefore an IC 25 

### was not established. There were statistically signific ant (p<0.05) inhibitions in shoot length (13.8%) and shoot dry weight (19.7%) in F. esculentum (buckwheat). Slight phy totoxicity was observed in L. esculentum (tomato), Avena sativa (oat) and Z. mays (corn) and moderate effects were seen in F. esculentum and Glycine max (soybean).75Table 34. Chronic toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for terrestrial animals exposed to flupyradifurone.Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpoints1Effects(MRID)(Study Classification)Avian reproductionBobwhite quail(Colinus virginianus)TGAI(96.2%)NOAEC = 302 mg/kg dietNOAEL = 40 mg/kg bw/dayLOAEC = 999 mg/kg dietParental survival and bodyweight; multiplereproductive endpoints(48843720)(Fully Reliable)Mallard duck(Anas platyrhynchos)TGAI(96.2%)NOAEC = 845 mg/kg dietNOAEL = 83 mg/kg bw/dayLOAEC = >845 mg/kg dietNo effects up to the highestlevel tested.(48843721)(Reliable with Restrictions)Chronic toxicity to mammals2–two-generation reproductionNorway rat(Rattus norvegicus)TGAI(96.2%)NOAEL = 7.7 mg/kg bw/dayLOAEL = 38.7 mg/kg bw/dayPup body weight and bodyweight gain(48844119)(Fully Reliable)10-day honey bee laboratoryfeeding studyHoney bee(Apis mellifera)TGAI(96.2%)NOAEC = 10,000 μg ai/LNOAEC = 4.64 μg ai/beeLOAEC > 10,000 μg ai/LNo effects observed athighest concentration tested(48843762)(Reliable with Restrictions)BYI0296Difluoroethyl-aminofuranone(99.2%)NOAEC = 10,000 μg ai/LLOAEC > 10,000 μg ai/L(single concentration test)No effects observed atsingle concentration tested(48843763)(Reliable with Restrictions)BYI 02960Hydroxy(95.5%)NOAEC = 10,000 μg ai/LLOAEC > 10,000 μg ai/L(single concentration test)No effects observed atsingle concentration tested(48843764)(Reliable with Restrictions)DFA(95.8%)NOAEC = 10,000 μg ai/LLOAEC > 10,000 μg ai/L(single concentration test)No effects observed atsingle concentration tested(48843765)(Reliable with Restrictions)6-CNA(98.8%)NOAEC = 10,000 μg ai/LLOAEC > 10,000 μg ai/L(single concentration test)No effects observed atsingle concentration tested(48843766)(Reliable with Restrictions)6-chloropicolylalcohol(98.9%)NOAEC = 10,000 μg ai/LLOAEC > 10,000 μg ai/L(single concentration test)No effects observed atsingle concentration tested(48843767)76Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpoints1Effects(MRID)(Study Classification)(Reliable with Restrictions)Toxicity to honey bee larvae (invitrotest)Honey bee(Apis mellifera)TGAI(96.2%)NOAEC = 10,000 μg ai/LNOAEC = 0.44 μg ai/larvaLOAEC > 10,000 μg ai/LNo effects observed athighest concentration tested(48843768)(Reliable with Restrictions)56-day toxicity to earthwormsEarthworm(Eisenia foetida)BYI 02960 SL 200 G(17%)NOAEC = 1.5 mg ai/kg soilLOAEC = 2.7 mg ai/kg soilReduced mean number ofjuveniles(47923827)(Reliable with Restrictions)DFA(95.8%)NOAEC = 62 mg ai/kg soilLOAEC = 110 mg ai/kg soilReduced mean number ofjuveniles(48843750)(Reliable with Restrictions)6-CNA(98.8%)NOAEC = 95 mg ai/kg soilLOAEC = 100 mg ai/kg soilReduced mean number ofjuveniles(48843751)(Reliable with Restrictions)1Boldedvalues are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a given taxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation.2Mammalian toxicity data were reviewed by OPP Health Effects Division (USEPA) as part of the Global Joint Review for flupyradifurone (USEPA, 2014).Table 35. Additional non-guideline toxicity data for hazard characterization of beneficial arthropods exposed to flupyradifurone.Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpoints(lbs ai/A)Effects1(MRID)(Study Classification)Toxicity to predatory mitePredatory mite(Typhlodromus pyri)BYI 02960 SL 200(17.0%)LR50= 0.015 (17 g ai/ha)95% CI: 0.012-0.019Survival(48843745)(Reliable with Restrictions)77Study TypeSpeciesTest MaterialEndpoints(lbs ai/A)Effects1(MRID)(Study Classification)Predatory mite(Typhlodromus pyri)BYI 02960 SL 200(17.0%)LR50= 0.16 (177 g ai/ha)95% CI: 0.13-0.18Survival(48844540)(Reliable with Restrictions)Toxicity to parasitoid waspParasitoid wasp(Aphidius rhopalosiphi)BYI 02960 SL 200 G(17.1%)LR50< 0.00045 (0.5 g ai/ha)(85% mortality at lowest concentrationtested)Survival(48843744)(Reliable with Restrictions)BYI 02960 SL 200(17.0%)LR50= 0.0018 (2.02 g ai/ha)95% CI: 0.0014-0.0023Survival(48844539)(Reliable with Restrictions)Toxicity to ladybird beetleLadybird beetle(CoccinellaseptempunctataL.)BYI 02960 SL 200(17.0%)LR50= 0.24 (274 g ai/ha)95% CI: 0.17-0.29Survival(48844541)(Reliable with Restrictions)Toxicity to rove beetleRove beetle(Aleochara bilineata)BYI 02960 SL 200(17.0%)ER50= 0.26 (>300 g ai/ha)195% CI: NANA(48844542)(Reliable with Restrictions)LR = Lethal Body Residues1ER50value depicts F1 reproduction endpoint.Table 36. Toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants exposed to flupyradifurone.Study TypeTest MaterialMost SensitiveSpeciesEndpoints(lbs ai/A)Effects(MRID)(Study Classification)Terrestrial plant toxicity:Tier II seedling emergenceBYI 02960 SL 200Monocot: all speciestestedIC25> 0.365NOAEL = 0.365LOAEL > 0.365NA(48843729)(Reliable with Restrictions)Dicot: buckwheatIC25> 0.365NOAEL < 0.365Shoot dry weight and shootlength78Study TypeTest MaterialMost SensitiveSpeciesEndpoints(lbs ai/A)Effects(MRID)(Study Classification)(Fagopyrumesculentum)LOAEL = 0.365 (48843729)(Reliable with Restrictions)Terrestrial plant toxicity:Tier II vegetative vigorBYI 02960 SL 200Monocot: all speciestestedIC25> 0.365NOAEL = 0.365LOAEL > 0.365NA(48843730)(Reliable with Restrictions)Dicot: buckwheat(Fagopyrumesculentum)IC25> 0.365NOAEL < 0.365LOAEL = 0.365Shoot dry weight(48843730)(Reliable with Restrictions)

### 79 Terrestrial Invertebrate Semi -Field and Full-field Studies

Multiple higher-tiered honeybee effects studies were carried out including semi-field, full field, and colony feeding studies. The result s of these studies are summarized in Table 37 and are described in detail below.

Six semi-field studies were conducted on honeybees (MRIDs 48844531 to 48844536) in which nucleus colonies were enclosed in gauze tunnels and bees were allowed to forage on the beeattractive plant, Phacelia tanacetifolia , which was sprayed with di fferent applications of flupyradifurone. There was no consistent adverse e ffects observed across th e studies aside from some increases in mortality and decreases in foraging activity immediately following applications, particularly at full bloom while be es were actively foraging. These affects often appeared transitory, and in some cases there wa s recovery from the effects on mortality by test termination. Generally, the low number of replicates (2 or 3) per treatment group in these studies may have limited the ability to statistically detect effects on mortal ity and possibly other sublethal endpoints even when they appeared to be biologically significant. In addition, several studies suffered from large varia tion in starting colony size whic h may have prevented detection of adverse effects to treatment groups as well as confounded the interpre tation of mortality due to limited forage.

In Fall 2010, two honeybee field studies were conducted in Germa ny and France (MRIDs 48844516 and 48844517) in which bare soil was spra yed with approximat ely 0.28 lbs ai/A (310 g ai/ha) BYI 02960 SL 200 G (1 st 

### application) and oil-seed ra pe seeds treated with BYI 02960 FS 480 G at 0.01 lbs ai/lb seeds (10 g ai/kg seed s) were sown on the same day. This was followed up by two foliar applications the follo wing spring (2011) with approximately 0.18 lbs ai/A (200 g ai/ha) BYI 02960 SL 200 G both at early flowering (2 nd 

### application) and full flowering (3 rd 

### application). In both studies, flupyradif urone residues in canola pollen, nectar, wax, and flower were measured. Honeybee colonies were kept in the vicinity of treated or untreated (control) oil-seed rape until the end of flowering upon wh ich time they were moved to a different untreated area and observe d through overwintering until spring 2012.

In both studies, the highest flupyradifurone residu es in flowers, pollen and nectar (from foraging bees) occurred at the time of the second foliar application at full bloom. Maximum residues in comb pollen, nectar, and wax varied, but generally occurred one week to several months after the second application indicating that residues were translocated within the hives to varying extents. In the field study in Germany, the full bloom (3 rd 

### ) application was made in May of 2011, and comb residues of pollen, nectar, and wax also peaked in May of 2011. In the field study in France, the full bloom (3 rd 

### ) application was made in April of 2011, and comb residues of pollen, nectar, and wax reached their maximum leve ls in early May, June, and August of 2011, respectively. These results indicate some conflict in the timing and extent to which flupyradifurone may be translocated to hives under realisti c field scenarios.

Neither study indicated any trea tment-related adverse effects on mortality, flight intensity, behavior around the hives and with in the treated crop throughout the entire field exposure period; and neither study indicated any treatment rela ted adverse effects on honeybee health, colony

### 80 development, colony strength (numbers of adu lt bees and brood [eggs, larvae, pupae]), colony health, brood development, food storage, colony weight), and overall colony vitality throughout the entire field exposure peri od and throughout the entire mon itoring period until the end of overwintering in Spring 2012. However, in both studies, honeybees we re clearly foraging on alternative food sources besides the oil-seed rape based on po llen analysis which may have affected the level of exposure during the study. Ye t, residue analyses demonstrate that residues were brought back to the colonies and were tran slocated to the hives; therefore, there were multiple routes of exposure to both adult and in-hive bees even though the bees may not have foraged exclusively on the treated crops. In th e field study conducted in Germany, there is an association between application of the test item during full flowering of the crop and during bee flight (3 rd 

### spray application) in terms of intensiv e grooming behavior a nd coordination problems in a small fraction of bees in the test item tr eatment group; however, based on the parameters measured in the study, these effects appear to have been transitory and did not appear to affect the overall performance of the colonies relative to controls.

In a honeybee colony feeding study (MRID 48843771), honeybees were exposed to flupyradifurone TGAI mixed in the diet (pollen and nectar). Col onies were enclosed in gauze tunnels during the late spring/early summer. In the first week, honeybees underwent acclimation ( i.e. , no test item treatment) to the tunnels followed by 6 weeks of exposure to fortified diet (600, 2500, and 10000 μg ai/kg diet) or untreated control; there were 5 replicates per treatment and control. The enclosure containe d perennial ryegrass that was re gularly cut short to eliminate other potential food sources. After the exposure pe riod, bees were removed from the tunnels and allowed to forage freely; colonies were monitored until the following spring which included overwintering; there were 3 test item tr eatment groups. Throughout the entire confined acclimation (1 week) and subsequent exposure period (6 weeks), honey bee colonies received ad libitum untreated sugar diet ( i.e ., sugar syrup made of sucrose, glucose, and fructose for carbohydrate supply) and pollen diet ( i.e ., pollen mixed with sugar sy rup, for protein supply). The pollen diet was provided inside the respectiv e hives; whereas, the sugar diet was offered in Petri-dishes outside the hives. Both the sugar and pollen diets were replenished three times a week. The amount of pollen and sugar syrup consum ed were evaluated by weighing over regular intervals.

The results of the colony feed ing study indicate that concentr ations up to and including 10,000

μ g ai/kg diet did not result in adverse acute, shor t-term, or long-term effects on mortality, colony strength and development, brood development, food storage, honey bee behavior, and overall hive vitality and colony health, as well as on overwintering performance. There were occasional isolated incidences of increased worker mortality in the 250 0 μg ai/kg diet group relative to the control during the confinement period, but this is well within the range of natural variability and therefore is not considered biol ogically significant. There were also occasional incidences of decreased flight intensity in the 600 and 2500 μg ai/kg diet groups as compared to controls during the confinement pe riod, but this was considered of lo w biological significance since the total number of foraging honeybees and total av erage food consumption did not differ between treated and the control coloni es during the confinement pe riod. Moreover, measured food consumption was not reduced in the days following instances when statistically significant lower flight intensity was detected.

### 81 Generally, there were no adverse effects observed for colony strength during the entire course of the feeding study including exposure and post-ex posure periods and overwintering. However, just before the colonies entered their overwinte ring period in October, the average number of honeybees per exposure group was 9083, 8484, 11083 and 7866 for control, 600, 2500, and 10000 μg ai/kg diet groups, respectively; while at the last colony assessm ent after overwintering (March), the average number of honeyb ees per exposure group was 6079, 4053, 4752 and 4174 for control, 600, 2500, and 10000 μg ai/kg diet gr oups, respectively. Although it appears that control colonies survived ove rwintering with higher numbers of adult bees, there was no statistical difference between treatment and control groups.

Although there were no treatment-re lated adverse effects detected in honey bee brood, it is clear that confinement in tunnels during the acclima tion and exposure periods decreased the average number of brood cells in hives in both control and treatment gr oups possibly due to stress on the colonies. It should also be not ed that the number of brood cel ls differed widely among groups during the evaluation periods before and after ov erwintering. In October, before overwintering, the average number of brood cells pe r exposure group was 1830, 2670, 1056 and 1920 for control, 600, 2500, and 10000 μg ai/kg diet groups, respectively; while, at the last colony assessment after overwintering (March), the av erage number of brood cells per exposure group was 6270, 3770, 6560 and 5328 for control, 600, 2500, and 10000 μg ai/kg diet groups, respectively. However, there was no statistica l difference between treatment and control groups and the increase in brood in the spring indicates that e ach of the colonies maintained its queen and was able to successfully initiate brood production afte r overwintering.

No treatment related adverse eff ects were detected in nectar/hone y and pollen storage. There was a substantial (approximately 40%) but not statistically significan t decrease in honey storage in the 600 μg ai/kg diet relative to the control group following the 6-week exposure period, but this was attributed to disease-like symptoms in one particular colony which was subsequently removed from the study. At the last colony asse ssment after overwintering (March), the average number of cells containing pollen/bee bread per exposure group was 3950, 1650, 2792 and 2136 for control, 600, 2500, and 10000 μg ai/kg diet gr oups, respectively, indicating a difference in pollen storage between the lowest and highest tr eatment groups and the control group. However, there was no statistical difference between tr eatment and control groups for pollen storage throughout the study.igher tiered honeybee semi-field and field studies for flupyradifurone.Test DesignEffectsEvaluatedResidue MeasuresStudy Results/ConclusionsStudy DeficienciesiesApplication toPhaceliaanacetifoliaat full floweringunder confined conditionsgauze tunnels); honeybeesplaced in tunnels 4 daysbefore application and wereemoved from tunnels 8 daysafter application and allowedoforage freely until end ofest (27 days after exposure);fenoxycarb (150 g ai/ha) andhiamethoxam (50 g ai/ha)used as toxic references; 3eplicates per treatmentexcept thiamethoxam, 2eplicates)Study location: Germany)Mortality,foraging activity,behavior , colonystrength, broodand fooddevelopment,hive vitalityNot measured Foraging activity reducedslightly in 150 g ai/ha groupafter treatment, but recoveryoccurred after several hours;no effects on mortality ofworkers and pupae, extent ofnectar and pollen stores, egglaying activity, larval andpupal abundance, colonystrength, hive weightdevelopment and overall hivevitality in treatment groups.Application rate belowmaximum proposed singlefoliar application rate formany crops (0.18 lbs ai/A);statistics were notperformed on data and ameasure of variability(standard deviation orstandard error) was notincluded with the meansfor the various parameters.Application toPhaceliaanacetifoliaat full floweringunder confined conditionsgauze tunnels); honeybeesplaced in tunnels 2 daysbefore application and wereemoved from tunnels 12days after application andallowed to forage freely untilend of test (28 days afterexposure); 2 replicates perreatment; fenoxycarb (150 gai/ha) and thiamethoxam (50Mortality,foraging activity,behavior , colonystrength, broodand fooddevelopment,hive vitalityNot measured Foraging activity reducedslightly in 150 g ai/ha groupafter treatment, but recoveryoccurred after several hours;no effects on mortality ofworkers and pupae, extent ofnectar and pollen stores, egglaying activity, larval andpupal abundance, colonystrength, hive weightdevelopment and overall hivevitality in treatment groups.Application rate belowmaximum proposed singlefoliar application rate formany crops (0.18 lbs ai/A);a measure of variability(standard deviation orstandard error) was notincluded with the meansfor the various parameters.83Test Substance,Application Rate(MRID,StudyClassification)Test DesignEffectsEvaluatedResidue MeasuresStudy Results/ConclusionsStudy Deficienciesreferences(Study location: Germany)BYI 02960 SL 200G (17% ai)Foliar: 1 treatmentgroup with 2applications of 0.18lbs ai/A (200 gai/ha)(48844533,Reliable withRestrictions)Application toPhaceliatanacetifoliaat end ofinflorescence emergence (1stapplication) and at fullflowering (2ndapplication) 10days later (at approximately 2pm during active foraging);honeybees placed in gauzetunnels 6 days after 1stapplication and removed 11days after 2nd applicationand allowed to forage freelyuntil end of test; 3 replicatesper treatment; dimethoate(400 g ai/ha) used as toxicreferences(Study location: Germany)Mortality,foraging activity,behavior , colonystrength, broodand fooddevelopment,hive vitality;residues(flowers, pollen,nectar)Day of 2nd applicationFlower: 7.5-17.3 mg/kg7 days after 2ndapplicationFlower: 0.14-3.1 mg/kgPollen (combs): 1.1-6.2mg/kgNectar (combs):≤0.014mg/kgSome transient effectsobserved 1-2 days following2nd(full-bloom) application;mortality in treatment groupwas statistically significantlyincreased relative to controlfollowing 2nd application for1 day (mean number of deadbees was 4 and 18 for controland treatment groups,respectively); mean number offorager bees/m2reducedfollowing 2nd application for2 days relative to control.No observed lasting treatmentrelated adverse effects onadult bee mortality, flightintensity, behavior of bees oncrop and around the colony,number of bees (colonystrength), abundance of brood(sum of cells containing eggs,larvae and pupae), anddevelopment of food storagearea (sum of cells containingnectar and pollen).BYI 02960 SL 200G (17% ai)Foliar: 1 treatmentgroup with 1Application toPhaceliatanacetifoliaon bare soil atday of sowing (1stapplication), at beginning offlowering (2ndapplication),Mortality,foraging activity,behavior , colonystrength, broodand foodDay of 3rd applicationFlower: 37.6 mg/kg7 days after 3rdapplicationSome treatment-related effectson mortality and flightintensity of foraging adultbees after 3rd(full-bloom)application; mean dailyLarge disparity in colonypopulation size betweencontrol and treatmentgroups at beginning ofstudy confounds treatment-84Test Substance,Application Rate(MRID,StudyClassification)Test DesignEffectsEvaluatedResidue MeasuresStudy Results/ConclusionsStudy Deficienciesapplication of 0.28lbs ai/A (300 gai/ha) followed by 2applications of 0.18lbs ai/A (200 gai/ha)(48844534,Reliable withRestrictionsand at full flowering (3rdapplication); 7 days between2ndand 3rdapplication;honeybees placed in gauzetunnels 4 days after 2ndapplication and removed 7days after 3rd application andallowed to forage freely untilend of test; 3 replicates pertreatment; dimethoate (400 gai/ha) used as toxicreferences(Study location: Denmark)development,hive vitality;residues(flowers, wax,nectar)Flower: 0.199 mg/kgPollen (combs): 3.0-8.1mg/kgNectar: 0.015-0.031mg/kgmortality of the test group was5 times greater than thecontrol during 7-day periodafter 3rd(full-bloom)application and wasstatistically significant;reductions in flight intensityoccurred during some daysafter 3rdapplication, but onother days flight intensity inthe treatment group washigher than controls.related effects onmortality; treatmentcolonies >3 times larger attest set-up; in addition, toofew replicates resulted inlack of statistical power todetect effects in mortality.BYI 02960 SL 200G (16.9% ai)Foliar: 1 treatmentgroup with 1application of 0.28lbs ai/A (300 gai/ha) followed by 2applications of 0.18lbs ai/A (200 gai/ha)(48844535,Reliable withRestrictionsApplication toPhaceliatanacetifoliaon bare soil atday of sowing (1stapplication), at beginning offlowering (2ndapplication),and at full flowering (3rdapplication); 18 days between2ndand 3rdapplication;honeybees placed in gauzetunnels 14 days after 2ndapplication and removed 7days after 3rd application andallowed to forage freely untilend of test; 3 replicates pertreatment; dimethoate (400 gai/ha) used as toxicreferences(Study location: Italy)Mortality, flightintensity,behavior,condition of thecolonies anddevelopment ofbee brood, meanvalues of thedifferent brood;residues(flowers, pollen,nectar)Day of 3rd applicationFlower: 9.5-20 mg/kg7 days after 3rdapplicationFlower: 0.70-3.6 mg/kgNectar:≤0.003 mg/kgPossible effects to mortality intreatment group during periodbefore and after the 3rd(fullbloom) application, which wasconfounded by high mortalityin control hives; thereappeared to be eventualrecovery from effects ofmortality; decreased flightintensity of worker bees intreatment group was observedon day of 3rdapplication(following application).Time between 2ndand 3rdapplications (18 days) islonger than proposed labelapplication intervals;consistently high mortalityin control hives inhibitedassessment of treatmentrelated effects; foodscarcity due to large colonysize may have led to higherthan expected mortality insome colonies making itdifficult to determine ifmortality was treatmentrelated (major deficiency);residues in pollen could notbe measured due to lack ofsample during confinedexposure period85Test Substance,Application Rate(MRID,StudyClassification)Test DesignEffectsEvaluatedResidue MeasuresStudy Results/ConclusionsStudy DeficienciesBYI 02960 SL 200G (16.9% ai)Foliar: 1 treatmentgroup with 2applications of 0.18lbs ai/A (200 gai/ha)(48844536,Reliable withRestrictionsApplication toPhaceliatanacetifoliaat end ofinflorescence emergence (1stapplication) and at fullflowering (2ndapplication) 10days later; honeybees placedin gauze tunnels 5 days after1st application and removed7 days after 2nd applicationand allowed to forage freelyuntil end of test; 3 replicatesper treatment; dimethoate(400 g ai/ha) used as toxicreferences(Study location: Germany)Mortality, flightintensity,behavior,condition of thecolonies anddevelopment ofbee brood, meanvalues of thedifferent brood;residues(flowers, pollen,nectarEnd of Study (27 daysafter 2nd application)Pollen: 0.002-0.004mg/kgNectar/honey:≤0.017Wax: 0.001-0.062mg/kgReduced flight intensity wasobserved on the day of the 2ndapplication as well as on somefurther days during theconfined exposure periodResidue samples were onlycollected in the test itemtreatment group at the endof the study when residueswould have been diluted bypollen/nectar from otherfloral sources; too fewreplicates resulted in lackof statistical power todetect effects in mortality.Full Field StudiesBYI 02960 FS 480G (39.9% ai)Seed treatmentBYI 0296 SL 200 G(16.9% ai)Soil: 1application at0.28 lbs ai/A (310 gai/ha)Foliar: 2applications at 0.18lbs ai/A (204 gai/ha)(48844516,In September 2010, winteroil-seed rape seeds weretreated with BYI 02960 FS480 G seed treatment (10 gai/kg seed) and planted at5.98 kg seed/ha; soil treatedwith 0.28 lbs ai/A foliarspray (1stapplication) prior tosowing (same day);subsequent applications of0.18 lbs ai/A at earlyflowering (2ndapplication)and full flowering (3rdapplication) in spring 2011; 8colonies per treatment groupand control; bees wereallowed to forage ontreated/untreated crop andMortality, flightintensity,behavior, broodand food status;colony healthand strength;residues(flowers, pollen,nectar, wax, soil)Ranges (across study)Flowers (1.9-30.4mg/kg)Pollen, combs: 0.3-3.9mg/kgPollen, bee bread:0.004-2.0 mg/kgPollen, forager bees:0.2-14.3 mg/kgNectar, combs: 0.4-1.3mg/kgNectar/honey: 0.05-1.4mg/kgNectar, forager bees:0.3-4.1 mg/kgWax, combs: 0.006-.15mg/kgWax: 0.005-0.17 mg/kgGenerally, no treatmentrelated adverse effectsobserved on mortality, flightintensity in the test field,behaviour of the honeybeesaround the hives and withinthe treated cropthroughout theentire field exposure period,honeybee health, colonydevelopment (includingcolony strength, colony health,brood- and food development,weight development of thecolonies), overall colonyvitality; possible correlationbetween application of the testitem during full flowering ofthe crop and during bee flightBees were clearly foragingon alternative food sources(non-oil-seed rape) basedon pollen analysis whichmay have affected the levelof exposure during thestudy86Test Substance,Application Rate(MRID,StudyClassification)Test DesignEffectsEvaluatedResidue MeasuresStudy Results/ConclusionsStudy DeficienciesReliable withRestrictionsthen moved to untreated areaat end of flowering period(Study location: Germany)Soil: 0.075 mg/kgThe highest pollen andnectar (from foragerbees) and flowerresidues were collectedfrom samples following2nd foliar application(full bloom); thehighest average pollen,nectar, and waxresidues occurredapproximately in combsoccurred approximately1 week after the 2ndfoliar application(3rdspray application) in termsof intensive groomingbehavior and coordinationproblems in a small fraction ofbees in the test item treatmentgroup.BYI 02960 FS 480G (39.9% ai)Seed treatmentBYI 0296 SL 200 G(16.9% ai)Soil: 1application at0.28 lbs ai/A (310.5g ai/ha)Foliar: 2applications at 0.19lbs ai/A (208-212 gai/ha)(48844517,Reliable withIn autumn 2010, winter oilseed rape seeds were treatedwith BYI 02960 FS 480 Gseed treatment (10 g ai/kgseed) and planted at 5.98 kgseed/ha; soil treated with 0.28lbs ai/A foliar spray (1stapplication) prior to sowing(same day); subsequentapplications of 0.18 lbs ai/Aat early flowering (2ndapplication) and fullflowering (3rdapplication) inspring 2011; 8 colonies pertreatment group and control;bees were allowed to forageon treated/untreated crop andthen moved to untreated areaat end of flowering periodMortality, flightintensity,behavior, broodand food status;colony healthand strength;residues(flowers, pollen,nectar, wax, soil)Ranges (across study)Flowers (0.08-36mg/kg)Pollen, combs: 0.004-1.2 mg/kgPollen, forager bees:0.17-21 mg/kgNectar, combs: 0.012-0.92 mg/kgNectar, forager bees:≤4.3 mg/kgWax, combs:≤0.039mg/kgSoil: 0.061 mg/kgThe highest pollen(from forager bees) andflower residues werecollected from samplesGenerally, no treatmentrelated adverse effectsobserved on mortality, flightintensity, behavior around thehives and within the treatedcrop throughout the entirefield exposure period,honeybee health, colonydevelopment (includingcolony strength, colony health,brood development and foodstorage, colony weight), aswell as on overall colonyvitality throughout the entirefield exposure period andthroughout the entiremonitoring period, until theend of overwintering in spring2012.Bees were clearly foragingon alternative food sources(non-oil-seed rape) basedon pollen analysis whichmay have affected the levelof exposure during thestudy87Test Substance,Application Rate(MRID,StudyClassification)Test DesignEffectsEvaluatedResidue MeasuresStudy Results/ConclusionsStudy DeficienciesRestrictions(Study location: France)following 2nd foliarapplication (fullbloom); the highestaverage pollen, nectar,and wax residues incombs occurredapproximately 1, 2, and4 months, respectively,after 2ndfoliarapplication indicating abuild-up of residues inhivesColony Feeding StudyBYI 02960 TGAI(96.2% ai)3 treatment groups(spiked diet) of 600,2500, and 10000 μgai/kg diet(48843771, Reliablewith Restrictions)Honeybees exposed toflupyradifurone in gauzetunnels with fortified diet(both pollen and sugar syrup)for 42 days; afterward beeswere allowed to forage freelyand were monitored untilfollowing spring (throughoverwintering); 3 test itemtreatment groups (600, 2500,and 10000 μg ai/kg diet) plusuntreated control; 5 replicatesper treatment; tunnels erectedover ryegrass regularly cutshort inside tunnels;(Study location: Germany)Mortality,foraging activity,behavior, colonyand brooddevelopment,general healthstatus, absolutenumber andpercentages ofdifferent lifestage bees),number of combcells withpollen/bee breadand nectar/honeysupplies,presence ofpests/pathogens,residues inspiked foodsupplyN/A No observed adverse acute,short-term, and long-termeffects on mortality, colonystrength and development,brood development, foodstorage, honey bee behavior,and overall hive vitality andcolony health, as well as onoverwintering performance.Occasional significant effectson worker mortality and flightintensity during theconfinement period, but notconsidered biologicallysignificant.Enclosure in tunnelscaused stress to bees andbrood were reduced byapproximately 1/3 afterbeing placed into tents;pollen was not storedduring confinement andmay have impaireddevelopment of brood andadult numbers.

### 88 3.5.1. Incident Reports

Flupyradifurone has no existing registrations in North America; therefore, this assessment assumes that there are no existing incident repor ts associated with flupyradifurone uses in the United States.



## 4. Risk Characterization

Toxicity data and exposure estimates for flupyrad ifurone are used to evaluate the potential fo r adverse ecological effects on non- target species. This screen ing-level assessment employs a deterministic risk estimation method, based on ri sk quotient (RQ) values, to provide a metric o potential risks ( Section 4.1 ). The RQ provides a comparison of exposure estimates to toxicity endpoints ( i.e. , the estimated exposure concentrations are divided by acute and chronic toxici t values, respectively). The resulting unitless RQ values are compared to the Agency’s levels o f concern (LOCs). The LOCs, when exceeded, are used by the Agency to indicate when the us e a pesticide, as directed by the label, has the potential to cause advers e effects to non-target organisms. The potential for risk is charac terized further in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2 ) based on the risk estimation results and other re levant information about toxicity, ecosystems potentially at risk, and the environmental fate and transport characteri stics of flupyradifurone. cases where an RQ value exceeds the risk to lis ted species LOC, the potential for risk to liste d species is characterized in greater detail in Section 5

.

Risk Estimation

4.1.1. Aquatic Organisms

RQ values are calculated for estimating acute an d chronic risk to fish and aquatic invertebrate as well as risks to aquatic plants, where the subm itted ecotoxicity data are sufficient to use in r estimation. In this assessment, risk estimates for fish also apply for aquatic-phase amphibian s for which fish serve as surrogates. Toxicity da ta for aquatic animals and plants reported in Section 3.3.1.1 in terms of mg/L (ppm) are converted to μg/L (ppb) so that both exposure an d toxicity are in similar units, i.e ., μg/L.

Flupyradifurone is slightly to practically non-t oxic to aquatic vertebra tes (fish and aquatic-ph a amphibians). Since acute toxicity values for fr eshwater and estuarine/marine fish are nondefinitive ( i.e. , greater than the highest concentration te sted), RQ values could not be calculat e However, estimated peak exposure concentratio ns in surface water for all proposed uses are several orders of magnitude lowe r than the highest concentration tested in available fish acute toxicity studies; theref ore, the likelihood of acute mortality in freshwater or estuarine/marine f following exposure to flupyradifurone from any of the uses evaluated is presumed to be low.

Chronic RQ values for freshwater fish for all proposed uses are ≤ 0.01, and therefore do not exceed the chronic risk LOC (RQ ≥ 1) for fish.

Acute and chronic RQ values were derived for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates inhabiting both water column and benthic aq uatic environments using surface water and

### 89 sediment pore water EECs, respectively. For freshw ater invertebrates inhabiting surface waters, all proposed uses exceed the acute risk to listed species LOC (RQ ≥ 0.05), while the acute risk to non-listed species LOC (RQ ≥ 0.5) is only exceeded for foliar application when there are ≥ 2 crop cycles per season. For estuarine/marine invertebrates inhabiting surface waters, most proposed uses exceed the acute risk to listed species LOC (RQ ≥ 0.05), but none exceed the LOC (RQ ≥ 0.5) for risk to non-listed species. Chronic RQ values for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates inhabiting surface waters exceed th e chronic risk LOC (RQ ≥ 1) for the majority of uses. For a small number of uses, when the cont ribution of spray drift to exposure levels is removed or when ground spray is modeled as comp ared to aerial spray, acute risk to listed species and/or chronic LOCs are no longer exceed ed for freshwater and/or estuarine/marine invertebrates.

For sediment-dwelling freshwater invertebrates, represented by non-biting midges, all proposed uses except for prickly pears exceed the acute risk to listed species and chronic risk LOCs (RQ ≥ 0.05 and ≥ 1, respectively), while the acute ri sk to non-listed species LOC (RQ ≥ 0.5) is only exceeded for foliar applications when there are ≥ 2 crop cycles per season ( Table 39 ). For sediment-dwelling estuarine/marine invertebrates, represented by mysid shrimp, the majority of proposed uses exceed the acute ri sk to listed species LOC (RQ ≥ 0.05), and approximately half of the proposed uses exceed the chronic risk LOC (RQ ≥ 1), but none exceed the non-listed species LOC (RQ ≥ 0.5).

For both vascular aquatic plants and algae, risk to listed specie s RQ values are <0.01 and do not exceed the LOC (RQ ≥ 1). Risk to non-listed sp ecies RQ values could not be calculated since available EC 50 

### values are non-definitive ( i.e. , greater than the highest concentrations tested); however, EC 50 

### values for both duckweed and green algae are at least two orders of magnitude higher than peak surface water EEC s. Therefore, the likelihood for adverse effects to aquatic plants from the proposed uses of flupyradifurone is considered low.

As the endpoints for flupyradifur one formulations are higher than those of the TGAI, RQ values are not calculated for aquatic organism s using spray drif t-only EECs.

Further characterization of the potential for adverse effects to aquatic organisms, based on the available data, is provided as part of the Risk Description in Section 4.2.1

.

### 90 Table 38. RQ values for aquatic in vertebrates exposed to flupyradifu rone TGAI in the water column.

Use Site Single App. Rate lbs ai/A, # of App, MRI

in days App Type Drift/ No Drift Parent Only EEC in μg/L RQ Values

Water Column Freshwater Invertebrates Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

Peak 21- day Acute LC 50 = 63.9μg/L 1 Chronic NOAEC= 3.3 μg/L 2 Acute LC 50 = 250 μg/L 3 Chronic NOAEC= 13.2 μg/L 4

Crop Group 15: Cereal Grains 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 23.5 22.8 0.37 6.91 0.09 1.73 No Drift 19.4 18.8 0.30 5.70 0.08 1.42

F, G Drift 22.2 21.6 0.35 6.55 0.09 1.64 No Drift 20.2 19.6 0.32 5.94 0.08 1.48

Cotton 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 19.6 19 0.31 5.76 0.08 1.44 No Drift 16.2 15.6 0.25 4.73 0.06 1.18

F, G Drift 18.6 17.9 0.29 5.42 0.07 1.36 No Drift 16.9 16.3 0.26 4.94 0.07 1.23

Peanut 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 10.9 10.4 0.17 3.15 0.04 0.79 No Drift 7.31 6.97 0.11 2.11 0.03 0.53

F, G Drift 10.9 10.4 0.17 3.15 0.04 0.79 No Drift 9.13 8.95 0.14 2.71 0.04 0.68

Root Veg. (except Sugarbeet) and Tuberous and Corm Veg. 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 18.9 18.3 0.30 5.55 0.07 1.39 No Drift 16 15.3 0.25 4.64 0.06 1.16

F, G Drift 18.2 17.4 0.28 5.27 0.07 1.32

No Drift 16.7 15.9 0.26 4.82 0.06 1.20

2 crop cycles

A Drift 39.3 37.6 0.62 11.4 0.16 2.85

3 crop cycles 43.0 41.7 0.67 12.6 0.17 3.16

4 crop cycles 45.8 44.5 0.72 13.5 0.18 3.37

5 crop cycles 63.8 62.1 1.0 18.8 0.26 4.7

Legume Veg. (Succulent or Dried) 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 16.8 16.1 0.26 4.88 0.06 1.22 No Drift 12.3 11.8 0.19 3.58 0.05 0.89

F, G Drift 19.1 19.7 0.30 5.97 0.08 1.49 No Drift 17.8 18.2 0.28 5.52 0.07 1.38

Fruiting Vegetables 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 19.9 18.9 0.31 5.73 0.08 1.43 No Drift 16.5 15.6 0.26 4.73 0.06 1.18

F, G Drift 19.8 20.5 0.31 6.21 0.08 1.55 No Drift 17.1 17.5 0.27 5.30 0.07 1.33 0.40, 1x S, G No Drift 14.8 15.1 0.23 4.58 0.06 1.14

Cucurbit Vegetables 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 19.8 20.5 0.31 6.21 0.08 1.55 No Drift 17.1 17.5 0.27 5.30 0.07 1.33

F, G Drift 19.1 19.7 0.30 5.97 0.08 1.49 No Drift 17.8 18.2 0.28 5.52 0.07 1.38 0.37 (0.40), S, G No Drift 16.9 17.6 0.26 5.33 0.07 1.33

Hops 0.14 (0.15), 1x F, A Drift 5.57 5.41 0.09 1.64 0.02 0.41 No Drift 2.14 2.07 0.03 0.63 0.01 0.16

F, G Drift 3.98 3.89 0.06 1.18 0.02 0.29 No Drift 2.29 2.22 0.04 0.67 0.01 0.17

Citrus Fruit 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 24.4 25.1 0.38 7.61 0.10 1.90 No Drift 22 22.5 0.34 6.82 0.09 1.70

Drift Only, 3.45 -- 0.05 -- -- --

### 91 Use Site Single App. Rate lbs ai/A, # of App, MRI

in days App Type Drift/ No Drift Parent Only EEC in μg/L RQ Values

Water Column Freshwater Invertebrates Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

Peak 21- day Acute LC 50 = 63.9μg/L 1 Chronic NOAEC= 3.3 μg/L 2 Acute LC 50 = 250 μg/L 3 Chronic NOAEC= 13.2 μg/L 4

No Runoff

F, AB Drift 22.2* 23* 0.35* 6.97 0.09* 1.74* F, G Drift 22.6 23.3 0.35 7.06 0.09 1.77 0.37 (0.40), S, G No Drift 23.1 22.2 0.36 6.73 0.09 1.68

Pome Fruit 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 12.5 11.8 0.20 3.58 0.05 0.89 No Drift 8.73 8.26 0.14 2.50 0.03 0.63 F, AB Drift 10.5 9.99 0.16 3.03 0.04 0.76

F, G Drift 11 10.4 0.17 3.15 0.04 0.79 No Drift 9.1 8.61 0.14 2.61 0.03 0.65

Bushberry 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 9.65 9.43 0.15 2.86 0.04 0.71 No Drift 6.06 6.04 0.09 1.83 0.02 0.46

F, G Drift 7.98 7.96 0.12 2.41 0.03 0.60 No Drift 6.32 6.29 0.10 1.91 0.03 0.48 Low Growing Berry (excluding Cranberry) 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 12.9 12.8 0.20 3.88 0.05 0.97 No Drift 10.2 9.66 0.16 2.93 0.04 0.73

F, G Drift 14.3 16.2 0.22 4.91 0.06 1.23 No Drift 10.6 10.1 0.17 3.06 0.04 0.77

Small Fruit Vine Climbing (except Fuzzy Kiwifruit) 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 9.65 9.43 0.15 2.86 0.04 0.71

No Drift 6.06 6.04 0.09 1.83 0.02 0.46

F, G Drift 8.28 8.14 0.13 2.47 0.03 0.62 No Drift 6.31 6.03 0.10 1.83 0.02 0.46

Tree Nut 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 9.73 9.26 0.15 2.81 0.04 0.70 No Drift 6.55 6.51 0.10 1.97 0.03 0.49 F, G Drift 6.82 6.54 0.11 1.98 0.03 0.50

Prickly Pear 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, G Drift 2.98 2.86 0.05 0.87 0.01 0.22 No Drift 1.24 1.22 0.02 0.37 <0.01 0.09

Nongrass Animal Feeds (Forage, Fodder, Straw, Hay) 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 25.2 24 0.39 7.27 0.10 1.82 No Drift 21.8 20.8 0.34 6.30 0.08 1.58

Drift Only,

No Runoff 3.55 -- 0.06 -- -- --

F, G Drift 23.50 22.30 0.37 6.76 0.09 1.69 No Drift 21.80 20.70 0.34 6.27 0.08 1.57

Soybean Seed Treatment 0.37 (0.40), 1x S, G No Drift 6.97 6.61 0.11 2.00 0.03 0.50

Bolded values exceed the Agency’s Level of Concern (LOC) fo r acute risk to listed (RQ > 0.05) and/or non-listed (RQ > 0.5) aquatic invertebrates or chroni c risk to aquatic invertebrates (RQ > 1).

1 Based on 48-hr LC 50 of 63.9 μg/L for the non-biting midge ( Chironomous riparius ) (MRID 48843738).

2 Based on time-weighted average measur ed flupyradifurone concentration in pore-water during a 28-day toxicity study for chironomids (NOAEC of 3.3 μg/L. Effects on emergence rate and developmental rate were observed at 8.5 μg/L (MRID 48843741).

3 Based on 96-hr LC 50 of 250 μg/L for the mysid shrimp (MRID 48843704).

4 Based on the NOAEC of 13.2 μg/L for the mysid shrimp (MRID 48843713). Effects on mean number of young produced per reproductive day per female were observed at 23.6 μg/L. * Based on residues of parent plus unextracted residues.

### 92 Table 39. RQ values for sediment-dwelling inve rtebrates exposed to flupyradifurone TGAI.

Use Site Single App. Rate (kg ai/ha), # of App, MRI in days App Type Drift/ No Drift Parent only EEC in μg/L RQ Values

Pore Water Freshwater Invertebrates Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

Peak 21-day Acute LC 50 = 63.9μg/L 1 Chronic NOAEC= 3.3 μg/L 2 Acute LC 50 = 250 μg/L 3 Chronic NOAEC= 13.2 μg/L 4

Crop Group 15: Cereal Grains 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 18.9 19 0.30 5.76 0.08 1.44 No Drift 15.5 15.6 0.24 4.73 0.06 1.18

F, G Drift 17.9 17.9 0.28 5.42 0.07 1.36 No Drift 16.2 16.3 0.25 4.94 0.06 1.23

Cotton 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 15.9 15.9 0.25 4.82 0.06 1.20 No Drift 13.3 13.3 0.21 4.03 0.05 1.01

F, G Drift 15.1 15.1 0.24 4.58 0.06 1.14 No Drift 13.8 13.8 0.22 4.18 0.06 1.05

Peanut 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 8.11 8.1 0.13 2.45 0.03 0.61 No Drift 5.44 5.44 0.09 1.65 0.02 0.41

F, G Drift 8.46 8.47 0.13 2.57 0.03 0.64 No Drift 7.14 7.15 0.11 2.17 0.03 0.54

Root Veg.

(except Sugarbeet) and Tuberous and

Corm Veg. 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 13 12.9 0.20 3.91 0.05 0.98 No Drift 10.7 10.6 0.17 3.21 0.04 0.80

F, G Drift 12.3 12.2 0.19 3.70 0.05 0.92

No Drift 11.1 11 0.17 3.33 0.04 0.83

2 crop cycles

F, A Drift 27.9 26.8 0.44 8.12 0.11 2.03 3 crop cycles 32.1 30.8 0.50 9.33 0.13 2.33 4 crop cycles 35.1 33.8 0.55 10.2 0.14 2.56 5 crop cycles 56.2 55.9 0.88 16.9 0.22 4.23

Legume Veg. (Succulent or Dried) 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 15.1 15.2 0.24 4.61 0.06 1.15 No Drift 11.6 11.7 0.18 3.55 0.05 0.89

F, G Drift 13.8 13.7 0.22 4.15 0.06 1.04 No Drift 12.7 12.5 0.20 3.79 0.05 0.95

Fruiting Vegetables 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 13.3 13.3 0.21 4.03 0.05 1.01 No Drift 11 11 0.17 3.33 0.04 0.83

F, G Drift 14.5 14.4 0.23 4.36 0.06 1.09 No Drift 12.1 12 0.19 3.64 0.05 0.91 0.40, 1x S, G No Drift 11.7 11.7 0.18 3.55 0.05 0.89

Cucurbit Vegetables 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 14.5 14.4 0.23 4.36 0.06 1.09 No Drift 12.1 12 0.19 3.64 0.05 0.91

F, G Drift 13.8 13.7 0.22 4.15 0.06 1.04 No Drift 12.7 12.5 0.20 3.79 0.05 0.95 0.37 (0.40), S, G No Drift 13.8 13.2 0.22 4.00 0.06 1.00

Hops 0.14 (0.15), 1x F, A Drift 4.73 4.73 0.07 1.43 0.02 0.36 No Drift 1.74 1.74 0.03 0.53 0.01 0.13

F, G Drift 3.32 3.32 0.05 1.01 0.01 0.25 No Drift 1.84 1.84 0.03 0.56 0.01 0.14

Citrus Fruit 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 18.1 17.8 0.28 5.39 0.07 1.35 No Drift 15.8 15.5 0.25 4.70 0.06 1.17

Drift 2.38 -- 0.04 -- 0.01 -- F, Drift 16.4 16.2 0.26 4.91 0.07 1.23 F, G Drift 16.8 16.6 0.26 5.03 0.07 1.26 0.37 (0.40), 1x S, G No Drift 16.2 16 0.25 4.85 0.06 1.21

### 93 Use Site Single App. Rate (kg ai/ha), # of App, MRI in days App Type Drift/ No Drift Parent only EEC in μg/L RQ Values

Pore Water Freshwater Invertebrates Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

Peak 21-day Acute LC 50 = 63.9μg/L 1 Chronic NOAEC= 3.3 μg/L 2 Acute LC 50 = 250 μg/L 3 Chronic NOAEC= 13.2 μg/L 4

Pome Fruit 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 9.34 9.36 0.15 2.84 0.04 0.71 No Drift 6.4 6.39 0.10 1.94 0.03 0.48 F, AB Drift 7.72* 7.72* 0.12* 2.34 0.03* 0.58*

F, G Drift 8.05 8.05 0.13 2.44 0.03 0.61 No Drift 6.59 6.58 0.10 1.99 0.03 0.50

Bushberry 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 9.88 10 0.15 3.03 0.04 0.76 No Drift 6.46 6.56 0.10 1.99 0.03 0.50

F, G Drift 8.48 8.55 0.13 2.59 0.03 0.65 No Drift 6.73 6.84 0.11 2.07 0.03 0.52 Low Growing Berry (excluding Cranberry) 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 8.78 8.21 0.14 2.49 0.04 0.62 No Drift 6.39 6.15 0.10 1.86 0.03 0.47

F, G Drift 9.38 9.23 0.15 2.80 0.04 0.70 No Drift 6.66 6.41 0.10 1.94 0.03 0.49

Small Fruit Vine Climbing (except Fuzzy

Kiwifruit) 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 9.88 10 0.15 3.03 0.04 0.76 No Drift 6.46 6.56 0.10 1.99 0.03 0.50

F, G Drift 6.38 6.39 0.10 1.94 0.03 0.48

No Drift 4.67 4.66 0.07 1.41 0.02 0.35

Tree Nut 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 8.9 8.9 0.14 2.70 0.04 0.67 No Drift 6.53 6.54 0.10 1.98 0.03 0.50 F, G Drift 4.98 4.97 0.08 1.51 0.02 0.38

Prickly Pear 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, G Drift 2.22 2.22 0.03 0.67 0.01 0.17 No Drift 1.04 1.04 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.08

Nongrass Animal Feeds (Forage, Fodder, Straw, Hay) 0.18 (0.20), 2x, 7d F, A Drift 17.2 17.2 0.27 5.21 0.07 1.30 No Drift 14.8 14.9 0.23 4.52 0.06 1.13

Drift Only, No Runoff 2.47 -- 0.04 -- 0.01 --

F, G Drift 15.90 15.90 0.25 4.82 0.06 1.20 No Drift 14.70 14.80 0.23 4.48 0.06 1.12 Soybean Seed

Treatment 0.37 (0.40), 1x S, G No Drift 4.7 4.7 0.07 1.42 0.02 0.36

Bolded values exceed the Agency’s Level of Concern (LOC) fo r acute risk to listed (RQ > 0.05) and/or non-listed (RQ > 0.5) aquatic invertebrates or chroni c risk to aquatic invertebrates (RQ > 1).

1 Based on 48-hr LC 50 of 63.9 μg/L for the non-biting midge ( Chironomous riparius ) (MRID 48843738).

2 Based on time-weighted average measur ed flupyradifurone concentration in pore-water during a 28-day toxicity study for chironomids (NOAEC of 3.3 μg/L. Effects on emergence rate and developmental rate were observed at 8.5 μg/L (MRID 48843741).

3 Based on 96-hr LC 50 of 250 μg/L for the mysid shrimp (MRID 48843704).

4 Based on the NOAEC of 13.2 μg/L for the mysid shrimp (MRID 48843713). Effects on mean number of young produced per reproductive day per female were observed at 23.6 μg/L.

### 94 4.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms

Terrestrial Vertebrates

In this assessment, RQ values are calculated fo r acute dose-based risk to birds and for chronic risk to birds and mammals. RQ values are not calc ulated for acute dietary- based risk to birds or acute risk to mammals because the toxicity e ndpoints needed for thes e calculations are nondefinitive. Specifically, the LC 50 

### and LD 50 

### values for birds and mammals, respectively, were greater than the highest concentr ation/dose tested in each study.

For all foliar or drench uses of flupyradifurone evaluated, the acute dose-based RQ values for birds exceed the Agency’s LOC for acute risk to listed (RQ ≥ 0.1) species for three or more types of dietary items ( Table 40 ). In addition, for all foliar or dr ench uses except for hops, the acute dose-based RQ values for birds exceed the Ag ency’s LOC for acute risk to non-listed (RQ ≥ 0.5) species for the smallest class of birds (20 g) feeding on short grass. The modeling of multiple crop cycles generally increases th e number of dietary items for wh ich the acute risk to non-listed species are exceeded. The chronic risk LOC (RQ ≥ 1) is not exceeded for birds for any proposed use, including when multiple crop cycles are taken into account.

Chronic, dietary-based RQ values for mamm als only exceed the chronic risk LOC (RQ ≥ 1) for short grass when flupyradifurone is applied in two or more crop cycles. Conversely, dose-based chronic RQs exceed the chronic risk LOC for multiple dietary items and size classes for all proposed uses evaluated.

Table 40. Acute and chronic RQ values for birds exposed to flupyradifurone as a result of the proposed uses.

Food Type Acute Dose Based RQs 1 Chronic Dietary Based RQs 2 Small (15 g) Medium (100 g) Large (1000 g) Foliar: Cereal Grains (except Rice), Tuberous and Co rm Vegetables, Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica), Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables, Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits, Bushberries (0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 7-day interval) Short grass 0.55 0.25 0.08 0.27 Tall grass 0.25 0.11 0.04 0.12 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.31 0.14 0.04 0.15 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.03 0.02 <0.01 0.02 Arthropods 0.22 0.10 0.03 0.10 Seeds (granivore) 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 N/A Foliar: Cotton, Non-grass Animal Feeds, Peanut, Root Vegetables (except Sugarbeet), Legume Vegetables, Citrus, Pome Fruit, Low Growing Berries, Small Fruit Vine Climbing (0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 10-day interval) Short grass 0.54 0.24 0.08 0.26 Tall grass 0.25 0.11 0.03 0.12 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.30 0.14 0.04 0.15 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.03 0.02 <0.01 0.02 Arthropods 0.21 0.09 0.03 0.10 Seeds (granivore) 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 N/A Foliar: Tree Nut, Prickly Pear/Cactus Pear (0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 14-day interval) Short grass 0.52 0.23 0.07 0.25 Tall grass 0.24 0.11 0.03 0.12 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.29 0.13 0.04 0.14

### 95 Food Type Acute Dose Based RQs 1 Chronic Dietary Based RQs 2 Small (15 g) Medium (100 g) Large (1000 g) Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.03 0.01 <0.01 0.02 Arthropods 0.20 0.09 0.03 0.10 Seeds (granivore) 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 N/A Foliar: Hop (0.14 lbs ai/A; 1 application) Short grass 0.23 0.10 0.03 0.11 Tall grass 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.05 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.13 0.06 0.02 0.06 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 Arthropods 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.04 Seeds (granivore) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 N/A Soil/Drench/Chemigation: Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurb its, Citrus, Small Vine Climbing Fruit, Soybean Seeds (0.37 lbs ai/A; 1 application) Short grass 0.61 0.27 0.09 0.29 Tall grass 0.28 0.12 0.04 0.13 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.34 0.15 0.05 0.17 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 Arthropods 0.24 0.11 0.03 0.12 Seeds (granivore) 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Foliar: Root Vegetables (0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 2 crop cycl es; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval between cycles) Short grass 0.83 0.37 0.12 0.40 Tall grass 0.38 0.17 0.05 0.19 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.47 0.21 0.07 0.23 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.03 Arthropods 0.33 0.15 0.05 0.16 Seeds (granivore) 0.01 0.01 <0.01 Foliar: Root Vegetables (0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 3 crop cycl es; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval between cycles) Short grass 0.99 0.45 0.14 0.48 Tall grass 0.46 0.20 0.06 0.22 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.56 0.25 0.08 0.27 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.03 Arthropods 0.39 0.17 0.06 0.19 Seeds (granivore) 0.01 0.01 <0.01 Foliar: Root Vegetables (0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 4 crop cycl es; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval between cycles) Short grass 1.09 0.49 0.15 0.53 Tall grass 0.50 0.22 0.07 0.24 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.61 0.27 0.09 0.30 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.03 Arthropods 0.43 0.19 0.06 0.21 Seeds (granivore) 0.02 0.01 <0.01 N/A Foliar: Root Vegetables (0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 5 crop cycl es; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval between cycles) Short grass 1.13 0.51 0.16 0.55 Tall grass 0.52 0.23 0.07 0.25

### 96 Food Type Acute Dose Based RQs 1 Chronic Dietary Based RQs 2 Small (15 g) Medium (100 g) Large (1000 g) Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.64 0.29 0.09 0.31 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.03 Arthropods 0.44 0.20 0.06 0.22 Seeds (granivore) 0.02 0.01 <0.01 N/A N/A = Not applicable. Bolded values exceed the Agency’s Level of Concern (LOC) fo r acute risk to listed (RQ > 0.1) and/or non-listed (RQ > 0.5) birds or chronic risk to birds (RQ > 1).

1 Acute dose-based RQ values ar e based on the bobwhite quail LD 50 value of 232 mg ai/kg bw.

2 Chronic RQ values are based on the bobwhite quail NOAEC value of 302 mg ai/kg diet.

Table 41. Chronic dietary and dose-based RQ values for mammals exposed to flupyradifurone as a result of the proposed uses.

Food Type Dietary Based RQs Dose Based RQs Small (15 g) Medium (35 g) Large (1000 g) Foliar: Cereal Grains (except Rice), Tuberous and Co rm Vegetables, Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica), Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables, Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits, Bushberries (0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 7-day interval) Short grass 0.81 4.55 3.89 2.08 Tall grass 0.37 2.09 1.78 0.96 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.45 2.56 2.19 1.17 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.05 0.28 0.24 0.13 Arthropods 0.32 1.78 1.52 0.82 Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.06 0.05 0.03 Foliar: Cotton, Non-grass Animal Feeds, Peanut, Root Vegetables (except Sugarbeet), Legume Vegetables, Citrus, Pome Fruit, Low Growing Berries, Small Fruit Vine Climbing (0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 10-day interval) Short grass 0.79 4.43 3.78 2.03 Tall grass 0.36 2.03 1.73 0.93 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.44 2.49 2.13 1.14 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.05 0.28 0.24 0.13 Arthropods 0.31 1.74 1.48 0.79 Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.06 0.05 0.03 Foliar: Tree Nut, Prickly Pear/Cactus Pear (0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 14-day interval) Short grass 0.76 4.28 3.65 1.96 Tall grass 0.35 1.96 1.67 0.90 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.43 2.41 2.06 1.10 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.05 0.27 0.23 0.12 Arthropods 0.30 1.68 1.43 0.77 Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.06 0.05 0.03 Foliar: Hop (0.14 lbs ai/A; 1 application) Short grass 0.34 1.89 1.62 0.87 Tall grass 0.15 0.87 0.74 0.40 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.19 1.06 0.91 0.49 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.02 0.12 0.10 0.05 Arthropods 0.13 0.74 0.63 0.34 Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.03 0.02 0.01

Soil/Drench/Chemigation: Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits, Citrus, Small Vine Climbing Fruit, Soybean Seeds (0.37 lbs ai/A; 1 application) Short grass 0.89 5.00 4.27 2.29

### 97 Food Type Dietary Based RQs Dose Based RQs Small (15 g) Medium (35 g) Large (1000 g) Tall grass 0.41 2.29 1.96 1.05 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.50 2.81 2.40 1.29 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.06 0.31 0.27 0.14 Arthropods 0.35 1.96 1.67 0.90 Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.07 0.06 0.03 Foliar: Root Vegetables (0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 2 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval between cycles) Short grass 1.22 6.88 5.87 3.15 Tall grass 0.56 3.15 2.69 1.44 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.69 3.87 3.30 1.77 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.08 0.43 0.37 0.20 Arthropods 0.48 2.69 2.30 1.23 Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.10 0.08 0.04 Foliar: Root Vegetables (0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 3 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval between cycles) Short grass 1.46 8.23 7.03 3.77 Tall grass 0.67 3.77 3.22 1.73 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.82 4.63 3.95 2.12 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.09 0.51 0.44 0.24 Arthropods 0.57 3.22 2.75 1.48 Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.11 0.10 0.05 Foliar: Root Vegetables (0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 4 crop cycles 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval between cycles) Short grass 1.59 8.97 7.66 4.11 Tall grass 0.73 4.11 3.51 1.88 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.90 5.05 4.31 2.31 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.10 0.56 0.48 0.26 Arthropods 0.62 3.51 3.00 1.61 Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.12 0.11 0.06 Foliar: Root Vegetables (0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 5 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval between cycles) Short grass 1.67 9.38 8.01 4.30 Tall grass 0.76 4.30 3.67 1.97 Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.94 5.28 4.51 2.42 Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.10 0.59 0.50 0.27 Arthropods 0.65 3.68 3.14 1.68 Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.13 0.11 0.06 N/A = Not applicable. Bolded values exceed the Agency’s Level of Concern (L OC) for chronic risk to wild mammals (RQ > 1).

1 Chronic RQ values are based on the rat 2-generation NOAEC value of 7.7 mg ai/kg bw/day.



### RQ values for acute risk to birds and chronic risk to birds and mammals based on the use of flupyradifurone on soybean seeds were calculated as follows:

Avian Acute RQ #1 = mg ai /kg-bw/day/LD 50 

### Avian Acute RQ #2 = mg ai ft-2/(LD 50 

### *bw) Avian Chronic RQ = mg/kg-seed/NOAEL

### 98 Mammalian Chronic RQ = mg ai/kg-bw/day/adjusted NOAEL

Just as for foliar uses, RQ values are not cal culated for acute risk to mammals because the toxicity endpoint needed for thes e calculations is non-definitive.

The resulting RQ values for seed treatment uses on soybeans exceed the Agency’s acute risk to listed (RQ>0.1) and non-listed (R Q>0.5) species LOCs for birds depending on the size class of birds ( Table 42 ). The chronic LOC (RQ>1) was exceeded for birds and mammals.

Table 42. Chronic dietary RQ values for mammals expo sed to flupyradifurone following the proposed seed

treatment uses.

Crop Risk Quotients Avian (20 g) Mammalian (15 g) Acute (# 1) Acute (# 2) Chronic Chronic Soybean 0.68 0.12 1.49 5.63 Avian (100 g) Mammalian (35 g) Acute (# 1) Acute (# 2) Chronic Chronic Soybean 0.31 0.02 1.49 4.81 Avian (1000 g) Mammalian (1000 g) Acute (# 1) Acute (# 2) Chronic Chronic Soybean 0.10 <0.01 1.49 2.58 Acute RQ #1 = mg ai /kg-bw/day/LD 50 Acute RQ #2 = mg ai ft-2 /(LD 50 *bw) Avian Chronic RQ = mg kg-1 seed/NOAEL Mammalian Chronic RQ = mg ai/kg-bw/day/adjusted NOAEL Bolded values exceed the Agency’s LOC for acute risk to lis ted (RQ > 0.1) and/or non- listed (RQ > 0.5) birds.



### DFA is also considered a residue of concern fo r terrestrial organisms in this assessment since toxicity data indicate adverse e ffects at similar doses as compar ed to the parent compound based on 90-day rat oral toxicity data. However, a 2- generation rat study, which is typically used to estimate chronic risk to mammals, is not avai lable for DFA. Therefore, for purposes of characterization, estimated exposur e to DFA from applications of flupyradifurone are compared to the available 90-day rat oral toxicity data for DFA in this assessment. EECs for residues of DFA on terrestrial food items are determined by mu ltiplying the application rate for the parent by the ratio of the molecular weight of DFA ( 96.03 g/mole) divided by the molecular weight of parent (288.68 g/mole). This is a conservative methodology of estimating possible DFA residues because not all of the parent is expected to degrade to DFA. Based on this approach, single spray applications at 0.14 lbs ai/A (hops ), 0.18 lbs ai/A (most foliar us es), and 0.37 lbs ai/A (drench applications) would result in DFA applic ation rates of 0.05, 0.06, and 0.12 lbs DFA/A, respectively. Upper-bound dose-ba sed EECs for mammals based on these application rates as calculated in T-REX are presented in Table 43

. When the available 90-day oral toxicity endpoint for body weight (12.70 mg/kg bw) is adjusted for 15, 35, and 1000 g body weight classes of mammals, the resulting adjusted NOAELs are 9.77, 22.58, and 27.91 mg/kg bw, respectively ( Table 43 ). Based on comparison of estimated expos ure and chronic effects to mammals for DFA, EECs range from several orders of magn itude lower to just below the adjusted NOAEL values. The ratio of exposure ( EECs) and effects (NOAELs) only approach (but do not exceed) the chronic mammal LOC of 1.0 for the soil drench uses.

### 99 Table 43. Comparison of EECs (foliar and soil d rench) and body-weight ad justed NOAELs for DFA (degradate). Application Rate (Use) EECs for Mammal (mg DFA/kg bw) 15 g 35 g 1000 g 0.05 (hops) 0.15-10.75 0.10-7.43 0.02-1.72 0.06 (most foliar uses) 0.19-13.73 0.13-9.49 0.03-2.20

0.12 (soil drench uses) 0.38-27.46 0.26-18.98 0.06-4.40

Bodyweightadjusted NOAELs (mg/kg bw) 27.91 22.58 9.77



### Honeybees

In this assessment, initial screening level acute and chronic RQs are calculated for honeybees using conservative contact and dietary exposure estimates ( Table 44 ). On a dietary exposure basis, all proposed foliar uses exceed the acute risk and ch ronic risk LOCs of 0.4 and 1.0, respectively. Conversely, neither acute nor ch ronic LOCs are exceeded for foliar uses on a contact exposure basis or for soil drench and so ybean seed treatment uses on an oral exposure basis.

Since LOCs are exceeded at the Tier I gene ric exposure level, a refinement step was subsequently conducted using empirical residue da ta from pollen and nectar from multiple crop types ( Table 45 ). Refined EECs are generated based on measured residues using known food consumption rates for bees. When nectar residue data are available, EECs are calculated for foraging worker bees since this group consumes the largest amount of nectar. When pollen and nectar data are available, EECs are also calcu lated for nurse bees, since this group consumes substantial amounts of both pollen and nectar. EECs for worker and nurse bees were estimated as follows:

EECs for worker bees : maximum daily nectar residue (μg/ g) * forager worker bee nectar consumption rate (0.292 μg/day of nectar)

EECs for nurse bees: maximum daily nectar residue (μg/ g) * nurse bee nectar consumption rate (0.167 μg/day of nectar) + maximum daily pollen residue (μg/g) * nurse bee pollen consumption rate (0.012 μg/day of pollen)

### 100 EECs for larval worker bees: maximum daily nectar residue (μg/g) * larval worker bee nectar consumption rate (0.12 μg/day of nectar) + ma ximum daily pollen residue (μg/g) * larval worker bee pollen consumption rate (0.0036 μg/day of pollen)

EECs and resulting RQ values vary widely depe nding on matrix and crop type. In general, residues in whole flower blossoms were the highest and exceeded honeybee acute (RQ ≥ 0.4) and chronic (RQ ≥ 1) LOCs for multiple crop types. In a ddition both acute and chronic LOCs are exceeded for worker bees feeding on nectar and nurse bees feeding on pollen and nectar for at least one crop type for which residues were meas ured. There are only chroni c risks of concern to larval worker bees based on cotton residues. LOCs are only exceeded based on residues measured following foliar applications of flupyradifurone, not drench applications.

Table 44. Screening level RQ va lues for insect pollinators.

Use Single Maximum Application Rate Life-stage Exposure Route Acute RQ Chronic RQ

Cereal Grains (except Rice), Tuberous and Corm Vegetables, Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica), Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables, Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits, Bushberries, Cotton, Nongrass Animal Feeds, Peanut, Root Vegetables (except Sugarbeet), Legume Vegetables, Citrus, Pome Fruit, Low Growing Berries, Small Fruit Vine Climbing, Tree Nut, Prickly Pear/Cactus Pear 0.18 lbs ai/A Adults Contact <0.01 1 ND

Adults Diet 4.8 2 12.5 3

Brood Diet ND 5.6 4

Hops 0.14 lbs ai/A Adults Contact <0.01 1 ND Adults Diet 3.8 2 9.7 3 Brood Diet ND 4.3 4 Soil/Drench/Chemigation: Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits, Citrus, Small Vine Climbing Fruit, Soybean Seeds 0.37 lbs ai/A Adults Diet 0.01 0.04

Brood Diet ND 0.02

Soybean Seeds 0.365 lbs ai/A Adults Diet 0.24 2 0.63 3 Brood Diet ND 0.28 4 ND = No Data Available Bold values indicate that acute (RQ ≥ 0.4) and/or chronic (RQ ≥ 1) LOCs are exceeded

1 LD 50 = 122.8 μg ai/bee based on acute contact toxicity data for TGAI

2 LD 50 = 1.2 μg ai/bee based on acute oral toxicity data for TGAI

3 NOAEC = 0.464 μg ai/bee/day based on 10-day chronic toxicity data for TGAI

4 NOAEC = 0.44 μg ai/bee/day based on 21-day toxicity data for TGAI101Table 45. Refined Tier I RQ values for honeybees based on empirical residue data from pollen and nectar.MRIDCropNumber ofApplicationsat Rate(lbs ai/A)ApplicationTypeMatrixMaximumResidue(mg/kg)Worker Bees (adult)Worker Bees (larval)RefinedEEC(μg/bee/day)RefinedAcuteRQ4RefinedChronicRQ5RefinedEEC2(μg/bee/day)RefinedChronicRQ648844521 Tomato 1 at 0.18 DrenchPollen 0.107 0.0510.04 0.120.04 0.09Flower 0.315 0.09 0.08 0.2048844523 Watermelon 1 at 0.18 DrenchPollen 0.002 <0.011<0.01 <0.01<0.01 <0.01Nectar 0.001 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Flowers 0.017 <0.01 <0.01 0.0148844522 Watermelon 3 at 0.134 DrenchPollen 0.006 <0.011<0.01 <0.01<0.01 <0.01Nectar 0.001 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Flowers 1.56 0.46 0.38 0.9848844524 Citrus 2 at 0.18 FoliarPollen, Traps 1.8 0.0610.05 0.120.03 0.07Nectar 0.2 0.06 0.05 0.13Blossoms 2 0.580.491.2648844524 Citrus 1 at 0.365 FoliarPollen, Traps 1.1 0.0610.05 0.140.04 0.09Nectar 0.31 0.09 0.08 0.20Blossoms 5.1 1.491.243.2148844525 Melon 1 at 0.365 DrenchPollen 0.5 0.1310.11 0.290.09 0.21Nectar 0.76 0.22 0.18 0.48Blossoms 0.38 0.11 0.09 0.2448844525 Melon 2 at 0.18 FoliarPollen 1.5 0.0810.07 0.170.05 0.11Nectar 0.36 0.11 0.09 0.23Blossoms 2.8 0.820.681.7648844527 Cotton 2 at 0.18 FoliarPollen 0.432 3.6513.04 7.872.625.96Nectar, Total 21.83 6.375.3113.74Nectar, Floral 0.386 0.11 0.09 0.24Nectar, inner-bracteal 12.2 3.562.977.68Nectar, sub-bracteal 15.9 4.643.8710.01Nectar, pink floral 0.311 0.09 0.08 0.20Blossoms 12.1 3.532.947.6148844528 Blueberry 2 at 0.363FoliarPollen 67.6 0.9210.77 1.980.32 0.73Nectar 0.64 0.19 0.16 0.40Blossoms 6.49 1.901.584.0848844529 Apple 2 at 0.18 FoliarPollen (Highest TrialMax)26.2 0.5110.43 1.110.24 0.54Nectar (Highest TrialMax)1.2 0.35 0.29 0.76102MRIDCropNumber ofApplicationsat Rate(lbs ai/A)ApplicationTypeMatrixMaximumResidue(mg/kg)Worker Bees (adult)Worker Bees (larval)RefinedEEC(μg/bee/day)RefinedAcuteRQ4RefinedChronicRQ5RefinedEEC2(μg/bee/day)RefinedChronicRQ6Blossoms (HighestTrial Max)27.7 8.096.7417.43Pollen (Lowest TrialMax)8.3 0.1510.12 0.320.07 0.15Nectar (Lowest TrialMax)0.3 0.09 0.07 0.19Blossoms (LowestTrial Max)20.1 5.874.8912.6548844530 Apple 2 at 0.18 FoliarPollen, Legs 39 0.720.60 1.550.32 0.73Nectar 1.5 0.44 0.37 0.94Blossoms 113 33.0027.5071.11Boldvalues indicate that acute (RQ≥0.4) and/or chronic (RQ≥1) LOCs are exceeded1Represents EECs for nurse bees; EECs werecalculated for nurse bees based on a combination of pollen and nectar consumption rate of 0.012 and 0.167 g/day,respectively.2EECs were calculated for larval bees based on a combination of pollen and nectar consumption rate of 0.0036 and 0.120 g/day, respectively.3Twice the proposed application rate was accidentally used inthis study; therefore residuesare likely to be overestimated.4LD50= 1.2 μg ai/bee based on acute oral toxicity data for TGAI5NOAEC = 0.464 μg ai/bee/day based on highest concentration tested in 10-day chronic toxicity data for TGAI6NOAEC = 0.44 μg ai/bee/day based on highest concentrations tested in 21-day toxicity data for TGAI

### 103 The refined tier I RQs for honeybees indicates that foliar applica tions of flupyradifurone are the major concern at the screening level ( Table 45 ). This analysis is based on the highest daily average flupyradifurone residue value recorded in each of the various crop residue studies. However, the highest daily average residue valu e does not necessarily re flect the potential for exposure over multiple days following applicatio n. In order to further characterize how changes in residues over time affect the potential for exposure and effects to actively foraging honeybees in the field, average daily residues measured over the time course of empirical residue studies is displayed relative to the acu te risk LOC for honeybees ( Figure 6 ). This analysis focused specifically on acute risk to honeybe es foraging on nectar because th e oral route is considered to be the most sensitive. The data indicate that re sidues for most crops were at their daily maximum immediately following the bloom application and d eclined thereafter. Resi dues taken from whole flowers are substantially highe r than nectar residues obtai ned from flowers or honeybee stomachs. Moreover, flower residue data for mo st crops exceed the residue value at the LOC threshold for acute risk to honeybees (RQ ≥ 0.4), while nectar-specific residues are below the LOC. One exception to this pattern is that extra- floral nectar in cotton is up to an order of magnitude higher than the LOC. Cotton is the on ly crop in which extra- floral nectar residues were evaluated. For some crops, residues that exceed the LOC following bloom declined below the LOC during the later days of the study. However, the majority of studie s were not carried out long enough following the bloom application to inte rpret whether flower re sidue declines would be substantial enough to fall below the LOC.104Figure 6. Measured flupyradifurone residues onvarious crops over time after foliar application.Note: y-axis is plotted on log 10 scale.*Acute LOC converted to residue value as follows: [1.2 μg ai/bee (acute oral toxicity endpoint) * 0.4 (Acute LOC for honeybees)] / 0.292 mg/L(nectar consumption rate for foraging worker bees) =1.6 (residue value for acute LOC)Bloom = time-point (Day 0) in which bloom application was made. For studies with 1 application, only a bloom foliar applicationwas made; forstudies with 2 applications, the first application was at early bloom and the second application was at full bloom.Apps=Applications; Stomachs = bee honey stomachs; NC = North Carolina; NY = New York; OR= Oregon; WA = Washington

### 105 Terrestrial Plants

For terrestrial plants, RQ values could onl y be calculated for listed monocots, since IC 25 

### values from both seedling emergence and vegeta tive vigor studies were non-definitive ( i.e. , greater than the single concentration tested : 0.365 lbs ai/A), and since NOAEC values for dicots from both seedling emergence and vegetative vi gor studies were non-definitive ( i.e. , significant effects were observed at the single concentration test ed: 0.365 lbs ai/A). For listed monocots, RQ values for non-target plants are as follows: pl ants receiving spray drift are <0.1 across uses, plants occupying dry areas are <0.1 across uses , and plants occupying semi-aquatic areas range from 0.21 to 0.50 across uses; all RQs are below th e risk to listed terrestrial plants LOC (RQ ≥ 1). The implications of the lack of definitive terres trial plant toxicity data on risk conclusions is discussed in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2 ).

Risk Description and Conclusions

4.2.1. Aquatic Organisms

Flupyradifurone is characterized as persistent to very persistent and is expected to be mobile; therefore, it can move to surface water through run-off, erosion, and spray drift where it may be present in the water column for extended periods of time. Although a large portion of the compound is not expected to partition to sediment and/or bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms, the compound is likely to be present in sedime nt pore water as well as the water column. Therefore, exposure of aquatic organisms to flupyr adifurone residues is c onsidered likely from the proposed foliar, soil drench, and seed treatme nt uses. There is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of residues in water depending on the nature of unextracted residues. While the compound is estimated to persist in surface water/benthic sediments for extended periods, there is uncertainty regarding the extent to which this will occur and would likely depend on the extent to which water exchanges within the body of water as well as the extent to which sedimentation ultimately renders residues in sediment pore wa ter no longer accessible. While flupyradifurone is resistant to hydrolysis and anaerobic metabolism, in clear, shallow waters, the compound can undergo relatively rapid aqueous photolysi s and hasten its dissipation.

Based on available information, flupyradifurone is categorized as slightly to practically non

- toxic to aquatic vertebrates and genera l exhibits low toxicity to fish and aquatic-phase amphibians; no acute or chronic risks of concern were identifie d for these groups in this assessment. Although acute RQ values were not calcula ted for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish because existing acute toxicity endpoints are non-definitive ( i.e. , greater than the highest concentration tested), estimated peak exposure concentrat ions in surface water for all pr oposed uses are several orders of magnitude lower than th e highest concentration tested in ava ilable fish acute toxicity studies. Therefore, the likelihood for adverse effects ( i.e ., mortality and sublethal effects) from acute exposures is considered low.

Available freshwater fish chronic toxicity data on the fathead minnow do not provide sufficient information to characterize effects of flupyradifurone to early life stages si nce only slight effects on fry survival were observed at the lowest and hi ghest test concentrations (only effects at the highest concentration were cons idered biologically significant). However, given that the NOAEC

### 106 for the fathead minnow early life stage study (N OAEC=4.41 mg ai/L) is several orders of magnitude above modeled exposure values, the likelihood for adverse effects on fish (and aquatic-phase amphibians for which fish serv e as surrogates) from chronic exposure to flupyradifurone from the proposed uses is considered low based on available data.

The likelihood for adverse effects to listed a nd non-listed vascular a nd nonvascular aquatic plants is also considered low. RQ values for non-listed species could not be calculated since available EC 50 

### values are non-definitive ( i.e. , greater than the highest concentrations tested); however, EC 50 

### values for both duckweed and green algae are at least two orders of magnitude higher than peak surface water EECs.

Although flupyradifurone is characterized as only s lightly toxic to the freshwater invertebrate, D.

magna , on an acute exposure basis and resulted in a non-definitive toxicity value (EC 50 

### >77.6 mg ai/L), the freshwater non-biting midge ( C. riparius ) is several orders of magnitude more sensitive (EC 50 

### = 0.0639 mg ai/L); therefore, flupyradifurone is categorized as very highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. As noted earlier, even though flupyradifurone is not expected to preferentially partition into be nthic sediments, the mobility of the compound and its potential persistence in su rface water from the proposed uses represent a route of exposure to benthic i nvertebrates, including midges. Si milarly, while flupyradifurone is categorized as only slightly toxic to the estuar ine/marine Eastern oyster and resulted in a nondefinitive endpoint (LC 50 

### >29 mg ai/L), the compound is categor ized as highly toxic to the mysid shrimp ( A. bahia ; LC 50 

### = 0.25 mg ai/L). Based on the most sensitive endpoi nts, the major concern for aquatic organisms in this assessm ent is for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates inhabiting both the water column a nd benthic environments. Acute risk to listed species and chronic risk LOCs for freshwater an d estuarine/marine invertebrates were exceeded for the majority of proposed uses evaluated in th is assessment. Since flupyradifurone is mobile and persistent in the aquatic environment, there is the potential for both short-term and long-term exposure and potential adverse effects to aquati c invertebrates with se nsitivities similar to C. riparius and A. bahia . After the contribution of spray drift was removed from exposure estimates, many proposed uses still exceeded the acu te risk to listed species and chronic risk LOCs. Therefore, the spatial proximity of foliar applications from a water body may not substantially change the likelihood for adverse effects to these a quatic invertebrates. While any buffer between an application a nd aquatic water body is expected to reduce exposure and risk, a methodology is not available to esti mate the reduction in EECs due to transport in runoff because channelized runoff may occur. In this assessm ent, the influence of multiple crop cycles on aquatic invertebrates from multiple foliar applications of flupyradif urone was also considered. In general, the use of single crop cycl e (2 applications at 0.18 lbs ai/A) did not lead to acute risks of concern to non-listed freshwater invertebrate species; conversely, multiple crop cycles ( ≥ 2) did lead to risks of con cern to this group.

Transformation products and formulations of flupyr adifurone resulted in higher (less sensitive) aquatic toxicity values as compared to flupyradif urone TGAI. Therefore, th e potential for effects of the parent compound alone, rather that transformation products or other formulation ingredients, is considered to be the primary st ressor in the aquatic assessment.

### 107 4.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms

As discussed earlier, flupyradifuron e is expected to be persistent and mobile in the environment. Although the compound is stable to hydrolysis and soil photolysis, it can undergo relatively rapid aqueous photolysis (DT 50 

### =2.5 days). Aerobic metabolism studi es resulted in a range of DT 50 

### values (37.5-3793 days) depending on the soils test ed; however, the terrestr ial field dissipation studies conducted resulted in dissipation ha lf-lives (DT 50 

### ) ranging between 8.3

- 304 days. The extent to which DT 50 

### values would be affected by foliar inte rception and/or uptake by plants is uncertain though since the dissipa tion studies were conducted on bare ground. For example, the crop canopy could reduce the amount of photolys is by reducing the amount of sunlight the compound is exposed to. The mobility of the compound also influences the extent to which the compound may represent a route of exposure and fl upyradifurone is classified as moderately mobile to mobile and the extent to which the compound is subject to runoff/erosion/leaching will likely impact the extent of exposure to terrestri al organism. However, based on this screeninglevel assessment, exposure of terres trial organisms is considered likely from the proposed uses of flupyradifurone.

Birds and Mammals

Flupyradifurone is categorized as being moderately to pr actically non-toxic to birds on an acute oral exposure basis and slightly to practically non-toxic to bird s on a subacute dietary exposure basis, and toxicity endpoints exceeded the highe st dietary exposure levels for both bobwhite quail (LD 50 

### >4,876 mg ai/kg diet) an d mallard ducks (LD 50 

### >4,741 mg ai/kg diet). The subacute toxicity studies with birds did indicate that exposure to flupyrad ifurone affected the willingness of birds to consume the chemical in the diets pr ovided. Flupyradifurone is also categorized as being practically non-toxic to mammals on an acute exposure basis and resulted in a nondefinitive endpoint (LD 50 

### >2,000 mg ai/kg bw) with no mortalities observed at the highest dose tested.

In this assessment, RQ values exceeded the acute risk to listed birds LOC for all of the proposed foliar and soil drench uses of flupyradifurone. In addition, RQ values exceeded the acute risk LOC for non-listed birds for all fo liar or soil drench uses except for hops. The modeling of multiple crop cycles generally increased the number of dietary items for which the acute risk to non-listed species was exceeded. However, the ex tent to which multiple cropping seasons are applicable to various uses is uncertain.

RQ values were not calculated for acute dietary- based risk to birds or acute risk to mammals because the toxicity endpoints ne eded for these calculations (LC 50 

### /LD 50 

### ) were determined to be greater than the highest dose tested in the submitted studi es. Although flupyradifurone is classified as practically non-toxic to birds and mammals on subacute dietary and acute oral exposure bases, respectively, the nature and poten tial dose-response relations hip of any effects of flupyradifurone at exposure levels above the hi ghest concentrations/dos es tested are unknown. For the proposed foliar and drench uses of flupyradifurone, the poten tial for acute risk to birds and mammals is characterized using the conservative assumption that the maximum concentrations/doses tested in th e submitted oral toxicity studies ( i.e. , 4,741 mg ai/kg diet for birds and 2,000 mg/kg bw for mammals) repres ent the toxicity endpo int. Employing these

### 108 assumptions, the proposed foliar and drench uses of flupyradifurone are not expected to result in acute risk of mortality to liste d or non-listed species of birds (and reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians for which birds serve as surrogates) or mammals because the resulting RQ values are all less than the Agency’s acute risk LOC fo r non-listed species (RQ<0.5 ) and listed species (RQ<0.1).

As noted, several of the avian acute oral and subacute dietary toxi city studies indicated effects on feed consumption, body weight, or body weightgain. These effects occurred at doses ≥ 200 mg ai/kg and dietary concentrations ≥ 1133 mg ai/kg-diet. Given that the acute RQs calculated for birds in this assessment were ba sed on median lethal doses in bobwhite quail at 232 mg ai/kg bw, observed sublethal effects to f eed consumption and body weight in birds would not result in substantially more sensitive risk estimates for birds on an acute oral exposure basis. It is also possible that the reductions in food consumption by birds exposed to flupyradifurone in their diet may further limit exposure.

Although chronic toxicity studies with mallard ducks did not dete ct effects on survival, growth or reproduction at dietary concentrations up to 845 mg ai/kg diet, e ffects on growth were reported at dietary concentrati ons greater than 1,175 mg ai/kg diet in the subacute dietary exposure study. In a similar study with bobwhite qua il, a range of effects considered to be both biologically and statistic ally significant were detected atdietary concentrations exceeding 302 mg ai/kg diet. Based on chronic exposure es timates though, both dose-ba sed and dietary-based RQ values for birds are less than the chroni c risk LOC for all of the uses evaluated.

In the chronic toxicity study with rats where an imals were exposed over multiple generations to flupyradifurone residues in their diet, significan t effects on food consump tion and growth were reported at exposure levels ≥ 7.7 mg ai/kg bw/day. In this asse ssment, chronic dietary-based RQ values for mammals only exceeded the chronic risk LOC (RQ ≥ 1) for short grass when flupyradifurone is applied as a foliar spray in two or more cr op cycles. However, dose-based chronic RQs exceeded the chronic risk LOC for multiple dietary items and size classes for all proposed uses evaluated. Chronic dietary and do se-based RQ values in this assessment were calculated based on the NOAEC (100 mg ai/kg diet ) and NOAEL (7.7 mg ai/kg bw) from the rat two-generation toxicity study (MRID 48844119). If the LOAEC (38.7 mg ai/kg bw) and LOAEL (500 mg ai/kg diet) from the same study were us ed to calculate RQs, the chronic risk LOC (RQ ≥ 1) would not be exceeded for any proposed us e or number of crop cycles based on dietary exposure, but would be exceeded for small ( 15 g) mammals feeding on short grass (RQ=1.0) following soil drench applications as well as for multiple dietary categories when flupyradifurone is applie d as a foliar spray for ≥ 2 crop cycles. As noted previously though, the extent to which multiple cropping seasons are used for the various uses evaluated is uncertain.

The potential for risk to birds and mammals from proposed foliar and soil chemigation uses were evaluated in this assessment using the default foliar dissipation half- life of 35 days, since no additional data was available to determine the decline in flupyradifur one residues in dietary items. However, since LOCs for acute risk to listed (RQ ≥ 0.05) and non-listed (RQ ≥ 0.1) birds and chronic risk (RQ ≥ 1) to mammals were exceeded in this assessment, the impact of different half-lives on RQs was examine for purposes of characterization ( Table 46 ). Based on this analysis, at proposed foliar applic ation rates, both acute risk to birds and chronic risk to mammal

### 109 LOCs are exceeded even when a half-life of 1 days is considered. In addition, the number of days that LOCs are exceeded is still approximately 2-3 weeks, even when half-lives as low as 7 days are considered for both foliar and soil drench uses. Therefore, potential risks of concern to birds and mammals from proposed foliar and soil drench uses would not be precluded based on refinements to the default foliar dissipation half-life.

Table 46. Impact of different foliar dissipation half-lives on terrestrial vertebrate RQs.

Use Foliar Dissipation

Half Life Avian Acute Dose-Based RQs (Short Grass) Number of Days LOC is Exceeded (Avian Acute) MammalianChronic DoseBased RQs (Short Grass) Number of Days LOC is Exceeded (Mammal Chronic) Foliar (0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 apps.; 7 day interval) 1 0.3 4 2.45 4 7 0.44 22 3.65 21 15 0.51 43 4.19 39 35 0.55 56 1 4.55 56 1

Soil Drench (0.37 lbs ai/A; 1 app.) 1

0.61 3

5.00 3 7 19 17 15 39 35 35 56 1 56 1

1 The analysis is only carried out to a maximum of 56 days based on limitations in T-REX.



### For the proposed seed treatment use on soybeans, RQ values exceed the LOC for acute risk to listed and non-listed birds and chr onic risk to birds and mammals.

Honeybees and Terrestrial Invertebrates

Since flupyradifurone is proposed for use at bloom, a large number of studies were submitted to evaluate potential exposure and e ffects to bees. Exposure studies examined residue levels in pollen, nectar and whole flowers following appl ications at maximum proposed rates and subsequent to both soil and foliar applications at full bloom that would presumably reflect residues transported to th ese plant matrices throug h systemic uptake and th rough direct contact. Effects studies examined both acute and chronic effects to individual be es and also examined potential colony level effects ove r protracted periods including overwintering. Acute toxicity testing with young adult bees indicates that flupyradifurone is practically non

- toxic to honeybees on an acute contact exposure basis; however, th e compound is categorized as highly toxic to bees on an acute oral exposure basis. Repeated expo sure of individual adult bees over 10 days to sucrose solutions containing up to 10 mg ai/L (equivalent to a dose of 0.464 μg ai/bee/day) did not result in an advers e effect; repeated exposure to bee larvae to flupyradifurone to diets containing 10 mg ai/L (equivalent to a dose of 0.44 μg ai/bee/day) did not result in an adverse effect on survival or adult emergence.

Based on initial screening-level exposure estim ates (model-generated) and refined (measured residues in pollen and nectar), Tier I RQ values for bees exceeded the acute and chronic risk LOCs of 0.4 and 1.0, respectively, on an oral exposure basis, but no risks of concern were identified on an acute contact exposure basis. The screening-leve l analysis, therefore, indicates that the primary concern for bee pollinators is through the consump tion of residues in their diet based on maximum residues detected in these di ets rather than through contact. These risks of concern apply to both foraging worker bees, nu rse bees, and developing eggs, larvae and pupae ( i.e ., brood). It should be noted that LOCs were only exceeded based on residues measured

### 110 following foliar applications of fl upyradifurone, but not drench appl ications. In addition, risks of concern were not indicated for seed treatme nts based on generic screening-level exposure estimates. It should also be noted that the NOAEC values used to estimate chronic dietary risks to larval bees and young adult honeybees were base d on the highest concentr ations tested, since no adverse effects were observed in their respective studies; th erefore, these endpoints and the resulting RQs are likely to be conservative. Over all, the results indicate that consideration of higher tiered honeybee studies ar e critical to evaluating po tential adverse effects of flupyradifurone foliar applications at the colony or population level, as laid out in the SAP White Paper (USEPA, 2012d).

As discussed in the SAP White Paper (USEPA, 2012d) on assessing ri sks to bees, when the Tier I screen indicates a potential ri sk to individual bees, higher ti er studies conducted with bee colonies should be used to qualitatively ch aracterize potential risks to colonies. Based on available semi-field and field studies consisting of studies where flupyradifurone was fed directly to colonies or bees were allowed to forage on residues following multiple applications of the compound at the maximum label rate, including foliar applications at full bloom while bees were actively foraging, there were some transitory e ffects to honeybee mortalit y and foraging activity, particularly at periods followi ng applications at full bloom. Based on the laboratory data on individual bees in combination with the colony-le vel studies, the availabl e evidence suggests that foliar application during bloom dur ing active foraging did not advers ely affect the forager bees. This is consistent with the la boratory data indicating that the compound is practically non-toxic to bees on an acute contact exposure basis. The ava ilable data also indicate that the majority of flupyradifurone residues measured in plants were in pollen as opposed to nectar (although cotton is an exception) and forage bees do not tend to consume much pollen and the extent to which they will consume raw nectar likely depends on their energy need s since processed honey is a more concentrated form of carbohydrates for bees. The increase in bee mo rtality and behavioral effects reported following applications at bloom may reflect where sufficient quantities of nectar were consumed and would be cons istent with the high toxicity of flupyradifurone to adult bees on an oral basis. In addition, there were some sl ight indications of eff ects to food storage and brood cells in the colony feeding study, but these effects were not statistically different from control colonies. Although the co lony-level studies were limited in their ability to detect statistically significant effects owing to the fe w replicates used in the studies and/or high variability in measurement e ndpoints, the logistics of conducting such studies can be challenging; however, the methods used for the semi-field and full-field colony-level studies were consistent with methods described in the open literature a nd through European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPP O) and adhered to the tiered testing process identified in the SAP White Paper.

The greatest area of uncertainty surrounding the potential risk to bee pollinators is for foliar applications at full bloom, which is proposed for a range of crops. Residue data for bee-relevant matrices ( i.e., pollen, nectar) from crop residue and fiel d studies generally indicate that the highest residues occur immediatel y after foliar applications, esp ecially at full bloom, when bees are most likely to be visiting the treated area. This is also the time period when transitory effects to mortality and foraging were identified in some of the higher tiered honeybee studies. Given the potential lack of statistical power due to low replication for many of the semi-field studies, it is not absolutely certain that hi gher-tiered studies were of sufficient quality to detect significant

### 111 mortality events or other effects resulting from applications at bl oom. Nevertheless, there is little evidence from the available studies that any of these transitory effects resulted in detectable effects to colony strength or overwintering succe ss based on the full suite of studies provided.

One possible explanation for the lack of sustaine d effects to mortality observed in the higher tiered studies, even though the acute risk to hon eybees LOC was exceeded at the refined Tier I screening level, is that there was much highe r flupyradifurone residues observed in whole blossoms versus nectar-specific samples from flowers of honeybee stomachs in the crop residue studies. In all cases, floral n ectar and honeybee stomach nectar residues were below the acute risk to honeybees LOC, while flower residue s for most crops were above the LOC. These findings, combined with the observation that resi dues in bee matrices were typically highest immediately after the bloom application, suggest th at floral nectar residue s are much lower than whole flower residues because the nectar ma y be protected from direct spray. And since honeybees are foraging on nectar, the floral ne ctar and honeybee stomach nectar residues are more illustrative of exposure in the field. One uncertainty in this distinction between whole flowers versus nectar residues is that extra-floral n ectar residues of fl upyradifurone in cotton exceeded the LOC for multiple days and were much higher than honeybee stomach nectar residues recorded during the same study. This may i ndicate that extra-floral nectaries, which are also a food source for honeybees, may receive higher flupyradifurone residues either through direct spray or systemic transloc ation in the plant. Therefore, exposure via nectar may be higher in crops with extra-floral nectaries.

Many of the semi-field and field studies suffered from a range of deficiencies including unequal starting sizes of control and treatment colonies a nd lack of reporting of th e variability associated with measurement endpoints. An additional sour ce of uncertainty is the extent to which flupyradifurone residues will accumu late in flowering plants or in bee hives. Although submitted crop residue studies indicate that pollen, nectar, and flower residue s were generally highest in the hours or several days following foliar applicat ions, one study evaluating foliar application to citrus (MRID 48844524) did indicate that pollen resi dues continued to rise until around the last sampling date (5-7 days after appl ication). This indicates that at least in certain flowering plants, pollen residues might continue to increase th roughout the time period in which pollination is likely to occur. In addition, pollen, nectar, and wax residue data from one of the full field studies with flupyradifurone (MRIDs 48844517) indicate th at average residues did not reach their maxima until up to several months after the pestic ide was applied; however, these results directly conflict with those of a second field study in wh ich pollen, nectar, and wa x residues reached their peak during the same month as the applica tion at full bloom (MRIDs 48844516). One possible cause for this discrepancy is the level in which bees from either study were foraging on treated versus untreated crop areas. Generally, there was not enough information on measured hive residues in the submitted package to determine if biologically relevant levels of flupyradifurone are expected to occur in the hive in the weeks, months, or seas ons following foliar applications. However, effects measured at the colony level over a number of months including overwintering did not indicate any signifi cant effects on flupyradifurone

- treated bee colonies relative to untreated controls.

The semi-field and field honeybee studies utilized a range of application scen arios in terms of the adjuvant used, the application rate, the number of applications, and the retreatment interval

### 112 between applications. Oste nsibly, the most conservative scenar io in terms of highest potential exposure occurred in the two field studies (MRIDs 48844516 and 48844517) in which oil-seed rape seeds were treated with BYI 02960 FS 480 G seed treatment, sown into soil treated with (0.28 lbs ai/A) BYI 02960 SL 200 G, and then pl ants were later treated with two foliar applications (0.18 lbs ai/A each) of BYI 02960 SL 200 G, including one application at full bloom. These studies generally did not indicate a dverse effects related to a range of endpoints. However, as mentioned above, bees in these st udies were foraging on alternative (non-treated) food sources based on pollen anal ysis which may have lowered the level of exposure (which would not be conservative), but is possibl e for bees under any a pplication scenario.

As described previously in this assessment, the toxicity of formulated product BYI 02960 SL 200 G to young adult honeybees increases by 116-f old and 6.1-fold via the contact and oral exposure routes, respectively, when mixed with the tebuconazole formulation EW 250C G (17% tebuconazole). The rationale for mi xing the two formulations in th e particular ratio tested was not provided. But, it does suggest that the co mbination of the two actives can enhance the toxicity of flupyradifurone and that a similar eff ect may be possible when flupyradifurone is used in combination with other fungi cides utilizing similar mechan istic pathways. Currently, the proposed label for Sivanto TM 

### SL 200 indicates that the produ ct should not be tank mixed with azole fungicides during bloom period.

Additional non-guideline toxicity data were submitted for terre strial arthropods exposed to formulated flupyradifurone (BYI 02960 SL 200 G) that is useful for evalua ting potential effects to non-target arthropods exposure th rough contact. In the majority of studies, survival effects were observed at concentrations lower than the proposed label application rate for flupyradifurone, in some cases several orders of magnitude lower. The lowest (most sensitive) toxicity endpoint reported for non- target arthropods was for surviv al effects to the parasitoid wasp. These data, which are only used for characte rization purposes, indicate potential for effects of flupyradifurone to other non- target terrestrial arthropods.

Terrestrial Plants

Since definitive toxicity data were only availa ble for monocotyledonous plan ts at the no effect level ( i.e. , NOAEC), RQ values representing non-target te rrestrial plants coul d only be calculated for listed monocots. If non-de finitive toxicity data are used in risk estimation ( i.e. , IC25 > 0.365 lbs ai/A and NOAEC < 0.365 lbs ai/A), RQ values for non-target dicot plants are as follows: plants receiving spray drift are < 0.1 across uses, plants occupying dry ar eas are <0.1 across uses, and plants occupying semi-aquatic areas range from 0.21 to 0.50 across uses, which are all below the LOC (RQ ≥ 1) for risk to terrestrial plants. Given that only a single applica tion rate was tested in both seedling emergence a nd vegetative vigor studies ( i.e ., the maximum seasonal rate of 0.365 lbs ai/A), and given that statistically signifi cant effects in shoot dry weight and/or shoot length were observed for dicots in both studies, there is uncerta inty regarding the potential for adverse effects to listed dicots . For foliar and chemigation app lications of flupyradifurone, in order to exceed the LOC for listed dicots (RQ ≥ 1) receiving spray drift, inhabiting dry areas, and inhabiting semi-aquatic areas, signi ficant adverse effects on plants would have to occur at 0.009 (foliar only), 0.018, and 0.18 lbs ai/A , respectively. Given that inhibition to the most sensitive dicot endpoints at 0.365 lbs ai/A were <25% in seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies,

### 113 the potential for significant advers e effects at 0.18 lbs ai/A are possi ble, while significant effects

at ≤ 0.018 appear unlikely. Therefore, the main uncertain ty for terrestrial plan ts in this assessment applies to listed dicots inhabiting semi-aquatic areas.

Residues of flupyradifurone in surf ace or groundwater that is used for irrigation of plants are not expected to result in potential injury to terrestri al plants. Assuming an ac re of land is irrigated with one inch of contaminated water, the 96 μ g ai/L peak groundwater EEC is equivalent to an application rate of 0.022 lbs ai/A ( Appendix F ). The most sensitive of the available endpoints, the NOAEC and EC 25 

### for cabbage from the vegetative vigo r study is >0.410 kg/ha (equivalent to 0.37 lbs ai/A). The resulting non-definitive RQ s are <0.07 (EEC/highest level tested = 0.0265 lbs ai/A /<0.37 lbs ai/A= 0.07). Both of these non-definitive RQs are far below the Agency’s LOC of 1.0 for terrestr ial plants. EECs woul d need to exceed 1,632 μ g/L to have a risk concern to terrestrial plants (NOAEC × 1 conversion factor/226,625 lbs water per acre 20 

### = EEC; see Appendix F for explanation of the calculation).

4.2.3. Conclusions

The environmental fate assessment indicates that depending on soil conditions and weather, flupyradifurone may persist in soil and it may be transported through a range of dissipation routes ( i.e ., runoff, erosion, leaching) to surface or groundwater, where the compound may also persist. Since this is a new ch emical, monitoring data are not av ailable to gauge the extent to which the compound will be mobile and/persist in the terrestrial and aquatic environments; however, available field dissipa tion studies conducted on bare ground indicate dissipation rates that are generally lower than what might be es timated through the comb ination of degradation pathways for which data are available.

On an acute exposure basis, flupyr adifurone ranges from being sli ghtly toxic to very highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates depending on the species tested. Based on the most sensitive species, the primary risks of concern in this assessment are for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates inhabiting both the water column and benthic en vironments. Acute risk to listed species and chronic risk concerns for freshw ater and estuarine/marine invertebrates were identified for the majority of proposed uses in this assessment. After the contribution of spray drift was removed from exposure estimates, many proposed uses sti ll exceeded the acute risk to listed species and chronic risk LOCs. Therefore, th e spatial proximity of foliar applications from a water body are not likely to substantially change the potential for risks of con cern to aquatic organisms. In this assessment, the influence of multiple crop cycles on aquatic invertebrates from multiple foliar applications of flupyradifurone was also consider ed. In general, the use of single crop cycle (2 applications at 0.18 lbs ai/A) did not lead to acute risks of c oncern to non-listed freshwater invertebrates; however, multiple crop cycles ( ≥ 2) did lead to risks of concern to this group.

In this assessment, acute risks of concern to lis ted birds were identified for all proposed foliar and drench uses, as well as the seed treatment us e of flupyradifurone. In addition, acute risks of

20 One acre has 6,272,640 cubic inches of water on the fiel d. The one acre field with one inch of water has 3,630 cubic ft of water (6,272,640 × 0.00058 cubic ft/cubic inch). The field has 27,156 gallons of water (3,630 cubic ft × 7.481 gallons/cubic ft). Therefore, one inch of water on the one acre field weighs 226,625 lbs (27,156 gallons × 8.3453 lbs/gallon of water).

### 114 concern to non-listed birds were identified for the seed treatment use and all foliar and soil drench uses, except for hops. The modeling of multiple crop cycles generally increased the number of dietary items for which the acute risk to non-listed species are exceeded. In addition, chronic risks of concern were identified for mamm als for multiple dietary items and size classes for all proposed uses evaluated.

Flupyradifurone is proposed for use at full bloom and laboratory and field-based studies of individual bees as well as colonies were ev aluated based on both conservative model-generated values as well as measured exposure values in pollen, nectar and flowers. Based on available semi-field and field studies of honey bee colonies , there were some transitory acute effects to honeybee mortality and foraging activity, particularly following applications at full-bloom while bees were actively foraging. In addition, there we re some slight indicatio ns of effects to food storage and brood cells in a colony feeding study where exposure to the test material was more assured, but these effects were not statistica lly significant. Although many of the studies had limited numbers of replicates, which likely impacted the power of the studies to detect potential treatment effects, and variabili ty in measurement endpoints was not well characterized, the methods used in the studies were consistent with those that have been used to identify effects of pesticides on colonies. The studies did evalua te the effects of multiple applications at the maximum proposed application rates and did de monstrate exposure thro ugh measured residues in pollen/nectar collected by bees as well as wi thin the comb (bee bread, honey and wax). As such, the colony-level studies pr ovided a means of examining bot h short- and long-term effects of exposure. Based on the available studies a nd acknowledging the uncertain ties associated with them, there is no evidence that exposure to fl upyradifurone under the conditions tested had any significant effect on colony strength, overwintering , or the capacity of the colony to successfully lay down brood in the Spring. Toxicity of re sidues on foliage studies with honey bees also suggest that contact toxicity is not a primary concern given that the RT 25 

### is less than 3 hours for the compound; as such, the compound does not have an extended residual toxicity.

This assessment does not evaluate risk potential risk to non-target terrestrial invertebrates other than bees especially given that flupyradifurone is intended as an insecticide likely targeting sucking insect pests. However, in non-guideline toxicity studies submitted for terrestrial arthropods exposed to formulated flupyradifur one (BYI 02960 SL 200 G) via contact exposure, survival effects were observed at concentra tions lower than the proposed maximum label application rate for flupyradifurone, in some cases several orders of magnitude lower. The lowest (most sensitive) toxicity endpoint reported for no n-target arthropods was fo r survival effects to the parasitoid wasp. These data indicate that pot ential for effects of flupyr adifurone to non-target terrestrial arthropods at or belo w proposed application rates.



## 5. Additional Description of Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, Strengths

Label Uncertainties

Sivanto TM 

### 200 SL

 The label should specify the formulation on the label.

### 115  The label should specify a maximum number of applications for each crop. In the risk assessment, we estimated the maximum number of applications by dividing the maximum seasonal application rate by the maximum single application rate.

 Retreatment intervals are not specified for soil applications to fruiting vegetables, foliar applications to hops, and soil applications to the “small fr uit climbing” group. While a minimum retreatment interval was not specified on the label for these use patterns, the maximum single application rate and the maximu m seasonal rate were the same; therefore, a minimum retreatment interval was not needed in modeling and a si ngle application was assumed to occur in th e risk assessment.

 As the maximum application rates are provided on a seasonal basis, the label should specify the maximum number of seasons per year that th e chemical may be applied to crops that have more than one growing cycle per year. Alte rnatively, the maximum application rates on a yearly basis could be provided. When multiple crop cycles per year were expected to be possible for a crop, risk was evaluated for a si ngle crop cycle per year and for multiple crop cycles per year. Surface water EECS incr eased by two to four times, depending on the number of crop cycles per year assumed. In this assessment, the influence of multiple crop cycles on aquatic invertebrates from multiple foliar applications of flupyradifurone was considered. In general, the use of single crop cy cle (2 applications at 0.18 lbs ai/A) did not lead to acute risks of concern to non-listed freshwater invertebrates; however, multiple crop cycles ( ≥ 2) did lead to risks of concern for this group.

Aquatic Exposure

Fate data gaps are discussed in the data gaps Section 2.7.2. Additional uncertainties are discussed below.

5.2.1. Unextracted residues

Unextracted residues did occur in fate studies and it is uncertain whether those residues are residues of concern or not. Therefore, modeling was conducted with and without unextracted residues. The unextracted resi dues had an influence on the es timated groundwater EECs but had little impact on the surface water results. As there was not a risk concern identified due to exposure to residues in groundwater , additional data are not need ed at this time to better understand the identity of the unextracted residues. The presence of the unextracted residues in the fate studies will not impact the risk conclusions at this time.

5.2.2. Soybean Seed Planting De pth and Application Rate

The depth of planting was assumed to be 0.5 inches, the minimum of the range of planting depths reported for soybean (see Table 18 

### ), and the minimum planting depth listed on the label. This will maximize the residues available for runo ff as residues are only available for runoff in the top two centimeters of soil in PRZM (Carsel et al. , 1997). If the typical planting depth were assumed (1-2 inches or 2.54-5.08 cm), none of th e residues would be available for runoff and the resulting EEC would be zero. Even when a one in ch planting depth were used, it is likely that not all seed would be placed at the target depth, and a portion of residues would be available for runoff (the zero EEC would likely underestimate risk). Also, the maximum application rate

### 116 allowed on the label for soybean seed tr eatment was used for modeling (0.365 lbs ai/Acre/season). The label al so recommends a product rate of 0.068 mg ai/seed, assuming a seeding rate of 250,000 lbs seed pe r acre (USEPA, 2011) results in an application rate of 0.04 lbs ai/Acre (about ten times lower than the rate mo deled). Using this estimated application rate would result in EECS about 10x lower than th e EECs estimated for 0.365 lbs ai/Acre.

5.2.3. Model Input Values

Metabolism and physico-chemical properties of flupyradifurone are used as inputs into the aquatic models use to estimate concentrati ons of flupyradifurone in surface water and groundwater. Uncertainties associated with each of these individual components add to the overall uncertainty of the modeled concentrations . Metabolism input values are chosen to be conservative in simulating degradation, e.g ., by employing half-life valu es that err on the high side of the mean of the observed.

Laboratory studies i ndicated that flupyradifur one was stable hydrolysis in aerobic and anaerobic aquatic environments. The hydrolysis stabilit y assumption was based on a study conducted for 5 days at 50 o 

### C. Since hydrolysis is generally the only transformation pathway considered at soil depths greater than one meter, it can have a large impact on the PRZM-GW EECs (Baris et al.

, 2013; USEPA, 2013a). A chemical may be assumed to be stable to hydrolysis based on minimal transformation in the guide line hydrolysis study (OCSPP 835.2120) ; however, reevaluation of the hydrolysis study may be completed if there is a risk concern. Curre ntly EECs in groundwater do not result in a risk concern, and the assumption of stability for hydrolysis is not an influence on the risk conclusions for groundwater. As th e aerobic aquatic metabolism value does show degradation, which is used to represent degrad ation in the water column in the surface water models, the assumption of stability for hydrolysis is not as much of a concern for surface water modeling.

Measured aerobic soil metabolism DT 50 

### values had a wide range (38 to 401 days in 10 soils). Terrestrial field dissipation DT 50 

### also had a wide range (8.3 to 310 days). The persistence of flupyradifurone is expected to vary widely in th e different soils and environments where it is used. The representative model input aerobic soil metabolism half-life used in surface water modeling was 265 days for flupyradifurone al one, and 525 days for flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues. These valu es are considered conservative and thus generate conservative EECs. The cause of the variability in DT 50 

### was not identified, as no examined variables were found to correlate with the differenc es in the aerobic soil metabolism.

Adsorption/desorption data are onl y available on ten soils. Typi cally, sorption data are also required for a sediment as well. It is uncertain whether the sorption coefficients used in modeling reflect sorption to benthi c sediments. Sorption coefficien ts measured in sediment tend to be a factor of one to two times as gr eat as those measured in soil (Allen-King et al. , 2002). To determine the possible impact that this data de ficiency could have on risk conclusions, EECs were calculated assuming double the mean K oc 

### based sorption measured on soils. Acute and chronic EECs calculated assuming a 274 L/kg K oc 

### value were approximately 93% of EECs calculated based on a 137 L/kg K oc 

### value. This indicates that the lack of a sediment sorption coefficient is a minor source of uncertainty be cause it is likely to have a low impact on

### 117 calculated RQs.

Freundlich sorption coefficients to soils indicate that the equilibr ium concentration will influence the degree of sorption (1/n values range from 0.81 to 0.92). Figure 7 shows this phenomenon well. For the Argissolo soil, K oc 

### values for the lowest equilibr ium concentrations in water are approximately 670 L/kg-oc while the K oc 

### measured at higher equilibr ium concentrations in water are 2.7 fold lower (246 L/kg-oc).

Figure 7. Relationship between the measured K oc and the flupyradifurone e quilibrium concentration in water in the Argissolo soil (1/n =0.81)



### Sorption coefficients were measured over an ap propriate range of equilibrium flupyradifurone concentrations ( e.g ., equilibrium concentrations range from 3 – 953 μg/L and encompass the predicted EECs). While nonlinear sorption was not simulated in modeling, simulations were completed using the highest (779 L/kg-oc measured at 2.3 μg/L in the Glei ssolo soil) and lowest (78.7 L/kg-oc measured at 506 μg/L in the Dollendorf II soil) measured K oc 

### measured at a single equilibrium concentration in wate r in the adsorption co mponent of the batch equilibrium studies. EECs using the K oc 

### of 779 L/kg-oc are 63 to 70% of EECs simulated using a mean K oc 

### . EECs using the lowest K oc 

### of 78.7 L/kg-oc were essentially the same as the EECs simulated using the mean K oc 

### . This provides some information on the degree of uncertainty in the EECs due to variability that may be observed in sorption co efficients and due to assuming linear sorption rather than nonlinear sorption.

5.2.4. EPA Pond

The standard ecological water body scenario (EXAM S pond) used to calculate potential aquatic exposure to pesticides is intended to generate conservative exposure estimates, which avoid underestimating most aquatic concentrations. Th e standard scenario i nvolves application of chemical to a 10-hectare fiel d that drains to a 1-hect are, 2-meter deep (20,000 m 3 

### ) pond with no outlet. Exposure estimates generated using th is pond are intended to generically represent exposures in vulnerable water bodi es; however, there are water bodi es that could at times be more vulnerable. Low-order streams may fo r example exhibit peak concentrations ( e.g ., during storm flow runoff) that exceed those simulate d in the EXAMS pond, but that pass quickly as pesticides are transported downstream. As wa tershed size increases, it becomes increasingly 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80MeasuredKOC(L/kg‐OC)

Flupyradifurone Concentration in Water mg/L

### 118 unlikely that the entire area is planted with a single crop that is all treated with a given pesticide.

5.2.5. Dilution of Sediment

The EXAMS model estimates of water concentra tion are based on an assumption that sediment mass in the benthic zone of the pond is fixed. In real farm ponds, eroded sediments from the watershed are presumably added on an ongoing basis. Over time, benthic sediments with sorbed pesticide may become buried by newer sediment s settling out of the wa ter column, rendering a fraction of the older sediment with sorbed pest icide less available for exchange with the water column.

5.2.6. A Well-Mixed Pond

Because the EXAMS model assumes instantaneous equilibrium and mixing, it does not consider the potential for higher short-term concentrations in the areas of the pond initially receiving pesticide runoff ( e.g ., the shallow, near-shore ar eas of the pond) and drift ( e.g ., the near-surface layer of the pond). Complete mixing is a convenient approximation. Concentrations immediately following introduction of runoff or dr ift will be higher in some areas of the pond than average concentrations based on the assu mption of complete mixing throughout the water column. That such spatial inhomogeneities in concentration might pe rsist at ecologically meaningful levels for longer than 1 day ( i.e ., the limit of resolution of the model) seems unlikely, though perhaps plausible.

5.2.7. Lack of Averaging Time for Exposure

For an acute risk assessment, there is no averag ing time for exposure, be yond that represented by the (daily) limit of resolution of the model. An “instantaneous” (daily mean) peak concentration, with a 1 in 10 year return frequency, is assumed. The use of the instantaneous peak assumes that 24 hour exposure is of sufficient duration to elic it acute effects comparable to those observed over more protracted exposure periods tested in the laboratory, typically 48 to 96 hours. In the absence of data regarding time-to -toxic event analyses and late nt responses to instantaneous exposure, the degree to which risk may be overestimated cannot be quantified.

Terrestrial Exposure

Exposure from seed treatment uses is likely to be overestimated for scenarios where seeds are incorporated. Seed incorporation > 1 inch w ould reduce the likelihood of runoff to non-target plants and surface water and would further reduc e the likelihood of seed consumption by birds and mammals.

Effects Assessment Uncertainties

Effects uncertainties and data gaps are discussed in the data gaps Sections 2.7.2 and 4.2

.

### 119 

## 6. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern

Consistent with the Agency’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Agency evaluates risks to Federally-listed threat ened and/or endangered (listed) species from registered uses of flupyradifurone. This a ssessment is conducted in accordance with the Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Services’ Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (USFWS/NMFS, 1998).

Action Area

For listed species assessment pur poses, the action area is consider ed to be the area affected directly or indirectly by fl upyradifurone use and not merely the immediate area where flupyradifurone is applied. At the initial screen ing-level, the risk asse ssment considers broadly described taxonomic groups and conservatively a ssumes that listed species within those broad groups are co-located with the pesticide treatment area. This means that terrestrial plants and wildlife are assumed to be located on or adjacent to the treated site and aquatic organisms are assumed to be located in a surface water body adjacen t to the treated site. The assessment also assumes that the listed species are located with in an assumed area, which has the relatively highest potential exposure to the pesticide, and that exposures are likely to decrease with distance from the treatment area. Section 6.2 of this risk assessment presents the proposed pesticide use sites that are used to establish in itial co-location of speci es with treatment areas.

Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk

If the assumptions associated with the screeni ng-level action area result in RQs that are below the listed species LOCs, a "no effect" determina tion conclusion is made with respect to listed species in that taxa, and no furt her refinement of the action area is necessary. Furthermore, RQs below the listed species LOCs for a given ta xonomic group indicate no concern for indirect effects on listed species that de pend upon the taxonomic group for which the RQ was calculated. However, in situations where the screening assumptions lead to RQs in excess of the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group, a potent ial for a "may affect" conclusion exists and may be associated with direct effects on listed species belonging to that taxonomic group or may extend to indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon that taxonomic group as a resource. In such cases, additional information on the biology of listed species, the locations of these species, and the locations of use sites could be considered to determine the extent to which screening assumptions regarding an action area a pply to a particular listed organism. These subsequent refinement steps could consider how this information would impact the action area for a particular listed organism and may potentia lly include areas of e xposure that are downwind and downstream of the pesticide use site.

Assessment endpoints, exposure pathways, the con ceptual models addressing the proposed new flupyradifurone uses, and the associated expos ure and effects analys es conducted for the flupyradifurone screening-leve l risk assessment are in Sections 2 to 3 . The assessment endpoints used in the screening-level risk assessment include those defined operationally as reduced survival and reproductive impairment for both aquatic and terrestrial animal species and survival, reproduction, and growth of non-ta rget aquatic and terr estrial plant species from exposure via

### 120 spray drift and runoff. These assessment e ndpoints address the standard set forth in the Endangered Species Act requiring federal agencies to ensure that any ac tion it authorizes does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the su rvival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, nu mbers, or distribution of the species. Risk estimates (RQ values) integrating exposure and effects are calculated for broa d-based taxonomic groups in the screening-level risk assessm ent and are presented in Section 4.

Both acute and chronic risk to listed species LOCs are considered in the screening-level risk assessment to identify direct and i ndirect effects to taxa of listed species. This section identifies direct and indirect effect concerns, by taxa, th at are triggered by exceed ing listed species LOCs in the screening-level risk assessment ( Table 47 ).

Table 47. Potential effects to federally listed taxa associated with the proposed uses of flupyradifurone.

Listed Taxon Direct Effects Indirect Effects from Risk to Other Taxa

Yes/No Acute/Chronic Yes/No Through ...

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants – monocots and dicots Uncertain (dicots only) NA Yes Acute effects on birds, terrestrial-phase amphibians, and chronic effects on mammals, when required for pollination or seed dispersal.

Birds Yes Acute (foliar, drench, seed treatment uses) Chronic (seed treatment only) Yes Chronic effects on mammals that serve as prey; acute effects on reptiles and amphibians that serve as prey.

Terrestrial-phase amphibians Yes Acute (foliar, drench, seed treatment uses) Chronic (seed treatment only) Yes Chronic effects on mammals which provide habitat ( e.g. , burrows) and serve as prey.

Reptiles Yes Acute (foliar, drench, seed treatment uses) Chronic (seed treatment only) Yes Chronic effects on mammals that serve as prey; acute effects on birds, reptiles, and amphibians that serve as prey.

Mammals Yes Chronic (all uses) Yes Acute effects on birds, reptiles, and amphibians that serve as prey; chronic effects on mammals that serve as prey. Aquatic plants No NA Yes Effects on aquatic invertebrates.

Freshwater fish No NA Yes Effects on aquatic invertebrates that serve as

prey Aquatic-phase amphibians No NA Yes Effects on aquatic invertebrates that serve as

prey

Freshwater invertebrates Yes Acute (all uses) Chronic (most uses) 1 Yes Effects on other aquatic invertebrates that

serve as prey

Mollusks No NA Yes Effects on other aquatic invertebrates that

serve as prey

Marine/estuarine fish No NA Yes Effects on aquatic invertebrates that serve as

prey

Marine/estuarine invertebrates Yes Acute (most uses) 1 Chronic (most uses) 1 Yes Effects on other aquatic invertebrates that

serve as prey

1 See Table 38 and Table 39 for list of specific uses that exceed liste d species LOC for aquatic invertebrates

### 121 

## 7. References

Literature Cited

Allen-King, R. M., Grathwohl, P., & Ball, W. P. 2002. New modeling paradigms for the sorption of hydrophobic organic chemicals to heterogenous carbonaceous matter in soils, sediments, and rocks. Advances in Water Resources, 25 , 985-1016. Armitage, J. M., & Gobas, F. A. P. C. 2007. A terrestrial food-chain bioaccumulation model for POPs. Environmental Science and Technology, 41 , 4019-4025. Baris, R., Barrett, M., Bohaty, R. F. H., Echeve rria, M., Villaneuva, P., Wolf, J., et al. 2013. Guidance for Using PRZM-GW in Dr inking Water Exposure Assessments . December 11, 2012. Environmental Fate and Effects Divisi on. Office of Pesticide Programs. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water /przm_gw/wqtt_przm_gw_guidance.htm (Accessed April 11, 2014). 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 Research and Deve lopment. United States Environmental Protection Agency. FAO. 2000. Appendix 2. Parameters of pesticides that influence processe s in the soil. In FAO Information Division Editorial Group (Ed.), Pesticide Disposal Series 8. Assessing Soil Contamination. A Reference Manual . Rome: Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Available at http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X2570E/X2570E06.htm (Accessed July 10, 2009). Fletcher, J. S., Nellessen, J. E., & Pfleeger, T. G. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, an instru ment 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 Re sidues on Plants: Correlation of Representative Data as a Basis for Estimation of their Magnit ude 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. IRAC. 2012. IRAC MoA Classification Scheme . Version 7.2. April 2012. Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC). IRAC Interna tional Mode of Action Working Group. Available at http://www.irac-online.org/conten t/uploads/MoA-classification.pdf (Accessed January 10, 2012). NAFTA. 2012. Guidance for Evaluating and Calculating Degradation Kinetics in Environmental Media . December 2012. NAFTA Technical Working Group on Pesticides. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1 /international/naf tatwg/guidance/degradation-kin.pdf (Accessed April 11, 2014). SAP. 2009. SAP Minutes No. 2009-01. A set of Scient ific Issues Being Considered by the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding: Se lected Issues Associated with the Risk

### 122 Assessment Process for Pesticides with Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Characteristics. October 28-31, 2008. January 29, 2009. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. Office of Science Coordi nation and Policy. Available at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sa p/meetings/2008/102808_mtg.htm (Accessed July 9, 2009). Staton, M. 2013. Michigan State University Extension. Planting soybean seed at the proper depth will produce more uniform stands and higher yields . Available at http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/ soybean_planting_depth_matters (Accessed April 11. 2014). USDA. 2008. Crop Profile for Radish in Florida . April 2008. United States Department of Agriculture. Available at http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/FLradish.pdf (Accessed April 25, 2014). USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment . EPA/630/R-95/002F. Risk Assessment Forum. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/guidelinesecological-risk-assessment.htm (Accessed November 7, 2012). USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessm ent Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs . Environmental Fate and Effects Divisi on. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf (Accessed June 19, 2009). USEPA. 2006. (P)RZM (E)XAMs Model Shell, Version 5.0 . November 15, 2006. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pestic ide Programs. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. United States Envir onmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/pe5_user_manual.htm (Accessed April 18, 2013). USEPA. 2008. Fate, Transport, and Transformation Guidelines. OPPTS 835.6100 Terrestrial Field Dissipation . EPA 712-C-08-020. October 2008. Of fice of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. Available at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfr s/publications/835_6100.pdf (Accessed July 30, 2009). USEPA. 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides, Version 2.1 . Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/w ater/input_parameter_guidance.htm (Accessed June 22, 2014). USEPA. 2010. Guidance for Reporting on the Envir onmental 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. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Chem ical Safety and Pollution Prevention. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efe d/policy_guidance/team_authors/endangered_s pecies_reregistration_wor kgroup/esa_reporting_fate.htm (Accessed July 5, 2012). USEPA. 2011. Acres Planted per Day and Seeding Rates of Crops Grown in the United States

. March 24, 2011. Memorandum From J. Becker & S. Ratnayake to P. Deschamp & D. Spatz. Biological and Econom ic Analysis Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Pr evention. United States Environmental

### 123 Protection Agency. USEPA. 2012a. Criteria Used by the PBT Profiler . September 4, 2012. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. United St ates Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.pbtprofile r.net/criteria.asp (Accessed September 7, 2012). USEPA. 2012b. Standard Operating Procedure for Using the NAFTA Guidance to Calculate Representative Half-life Values and Characterizing Pesticide Degradation . November 30, 2012. Environmental Fate and Effects Divisio n. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/d egradation_kinetics/ NAFTA_Degradation_ Kinetics.htm (Accessed December 16, 2013). USEPA. 2012c. User's Guide: T-REX version 1.5 . 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 April 29, 2013). USEPA. 2012d. White Paper in Support of the Proposed Risk Assessment Process for Bees. September 11-14, 2012 . September 11, 2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Calif ornia Department of Pesticide Regulation. Available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!doc umentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2012- 0543-0004 (Accessed June 22, 2014). USEPA. 2013.D415161. Data on Flupyradifurone and Its Environmental Transformation Products in Support of the ROCKS . D415161. Memorandum From S. Glaberman & K. White to C. Olinger & E. Scollon. Oct ober 23, 2013. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticid e Programs. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. United States Environm ental Protection Agency. USEPA. 2013a. Guidance for Using PRZM-GW in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments

. December 11, 2012. Environmental Fate and E ffects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water /przm_gw/wqtt_przm_gw_guidance.htm (Accessed January 22, 2013). USEPA. 2013b. Guidance on Modeling Offsite Deposition of Pesticides Via Spray Drift for Ecological and Drinking Water Assessment . Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. Office of Ch emical Safety and Pollution Prevention. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!doc ketDetail;D=EPA -HQ-OPP-2013-0676 (Accessed April 11, 2014). USEPA. 2013.D408685. Reduced Risk Analysis: Flupyradifurone Use on Pome Fruit, Citrus, Cotton, and Vegetables . D408685. February 5, 2013. Envi ronmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. USEPA. 2014. Flupyradifurone: Human Health Risk A ssessment for the First Food Use on: Root Vegetables Except Sugar Beet (Subgr oup 1B), Tuberous and Corm Vegetables (Subgroup 1C), Bulb Vegetables (Group 3- 07), Leafy Vegetables (Except Brassica) (Group 4), Taro Leaves, Turnip Tops; Head and Stem Brassica Vegetables (Subgroup 5A), Leafy Brassica Greens Vegeta bles (Subgroup 5B), Edible-Podded Legume Vegetables (Subgroup 6A), Succulent She lled Pea and Bean (Subgroup 6B), Died

### 124 Shelled Pea and Bean (except Soybean) (Subgroup 6C), Foliage of Legume Vegetables (except Soybean) (Subgroup 7A), Soybean (Seed), Fruiting Vegetables Except Cucurbits (Group 8-10), Cucurbit Vegetables (Group 9), Citrus Fruits (Group 10-10), Pome Fruits (Group 11-10), Bushberry (Subgroup 13-07B), Small Fruit Vine Climbing (Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit) (Subgroup 13-07F), Low Growing Berry (Subgroup 13-07G), Tree Nuts (Group 14-12), Cereal Grains Excep t Rice (Crop Group 15, Except Rice), Forage, Fodder and Straw of Cereal Grains (Crop Gr oup 16), Nongrass Animal Feeds (Forage, Fodder, Straw and Hay) (Group 18), Cottons eed (Subgroup 20C), Coffee, Hops, Peanuts, Prickly Pear Cactus, and Pitaya. D407063. Health Effects Division. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA, & Health Canada. 2012. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters for Modeling Pesticide Concentrations in Groundwater Using the Pesticide Root Zone Model. Version 1.0 . October 15, 2012. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. United States Environmental Prot ection Agency. Environmental Assessment Directorate. Pesticide Mana gement Regulatory Agency. H ealth Canada. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water /przm_gw/wqtt_przm_gw_input_guidance.pd f (Accessed January 29, 2014). USEPA, & Health Canada. 2013. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters for Modeling Pesticide Concentrations in Groundwater Using the Pesticide Root Zone Model . Version 1. October 15, 2012. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water /przm_gw/wqtt_przm_gw_input_guidance.ht

m (Accessed February 28, 2013). USFWS/NMFS. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Final Draft . United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Available at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ pr/esa/pdf/Sec%207%20Handbook.pdf (Accessed November 7, 2012).

Submitted Fate Studies

830.7050 UV/Visible absorption

48843628 Peters, S. (2009) Spectral Data Set of BYI 02960 A.I: Reference Material. Project Number: 15/600/2439/OCR, M/345761/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 24p.

830.7370 Dissociation constants in water

48843634 Wiche, A.; Bogdoll, B. (2011) Flupyradifurone (BYI 02960), Pure Substance: Dissociation Constant in Water. Project Number: PA10/048/OCR, M/414102/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 17p. 48843635 Wiche, A.; Bogdoll, B. (2011) BCS-CC98193 (BYI 02960-DFEAF): Dissociation Constant in Water. Project Number: PA11/021/OCR, M/415757/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 18p. 48843636 Winkler, S. (2011) Difluoro Acetic Acid (BCS-AA56716): Determination of the Dissociation Constant in Water: Final Report. Project Number: 20100366/02, M/418626/01/2/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Siemens AG. 19p.

### 125 48843637 Miya, K. (2001) Dissociation Constant of IC-0: Final Report. Project Number: NCAS/01/140/OCR, M/203097/01/2, RD/II01190. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co., Ltd. 16p. 830.7550 Partition coeffici ent (n-octanol/water), shake flask method

48843640 Eyrich, U.; Ziemer, F. (2011) BCS-CR74729 (BYI 02960-succinamide): Partition Coefficient 1-Octanol / Water at pH 5, pH 7 and pH 9 (Shake Flask Method). Project Number: PA11/079/OCR, M/416883/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 32p. 48843641 Eyrich, U.; Ziemer, F. (2 011) BCS - CU93236 (BYI 02960-azabicyclosuccinam ide Na-salt): Partition Coefficient 1-Octanol / Water at pH 5, pH 7 an d pH 9 (Shake Flask Method). Project Number: PA11/093/OCR, M/416656/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 33p. 48843642 Eyrich, U.; Ziemer, F. (2011) Difluoroacetic Acid (BCS-AA56716): Partition Coefficient 1-Octanol / Water at pH 5, pH 7 and pH 9 (Shake Flask Method). Project Number: PA10/043/OCR, M/416624/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 35p. 48843643 Higashida, S. (2001) Partition Coefficien t (n-Octanol/Water) of IC-0. Project Number: NCAS/01/127/OCR, M/204285/01/2, C/017442. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co.,Ltd. 19p. 830.7840 Water solubility: Co lumn elution method, shake flask method

48843644 Wiche, A.; Bogdoll, B. (2011) BYI 02960, Pure S ubstance: Solubility in Distilled Water (pH 7), at pH 4 and pH 9 (Flask Method). Project Number: PA09/003/OCR, M/409513/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 25p. 48843645 Bogdoll, B.; Strunk, B. (2011) BCS-CC98193 (BYI 02960-DFEAF): Water Solubility at pH 5, pH 7 and pH 9 (Flask Method). Project Number: PA11/018/OCR, M/415753/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 28p. 48843646 Wiche, A.; Ziemer, F. (2011 ) BCS-CR74729 (BYI 02960-succinamide): Water Solubility at pH 5, pH 7 and pH 9 (Flask Method). Project Number: PA11/078/OCR, M/416651/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 24p. 48843647 Ziemer, F.; Strunk, B. (2011) BSC-CU93236 (BYI 02960-azabicyclosuccinamide Na-salt): Water Solubility at pH 5, pH 7 and pH 9 (Flask Method ). Project Number: PA11/094, M/417069/01/2/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 17p. 48843648 Bogdoll, B.; Strunk, B. (2011) Difluoroacetic Ac id (BCS-AA56716): Miscibility with Distilled Water and Solubility in Water in a pH Range of 1.6 to 13. Project Number: PA10/042/OCR, M/418554/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 16p. 48843649 Miya, K. (2001) Solubility of IC-0 in Water. Project Number: NCAS/01/129/OCR, M/202871/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co.,Ltd. 19p.

830.7950 Vapor pressure

48843650 Smeykal, H. (2008) BYI 02960, Pure Substance: Vapour Pressure: Final Report. Project Number: 20080615/01/OCR, M/309853/01/3. Unpublished study prepared by Siemens AG. 14p.

48843651 Dornhagen, J. (2011) BCS-CC98193 (BYI 02960-DFEAF): Vapour Pressure: Final Report. Project Number: 20110091/01/OCR, M/420457/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Siemens AG. 16p.

48843652 Smeykal, H. (2011) Difluoroacetic Acid (BCS-AA56716): Vapour Pressure: Final Report. Project Number: 20100366/01/OCR, M/418553/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Siemens AG. 15p.

835.0001 Background for Envi ronmental Fate, Transport, and Drift

48844234 Desmarteau, D.; Tang, J. (2012) Drinking Wate r Exposure Assessment for Flupyradifurone TC Resulting from Proposed Crop Uses in the United States. Project Number: MERVP089, M/435213/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 46p. 835.1230 Sediment and soil absorption/desorption for parent and degradates

48843662 Menke, U.; Telscher, M. (2008) [Pyridinylmethyl-(Carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Adsorption to and Desorption from Soils. Project Number: 1659/6/OCR, M/327492/01/2, M131/1659/6. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 80p.

### 126 48843663 Stroech, K. (2010) [Pyridinylmethyl-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Adsorption/Desorption on Two Soils. Project Number: MERVP017, M/363541/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 78p.

48843664 Tasso de Souza, T. (2012) Adsorption/Desorptio n of [Pyridine-2,6-(carbon 14)]-BYI 02960 in Brazilian Soils: Final Report. Project Number: 2301/AD/343/11, M/426755/02/3. Unpublished study prepared by Bioensaios Analises e Consultoria Ambiental Ltda. 66p. 48843665 Menke, U. (2011) [1-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960-DFA (BCS-AB60481): Adsorption to and Desorption from Five Soils. Project Number: M131/1964/5, MEF/10/538, M/413836/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 79p. 835.1240 Soil column leaching

48843666 Tasso de Souza, T. (2012) Mobility of [Pyrid ine-2,6-(carbon 14)]-BYI 02960 in Brazilian Soils - Soil Columns Leaching Method: Final Report. Project Number: 2301/LIX/344/11, M/424966/02/3. Unpublished study prepared by Bioensaios Analises e Consultoria Ambiental Ltda. 54p. 835.2120 Hydrolysis of parent and degradates as a function of pH at 25 C

48843667 Mislankar, S.; Woodard, D. (2011) BYI-02960: Hydrolytic Degradation. Project Number: MERVP019, M/398952/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 57p.

835.2210 Direct photolys is rate in water by sunlight

48843668 Heinemann, O. (2011) BYI 02960: Determination of the Quantum Yield and Assessment of the Environmental Half-Life of the Direct Photo-De gradation in Water. Pr oject Number: MEF/11/554, M1432048/2, M/414756/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 44p.

835.2240 Direct photolysis ra te of parent and degradates in water

48843669 Hall, L. (2012) Phototransformation of [(carbon 14)]BYI 02960 in Aqueous pH 7 Buffer. Project Number: MERVP042, MERVP042/1, M/418426/02/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 104p.

48843670 Hall, L. (2011) Phototransformation of [(carbon 14)]BYI 02960 in Natural Water. Project Number: MERVP020, M/415368/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 105p.

835.2370 Photodegradation of parent and degradates in air

48843671 Hellpointner, E. (2010) BYI02960: Calculation of the Chemical Half-Life in the Troposphere. Project Number: MEF/10/896, M/398741/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 18p.

835.2410 Photodegradation of parent and degradates in soil

48843672 Menke, U.; Unold, M. (2011) [Pyridinylmethyl-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960 and [Furanone-4-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Phototransformation on Soil. Project Number: MEF/10/351, M113/1808/2, M/405776/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 103p.

835.3180 Sediment/water microcosm biodegradation test

48843673 Bruns, E. (2012) Fate of BYI 02960 (tech.) in Outdoor Microcosm Ponds Simulating Actual Exposure Conditions in Agricultural Use. Project Number: EBRVP109, M/427167/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 75p.

835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism

48843674 Menke, U. (2011) [Pyridinylmethyl-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Soil Metabolism/Degradation and Time-Dependent Sorption in Soils. Project Number: MEF/07/334, M125/1634/2, M/414615/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 131p.

48843676 Menke, U. (2011) [Furanone-4-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Soil Metabolism/Degradation. Project Number: MEF/10/804, M125/1758/9, M/411625/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 119p.

### 127 48843677 Ripperger, R. (2012) [Furanone -4-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Soil Metabolism in Two US Soils. Project Number: MERVP037, MERVP037/2, M/405497/03/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 99p.

48843679 Menke, U.; Unold, M. (2011) [Ethyl-1-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Soil Metabolism. Project Number: MEF/10/858, M125/1888/3, M/414981/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 121p.

48843681 Menke, U.; Unold, M. (2011) [Pyridine-2,6-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Soil Metabolism. Project Number: MEF/10/880, M125/1952/5, M/411693/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 86p.

48843682 Shepherd, J. (2012) [Pyridine-2,6-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Soil Metabolism in Two US Soils. Project Number: MERVP038, MERVP038/1, M/413425/02/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 112p.

48843683 Tasso de Souza, T. (2012) BYI 02960: Rate of Degradation of [Pyridine-2,6-(carbon 14)]-BYI 02960 in Brazilian Soils: Final Report. Project Number: 2301/ BS120/342/11, M/432044/01/3. Unpublished study prepared by Bioensaios Analises e Consultoria Ambiental Ltda. 72p.

835.4200 Anaerobic soil metabolism

48843686 Menke, U.; Unold, M. (2012) [Furanone-4-(carbon 14)] and [Ethyl-1-(carbon 14)] and [Pyridine-2,6- (carbon 14)] BYI 02960: Anaerobic Soil Metabolism. Project Number: MEF/11/514, M126/1933/5, M/421504/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 129p.

48843687 Mislankar, S.; Woodard, D. (2012) [Pyridine- 2,6 (carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Anaerobic Soil Metabolism. Project Number: MERVP094, M/421993/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Thorsten Leicher and Agvise, Inc. 90p.

48843688 Woodard, D. (2012) [Pyridine-2,6 (carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Anaerobic Soil Metabolism in Springfield, Nebraska (USA) Soil. Project Number: MERVL006, M/424987/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, and Agvise, Inc. 66p.

835.4300 Aero bic aquatic metabolism

48843673 Bruns, E. (2012) Fate of BYI 02960 (tech.) in Outdoor Microcosm Ponds Simulating Actual Exposure Conditions in Agricultural Use. Project Number: EBRVP109, M/427167/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 75p.

48843689 Xu, T. (2012) [Pyridine-2,6-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism in Two Water/Sediment Systems. Project Number: MERVP027, M/422616/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 75p.

48843690 Hellpointner, E.; Unold, M. (2012) [Pyridine- 2,6-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism. Project Number: MEF/11/907, M1512007/6, M/422359/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 141p.

48843691 Hellpointner, E.; Unold, M. (2012) [1-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960-DFA (BCS-A B60481): Aerobic Aquatic Degradation. Project Number: MEF/11/996, M1512008/7, M/422371/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 128p.

48843692 Menke, U.; Unold, M. (2012) [Furanone-4-(carbon 14)] and [Ethyl-1-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism. Project Number: MEF/10/730, M1511908/5, M/426504/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 171p.

835.4400 Anaerobic aquatic metabolism

### 128 48843689 Xu, T. (2012) [Pyridine-2,6-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism in Two Water/Sediment Systems. Project Number: MERVP027, M/422616/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 75p.

48843690 Hellpointner, E.; Unold, M. (2012) [Pyridine- 2,6-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism. Project Number: MEF/11/907, M1512007/6, M/422359/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 141p.

48843691 Hellpointner, E.; Unold, M. (2012) [1-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960-DFA (BCS-A B60481): Aerobic Aquatic Degradation. Project Number: MEF/11/996, M1512008/7, M/422371/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 128p.

48843692 Menke, U.; Unold, M. (2012) [Furanone-4-(carbon 14)] and [Ethyl-1-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism. Project Number: MEF/10/730, M1511908/5, M/426504/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 171p.

835.6100 Terres trial field dissipation

48843693 Lenz, M. (2012) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of BYI 02960 in California Soil. Project Number: MERVY001, M/432355/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Agvise Laboratories, Inc. and Research for Hire. 216p.

48843694 Lenz, M. (2012) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of BYI 02960 in Florida Soil. Project Number: MERVY002, M/432358/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Agvise Laboratories, Inc. and Southeast Ag Research, Inc. 214p.

48843695 Lenz, M. (2012) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of BYI 02960 in Idaho Soil. Project Number: MERVP028, M/432354/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Agvise Laboratories, Inc. and Miller Research, Inc. 225p.

48843696 Harbin, A. (2012) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of BYI 02960 200 SL in Three Canadian Soils. Project Number: MERVP055, M//432672/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Bayer CropScience, Atlantic AgriTech Inc. and Bayer CropScience Canada. 357p.

48843697 Heinemann, O. (2013) Determination of the Residues of BYI 02960 in/on Soil After Spraying of BYI 02960 SL 200 in the Field in Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. Project Number: 09/2702, M/414245/01/2, MERVP012. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 274p.

835.6200 Aqua tic field dissipation

48844235 Desmarteau, D.; Tang, J. (2012) Aquatic Ecological Exposure Assessment for Flupyradifurone TC Resulting from Proposed Crop Uses in the United States. Project Number: MERVP088, M/433353/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 40p.

860.1380 Storage stability data

48843840 Netzband, D.; Stoughton, S. (2012) Stability of BYI 02960 and its Metabolites 6-Chloronicotinic Acid (6- CNA) and Difluoroacetic Acid (DFA) in Soil During Frozen Storage, 2010 (Reported Through 381 Days of Storage). Project Number: RARVP070, M/428408/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 38p. 48843841 Timberlake, B.; Harbin, A. (2012) Storage Stability of BYI 02960, Difluoroacetic Acid, and Difluoroethyl-Amino-Furanone in Plant Matrices. Project Number: RARVP046, M/428412/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 223p. 48977401 Netzband, D.; Timberlake, B.; Harbin, A. (2012) Storage Stability of BYI 02960, Difluoroacetic Acid, and Difluoroethyl-amino-furanone in Plant Matrices (18-Month Data). Project Number: M/428412/02/1/OCR, RARVP046/1, RARVP046. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience LP. 266p.

### 129 Analytical Methods

48843836 Netzband, D. (2012) In House Laboratory Validation of an Analytical Method for the Determination of Residues of BYI 02960 and its Metabolites Difluo roacetic Acid, BYI 02960-Succinamide and BYI 02960-Azabicyclosuccinamide in Water Us ing LC/MS/MS. Project Number: RARVP010, M/433268/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 96p.

48844224 Nuesslein, F.; Hellpointner, E.; Thomas, J.; et al. (2012) Tier 2 Summary of the Analytical Methods and Validation for the Flupyradifurone TC. Project Number: 102000025488, M/435597/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience LP. 95p.

48843829 Brumhard, B.; Reineke, A. (2009) Analytical Method 01074 for the Determination of BYI 02960 in Soil Using LC/MS//MS. Project Number: 01074, MR/07/337, P601071824. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 45p.

48843830 Netzband, D. (2010) An Analytical Method for the Determination of Residues of BYI 02960, 6- Chloronicotinic Acid (6-CNA) and Difluoroacetic Acid (DFA) in Soil and Sediment Using LC/MS/MS. Project Number: RV/002/S10/01, M/401212/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 22p.

48843831 Netzband, D. (2011) An Analytical Method for the Determination of Residues of BYI 02960, 6- Chloronicotinic Acid (6-CNA) and Difluoroacetic Acid (DFA) in Soil and Sediment Using LC/MS/MS. Project Number: RV/002/S10/02, M/428409/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 27p.

48843834 Fargeix, G.; Rosati, D. (2012) Analytical Method (Number) 01213 for the Determination of Residues of BYI 02960 in Drinking and Surface Water By HP LC-MS/MS. Project Numb er: 01213, MR/12/022, 11/04. Unpublished study prepared by Aventis Cropscience, Centre de Recherche de La Dargoire. 50p.

48843835 Netzband, D. (2012) Analytical Method for the Determination of Residues of BYI 02960 and its Metabolites Difluoroacetic Acid, BYI 2960-Succinami de and BYI 2960- Azab icyclosuccinamide in Water Using LC/MS/MS. Project Number: RV/005/W12/01, M/435207/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 28p.

48843838 Heinz, N. (2011) BYI 02960: Analytical Method for Determination in Air. Project Number: P/2419/G, P605117520, RARVP011. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL Europe Gmbh. 35p.

48843827 Li, Y.; Moore, S. (2012) An Analytical Method for the Determination of Residues of BYI 02960 and its Metabolites BYI02960-Hydroxy, BYI 0 2960-Acetyl-AMCP, and Di fluoroacetic Acid in Animal Matrices and Biota Using LC/MS/MS. Project Number: RV/004/A11/05, M/429871/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 64p.

Other Studies 48843656 Eyrich, U.; Bogdoll, B. (2011) Flupyradifurone (BYI 02960): Solubility in Organic Solvents. Project Number: PA09/005, M/414064/01/2/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 25p.

48843769 Leicher, T. (2011) BYI 02960: Effects on So il Litter Degradation After Sp ray Application. Project Number: E/427/3905/0, EBRVP082, M/413408/01/3. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 62p.

### 130 Submitted Effects Studies

Banman, C. S.; Lam, C. V.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 to Daphnia magna under static condi tions; Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP032; Document No.: M-357476-01-1; October 14, 2009; Pages: 42 850.1010 MRID 48843701

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BCS-AB60481 to th e waterflea Daphnia magna in a static labor atory test system - limit test-; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Re port No.: EBRVP079; Document No.: M-409326-01-3; June 10, 2011; Pages: 51 850.1010 MRID 48843702

Gallagher, S. P.; Kendall, T. Z.; Krueger, H. O.; BYI 02960: A 96-hour shell deposition test with the eastern oyster (Crassostr ea virginica); Wildlife International Ltd. , Easton, MD, USA; Report No.: EBRVP023 ; Document No.: M-361668-01-1; December 01, 2009; Pages: 62 850.1025 MRID 48843703

Gallagher, S. P.; Kenda ll, T. Z.; Krueger, H.O.; BYI 02960: A 96-hour static acute t oxicity test with the saltwater mysid (Americamysis bahia); Wildlife Interna tional Ltd., Easton, MD, USA; Report No .: 149A-236; Document No.: M-364620-01-1; December 08, 2009; Pages: 59 850.1035 MRID 48843704

Matlock, D.: Lam, C. V.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 technical to the rainbow tr out (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under static conditions; Bayer CropScience LP , Stilwell, KS, US A; Report No.: EBRVP041; Document No.: M-390611-01-1; September 27, 2010; Pages: 44 850.1075 MRID 48843705

Matlock, D.; Lam, C. V.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 technical to the fathead mi nnow (Pimephales prom elas) under static conditions; Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP035; Document No.: M-392560-01-1; October 21, 2010; Pages: 45 850.1075 MRID 48843706

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 (tech. ) to fish (Cyprinus carpio ) under static conditions ( limit test); Bayer CropScienc e AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: E BRVP186; Document No.: M-420407-01-3; De cember 19, 2011; Pages: 58 850.1075 MRID 48843707

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 succinamide (tech.) to fi sh (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under static conditions (limit test); Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP203; Document No.: M-414293-01-3; September 21, 2011; Pages: 49 850.1075 MRID 48843708

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of sodium di fluoro acetate (BCS AB60481, tech.) to fish (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under static conditions (limit test); Bayer CropSc ience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP080; Document No.: M-413889-01-3; September 12, 2011; Pages: 53 850.1075 MRID 48843709

Banman, C. S.; Lam, C. V.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 t echnical to the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) under static conditions; Bayer CropSci ence LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP034; Document No.: M-357479-01-1; October 14, 2009; Pages: 44 850.1075 MRID 48843710

Riebschlaeger, T.; Effects of BYI 02960 (tech n.) on development and reproductive output of the waterflea Daphnia magna in a static-renewal laboratory test system; Ba yer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Re port No.: EBRVP209; Document No.: M414066-01-2; September 15, 2011; Pages: 89 850.1300 MRID 48843711

Riebschlaeger, T.; Influence of BYI02960-succinamide (tech.) on development and reproductive ou tput of the waterflea Daphnia magna in a static-renewal laboratory te st system; Bayer CropSci ence AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP185; Document No.: M-424700-01-2; Februa ry 10, 2012; Pages: 83 850.1300 MRID 48843712

Claude, M. B.; Kendall, T. Z.; Krueger, H. O.; BYI 02960: A flow-through life- cycle toxicity test with the saltwater mysid (Americanysis bahia); Wildlife Interna tional Ltd., Easton, MD, USA; Report No.: EBRVP038; Document No.: M-420783-01-2; September 08, 2011; Pages: 125 850.1350 MRID 48843713

Matlock, D.; Lam, C. V.; Early life stage toxicity of BYI 02960 technical to the Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) under flow-through conditions; Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP033; Document No.: M-409339-01-1; June 14, 2011; Pages: 106 850.1400 MRID 48843714

Fredricks, T. B.; Stoughton, T. L.; Toxicity of BYI 02960 technical during an ac ute oral LD50 with the northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus); Bayer CropScienc e LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EB RVP022; Document No.: M-386036-01-1; July 14, 2010; Pages: 40 MRID 48843715

### 131 Christ, M. T.; Fredricks, T. B. ; Toxicity of BYI 02960 technical during an acut e oral LD50 with the canary (Serinus canaria); Bayer CropScience LP, Stilw ell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP036; Document No.: M-408514-01-1; May 25, 2011; Pages: 45 MRID 48843716

Barfknecht, R.; Wilkens, S.; Acut e oral toxicity of chicken (Gallus gallus domesti cus) with BYI 2960 (tech.), according to OECD 223 - limit test-; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: BAR/ LD 141; Document No.: M-420519-01-3; December 19, 2011; Pages: 33 850.2100 MRID 48843717

Stoughton, T. L.; Lam, C. V.; To xicity of BYI 02960 technical during an acute dietary LC50 with the northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus; Bayer CropScienc e LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP021; Document No.: M-394535-01-1; November 10, 2010; Pages: 42 850.2200 MRID 48843718

Fredricks, T. B.; Lam, C. V.; Stoughton, T. L.; Toxicity of BY I 02960 technical during an acute dietary LC50 with the mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos); Ba yer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Re port No.: EBRVP020; Document No.: M-388718-01- 1; August 26, 2010; Pages: 41 850.2200 MRID 48843719

Stoughton, T. L.; Christ, M. T.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of BYI 02960 technical on reproduction to the northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus); Bayer CropScie nce LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP019; Document No.: M-424704-01-2; February 09, 2012; Pages: 73 850.2300 MRID 48843720

Stoughton, T. L.; Christ, M. T.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of BYI 02960 technical on reproduction to the mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos); Bayer CropScience LP, RT P, NC, USA; Report No.: EBRVP018-1; Document No.: M-412917-02-1; August 25, 2011; Pages: 64 850.2300 MRID 48843721

Schmitzer, S.; Revised fina l report no.: 1 - Effects of BYI 02960 (acute cont act and oral) on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in the laboratory; IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No .: 41121035; Document No.: M-308904-02-2; August 20, 2008; Pages: 35 850.3020 MRID 48843722

Schmitzer, S.; Effects of BYI02960 - difluoroethyl - amino - fura none (acute contact and oral) on honey bees (Apis mellifera L. ) in the laboratory; IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: 60291035; Document No.: M-398557-01-3; December 21, 2010; Pages: 34 850.3020 MRID 48843723

Schmitzer, S.; Effects of BYI 02960 - hydrox y (acute contact and oral) on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in the laboratory; IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: 63901035; Do cument No.: M-409606-01-3; June 15, 2011; Pages: 34 850.3020 MRID 48843724

Schmitzer, S.; Effects of difluoroacetic acid (acute contact and oral) on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in the laboratory; IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: 56331035; Do cument No.: M-367915-01-3; April 29, 2010; Pages: 34 850.3020 MRID 48843725

Schmitzer, S.; Effects of 6-chloronicotinic acid (acute contact and oral) on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in the laboratory; IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: EBRVL009; Do cument No.: M-395279-01-3; November 19, 2010; Pages: 34 850.3020 MRID 48843726

Schmitzer, S.; Effects of 6-chloro-picolylal cohol (acute contact and oral) on honey b ees (Apis mellifera L.) in the laboratory; IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: 50911035; Docu ment No.: M-361234-01-3; January 11, 2010; Pages: 31 850.3020 MRID 48843727

Porch, J. R.; Krueger, H. O.; BYI 02960 200 SL: A foliage residue toxicity study with the honeybee; Wildlife International Ltd.

, Easton, MD, USA; Report No.: EBRVP044; Document No.: M-413084-01-1; July 13, 2011; Pages: 38 850.3030 MRID 48843728

Gosch, H.; BYI 02960 SL 200 g/L - Effects on the seedling emergenc e and growth of eleven species of non-target terrestrial plants (Tier 1); Bayer CropScience AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: SE10/001; Document No.: M-397727-01-2; December 14, 2010; Pages: 73 850.4100 MRID 48843729

Gosch, H.; BYI 02960 SL 200 g/L - Effects on the vegetative vigour of eleven species of non-target terrestrial plants (Tier 1); Bayer CropScience AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: VV 10/002; Document No.: M-397734-01-2; December 14, 2010; Pages: 65 850.4150 MRID 48843730

Banman, C. S.; Alexander, T. M.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of BYI 02960 technical to duckweed (L emna gibba G3) under static-

### 132 renewal conditions; Bayer CropScience LP , Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP043; Document No.: M-398376-01-1; December 21, 2010; Pages: 54 850.4400 MRID 48843731

Banman, C. S.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of BYI 02960 technica l to the green alga Pseudokirc hneriella sub capitata; Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Re port No.: EBRVP030; Document No.: M- 397552-01-1; December 10, 2010; Pages: 55 850.5400 MRID 48843732

Bruns, E.; Pseudokirchneriella subcapitat a growth inhibition test with BCS-AB60481 - limit test; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: E BRVP077; Document No.: M-409118-01-3; June 10, 2011; Pages: 63 850.5400 MRID 48843733

Sobczyk, H.; Pseudokirchneriella subcapita ta growth inhibition test with BYI 02960 - succinam ide - limit test; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Repor t No.: EBRVP184; Document No.: M-414090- 01-3; September 23, 2011; Pages: 59 850.5400 MRID 48843734

Bruns, E.; Pseudokirchneriella subcapitat a growth inhibition test with 6 - chloronicotinic acid; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRV P242; Document No.: M-424145-01-3; Fe bruary 01, 2012; Pages: 100 850.5400 MRID 48843735

Caspers, N.; Activated sludge, respira tion inhibition test with BYI 02960 (tech.); Currenta GmbH & Co. OHG, Leverkusen, Germany; Report No.: 2010/0089/01; Document No.: M-377311-01-2; June 21, 2010; Pages: 27 850.6800 MRID 48843736 Banman, C. S.; Lam, C. V.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 to Xenopus laevis under flow-through conditions; Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: E BRVP187; Document No.: M-417822-01-1; N ovember 18, 2011; Pages: 49 850.SUPP MRID 48843737

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 (tech.) to larvae of Chironomus riparius in a 48 h static laborato ry test system; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Repor t No.: EBRVP026; Document No.: M-414739- 01-3; September 26, 2011; Pages: 55 850.SUPP MRID 48843738

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960-succinami de to larvae of Chironomus riparius in a 48 h static labor atory test system; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP202; Document No.: M-417386-01-3; November 17, 2011; Pages: 52 850.SUPP MRID 48843739

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960-azabicyclosuccinamide (BCS-C S64875) to larvae of Chironomus riparius in a 48 h static laboratory test system; Bayer CropSci ence AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No .: M-424404-01-2; Document No.: M-424404- 01-2; February 02, 2012; Pages: 59 850.SUPP MRID 48843740

Bruns, E.; Chironomus riparius 28-day chronic toxicity test with BYI 02960 (tech.) in a water-s ediment system using spiked water; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: M-401792-01-3; Docu ment No.: M-401792-01-3; February 14, 2011; Pages: 90 850.SUPP MRID 48843741

Bruns, E.; Chironomus riparius 28-day chronic toxicity test with Sodium difluoroacetate in a wate r-sediment system using spiked water - limit test; Bayer Cr opScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No .: EBRVP181; Document No.: M-415913-01-3; October 06, 2011; Pages: 69 850.SUPP MRID 48843742

Bruns, E.; Chironomus riparius 28-day chronic toxicity test with 6-Chloronicotinic acid in a wa ter-sediment system using spiked water - limit test; Bayer Cr opScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No .: EBRVP183; Document No.: M-416604-02-3; October 18, 2011; Pages: 73 850.SUPP MRID 48843743

Jans, D.; Toxicity to the pa rasitoid wasp Aphidius rhopalosiphi (DESTEP HANI-PEREZ) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) using a laboratory test; BYI 02960 SL 200 g/L; Ba yer CropScience AG, Frankfurt am Ma in, Germany; Report No.: CW09/079; Document No.: M-366965-01-3; April 15, 2010; Pages: 37 850.SUPP MRID 48843744

Jans, D.; Toxicity to the pred atory mite Typhlodromus pyri SCHEUTEN (Acari , Phytoseiidae) using a laboratory test; BYI 02960 SL 200 g/L; Bayer CropScience AG, Frankfurt am Main , Germany; Report No.: CW09/073; Document No.: M-366957- 01-2; April 15, 2010; Pages: 29 850.SUPP MRID 48843745

Leicher, T.; BYI 02960 (tech.): Acute toxicity to earthworms (Eis enia fetida) tested in artificial soil; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: LRT/RG -A-131/09; Document No.: M-363742-01-2; February 18, 2010; Pages: 27 850.SUPP MRID 48843746

Leicher, T.; BYI 02960-difluoroacetic acid: acu te toxicity to earthworms (Eisenia fe tida) tested in artificial soil; Bayer

### 133 CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: LRT/RG-A-1 35/10; Document No.: M-368835- 01-2; April 12, 2010; Pages: 24 850.SUPP MRID 48843747

Wetton, P. M.; Acute toxicity to earthwo rms (Eisenia foetida) IC-0; Safepharm La b. Ltd., Derby, United Kingdom; Report No.: 282/575; Document No.: M-196591-01-2; August 25, 1999; Pages: 30 850.SUPP MRID 48843748

Leicher, T.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G: Effects on survival, growth and reproduction on the earthworm Eisenia fetida tested in artificial soil; Bayer CropScience AG, M onheim, Germany; Report No.: LRT-RG-R -76/09; Document No.: M-392964-01-4; October 21, 2010; Pages: 45 850.SUPP MRID 48843749

Leicher, T.; BYI 02960 Difluoroacetic acid: Ef fects onsurvival, growth and reproductio n on the earthworm Eisenia fetida tested in artifical soil with 10 % peat; Baye r CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; ReportNo.: LRT-RG-R-81/10; Document No.: M398061-01-3; December 16, 2010; Pages: 37 850.SUPP MRID 48843750

Kling, A.; BYI 02960-hydroxy - Assessment of chronic effects to the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., in a 10 days continuous laboratory feeding limit test; Eurofins Agroscience Services ~~EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Öschel bronn, Germany; Report No.: S11-01960; Document No.: M-425212-01-2; Fe bruary 15, 2012; Pages: 83 850.SUPP MRID 48843764

Kling, A.; Difluoroacetic acid - Assessment of chronic effects to the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., in a 10 days continuous laboratory feeding limit test; Eurofins Agroscience Services ~~EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Öschel bronn, Germany; Report No.: S11-01939; Document No.: M-425105-01-2; Fe bruary 13, 2012; Pages: 82 850.SUPP MRID 48843765

Kling, A.; 6-chloronicotinic acid - Assessment of chronic effect s to the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., in a 10 days continuous laboratory feeding limit test; Eurofins Agroscience Services ~~EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Öschel bronn, Germany; Report No.: S11-01957; Document No.: M-425155-01-2; Fe bruary 13, 2012; Pages: 82 850.SUPP MRID 48843766

Kling, A.; 6-chloropicolyl alcohol - Assessment of chronic effect s to the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., in a 10 days continuous laboratory feeding limit test; Eurofins Agroscience Services ~~EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Öschel bronn, Germany; Report No.: S11-01958; Document No.: M-425159-01-2; Fe bruary 13, 2012; Pages: 84 850.SUPP MRID 48843767

Nikolakis, A.; Theis, M.; Przygoda, D.; BYI 02960 tech.: Effects of exposure to spiked diet on honeybee larvae (Apis mellifera carnica) in an in vitro laboratory testing design; Bayer Cr opScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: E 318 3897-9; Document No.: M-406645-01-3; May 02, 2011; Pages: 89 850.SUPP MRID 48843768

Leicher, T.; BYI 02960: Effects on soil litte r degradation after spray application; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: LRT-SLD-45/11; Document No.: M-413408- 01-3; September 06, 2011; Pages: 62 850.SUPP MRID 48843769

Leicher, T.; BYI 02960: Effects on soil litte r degradation if applied as seed tr eatment; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: LRT-SLD-46/11; Document No.: M-413416-01-3; September 06, 2011; Pages: 66 850.SUPP MRID 48843770

Nikolakis, A.; Krieg, V. ; Aumeier, P.; Gladbach, D.; Honey bee colony feeding study, evaluating the effects of BYI 02960- fortified sugar- and pollen diet on the de velopment of honey bee colonies under conf ined semi-field conditi ons, followed by a post-exposure field observation pe riod; Bayer CropScience AG, M onheim, Germany; Report No.: E 319 4111-0; Document No.: M-438748-01-1; September 24, 2012; Pages: 523 850.SUPP MRID 48843771

Riebschlaeger, T.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 SL 200 G to the waterflea Daphnia magna in a static labor atory test system; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, German y; Report No.: EBRVP097; Document No.: M-393738-01-3; October 28, 2010; Pages: 57 850.1010 MRID 48844509

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 SL 200 G to fish (Onc orhynchus mykiss) under static conditions-limit test; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP098; Document No.: M-398721-02-3; December 20, 2010; Pages: 57 850.1075 MRID 48844510

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 SL 200 G to fish (Cyp rinus carpio) under static c onditions (limit test); Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP199; Document No.: M-420485-01-3; December 19, 2011; Pages: 55 850.1075 MRID 48844511

Stoughton, T. L.; Christ, M. T. ; Toxicity of BYI 02960 sl 200 during an acute oral LD50 with the Northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus); Bayer CropScie nce LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP093; Document No.: M-424312-01-1; February 03, 2012; Pages: 36 850.2100 MRID 48844512

### 134 Barfknecht, R.; Wilkens, S.; Ac ute oral toxicity of chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) with BYI 02960 SL 200, according to OECD 223 - limit test-; Bayer CropScien ce AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: BAR/LD 142; Document No.: M-423043-01- 3; January 06, 2012; Pages: 31 850.2100 MRID 48844513

Schmitzer, S.; Revised final report no.: 1 - Effects of BYI 02960 SL 200 G (acute c ontact and oral) on honey bees (Apis mellife ra L.) in the laboratory; IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: 52331035; Document No.: M-359920-02-2; December 03, 2009; Pages: 35 850.3020 MRID 48844514

Schmitzer, S.; Effects of a te st item mix of BYI 02960 SL 200 G + tebuconazole EW 250C G (acute contact and oral) on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in the laboratory; IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: 52531035; Document No.: M363120-01-2; February 08, 2010; Pages: 38 850.3020 MRID 48844515

Rexer, H. U.; Assessment of side effects on the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.), expos ed to winter oil-seed rape, grown from seeds treated with BYI 02960 FS 480 G and sequentially sprayed with BYI 02960 SL 200 G during immediate pre- and full flowering in a long-term field study in Northern Germany; Eurofins Agroscience Services EcoChe m GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S10-03261; Document No.: M-438818-01-2; September 27, 2012; Pages: 402 850.3040 MRID 48844516

Rexer, H. U.; Assessment of side effects on the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.), expos ed to winter oil-seed rape, grown from seeds treated with BYI 02960 FS 480 G and sequentially sprayed with BYI 02960 SL 200 G during immediate pre- and full flowering in a long-term field study in France; Euro fins Agroscience Services GmbH, Niefern- Oeschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S10- 03262; Document No.: M-438819-01-2; July 24, 2012; Pages: 384 850.3040 MRID 48844517

Bruns, E.; Pseudokirchneriella subcapitat a growth inhibition test with BYI 02960 SL 200 G; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP095; Document No.: M-397244-01-3; Decemb er 20, 2010; Pages: 61 850.5400 MRID 48844518

Silke, G.; Chironomus riparius 28-day ch ronic toxicity test with BYI 02960 SL 200 G in a water-sediment system using spiked water; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim , Germany; Report No.: EBRVP182; Do cument No.: M-416145-01-3; October 17, 2011; Pages: 79 850.SUPP MRID 48844519

Sur, R.; Ellerich, C.; Statement on residue dissipation of flupyradifurone in treated foliage of lettuce an d spinach: kinetic evaluation of US data; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Ge rmany; Report No.: EnSa-12-0361; Document No.: M-434405-01- 2; July 09, 2012; Pages: 36 850.SUPP MRID 48844520

Bocksch, S.; Determination of residues of BYI 02960 applied via drench application in tomato in the semi-field; Eurofins Agroscience Services EcoChe m GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Re port No.: S10-03818; Document No.: M-424683- 01-2; February 10, 2012; Pages: 108 850.SUPP MRID 48844521

Bocksch, S.; Determination of residues of BYI 02960 applied via drench application in watermelon in the semi-field; Eurofins Agroscience Services EcoChe m GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Re port No.: S09-01391; Document No.: M-424666- 01-2; February 09, 2012; Pages: 173 850.SUPP MRID 48844522

Bocksch, S.; Determination of residues of BYI 02960 applied via drench application in watermelon in the semi-field; Eurofins Agroscience Services EcoChe m GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Re port No.: S10-03825; Document No.: M-424675- 01-2; February 08, 2012; Pages: 117 850.SUPP MRID 48844523

Gould, T. J.; Lawrence, J.; Harbin, A. M. ; Determination of residues of BYI 02960 in blossoms, nectar, and pollen when applied via Foliar Spray to early bloom ing citrus under semi-field conditions in Florida; eurofins agroscience services, Mebane, NC, USA; Report No.: RARVP017; Document No.: M-435033-01-1; July 24, 2012; Pages: 229 850.SUPP MRID 48844524

Gould, T. J.; Lawrence, J.; Harbin, A. M. ; Determination of residues of BYI 02960 in blossoms, nectar, and pollen when applied via soil drench and Foliar Spray to melon under semi-field Conditions in North Carolina; eurofins agroscience services, Mebane, NC, USA; Report No.: RARVP019; Document No.: M-435037-01-1; July 24, 2012; Pages: 209 850.SUPP MRID 48844525

Uceda, L.; Determination of the residues of BYI 02960 in/on ba rley and wheat after spray appl ication of BYI 02960 SL 200 in the field in Germany, Southern France and Italy; Bayer S. A.S., Bayer CropScience, Lyon, France; Report No.: 11-2958; Document No.: M-427494-01-2; Marc h 22, 2012; Pages: 96 850.SUPP MRID 48844526

Gould, T. J.; Harbin, A. M.; BYI 02960 200 SL - Magnitude of th e residue in bee food items, cotton; California Agricultural Research, Inc., Kerman, CA, USA; Re port No.: EBRVP110; Document No.: M-435848-01-1; August 02, 2012; Pages: 200 850.SUPP MRID 48844527

Gould, T. J.; Harbin, A. M.; BYI 02960 200 SL - Magnitude of th e residue in/on bee relevant blueberry matrices; California

### 135 Agricultural Research, Inc., Kerman, CA, USA; Report No.: RARVP020; Document No.: M-436312-01-1; August 14, 2012; Pages: 188 850.SUPP MRID 48844528

Netzband, D.; Dallstream, K. A.; BYI 02960 200 SL - Magnitude of the residue in/ on bee relevant apple matrices; Bayer CropScience LP, Environmental Science, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP218; Document No.: M-438422-01-1; September 18, 2012; Pages: 208 850.SUPP MRID 48844529

Gould, T. J.; Lawrence, J.; Harbin, A. M.; Determination of residues of BYI 02960 in blossoms, nectar, and pollen when applied via foliar spray to early blooming apple under semi-field condition s in North Carolina; Eurofins Agroscience Services, Mebane, NC, USA; Report No.: RARVP018; Document No .: M-437208-01-2; August 27, 2012; Pages: 221 850.SUPP MRID 48844530

Schnorbach, H. J.; Evaluation of the effects of BYI 02960 SL 100 on honey bees (Apis mellifera) in a semifield tunnel test in full-flowering Phacelia tanacetifolia; Ba yer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: IA08DVG048G001; Document No.: M-427040-01-2; March 15, 2012; Pages: 57 850.SUPP MRID 48844531

Schnorbach, H. J.; Evaluation of the effects of BYI 02960 SL 200 on honey bees (Apis mellifera) in a semifield tunnel test in full-flowering Phacelia tanacetifolia; Ba yer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: IA09DVG051K619; Document No.: M-427046-01-2; March 15, 2012; Pages: 55 850.SUPP MRID 48844532

Rentschler, S.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G: A semi-field study in Germany 2009 to evaluate effects of spra y applications in Phacelia tanacetifolia on the honeybee Apis mellif era L. (Hymenoptera, Apidea); Eurofins Agroscience Services EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S09-00854; Docu ment No.: M-425576-01-2; February 17, 2012; Pages: 139 850.SUPP MRID 48844533

Proebsting, A.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G: A semi-fi eld study in Denmark 2010 to evaluate effe cts of spray applications in Phacelia tanacetifolia on the honeybee Apis mellif era L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae); Eurofins Agroscience Services EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S10-01954; Do cument No.: M-423156-01-2; January 19, 2012; Pages: 143 850.SUPP MRID 48844534

Proebsting, A.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G: A semi-fi eld study in Italy 2011 to evaluate effe cts of spray appli cations in Phacelia tanacetifolia on the honeybee Apis mellif era L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae); Eurofins Agroscience Services EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S10-01955; Do cument No.: M-423172-01-2; January 18, 2012; Pages: 142 850.SUPP MRID 48844535

Rentschler, S.; Determination of side-e ffects of BYI 02960 SL 200 G on honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) brood under semi-field conditions; Eurofins Agroscience Servic es, EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbro nn, Germany; Report No.: S10-03819; Document No.: M-427438-01-2; March 19, 2012; Pages: 198 850.SUPP MRID 48844536

Rexer, H. U.; A field study to determin e residues of BYI 02960 in guttation liquid from winter oil-seed rape (OSR) plants in Northern Germany in 2010/2011; Eurofins Agroscience Services GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S10- 03312; Document No.: M-438826-01-2; Se ptember 27, 2012; Pages: 107 850.SUPP MRID 48844537

Rexer, H. U.; A field study to determin e residues of BYI 02960 in guttation liquid from winter oil-seed rape (OSR) plants in France in 2010/2011; Eurofins Agroscienc e Services GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbr onn, Germany; Report No.: S10-03313; Document No.: M-438829-01-2; Septem ber 27, 2012; Pages: 106 850.SUPP MRID 48844538

Jans, D.; Toxicity to the pa rasitoid wasp Aphidius rhopalosiphi (DESTEPHAN I-PEREZ) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) using an extended laboratory test on barley BYI 02960 SL 200 (g/L); Bayer CropScience AG, Fr ankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: CW09/083; Document No.: M-366970-01-2; April 13, 2010; Pages: 40 850.SUPP MRID 48844539

Jans, D.; Toxicity to the pred atory mite Typhlodromus pyri SC HEUTEN (Acari, Phytoseiidae) us ing an extended laboratory test on Phaseolus vulgaris BYI 02960 SL 200 (g/L); Bayer CropScience AG, Frankfurt am Main, Ge rmany; Report No.: CW09/076; Document No.: M-366968-01-2; April 13, 2010; Pages: 35 850.SUPP MRID 48844540

Jans, D.; Toxicity to the ladybird beetle Coccinella septempunctata L. (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae) using an extended laboratory test on Phaseolus vulgaris; BYI 02960 SL 200 (g/L); Bayer Cr opScience AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: CW09/074; Document No.: M-384754-01-3; June 30, 2010; Pages: 41 850.SUPP MRID 48844541

Jans, D.; Chronic toxicity (ER50) of BYI 02960 SL 200 (g/L) to the rove beetle Aleochara bilineata Gyll. (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) under extended laboratory conditions; Bayer Cr opScience AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: CW09/072; Document No.: M-384433-01-2; June 30, 2010; Pages: 29 850.SUPP MRID 48844542

### 136 Jans, D.; Toxicity to the pa rasitoid wasp Aphidius rhopalosiphi (DESTEP HANI-PEREZ) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in an extended laboratory test (under semi-field conditions aged re sidues on Zea mays) BYI 02960 SL 200 (g/L); Bayer CropScience AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Re port No.: CW10/018; Document No.: M- 396372-01-3; November 30, 2010; Pages: 74 850.SUPP MRID 48844543

Schwarz, A.; Effects of BYI 02960 SL 200 (g/L) on the predatory bug Orius laevigatus extended laboratory study - aged residue test; IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: 58691053; Document No.: M- 394033-01-3; October 28, 2010; Pages: 56 850.SUPP MRID 48844544

Aldershof, S.; Bakker, F.; A field stud y to assess the effects of BYI 02960 SL 200 g/L on the non-target, surface- and plantdwelling, arthropod fauna of a grassland habitat (off-cr op) in The Netherlands during summer; MITOX Consultants, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Repor t No.: B154FFN; Document No.: M-425092-01-3; February 17, 2012; Pages: 209 850.SUPP MRID 48844545

Aldershof, S.; Bakker, F.; A field study to assess the effects of BYI 02960 (SL 200 g/L) on the non-target, surface- and plantdwelling arthropod fauna of a grassland habitat (off-crop) in SW France during summer; MITOX Consultants, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Report No.: B153FFN; Document No.: M-425080-01-3; February 17, 2012; Pages: 201 850.SUPP MRID 48844546

Leicher, T.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G: acute toxici ty to earthworms (Eisenia fetida) tested in artificial soil with 5 percent peat; B ayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: LRT/RG-A -143/10; Document No.: M-397720-01-3; December 14, 2010; Pages: 25 850.SUPP MRID 48844547

Menke, U.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G: Effects on the earthworm fauna of a grassland area within one year; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: MNU/RG -F-8/12; Document No.: M-426607-01-2; March 07, 2012; Pages: 182 850.SUPP MRID 48844548

Frommholz, U.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G : Determination of effect s on carbon transformation in soil; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: FRM-C-116/10; Document No .: M-395469-01-3; November 23, 2010; Pages: 35 850.SUPP MRID 48844549

Frommholz, U.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G: Determ ination of effects on nitrogen transf ormation in soil; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: FRM-N-148/10; Document No .: M-396112-01-3; November 29, 2010; Pages: 29 850.SUPP MRID 48844550

### 137 Appendix A. Fate Data Table for Flupyradifurone

Table A1. Summary of the new chemical sc reen of the environmental fate data for flupyradifurone

Guideline Test Substance Comments Classificatio

n Additional Data Needed? MRID Citation Hydrolysis 835.2120 Parent 50 o C, 5 days, sterility lost in one chamber at one time point Fully Reliable No 48843667 (Mislankar and Woodard,

2011) Photodegradation in Water 835.2240 Parent Only furanone ring labeled. Fully Reliable Yes, degradates associated with unlabeled ring are unknown. Additional data are needed to understand the possible degradates

associated with the

pyradine ring. 48843669 (Hall, 2011) Parent Only furanone ring labeled Fully Reliable 48843670 (Hall, 2011) Parent Nonguideline quantum yield study Not Reviewed 48843668 (Heinemann, 2011) Photodegradation on Soil 835.2410 Parent -- Fully Reliable No 48843672 (Menke and Unold, 2011) Photodegradation in Air 835.2370 Parent No laboratory data. Estimates based on computer modeling. Not classified No, volatilization and atmospheric transport is expected to be a minor

transport pathway. 48843671 (Hellpointner , 2010)

Aerobic Soil Metabolism 835.4100 Parent 120 day experiment 24 to 50% present as parent at study termination. Unextracted residues reached 17%. All German soils. Pyridinylmethyl group labeled. Reliable with restrictions 2 No, additional data are not needed at this time because

the unextracted residues did not impact the risk conclusions at this time. 48843674 (Menke,

2011) 48843675 (Sur and Dorn, 2012) Parent 120 day experiment 20 to 45% present as parent at study termination. Furanone ring labeled. Unextrcted residues up to 34%. German soils. Reliable with restrictions 48843676 (Menke,

2011) 48843678 (Sur and Dorn, 2012) Parent Furanone labeled. Study terminated at 120 days and 30 and 67% remained as parent. 16-30% unextracted residues formed. U.S. soils. Reliable with restrictions 48843677 (Ripperger, 2011)

Parent German soils. 120 day experiment 23 – 40% remained as parent at end of study. Unextracted residues reached 18%. Ethyl group labeled. Rings not labeled. German soils. Pyridine ring labeled also. Reliable with restrictions 48843679 (Menke and Unold, 2011)

48843680 (Sur and Dorn, 2012)

### 138 Guideline Test Substance Comments Classificatio

n Additional Data Needed? MRID Citation Parent 120 day experiment, 23% remained as parent. German soil.

Unextracted residues reached 17%. Reliable with restrictions 48843681 (Menke and Unold, 2011)

48843684 (Sur and Dorn, 2012)

Parent U.S. soils. Unextracted residues reached maximum of 11-25%. 120 day experiment, 40-67% remained as parent at end of study. Yes 48843682 (Shepherd,

2011)

Parent Brazilian soils. Pyridine ring labeled. 120 day experiment, 54 – 72% remained as parent. Yes 48843683 (de Souza,

2012)

6-CNA U.K soils. Unextracted residues up to 21% Reliable with restrictions No 48843685 (Sur and Dorn, 2012)

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism 835.4200 (162-2) Parent Unextracted residues reached a maximum of 30% in one soil. 3 different labels. Reliable with restrictions No, data indicates that flupyradifurone is relatively stable to anaerobic soil metabolism. 48843686 (Menke and Unold, 2012)

Parent U.S. soil. Unextracted residues reached 19% and remained constant through anaerobic phase. ~10% loss of parent during anaerobic phase, 1 soil. Pyridine labeled. Reliable with restrictions 48843687 (Mislankar and Woodard,

2012)

Parent U.S. soil. Pyridine labeled. Only followed for 60 days under anaerobic conditions. Unextracted residues reached 15%. Reliable with restrictions 48843688 (Woodard,

2012)

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 845.4300 (162-4) Parent Pyridine ring labeled only. Sediments from Germany. Unextracted residues reached 25%. 64 and 71% remained as parent at end of 120 day study. Reliable with restrictions 1 No. These studies should have been extended to one year to fully characterize the formation and decline

curve. Additionally, a

range of polar and nonpolar solvents should have been used to determine whether unextracted residues could

be better characterized. The unextracted residue uncertainty is not currently

having an affect on risk conclusions. 48843690 (Hellpointner

and Unold, 2012)

Parent Furanone ring labeled, ethyl group labeled. Systems from Germany.

Unextracted residues reached 27%. >67% remaining as parent

at end of 120 day experiment. Reliable with restrictions 1 48843692 (Menke and Unold, 2012)

DFA Unextracted residues were high (16%) in one test system. Both systems had a couple of unextracted residue outliers at 40 and 55%. Reliable with restrictions 1 48843691 (Hellpointner

and Unold, 2012)

Anaerobic Parent Unextracted residues reached 12% Reliable with No. Evid ence indicates 48843689

### 139 Guideline Test Substance Comments Classificatio

n Additional Data Needed? MRID Citation Aquatic Metabolism 835.4400 (162-3) in one system. Two U.S. pond systems. Pyridine ring labeled. Loss of parent in one sediment

could be due to presence of unextracted residues. Studies were only conducted for 102 days. restrictions that compound is relatively stable to anaerobic metabolism. Therefore, additional data are not recommended at this time. (Xu, 2012)

Adsorption/ Desorption 835.1230 And Leaching Studies 835.1240 Parent 4 German soils. Identity confirmed at highest test concentration only. Fully reliable No, data are recommended for measurement in one aquatic sediment. As this

data item is expected to have a low impact on the risk conclusions, additional data are not requested at this time. 48843662 (Menke and

Telscher,

2008) Parent 2 U.S. soils. Identity of test substance not confirmed. Aerobic

soil half-lives suggest minimal loss in 24 hours. Fully reliable 48843663 (Stroech,

2010)

Parent 4 brazilian soils. Fully reliable 48843664 (de Souza,

2012) DFA 5 German soils. Fully reliable 48843665 (Menke and Unold, 2011) Parent Soil column leaching study Fully reliable 48843666 (de Souza,

2012) Laboratory Volatility 835.1410 (163-2) -- -- -- No, volatilization and atmospheric transport is expected to be a minor

transport pathway. --

Field volatilty 835.8100 (163-3) -- -- -- --

Terrestrial Field Dissipation 835.6100 (164-1) BYI 02960 200 SL Bare ground Tulare County, CA Reliable with restrictions Yes, terrestrial field dissipation studies are recommended on cropped plots when plants may be

an important route of dissipation as well as bare ground sites. Field dissipation studies should be completed on 48843693 (Lenz, 2012)

BYI 02960 200 SL Bare ground, Florida Reliable with restrictions 48843694 (Lenz, 2012)

### 140 Guideline Test Substance Comments Classificatio

n Additional Data Needed? MRID Citation

BYI 02960 200 SL Bare ground, Blained County, Idaho Reliable with restrictions representative use sites for the range of proposed uses in the United States. Currently, studies are only available for bare ground

sites. Additionally, the degradates BYI-02960- succinamide and BYI 02960- azabicyclosuccinamide were major degradates

observed in aquaous photolysis studies. These

degradates should be followed in the terrestrial field dissipation studies. 48843695 (Lenz, 2012)

BYI 02960 200 SL 3 bare ground plots in Canada Reliable with restrictions 48843696 (Harbin,

2012)

BYI 02960 200 SL Bare ground sites in United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and two sites in Germany. Sites were planted with grass. Yes 48843697 (Heinemann, 2011)

Aquatic Sediment Dissipation 835.6200 (164-2) Parent Microcosm studies, 6 polycarbonate cylinders treated in pond. Germany Reliable with restrictions No, a terrestrial/aquatic field dissipation study

would be needed to support use on cranberries. However, it is planned that the use on cranberries will

not be included on the final label. 48843673 (Bruns, 2012)

Environmental Chemistry Methods Soil and sediment HPLC/MS/MS method used in U.S. terrestrial field dissipation studies. Examined residues of parent, DFA, 6CNA. LOQ was 5 ng/g and method detection limits ranged were 1.6, 1.1, and 0.6 for parent, 6CNA, and DFA, respectively. Fully reliable No 48843830, 48843831, 48843832, and 48843833

(ILV)

Water Direct injection with HPLC/MS/MS method examining residues of parent and DFA (LOQ =1 ng/mL), BYI 02960- succinamide (LOQ 1.0 ng/mL), and BYI-zazbicyclosuccinamide (LOQ 51.0 ng/mL). Fully reliable No 48843835, 48843836, 48843837

(ILV)

Storage Stability Soil Parent, DFA, and 6CNA Fully reliable No 48843840 Forestry Dissipation 835.6300 -- -- -- No

Fish Bioconcentration 850.1730 No

NA: Not applicable; DFA=Sodium dilfluoracetate [sodium salt]/difluo roacetci acid [free acid]; 6CNA=6- chloronicotinic acid; LOQ=limit of quantitation;

1 This study was considered reliable with restrictions due to the presence of unextracted residues at greater than 10% applied radioactivity, uncertainty in th e quality of the extraction procedure, and because studies were terminated before the DT 50 was established and were not carried out for 1 year.

### 141 2 Studies were classified as reliable with restrictions due to the presence of unextracted residues at greater than 10% applied radioactivity and a range of polar and nonpolar solvents were not explored to determine whether the unextracted residues could be further char acterized. Studies were also classified as reliable with restrictions because they were terminated after 120 days and when a si gnificant portion of the re sidues remained parent.

### 142 Appendix B. Effects Data Table for Flupyradifurone

Table B1. Summary of the new chemical scr een of effects data for flupyradifurone (see Appendix J for study rating crosswalk with OPP classification systems)

Guideline Description MRID(s) Test Substance Common Name (Species) Classification (Additional Data Needed?)

850.2100 Avian acute oral toxicity, waterfowl None N/A N/A N/A

Avian acute oral toxicity, upland game bird species, TGAI 48843715 (Fredericks and

Stoughton,

2011) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Northern Bobwhite Quail ( Colinus virginianus ) Fully reliable

Avian acute oral toxicity, passerine

species, TGAI 48843716 (Christ and Fredericks, 2011) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Canary ( Serinus canaria ) Reliable with restrictions

Avian acute oral toxicity, additional

species, TGAI 48843717 (Barfknecht and Wilkens 2011) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Chicken ( Gallus gallus ) Reliable with restrictions

Avian acute oral

toxicity, TEP 48844512 (Stoughton and

Christ, 2012) BYI 02960 SL200 (17.1%) Northern Bobwhite Quail ( Colinus virginianus ) Fully reliable

Avian acute oral

toxicity, TEP 48844513 (Barfknecht and Wilkens 2012) BYI 02960 SL200 (17.1%) Chicken ( Gallus gallus ) Reliable with restrictions

850.2200 Avian dietary toxicity, waterfowl

species, TGAI 48843719 (Fredericks et

al., 2010) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Mallard Duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) Fully reliable

Avian dietary toxicity, upland game bird, TGAI 48843718 (Stoughton and

Lam, 2010) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Northern Bobwhite Quail ( Colinus virginianus ) Fully reliable

850.2300 Avian reproduction, waterfowl species, TGAI 48843721 (Stoughton et

al., 2011) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Mallard Duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) Reliable with restrictions

Avian reproduction,

upland game bird

species, TGAI 48843720 (Stoughton et

al., 2012) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Northern Bobwhite Quail ( Colinus virginianus ) Fully reliable

850.2400 Wild mammal toxicity None N/A N/A N/A

### 143 Guideline Description MRID(s) Test Substance Common Name (Species) Classification (Additional Data Needed?)

850.2500 Simulated or actual field testing None N/A N/A N/A

850.1010 Freshwater invertebrate, acute

toxicity, TGAI 48843701 (Banman and Lam, 2009) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Water Flea Daphnia magna Fully reliable

850.1010 Freshwater invertebrate, acute toxicity, TEP 48844509 (Riebschlaeger, 2010) BYI 02960 SL200G (17.1%) Water Flea Daphnia magna Fully reliable

850.1025 Estuarine/Marine Mollusk acute toxicity, TGAI 48843703 (Gallagher et

al., 2009) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Eastern Oyster

Crassostrea

virginica Fully reliable

850.1035 Estuarine/Marine

crustacean acute toxicity, TGAI 48843704 (Gallagher et

al., 2009) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Mysid Shrimp Americamysis bahia Fully reliable

850.1035 Estuarine/Marine

crustacean acute

toxicity, TEP None N/A N/A N/A (No data needed: direct application to

estuarine/marine environment is not indicated on labels, and TEP is unlikely to move to the estuarine/marine environment)

850.1075 Freshwater fish, acute toxicity, TGAI 48843706 (Matlock and Lam, 2010) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Fully reliable

Freshwater fish, acute toxicity, TGAI 48843707 (Bruns, 2011) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Not reliable

Freshwater fish, acute toxicity, TEP 48844511 (Bruns, 2011) BYI 02960 SL200G (17.1%) Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Fully reliable

Freshwater fish, acute toxicity, cold water species, TGAI 48843705 (Matlock and Lam, 2010) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Rainbow Trout Oncorhunchus mykiss Fully reliable

### 144 Guideline Description MRID(s) Test Substance Common Name (Species) Classification (Additional Data Needed?)

Freshwater fish, acute toxicity, TEP 48844510 (Bruns, 2010) BYI 02960 SL200G (17.1%) Rainbow Trout Oncorhunchus mykiss Fully reliable

Estuarine/Marine fish acute toxicity, TGAI 48843710 (Banman and Lam, 2009) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Sheepshead Minnow Cyprinodon variegatus Fully reliable

850.1300 Freshwater invertebrate, reproduction test, TGAI 48843711 (Riebschlaeger, 2011) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Water Flea Daphnia magna Fully reliable

850.1350 Estuarine/marine invertebrate, reproduction test, TGAI 48843713 (Claude, 2011) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Mysid Shrimp Americamysis bahia Reliable with restrictions

850.1400 Freshwater fish, early life stage test, TGAI 48843714 (Matlock and Lam, 2011) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Fully reliable

Saltwater fish, early life stage test, TGAI None N/A N/A N/A (No: flupyradifurone is not a major concern for

fish based on available data)

850.1500 Freshwater fish life cycle test, TGAI None N/A N/A N/A

Estuarine/marine Fish life cycle test None N/A N/A N/A

850.1735 Whole sediment 10-d freshwater

invertebrate None N/A N/A N/A (No: Kow <3; Kd <50; Koc <1000)

850.1740 Whole sediment 10- d estuarine/marine invertebrate None N/A N/A N/A (No: Kow <3; Kd <50; Koc <1000)

Agencywide guideline Whole sediment chronic freshwater

and/or marine invertebrate None N/A N/A N/A (No: Kow <3; Kd <50; Koc <1000)

850.1950 Simulated or actual field testing for aquatic organisms None N/A N/A N/A

850.3020 Honeybee acute contact and oral toxicity, TGAI 48843722 (Schmitzer, 2008) BYI 02960 (99.5%) Honeybee Apis mellifera Fully reliable

### 145 Guideline Description MRID(s) Test Substance Common Name (Species) Classification (Additional Data Needed?)

Honeybee acute contact and oral toxicity, Degradate 48843723 (Schmitzer, 2010) BYI0296 -difluoroethylaminofuranone (99.2%) Honeybee Apis mellifera Fully reliable

Honeybee acute contact and oral toxicity, Degradate 48843724 (Schmitzer, 2011) BYI 02960- hydroxy (95.5%) Honeybee Apis mellifera Reliable with restrictions

Honeybee acute contact and oral toxicity, Degradate 48843725 (Schmitzer, 2010) Difluoroaceti c acid (95.8%) Honeybee Apis mellifera Fully reliable

Honeybee acute contact and oral toxicity, Degradate 48843726 (Schmitzer, 2010) 6- chloronicotin ic acid - 

### AE F161089,

(98.8%) Honeybee Apis mellifera Fully reliable

Honeybee acute contact and oral toxicity, Degradate 48843727 (Schmitzer, 2010) 6-chloropicolylalcoho l (98.95) Honeybee Apis mellifera Fully reliable

Honeybee acute contact and oral toxicity—TEP 48844514 (Schmitzer, 2009) BYI 02960 SL200G (17.0%) Honeybee Apis mellifera Fully reliable

Honeybee acute contact and oral toxicity—TEP 48844515 (Schmitzer, 2010) BYI 02960 SL 200 G (17.0%) + Tebuconazol e EW 250C G (25.4%) Honeybee Apis mellifera Fully reliable

Honeybee acute contact and oral toxicity—TEP 48844711 Schmitzer,

2011) BYI 02960 FS480G Honeybee Apis mellifera Fully reliable

850.3030 Honeybee toxicity of residues on foliage, TEP 48843728 (Porch and Krueger, 2011) BYI 02960 SL 200 (39.9%) Honeybee Apis mellifera Reliable with restrictions

850.3040 Field testing for pollinators, TEP 48844516 (Rexer, 2012) BYI 02960 FS480G and

SL200G (sequentially) Honeybee Apis mellifera Reliable with restrictions

48844517 (Rexer, 2012) BYI 02960 FS480G and

SL200G (sequentially) Honeybee Apis mellifera Reliable with restrictions

### 146 Guideline Description MRID(s) Test Substance Common Name (Species) Classification (Additional Data Needed?)

850.4100 Seedling emergence, TEP 48843729 (Gosch, 2010) BYI 02960 200 SL (17%) Beta vulgaris (Sugar beet), Brassica napus (Oilseed rape), Cucumis sativus

(Cucumber), Fagopyrum esculentum (Buckwheat), Glycine max (Soybean), Lactuca sativa (Lettuce), Lycopersicon

esculentum (Tomato), Allium

cepa (Onion), Avena sativa (Oat), Lolium

perenne (Ryegrass),

Zea mays (Corn) Reliable with restrictions (Yes: statistically significant effects on dry weight and shoot length in the limit test; definitive test

needed for dicot plants)

850.4150 Vegetative vigor, TEP 48843730 (Gosch, 2010) BYI 02960 200 SL (17%) Beta vulgaris (Sugar beet), Brassica napus (Oilseed rape), Cucumis sativus

(Cucumber), Fagopyrum esculentum (Buckwheat), Glycine max (Soybean), Lactuca sativa (Lettuce), Lycopersicon

esculentum (Tomato), Allium

cepa (Onion), Avena sativa (Oat), Lolium

perenne (Ryegrass),

Zea mays (Corn) Reliable with restrictions (Yes: statistically significant effects on dry weight in the limit test; definitive test needed for dicot plants)

850.4400 Aquatic plant, vascular plant, TGAI 48843731 (Banman et al., 2010) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Duckweed Lemna gibba Reliable with restrictions

850.4500 Aquatic Plant, freshwater green alga species, TGAI 48843732 (Banman and Lam, 2010) BYI 02960 (96.2%) Green algae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata Fully reliable

### 147 Guideline Description MRID(s) Test Substance Common Name (Species) Classification (Additional Data Needed?)

850.4500 Aquatic Plant, freshwater green alga species, TGAI 48844518 (Bruns, 2010) BYI 02960 SL200G (17.1%) Green algae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata Fully reliable

850.4500 Tier II Aquatic Plant, freshwater

diatom, TGAI None N/A N/A N/A (Yes: data are generally requested for a freshwater diatom, marine diatom, and cyanobacteria)

850.4500 Tier I Aquatic Plant, marine diatom, TGAI N/A N/A N/A N/A (Yes: data are generally requested for a freshwater diatom, marine diatom, and cyanobacteria)

850.4550 Tier II Aquatic Plant, cyanobacterium, TGAI N/A N/A N/A N/A (Yes: data are generally requested for a freshwater diatom, marine diatom, and cyanobacteria)

### 148 Appendix C. Summary of A quatic Modeling Completed

Table C1. Estimated Concentrations of Flupy radifurone Plus Unextracted Residues (FLUUN) and Flupyradifurone alone (FLU) in Surface Water Values with an asterisk were calculate d for flupyradifurone alone. Values without an asterisk were calculated for flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues. Purple values were the highest across scenarios. Bold values were the highest value for the use site.Use SiteSingle App.Ratelbs. ai/Aa(kg ai/ha)# of AppRet. Int.daysApp. TypeScenarioApplicationDate(DD-MM) EECs for parent plus unextracted residues in μg/L EECs for parent alone in μg/L* Water Column Pore Water

Peak 21-day

average 60-day

average Peak 21-day

average

Crop Group 15: Cereal Grains (except Rice) 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A IAcornSTD (01-06) 7.90 7.51 6.92 5.77 5.77 ILcornSTD (01-06) 11.0 10.5 9.77 8.42 8.41 INcornSTD (01-06 8.05 7.66 7.06 5.80 5.80 KSSorghumSTD (01- 06) 11.7 11.2 10.3 8.82 8.81

MNcornSTD (01-07) 14.4 13.7 12.6 11.3 11.3 MScornSTD (10-04) 15.6 14.8 13.6 10.8 10.8 NCcornESTD (01-06) 10.3 9.84 8.98 7.80 7.96+

NEcornSTD (02-09) 22.4 23.5* 19.4s* 21.7 22.8* 18.8s* 20.6 21.6* 18.0s* 17.9 18.9* 15.5s* 18.0+ 19.0+* 15.6s*+ NDwheatSTD (01-06) 11.0 10.5 9.84 9.00 9.09+ OHcornSTD (01-05) 7.86 7.52 7.14 5.91 5.91 PAcornSTD (01-07) 11.5 11.0 10.5 9.01 9.00 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, G NEcornSTD (02-09) 22.2* 20.2s* 21.6* 19.6s* 20.5* 18.8s* 17.9* 16.2s* 17.9 16.3s*

Cotton 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A CAcotton_WirrigSTD (01-01) 7.54 7.21 6.66 5.27 5.27

MScottonSTD (10-05) 8.54 8.15 7.52 6.98 7.08+

NCcottonSTD (20-09) 19.1 19.6* 16.2s* 18.4 19.0* 15.6s* 17.5 18.1* 15.1s* 15.4 15.9* 13.3s* 15.4 15.9* 13.3s*

F, G NCcottonSTD (20-09) 18.1 18.6* 16.9s* 17.5 17.9* 16.3s* 16.6 17.2* 15.7s* 14.7 15.1* 138.s* 14.7 15.1* 13.8s*

Peanut 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A NCpeanutSTD (25-09) 10.5 10.9* 7.31s* 10.0 10.4* 6.97s* 9.52 9.81* 6.69s* 7.72 8.11* 5.44s* 7.71 8.10* 5.44s*

F, G NCpeanutSTD (25-09) 9.09 10.9* 9.13s* 8.62 10.4* 8.95s* 8.36 10.1* 8.59s* 6.67 8.46* 7.14s* 6.66 8.47* 7.15s*+

Root Veg. (except Sugarbeet) and Tuberous and Corm Veg. 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A FLcarrotSTD (01-11) 18.0 18.9* 16.0s* 39.3a* 43.0b* 45.8c* 63.8d* 17.5 18.3* 15.3s* 37.6a* 41.7b* 44.5c* 62.1d8 15.8 16.6* 13.8s* 34.0a* 38.4b* 41.1c* 62.1d* 12.3 13.0* 10.7s* 27.9a* 32.1b* 35.1c* 56.2d* 12.2 12.9 10.6s* 26.8a* 30.8b* 33.8c* 55.9d* IDpotato_wirrigSTD (01-06) 4.92 4.71 4.39 3.73 3.72

MEpotatoSTD (01-06) 8.12 7.89 7.61 7.00 6.99 MIasparagusSTD (01- 09) 6.02 5.87 6.20+ 5.70 5.70

MNsurgarbeetSTD (01- 06) 10.8 10.3 9.61 8.68 8.67

### 149Use SiteSingle App.Ratelbs. ai/Aa(kg ai/ha)# of AppRet. Int.daysApp. TypeScenarioApplicationDate(DD-MM) EECs for parent plus unextracted residues in μg/L EECs for parent alone in μg/L* Water Column Pore Water

Peak 21-day

average 60-day

average Peak 21-day

average

ORmintSTD (15-04) 4.11 3.93 3.68 3.13 3.13 NCsweetpotatoSTD (01-06) 9.43 9.01 8.25 7.42 7.47+

F, G FLcarrotSTD (01-11) 17.4 18.2* 16.7s* 16.7 17.4* 15.9s* 15.1 15.8* 14.4s* 11.6 12.3* 11.1s* 11.5 12.2* 11.0s*

Legume Veg. (Succulent or Dried) 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A MIbeansSTD (25-08) 16.0 15.9s 16.8* 12.3s* 15.3 15.1s 16.1* 11.8s* 14.3 13.7s 15.3* 11.7s* 14.2 10.4s 15.1* 11.6s* 14.3+ 10.4s 15.2* 11.7s*+ ORsnbeanssSTD (01- 06) 7.56 7.23 6.71 5.73 5.73

F, G MIbeansSTD (25-08) 17.7 19.1* 17.8s* 17.0 19.7* 18.2s* 15.9 17.9* 16.5s* 14.2 13.8* 12.7s* 14.4+ 13.7* 12.5s*

Fruiting Vegetables 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A CAtomato_wirrigSTD (01-03) 4.98 4.79 4.47 3.58 3.57

FLtomatoSTD_v2 (22- 05) 19.1 15.9s 19.9* 16.5s* 18.1 15.1s 18.9* 15.6s* 16.4 13.7s 17.3* 14.3s* 12.6 10.4s 13.3* 11.0s* 12.5 10.4s 13.3* 11.0s* PAtomatoSTD (01-05) 6.63 6.41 6.09 5.08 5.07 FLpeppersSTD (01-09) 10.9 10.4 10.2 7.78 7.78 0.37 (0.40) 1 -- S, G FLtomatoSTD_v2 (01- 03) 15.9* 14.8s* 16.3* 15.1s* 16.7* 15.4s* 12.7* 11.7s* 12.7* 11.7s*

Cucurbit Vegetables 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A MOmelonSTD (10-04) 7.00 6.64 6.09 4.92 4.91

FLcucumberSTD (01- 11) 18.7 16.3s 19.8* 17.1s* 19.6+ 16.9s 20.5* 17.5s*+ 17.8 15.1s 18.7* 15.8s* 13.7 11.5s 14.5* 12.1s* 13.5 11.4s 14.4* 12.0s* NJmelonSTD (01-07) 10.6 10.1 9.45 9.41 9.40 MImelonSTD (01-07) 9.70 9.19 8.47 6.91 6.91

F, G FLcucumberSTD (01- 11) 18.2 19.1* 17.8s* 19.0+ 19.7* 18.2s* 17.1 17.9* 16.5s* 13.0 13.8* 12.7* 12.9 13.7* 12.5s*

0.37 (0.40) 1 -- S, G FLcucumberSTD (01- 11) 18.1 18.5* 16.9s* 18.2 19.0*+ 17.6s*+ 19.3+ 20.3*+ 18.8s*+ 14.2 14.9* 13.8s* 13.6 14.3* 13.2s*

Hops 0.14 (0.15) 1 0.14 (0.1 5) F, A ORhopsSTD (29-08) 5.40 5.57* 2.14s* 5.24 5.41 * 2.07s* 5.22 5.41* 1.99s* 4.52 4.73* 1.74s* 4.52 4.73* 1.74s*

F, G ORhopsSTD (29-08) 3.85 3.98* 2.29s* 3.75 3.89* 2.22s* 3.67 3.84* 2.11s* 3.16 3.32* 1.84s* 3.16 3.32* 1.84s*

Citrus Fruit 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A CAcitrus_WirrigSTD (01-01) 4.34 4.13 3.84 3.26 3.26

FLcitrusSTD (02-10) 22.8 20.6s 24.4* 22.0s* 3.45 ∞ * 23.6 21.3s 25.1* 22.5s*

-- 22.8 20.1s 23.7* 20.8s*

-- 17.2 15.1s 18.1* 15.8s* 2.38 ∞ * 17.0 14.9s 17.8* 15.5s*

-- F, AB FLcitrusSTD (02-10) 22.2 23.0+ 21.9 16.4 16.2

### 150Use SiteSingle App.Ratelbs. ai/Aa(kg ai/ha)# of AppRet. Int.daysApp. TypeScenarioApplicationDate(DD-MM) EECs for parent plus unextracted residues in μg/L EECs for parent alone in μg/L* Water Column Pore Water

Peak 21-day

average 60-day

average Peak 21-day

average

F, G FLcitrusSTD (02-10) 22.6 23.3 22.3 16.8 16.6

0.37 (0.40) 1 -- S, G FLcitrusSTD (02-10) 24.4 24.6* 23.1s* 1.75 ∞ * 23.3 23.7* 22.2*

-- 22.3 22.6* 21.1s*

-- 17.0 17.4* 16.2s* 1.18 ∞ * 16.9 17.2* 16.0s*

--

Pome Fruit 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A CAfruit_WirrigSTD (16-01) 3.98 3.79 3.51 2.99 2.99

NCapplesSTD (01-06) 7.31 6.91 6.42 5.70 5.74+ ORappleSTD (01-10) 6.24 6.09 5.80 5.19 5.18

PAappleSTD_V2 (24- 8) 12.2 12.5* 8.73* 11.5 11.8* 8.26s* 10.5 10.9* 7.59s* 8.98 9.34* 6.40s* 9.00+ 9.36*+ 6.39s* F, AB PAappleSTD_V2 (24- 08) 10.2 10.5* 9.60 9.99* 8.87 9.19* 7.37 7.72* 7.37 7.72*

F, G PAappleSTD_V2 (24- 08) 10.7 11.0* 9.10s* 10.1 10.4* 8.61s* 9.28 9.56* 7.90s* 7.81 8.05* 6.59s* 7.81 8.05* 6.58s*

Bushberry 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A NYgrapesSTD (01-09) 9.30 9.65* 6.06s* 9.05 9.43* 6.04s* 9.11+ 9.67* 6.20s* 9.38 9.88* 6.46s* 9.52+ 10.0*+ 6.56s* ORberriesOP (07-04) 4.20 4.01 3.79 3.18 3.18

F, G NYgrapesSTD (01-09) 7.64 7.98* 6.32s* 7.50 7.96* 6.29s* 7.73+ 8.18*+ 6.46s* 8.03 8.48* 6.73s* 8.16+ 8.55* 6.84s*

Low Growing Berry (excluding Cranberry) 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A Flstrawberry_WirrigST D (10-11) 12.9* 10.2s* 12.8* 9.66s* 11.6* 8.68s* 8.78* 6.39s* 8.21* 6.15s* ORberriesSTD (07-04) 4.20 4.01 3.79 3.18 3.18

F, G Flstrawberry_WirrigST D (10-11) 14.3* 10.6s* 16.2* 10.1s* 15.4*+ 9.04s* 9.38* 6.66s* 9.23* 6.41s*

Small Fruit Vine Climbing (except Fuzzy Kiwifruit) 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A High from bushberry, NYgrapesSTD (01-09) 8.26 5.71s 9.65* 6.06s* 7.97 5.72s 9.43* 6.04s* 7.63+ 5.89s+ 9.67* 6.20s* 6.59 6.20s 9.88* 6.46s* 6.60+ 6.30s+ 10.0*+ 6.56s*

NYgrapesSTD (01-09) 7.90 8.28* 6.31s* 7.88 8.14* 6.03s* 7.43 7.64* 5.66s* 6.17 6.38* 4.67s* 6.17 6.39*+ 4.66s* ORberriesOP (07-04) 2.55 2.43 2.28 1.86 1.86 CAgrapes_WirrigSTD (01-02) 2.45 2.32 2.14 1.69 1.69

Tree Nut 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A GApecansSTD (01-06) 9.52 9.73* 6.55s* 8.98 9.26* 6.51s* 8.21 8.75* 6.80s* 8.49 8.90* 6.53s* 8.60 8.90* 6.54s* CAalmond_WirrigSTD (16-01) 5.61 5.34 4.93 4.00 3.99

ORfilbertSTD (02-11) 7.55 7.29 7.10 5.96 5.94

Prickly Pear 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, G CAcitrus_WirrigSTD (01-01) 2.80 2.98* 1.24s* 2.67 2.86* 1.22s* 2.49 2.68* 1.27s*+ 2.14 2.22* 1.04s* 2.14 2.22* 1.04s* Nongrass Animal Feeds (Forage, Fodder, Straw, 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A ILalfalfaNMC (01-07) 10.9 10.4 9.81 8.19 8.18 MNalfalfaOP (01-06) 8.58 8.21 7.66 6.92 6.91 NCalfalfaOP (01-06) 9.89 9.36 8.64 7.77 7.82+ PAalfalfaOP (01-07) 8.99 8.67 8.02 6.64 6.76+

### 151Use SiteSingle App.Ratelbs. ai/Aa(kg ai/ha)# of AppRet. Int.daysApp. TypeScenarioApplicationDate(DD-MM) EECs for parent plus unextracted residues in μg/L EECs for parent alone in μg/L* Water Column Pore Water

Peak 21-day

average 60-day

average Peak 21-day

average

Hay)

TXalfalfaOP (09-05) 23.6 20.4s 25.2* 21.8s* 3.55 ∞ * 22.8e* 17.6f* 22.4 19.3s 24.0* 20.8s*

-- 21.5e* 15.7f* 20.5 17.7s 22.1* 19.2s*

-- 19.90e* 13.9f* 15.7 13.5s 17.2* 14.8s* 2.47 ∞ * 15.3e* 11.5f* 15.8+ 13.5s 17.2* 14.9s*

-- 15.30e* 11.5f* CArangelandhayRLF_ V2 (01-01) 10.3 9.78 8.99 6.91 6.90

Soybean Seed Treatment 0.37 (0.40) 1 -- G MSsoybeanSTD (14 days before crop emergence) 6.90 6.97* 6.53 6.61* 5.93 6.05* 4.61 4.70* 4.60 4.70*

Abbreviations: App=Application; A=aerial application; AB=airblast application; Ave=average; Veg.=vegetables; Ret. Int.=retreatment interval * Results designated with an asterisk are for residues of flupyradifurone alone. All othe r values reflect residues of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues. s Simulation without spray drift. a Simulation for two seasons per year. Appl ications occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, a nd 11/9. The modified FLcarrotSTD scenario was used for this simulation. b Simulation with three seasons a year. Applications occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, 11/9, 12/1, and 12/9. The modified FLcarrotSTD scenario was used for this simulation. c Simulation with four seasons a year. A pplications occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, 11/9, 12/1, 12/9, 01/01, and 01/09. The modified FLcarrotSTD scenario was used for this simulation. d Simulation with five seasons a year. A pplications occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, 11/9, 12/1, 12/9, 01/01, 01/09, 02/01, and 02/09. The modified FLcarrotSTD scenario was used for this simulation. e Simulation was completed assuming a K oc value of 274 L/kg-oc, double the standard K oc input of 137 L/kg-oc. This simulates what a Koc might have been if sediment data were available. f Simulation was completed assuming a K oc value of 779 L/kg-oc. This is the highest K oc measured at a 0.0023 mg/L equilibrium flupyradifurone concentration in water in the batch equilibrium study conducted on the Gleissolo soil. This simulation provide s an estimation of the uncertainty in assuming linear so rption when nonlinear sorption is expected to occur.

+ The 1 in 10 year 21-day average value reported is higher than the 1 in 10 year peak EECs. This may occur because the 21-day average calculation may include days from another year but at least one day is in the year of interest, while the calculation o f the peak concentration is only ba sed on values in that year.

∞ Simulation was completed assuming 0% application efficiency. This essentially estimates EECs that could result from spray drift alone. This value may be used to evaluate the toxicity of end-use products.

### 152 Table C2. Estimated Concentrations of Flupy radifurone plus Unextracted residues (FLUUN) or Flupyradifurone alone (values designated with an asterick) in Groundwater Source Irrigation Water

Bold values were the highest value for the use site.

Use Site (Timing of App) Single App. Rate lbs. ai/A (kg ai/ha) # of App Ret. Int. Days App. Type EEC for flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues EEC for flupyradifurone alone* (μg/L)SCIGROW PRZM-GW

Peak Scenario Daily Peak Post Breakthrough Average Ave Breakthrough Time (Days) Foliar Application (10 days post emergence) 0.18 (0.20) 2 7 F, A 2.10 1.09* WI 95.7 63.5* 190a 284b 89.4 57.7* 178a 26b 4205

Soil Application(10 days postemergence) 0.37 (0.40) 1 -- G 2.16 WI 96.0 89.6 4205

Seed Treatment(14 days preemergence) 0.37 (0.40) 1 -- G 2.16 1.01* 4.31 α WI 95.7 63.1* 89.7 58.0* 4205

Abbreviations: App=Application; A=aerial application; AB=airblast application; NJ/DE=Delmarva Sweet Corn; NC=NC cotton; WI=Wisconsin Corn; GA=Georgia Peanuts; Ave. =average; Ret. Int.=retreatment interval * Results are for residues of flupyradifurone plus M47 plus M48. All other values reflect residue s of flupyradifurone plus M47 plus M48 plus unextracted residues. a Simulation for two seasons per year. b Simulation with three seasons a year.

### 153 Appendix D. Example Aquatic Modeling Output for the Groundwater Modeling

Groundwater Analysis for Flupyradifurone a nd the Wisconsin Corn - WI Central Sands Scenario Estimated groundwater concentrations and break through times for Enter chemical name or descriptive information are presented in Table 1 for the Wisconsin Corn - WI Central Sands groundwater scenario. A graphical presentation of the daily concentrations in the aquifer is presented in Figure 1. These values were genera ted with the PRZM-GW (Version 1.07). Critical input values for the model are su mmarized in Tables 2 and 3.

Table D1. Groundwater Results for Enter chemic al name or descriptive information and the Wisconsin Corn - WI Central Sands Scenario.

Peak Concentration (ppb) 95.7 Post-Breakthrough Mean Concentration (ppb) 89.4

Entire Simulation Mean Concentration (ppb) 57.8

Average Breakthrough Time (days) 4205.959

Throughputs 2.605827

Table D2. Chemical Properties for Groundwat er Modeling of Enter chemical name or descriptive information.

Koc (ml/g) 137 Surface Soil Half Life (days) 371 Hydrolysis Half Life (days) 0 Diffusion Coefficint Air (cm2/day) 0

Henry's Constant 0.0 Enthalpy (kcal/mol) 0.0

Table D3. Pesticide application scheme used for Enter chemical name or descriptive information. This application scheme wa s applied every year of the simulation.

Application Days Relative to Emergence Date (05/01) Application Method Application Rate (kg/ha)

10 Above canopy application 0.20

### 154 18 Above canopy application 0.20

Figure D1. Aquifer Breakthrough Curve fo r Enter chemical name or descriptive information and the Wisconsin Corn - WI Central Sands Scenario

### 155 Appendix E. Example Aquatic Modeling Output for the SWCC

Florida Citrus – Unextracted Residues Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0

******************************************* Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:11

Peak 1-in-10 = 22.8 ppb Chronic 1-in-10 = 10.7 ppb Simulation Avg = 6.00 ppb 4-day avg 1-in-10 = 22.9 ppb 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 23.6 ppb 60-day avg 1-in-10 = 22.8 ppb 90-day avg 1-in-10 = 20.4 ppb

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 17.2 ppb Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 17.0 ppb Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 1 4.91E+00 4.84E+00 4.67E+00 4.33E+0 0 3.86E+00 9.64E-01 3.08E+00 2.98E+00 2 4.27E+00 4.22E+00 4.03E+00 4.05E+0 0 4.06E+00 2.56E+00 3.17E+00 3.17E+00 3 1.74E+01 1.72E+01 1.68E+01 1.55E+0 1 1.45E+01 5.28E+00 1.13E+01 1.12E+01 4 2.72E+01 2.69E+01 2.58E+01 2.37E+0 1 2.11E+01 1.09E+01 1.78E+01 1.75E+01 5 3.37E+01 3.33E+01 3.20E+01 2.92E+0 1 2.57E+01 1.53E+01 2.24E+01 2.21E+01 6 2.34E+01 2.34E+01 2.43E+01 2.67E+0 1 2.74E+01 1.44E+01 2.25E+01 2.24E+01 7 1.36E+01 1.35E+01 1.29E+01 1.26E+0 1 1.27E+01 8.40E+00 1.22E+01 1.24E+01 8 1.41E+01 1.39E+01 1.35E+01 1.24E+0 1 1.17E+01 7.77E+00 1.01E+01 1.01E+01 9 1.02E+01 1.02E+01 1.05E+01 1.15E+0 1 1.17E+01 7.05E+00 1.01E+01 1.01E+01 10 7.57E+00 7.60E+00 7.85E+00 8.55E+00 8.59E+00 4.89E+00 7.67E+00 7.66E+00 11 5.59E+00 5.55E+00 5.36E+00 5.05E+00 4.82E+00 3.22E+00 4.46E+00 4.51E+00 12 1.82E+01 1.80E+01 1.70E+01 1.45E+01 1.09E+01 4.73E+00 1.03E+01 9.67E+00 13 1.34E+01 1.34E+01 1.40E+01 1.53E+01 1.43E+01 8.44E+00 1.13E+01 1.13E+01 14 1.17E+01 1.16E+01 1.10E+01 1.03E+01 9.68E+00 6.09E+00 8.26E+00 8.18E+00 15 8.40E+00 8.43E+00 8.73E+00 9.43E+00 9.80E+00 5.35E+00 8.27E+00 8.25E+00 16 7.87E+00 7.79E+00 7.44E+00 7.22E+00 6.66E+00 3.94E+00 5.73E+00 5.65E+00 17 6.83E+00 6.77E+00 6.55E+00 6.82E+00 6.87E+00 4.22E+00 5.76E+00 5.75E+00 18 7.93E+00 7.87E+00 7.58E+00 7.15E+00 6.83E+00 4.48E+00 5.96E+00 5.89E+00 19 7.78E+00 7.69E+00 7.33E+00 7.00E+00 6.87E+00 4.51E+00 5.98E+00 5.97E+00 20 6.73E+00 6.65E+00 6.50E+00 6.18E+00 6.31E+00 4.05E+00 5.45E+00 5.44E+00 21 1.03E+01 1.02E+01 9.66E+00 8.61E+00 7.15E+00 4.19E+00 6.60E+00 6.35E+00 22 1.47E+01 1.45E+01 1.41E+01 1.30E+01 1.14E+01 6.68E+00 1.02E+01 9.93E+00 23 1.13E+01 1.13E+01 1.17E+01 1.29E+01 1.22E+01 7.17E+00 1.04E+01 1.04E+01 24 1.09E+01 1.07E+01 1.03E+01 9.11E+00 7.65E+00 5.03E+00 7.31E+00 6.95E+00 25 8.91E+00 8.95E+00 9.32E+00 9.40E+00 8.88E+00 5.52E+00 7.73E+00 7.73E+00 26 8.90E+00 8.83E+00 8.49E+00 7.74E+00 6.90E+00 4.35E+00 6.06E+00 5.98E+00 27 1.11E+01 1.10E+01 1.06E+01 1.00E+01 9.14E+00 5.31E+00 7.94E+00 7.80E+00 28 9.25E+00 9.15E+00 8.81E+00 9.66E+00 9.57E+00 6.00E+00 8.01E+00 8.00E+00 29 7.93E+00 7.84E+00 7.56E+00 8.03E+00 7.95E+00 5.06E+00 7.03E+00 7.02E+00 30 5.87E+00 5.87E+00 6.03E+00 6.55E+00 6.75E+00 4.03E+00 5.86E+00 5.86E+00

*********************************************************************************************

### 156 ******* Effective compartment halflives av eraged over simulation duration:

zero washout 0 water col metab halflife (days) = 850.358306476219 zero hydrolysis 0 photolysis halflife (days) = 212.690322347906 volatile halflife (days) = 129273933.836524 total water col halflife (days) = 170.135908536992

zero burial 0 zero benthic metab 0 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 zero benthic total degradation 0 *********************************************************************** Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg):

Due to Runoff = 0.7205 3.899 Due to Erosion = 0.0022 0.1215E-01 Due to Drift = 0.2772 1.500 ******* Inputs ******* 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 1118. = water column half Life 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 0.000 = benthic Half Life 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 2.000 = Q ten value 2.500 = photolysis half life 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 288.3 = molecular wt 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 3200. = solubility 0.1000E+06 = field area 0.1000E+05 = water body area 2.000 = initial depth 2.000 = maximum depth 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow F T = burial, else no burial 0.1000E-07 = mass tr ansfer coefficient 0.5000 = PRBEN 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 0.5000 = benthic porosity 1.350 = benthic bulk density 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 1.190 = DFAC 30.00 = SS 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 5.000 = DOC in water column 0.4000 = biomass in water column

Florida Citrus Parent Only Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0

### 157 ******************************************* Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:20

Peak 1-in-10 = 24.4 ppb Chronic 1-in-10 = 11.5 ppb Simulation Avg = 6.66 ppb 4-day avg 1-in-10 = 24.5 ppb 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 25.1 ppb 60-day avg 1-in-10 = 23.7 ppb 90-day avg 1-in-10 = 21.4 ppb

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 18.1 ppb Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 17.8 ppb Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 1 4.92E+00 4.86E+00 4.69E+00 4.39E+0 0 3.91E+00 9.78E-01 3.11E+00 3.00E+00 2 4.47E+00 4.43E+00 4.25E+00 4.13E+0 0 4.13E+00 2.73E+00 3.32E+00 3.28E+00 3 1.78E+01 1.75E+01 1.72E+01 1.59E+0 1 1.50E+01 5.57E+00 1.17E+01 1.15E+01 4 2.79E+01 2.76E+01 2.66E+01 2.46E+0 1 2.21E+01 1.17E+01 1.86E+01 1.83E+01 5 3.49E+01 3.45E+01 3.34E+01 3.07E+0 1 2.72E+01 1.67E+01 2.36E+01 2.33E+01 6 2.51E+01 2.52E+01 2.60E+01 2.83E+0 1 2.90E+01 1.61E+01 2.38E+01 2.37E+01 7 1.48E+01 1.47E+01 1.41E+01 1.42E+0 1 1.44E+01 9.72E+00 1.37E+01 1.38E+01 8 1.50E+01 1.49E+01 1.44E+01 1.34E+0 1 1.29E+01 8.81E+00 1.12E+01 1.12E+01 9 1.12E+01 1.12E+01 1.16E+01 1.25E+0 1 1.27E+01 7.95E+00 1.10E+01 1.10E+01 10 8.43E+00 8.46E+00 8.72E+00 9.42E+00 9.45E+00 5.63E+00 8.44E+00 8.44E+00 11 6.05E+00 6.01E+00 5.82E+00 5.52E+00 5.51E+00 3.74E+00 5.08E+00 5.13E+00 12 1.84E+01 1.81E+01 1.73E+01 1.48E+01 1.12E+01 5.15E+00 1.06E+01 9.96E+00 13 1.39E+01 1.39E+01 1.45E+01 1.57E+01 1.47E+01 9.15E+00 1.16E+01 1.16E+01 14 1.24E+01 1.23E+01 1.18E+01 1.11E+01 1.04E+01 6.85E+00 8.92E+00 8.84E+00 15 9.19E+00 9.23E+00 9.52E+00 1.02E+01 1.06E+01 6.09E+00 8.93E+00 8.92E+00 16 8.37E+00 8.28E+00 7.95E+00 7.73E+00 7.17E+00 4.50E+00 6.19E+00 6.11E+00 17 7.24E+00 7.19E+00 6.97E+00 7.34E+00 7.39E+00 4.71E+00 6.22E+00 6.22E+00 18 8.38E+00 8.32E+00 8.04E+00 7.63E+00 7.30E+00 4.93E+00 6.37E+00 6.28E+00 19 8.25E+00 8.16E+00 7.82E+00 7.49E+00 7.35E+00 5.01E+00 6.39E+00 6.38E+00 20 7.19E+00 7.11E+00 6.98E+00 6.71E+00 6.83E+00 4.54E+00 5.90E+00 5.89E+00 21 1.06E+01 1.05E+01 1.00E+01 9.00E+00 7.56E+00 4.64E+00 6.95E+00 6.70E+00 22 1.52E+01 1.50E+01 1.46E+01 1.36E+01 1.20E+01 7.18E+00 1.07E+01 1.04E+01 23 1.19E+01 1.20E+01 1.24E+01 1.35E+01 1.28E+01 7.92E+00 1.09E+01 1.09E+01 24 1.13E+01 1.12E+01 1.08E+01 9.64E+00 8.20E+00 5.68E+00 7.79E+00 7.46E+00 25 9.46E+00 9.50E+00 9.86E+00 9.93E+00 9.43E+00 6.13E+00 8.22E+00 8.21E+00 26 9.34E+00 9.28E+00 8.96E+00 8.26E+00 7.42E+00 4.86E+00 6.50E+00 6.41E+00 27 1.16E+01 1.16E+01 1.11E+01 1.06E+01 9.71E+00 5.86E+00 8.42E+00 8.27E+00 28 9.88E+00 9.78E+00 9.45E+00 1.02E+01 1.01E+01 6.64E+00 8.50E+00 8.49E+00 29 8.54E+00 8.46E+00 8.18E+00 8.70E+00 8.61E+00 5.71E+00 7.60E+00 7.59E+00 30 6.49E+00 6.51E+00 6.68E+00 7.20E+00 7.39E+00 4.61E+00 6.43E+00 6.42E+00

********************************************************************************************* ******* Effective compartment halflives av eraged over simulation duration:

zero washout 0 water col metab halflife (days) = 2265.84740160345 zero hydrolysis 0 photolysis halflife (days) = 212.690322347906

### 158 volatile halflife (days) = 129273933.836524 total water col halflife (days) = 194.438472623865

zero burial 0 benthic metab halflife (days) = 2770.89025983262 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 total benthic halflife (days) = 2770.89025983262 *********************************************************************** Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg):

Due to Runoff = 0.7184 3.858 Due to Erosion = 0.0023 0.1212E-01 Due to Drift = 0.2793 1.500 ******* Inputs ******* 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 2979. = water column half Life 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 3643. = benthic Half Life 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 2.000 = Q ten value 2.500 = photolysis half life 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 288.3 = molecular wt 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 3200. = solubility 0.1000E+06 = field area 0.1000E+05 = water body area 2.000 = initial depth 2.000 = maximum depth 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow F T = burial, else no burial 0.1000E-07 = mass tr ansfer coefficient 0.5000 = PRBEN 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 0.5000 = benthic porosity 1.350 = benthic bulk density 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 1.190 = DFAC 30.00 = SS 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 5.000 = DOC in water column 0.4000 = biomass in water column

Florida Citrus – Parent only – Ground application at 0.40 kg/ha Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0

******************************************* Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:25

Peak 1-in-10 = 26.6 ppb Chronic 1-in-10 = 13.8 ppb Simulation Avg = 5.45 ppb

### 159 4-day avg 1-in-10 = 26.3 ppb 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 25.5 ppb 60-day avg 1-in-10 = 24.3 ppb 90-day avg 1-in-10 = 22.0 ppb

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 18.8 ppb Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 18.6 ppb Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 1 2.50E+00 2.47E+00 2.35E+00 2.19E+0 0 1.82E+00 4.54E-01 1.51E+00 1.44E+00 2 1.82E+00 1.83E+00 1.90E+00 2.09E+0 0 2.07E+00 1.20E+00 1.59E+00 1.59E+00 3 2.69E+01 2.65E+01 2.57E+01 2.33E+0 1 2.18E+01 6.18E+00 1.64E+01 1.61E+01 4 2.76E+01 2.72E+01 2.63E+01 2.44E+0 1 2.20E+01 1.43E+01 1.90E+01 1.88E+01 5 3.28E+01 3.25E+01 3.15E+01 2.90E+0 1 2.55E+01 1.63E+01 2.24E+01 2.21E+01 6 2.37E+01 2.38E+01 2.45E+01 2.67E+0 1 2.73E+01 1.47E+01 2.25E+01 2.25E+01 7 1.68E+01 1.67E+01 1.60E+01 1.49E+0 1 1.39E+01 8.64E+00 1.16E+01 1.16E+01 8 1.52E+01 1.51E+01 1.47E+01 1.40E+0 1 1.41E+01 9.26E+00 1.16E+01 1.16E+01 9 1.12E+01 1.12E+01 1.16E+01 1.25E+0 1 1.32E+01 7.38E+00 1.13E+01 1.13E+01 10 6.22E+00 6.24E+00 6.42E+00 6.90E+00 6.92E+00 3.90E+00 6.55E+00 6.59E+00 11 3.17E+00 3.14E+00 3.03E+00 2.86E+00 2.98E+00 1.96E+00 2.93E+00 2.99E+00 12 1.47E+01 1.45E+01 1.37E+01 1.16E+01 8.07E+00 3.22E+00 7.90E+00 7.28E+00 13 1.10E+01 1.10E+01 1.14E+01 1.24E+01 1.17E+01 7.38E+00 8.96E+00 8.95E+00 14 1.40E+01 1.38E+01 1.35E+01 1.24E+01 1.16E+01 6.49E+00 9.54E+00 9.44E+00 15 9.87E+00 9.91E+00 1.02E+01 1.11E+01 1.17E+01 6.01E+00 9.55E+00 9.54E+00 16 5.89E+00 5.83E+00 5.59E+00 5.30E+00 4.87E+00 3.22E+00 4.37E+00 4.45E+00 17 4.59E+00 4.61E+00 4.76E+00 5.16E+00 5.11E+00 3.06E+00 4.34E+00 4.33E+00 18 6.00E+00 5.93E+00 5.68E+00 5.58E+00 5.35E+00 3.12E+00 4.44E+00 4.40E+00 19 5.10E+00 5.04E+00 4.83E+00 5.17E+00 5.33E+00 3.31E+00 4.45E+00 4.44E+00 20 4.02E+00 3.97E+00 3.87E+00 4.16E+00 4.22E+00 2.73E+00 3.66E+00 3.65E+00 21 7.74E+00 7.64E+00 7.28E+00 6.43E+00 4.85E+00 2.82E+00 4.67E+00 4.42E+00 22 1.11E+01 1.10E+01 1.07E+01 1.00E+01 9.70E+00 5.45E+00 8.16E+00 8.03E+00 23 8.72E+00 8.75E+00 9.05E+00 9.83E+00 9.76E+00 5.53E+00 8.22E+00 8.21E+00 24 8.66E+00 8.56E+00 8.21E+00 6.99E+00 5.37E+00 3.54E+00 5.37E+00 5.01E+00 25 7.14E+00 7.17E+00 7.45E+00 7.52E+00 7.09E+00 4.25E+00 5.94E+00 5.94E+00 26 5.73E+00 5.70E+00 5.52E+00 5.10E+00 4.36E+00 2.86E+00 3.91E+00 3.84E+00 27 8.78E+00 8.72E+00 8.40E+00 7.77E+00 7.02E+00 3.86E+00 6.12E+00 5.97E+00 28 8.63E+00 8.55E+00 8.21E+00 8.02E+00 7.55E+00 5.25E+00 6.53E+00 6.48E+00 29 6.69E+00 6.71E+00 6.92E+00 7.50E+00 7.68E+00 4.49E+00 6.53E+00 6.53E+00 30 4.15E+00 4.16E+00 4.26E+00 4.58E+00 4.66E+00 2.77E+00 4.25E+00 4.26E+00

********************************************************************************************* ******* Effective compartment halflives av eraged over simulation duration:

zero washout 0 water col metab halflife (days) = 2265.84740160345 zero hydrolysis 0 photolysis halflife (days) = 212.690322347906 volatile halflife (days) = 129273933.836524 total water col halflife (days) = 194.438472623865

zero burial 0 benthic metab halflife (days) = 2770.89025983262 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 total benthic halflife (days) = 2770.89025983262

### 160 *********************************************************************** Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg):

Due to Runoff = 0.9966 4.345 Due to Erosion = 0.0034 0.1490E-01 Due to Drift = 0.0000 0.000 ******* Inputs ******* 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 2979. = water column half Life 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 3643. = benthic Half Life 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 2.000 = Q ten value 2.500 = photolysis half life 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 288.3 = molecular wt 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 3200. = solubility 0.1000E+06 = field area 0.1000E+05 = water body area 2.000 = initial depth 2.000 = maximum depth 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow F T = burial, else no burial 0.1000E-07 = mass tr ansfer coefficient 0.5000 = PRBEN 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 0.5000 = benthic porosity 1.350 = benthic bulk density 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 1.190 = DFAC 30.00 = SS 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 5.000 = DOC in water column 0.4000 = biomass in water column

Pennsylvania Apples, parent only Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0

******************************************* Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:39

Peak 1-in-10 = 8.63 ppb Chronic 1-in-10 = 5.89 ppb Simulation Avg = 4.17 ppb 4-day avg 1-in-10 = 8.58 ppb 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 8.36 ppb 60-day avg 1-in-10 = 8.01 ppb 90-day avg 1-in-10 = 7.75 ppb

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 6.95 ppb

### 161 Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.95 ppb Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 1 5.34E+00 5.28E+00 5.10E+00 4.70E+0 0 4.44E+00 1.90E+00 3.49E+00 3.48E+00 2 5.41E+00 5.36E+00 5.18E+00 4.85E+0 0 4.71E+00 3.57E+00 4.28E+00 4.27E+00 3 5.51E+00 5.47E+00 5.29E+00 5.12E+0 0 4.97E+00 3.94E+00 4.50E+00 4.50E+00 4 6.61E+00 6.55E+00 6.31E+00 5.89E+0 0 5.65E+00 4.21E+00 5.00E+00 4.99E+00 5 5.49E+00 5.45E+00 5.28E+00 5.16E+0 0 4.98E+00 3.99E+00 4.51E+00 4.55E+00 6 7.53E+00 7.46E+00 7.19E+00 6.70E+0 0 6.39E+00 4.29E+00 5.67E+00 5.66E+00 7 8.64E+00 8.60E+00 8.37E+00 8.06E+0 0 7.80E+00 5.85E+00 6.97E+00 6.97E+00 8 6.63E+00 6.58E+00 6.47E+00 6.10E+0 0 6.21E+00 5.28E+00 6.22E+00 6.33E+00 9 1.10E+01 1.09E+01 1.05E+01 9.76E+0 0 9.27E+00 5.92E+00 7.83E+00 7.82E+00 10 9.84E+00 9.75E+00 9.42E+00 8.94E+00 8.55E+00 6.84E+00 7.75E+00 7.75E+00 11 8.17E+00 8.10E+00 7.84E+00 7.38E+00 7.07E+00 5.89E+00 6.71E+00 6.83E+00 12 5.94E+00 5.90E+00 5.71E+00 5.62E+00 5.86E+00 4.58E+00 5.86E+00 5.97E+00 13 4.91E+00 4.88E+00 4.73E+00 4.49E+00 4.50E+00 3.68E+00 4.27E+00 4.35E+00 14 6.80E+00 6.75E+00 6.52E+00 6.10E+00 5.84E+00 4.07E+00 5.13E+00 5.13E+00 15 6.38E+00 6.32E+00 6.12E+00 5.70E+00 5.46E+00 4.22E+00 4.86E+00 4.86E+00 16 5.92E+00 5.87E+00 5.71E+00 5.35E+00 5.17E+00 3.98E+00 4.63E+00 4.63E+00 17 5.18E+00 5.13E+00 4.98E+00 4.68E+00 4.48E+00 3.71E+00 4.12E+00 4.20E+00 18 6.32E+00 6.26E+00 6.02E+00 5.62E+00 5.38E+00 3.87E+00 4.68E+00 4.68E+00 19 5.14E+00 5.09E+00 4.97E+00 4.81E+00 4.63E+00 3.74E+00 4.21E+00 4.21E+00 20 4.70E+00 4.66E+00 4.50E+00 4.18E+00 3.99E+00 3.22E+00 3.69E+00 3.76E+00 21 5.70E+00 5.65E+00 5.56E+00 5.25E+00 5.02E+00 3.58E+00 4.42E+00 4.41E+00 22 5.40E+00 5.37E+00 5.25E+00 5.03E+00 4.86E+00 3.84E+00 4.40E+00 4.40E+00 23 4.69E+00 4.65E+00 4.49E+00 4.22E+00 4.08E+00 3.27E+00 3.88E+00 3.96E+00 24 5.19E+00 5.14E+00 4.95E+00 4.60E+00 4.41E+00 3.30E+00 3.88E+00 3.88E+00 25 4.59E+00 4.55E+00 4.43E+00 4.25E+00 4.08E+00 3.18E+00 3.64E+00 3.64E+00 26 6.04E+00 5.98E+00 5.83E+00 5.50E+00 5.25E+00 3.71E+00 4.59E+00 4.59E+00 27 5.03E+00 4.99E+00 4.82E+00 4.61E+00 4.47E+00 3.63E+00 4.15E+00 4.22E+00 28 6.59E+00 6.53E+00 6.29E+00 5.83E+00 5.55E+00 3.92E+00 4.87E+00 4.86E+00 29 8.49E+00 8.44E+00 8.21E+00 7.63E+00 7.25E+00 4.85E+00 6.19E+00 6.18E+00 30 7.23E+00 7.16E+00 6.91E+00 6.46E+00 6.19E+00 4.95E+00 5.62E+00 5.70E+00

********************************************************************************************* ******* Effective compartment halflives av eraged over simulation duration:

zero washout 0 water col metab halflife (days) = 4429.05217232110 zero hydrolysis 0 photolysis halflife (days) = 289.084753547405 volatile halflife (days) = 187228803.611772 total water col halflife (days) = 271.371861396606

zero burial 0 benthic metab halflife (days) = 5416.25950445310 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 total benthic halflife (days) = 5416.25950445310 *********************************************************************** Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg):

Due to Runoff = 0.3950 0.9873 Due to Erosion = 0.0048 0.1203E-01 Due to Drift = 0.6002 1.500

### 162 ******* Inputs ******* 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 2979. = water column half Life 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 3643. = benthic Half Life 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 2.000 = Q ten value 2.500 = photolysis half life 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 288.3 = molecular wt 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 3200. = solubility 0.1000E+06 = field area 0.1000E+05 = water body area 2.000 = initial depth 2.000 = maximum depth 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow F T = burial, else no burial 0.1000E-07 = mass tr ansfer coefficient 0.5000 = PRBEN 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 0.5000 = benthic porosity 1.350 = benthic bulk density 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 1.190 = DFAC 30.00 = SS 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 5.000 = DOC in water column 0.4000 = biomass in water column

New York Grapes – Parent Only Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0

******************************************* Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:38

Peak 1-in-10 = 6.06 ppb Chronic 1-in-10 = 4.06 ppb Simulation Avg = 2.00 ppb 4-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.06 ppb 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.04 ppb 60-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.20 ppb 90-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.37 ppb

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 6.46 ppb Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.56 ppb Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 1 7.68E-01 7.61E-01 7.33E-01 7.10E-01 6.54E-01 1.75E-01 5.72E-01 5.57E-01 2 1.53E+00 1.52E+00 1.49E+00 1.44E+0 0 1.38E+00 7.66E-01 1.18E+00 1.18E+00

### 163 3 1.23E+00 1.23E+00 1.24E+00 1.31E+0 0 1.37E+00 9.92E-01 1.21E+00 1.21E+00 4 9.01E-01 9.01E-01 9.07E-01 9.35E-01 9.23E-01 7.25E-01 8.89E-01 8.88E-01 5 1.45E+00 1.43E+00 1.39E+00 1.35E+0 0 1.22E+00 7.32E-01 1.26E+00 1.23E+00 6 1.22E+00 1.22E+00 1.25E+00 1.31E+0 0 1.30E+00 9.87E-01 1.23E+00 1.23E+00 7 1.55E+00 1.54E+00 1.50E+00 1.45E+0 0 1.41E+00 9.34E-01 1.31E+00 1.31E+00 8 1.26E+00 1.26E+00 1.29E+00 1.36E+0 0 1.40E+00 1.03E+00 1.30E+00 1.31E+00 9 8.22E-01 8.22E-01 8.24E-01 8.51E-01 8.66E-01 7.13E-01 8.82E-01 8.94E-01 10 3.80E+00 3.78E+00 3.75E+00 3.61E+00 3.50E+00 1.51E+00 4.36E+00 4.26E+00 11 3.09E+00 3.09E+00 3.09E+00 3.23E+00 3.35E+00 2.61E+00 3.45E+00 3.52E+00 12 2.41E+00 2.40E+00 2.33E+00 2.27E+00 2.35E+00 1.94E+00 2.36E+00 2.40E+00 13 1.96E+00 1.97E+00 1.97E+00 2.04E+00 2.12E+00 1.52E+00 2.04E+00 2.06E+00 14 1.12E+00 1.12E+00 1.12E+00 1.18E+00 1.21E+00 9.29E-01 1.22E+00 1.24E+00 15 8.70E-01 8.70E-01 8.73E-01 8.91E-01 8.82E-01 7.47E-01 8.95E-01 9.00E-01 16 9.64E-01 9.59E-01 9.48E-01 9.12E-01 8.96E-01 6.91E-01 1.07E+00 1.03E+00 17 4.94E+00 4.91E+00 4.83E+00 4.58E+00 4.40E+00 1.82E+00 4.25E+00 4.25E+00 18 3.91E+00 3.91E+00 3.91E+00 4.05E+00 4.22E+00 3.37E+00 4.09E+00 4.13E+00 19 9.32E+00 9.24E+00 8.97E+00 8.49E+00 8.13E+00 4.14E+00 7.30E+00 7.29E+00 20 7.20E+00 7.16E+00 7.05E+00 7.32E+00 7.68E+00 6.15E+00 8.63E+00 8.36E+00 21 6.11E+00 6.11E+00 6.11E+00 6.32E+00 6.54E+00 4.88E+00 6.69E+00 6.82E+00 22 3.70E+00 3.70E+00 3.71E+00 3.89E+00 4.05E+00 3.05E+00 4.02E+00 4.08E+00 23 3.97E+00 3.94E+00 3.87E+00 3.70E+00 3.56E+00 2.37E+00 3.20E+00 3.19E+00 24 3.29E+00 3.28E+00 3.25E+00 3.32E+00 3.46E+00 2.77E+00 3.69E+00 3.65E+00 25 2.58E+00 2.59E+00 2.64E+00 2.76E+00 2.85E+00 2.12E+00 2.94E+00 3.00E+00 26 5.63E+00 5.58E+00 5.44E+00 5.09E+00 4.85E+00 2.55E+00 4.09E+00 4.08E+00 27 4.09E+00 4.11E+00 4.21E+00 4.47E+00 4.73E+00 3.37E+00 4.09E+00 4.09E+00 28 2.93E+00 2.94E+00 3.00E+00 3.15E+00 3.27E+00 2.44E+00 3.26E+00 3.31E+00 29 2.70E+00 2.68E+00 2.59E+00 2.49E+00 2.41E+00 1.92E+00 2.25E+00 2.24E+00 30 3.37E+00 3.35E+00 3.29E+00 3.14E+00 3.03E+00 2.12E+00 3.19E+00 3.19E+00

********************************************************************************************* ******* Effective compartment halflives av eraged over simulation duration:

zero washout 0 water col metab halflife (days) = 5258.27312887639 zero hydrolysis 0 photolysis halflife (days) = 330.838274194186 volatile halflife (days) = 139177229.656322 total water col halflife (days) = 311.254149584418

zero burial 0 benthic metab halflife (days) = 6430.30849563501 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 total benthic halflife (days) = 6430.30849563501 *********************************************************************** Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg):

Due to Runoff = 0.8191 0.8484 Due to Erosion = 0.1809 0.1873 Due to Drift = 0.0000 0.000 ******* Inputs ******* 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 2979. = water column half Life 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 3643. = benthic Half Life 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 2.000 = Q ten value

### 164 2.500 = photolysis half life 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 288.3 = molecular wt 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 3200. = solubility 0.1000E+06 = field area 0.1000E+05 = water body area 2.000 = initial depth 2.000 = maximum depth 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow F T = burial, else no burial 0.1000E-07 = mass tr ansfer coefficient 0.5000 = PRBEN 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 0.5000 = benthic porosity 1.350 = benthic bulk density 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 1.190 = DFAC 30.00 = SS 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 5.000 = DOC in water column 0.4000 = biomass in water column

California Strawberry – Parent plus unextracted residues – aerial application Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0

******************************************* Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:46

Peak 1-in-10 = 12.4 ppb Chronic 1-in-10 = 6.97 ppb Simulation Avg = 4.31 ppb 4-day avg 1-in-10 = 12.3 ppb 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 11.8 ppb 60-day avg 1-in-10 = 11.0 ppb 90-day avg 1-in-10 = 10.4 ppb

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 8.54 ppb Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 8.53 ppb Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 1 4.92E+00 4.86E+00 4.62E+00 4.32E+0 0 4.10E+00 2.63E+00 3.19E+00 3.19E+00 2 9.14E+00 9.07E+00 8.71E+00 8.01E+0 0 7.57E+00 5.06E+00 6.18E+00 6.18E+00 3 8.97E+00 8.88E+00 8.52E+00 7.98E+0 0 7.61E+00 5.31E+00 6.57E+00 6.56E+00 4 5.51E+00 5.47E+00 5.28E+00 5.00E+0 0 4.80E+00 3.53E+00 4.51E+00 4.51E+00 5 5.10E+00 5.05E+00 4.86E+00 4.53E+0 0 4.36E+00 3.13E+00 3.87E+00 3.87E+00 6 5.83E+00 5.77E+00 5.68E+00 5.31E+0 0 5.06E+00 3.51E+00 4.33E+00 4.32E+00 7 4.99E+00 4.95E+00 4.84E+00 4.54E+0 0 4.42E+00 3.24E+00 4.01E+00 4.00E+00 8 6.29E+00 6.23E+00 6.00E+00 5.69E+0 0 5.42E+00 3.77E+00 4.66E+00 4.65E+00 9 1.27E+01 1.26E+01 1.21E+01 1.12E+0 1 1.06E+01 7.08E+00 8.66E+00 8.65E+00

### 165 10 8.19E+00 8.14E+00 7.95E+00 7.47E+00 7.13E+00 5.15E+00 6.55E+00 6.54E+00 11 5.55E+00 5.50E+00 5.35E+00 5.16E+00 5.03E+00 3.72E+00 4.67E+00 4.66E+00 12 5.07E+00 5.03E+00 4.84E+00 4.49E+00 4.28E+00 3.05E+00 3.82E+00 3.82E+00 13 7.07E+00 7.00E+00 6.79E+00 6.34E+00 6.02E+00 4.11E+00 5.05E+00 5.04E+00 14 5.37E+00 5.33E+00 5.16E+00 4.91E+00 4.73E+00 3.41E+00 4.27E+00 4.27E+00 15 5.66E+00 5.62E+00 5.42E+00 5.08E+00 4.83E+00 3.38E+00 4.19E+00 4.19E+00 16 5.56E+00 5.51E+00 5.32E+00 4.95E+00 4.72E+00 3.39E+00 4.20E+00 4.19E+00 17 4.62E+00 4.58E+00 4.43E+00 4.38E+00 4.24E+00 3.05E+00 3.79E+00 3.79E+00 18 7.39E+00 7.32E+00 7.02E+00 6.58E+00 6.25E+00 4.25E+00 5.23E+00 5.22E+00 19 1.34E+01 1.33E+01 1.29E+01 1.19E+01 1.12E+01 7.41E+00 9.11E+00 9.10E+00 20 9.65E+00 9.60E+00 9.33E+00 8.69E+00 8.27E+00 5.92E+00 7.46E+00 7.45E+00 21 6.12E+00 6.06E+00 5.89E+00 5.61E+00 5.37E+00 3.92E+00 5.03E+00 5.03E+00 22 8.90E+00 8.81E+00 8.45E+00 7.77E+00 7.35E+00 5.00E+00 6.16E+00 6.15E+00 23 7.95E+00 7.87E+00 7.72E+00 7.26E+00 6.91E+00 4.83E+00 6.03E+00 6.02E+00 24 5.96E+00 5.91E+00 5.69E+00 5.32E+00 5.07E+00 3.63E+00 4.60E+00 4.59E+00 25 6.64E+00 6.57E+00 6.31E+00 5.97E+00 5.70E+00 3.94E+00 4.87E+00 4.87E+00 26 8.21E+00 8.14E+00 7.88E+00 7.27E+00 6.88E+00 4.71E+00 5.82E+00 5.81E+00 27 1.33E+01 1.32E+01 1.26E+01 1.16E+01 1.09E+01 7.28E+00 8.96E+00 8.95E+00 28 6.69E+00 6.64E+00 6.43E+00 6.02E+00 5.87E+00 4.53E+00 5.66E+00 5.69E+00 29 5.67E+00 5.62E+00 5.42E+00 5.23E+00 5.01E+00 3.59E+00 4.51E+00 4.51E+00 30 6.68E+00 6.62E+00 6.37E+00 5.88E+00 5.57E+00 3.88E+00 4.80E+00 4.80E+00

********************************************************************************************* ******* Effective compartment halflives av eraged over simulation duration:

zero washout 0 water col metab halflife (days) = 1747.83545637332 zero hydrolysis 0 photolysis halflife (days) = 242.285964103120 volatile halflife (days) = 114223441.685679 total water col halflife (days) = 212.788629569952

zero burial 0 zero benthic metab 0 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 zero benthic total degradation 0 *********************************************************************** Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg):

Due to Runoff = 0.5221 1.639 Due to Erosion = 0.0000 0.2678E-04 Due to Drift = 0.4779 1.500 ******* Inputs ******* 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 1118. = water column half Life 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 0.000 = benthic Half Life 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 2.000 = Q ten value 2.500 = photolysis half life 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 288.3 = molecular wt 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 3200. = solubility 0.1000E+06 = field area

### 166 0.1000E+05 = water body area 2.000 = initial depth 2.000 = maximum depth 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow F T = burial, else no burial 0.1000E-07 = mass tr ansfer coefficient 0.5000 = PRBEN 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 0.5000 = benthic porosity 1.350 = benthic bulk density 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 1.190 = DFAC 30.00 = SS 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 5.000 = DOC in water column 0.4000 = biomass in water column

California Strawberry, Aerial application, with drift, parent only Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0

******************************************* Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:48

Peak 1-in-10 = 12.6 ppb Chronic 1-in-10 = 7.31 ppb Simulation Avg = 4.61 ppb 4-day avg 1-in-10 = 12.5 ppb 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 12.1 ppb 60-day avg 1-in-10 = 11.2 ppb 90-day avg 1-in-10 = 10.6 ppb

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 8.79 ppb Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 8.78 ppb Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 1 4.91E+00 4.85E+00 4.62E+00 4.34E+0 0 4.12E+00 2.70E+00 3.22E+00 3.22E+00 2 9.24E+00 9.18E+00 8.82E+00 8.14E+0 0 7.71E+00 5.25E+00 6.30E+00 6.30E+00 3 9.19E+00 9.11E+00 8.76E+00 8.23E+0 0 7.87E+00 5.60E+00 6.80E+00 6.79E+00 4 5.81E+00 5.77E+00 5.58E+00 5.30E+0 0 5.10E+00 3.83E+00 4.79E+00 4.79E+00 5 5.35E+00 5.30E+00 5.11E+00 4.78E+0 0 4.62E+00 3.38E+00 4.11E+00 4.10E+00 6 6.05E+00 5.99E+00 5.90E+00 5.53E+0 0 5.29E+00 3.75E+00 4.54E+00 4.53E+00 7 5.20E+00 5.17E+00 5.05E+00 4.76E+0 0 4.64E+00 3.47E+00 4.21E+00 4.20E+00 8 6.48E+00 6.42E+00 6.20E+00 5.90E+0 0 5.64E+00 4.01E+00 4.85E+00 4.85E+00 9 1.29E+01 1.28E+01 1.23E+01 1.15E+0 1 1.09E+01 7.42E+00 8.89E+00 8.89E+00 10 8.57E+00 8.51E+00 8.32E+00 7.85E+00 7.52E+00 5.54E+00 6.89E+00 6.89E+00 11 5.89E+00 5.85E+00 5.69E+00 5.50E+00 5.37E+00 4.06E+00 4.99E+00 4.98E+00 12 5.35E+00 5.30E+00 5.12E+00 4.77E+00 4.56E+00 3.33E+00 4.09E+00 4.08E+00 13 7.29E+00 7.22E+00 7.02E+00 6.58E+00 6.26E+00 4.37E+00 5.27E+00 5.26E+00 14 5.61E+00 5.58E+00 5.41E+00 5.16E+00 4.99E+00 3.67E+00 4.50E+00 4.50E+00 15 5.89E+00 5.85E+00 5.65E+00 5.31E+00 5.07E+00 3.62E+00 4.41E+00 4.41E+00 16 5.76E+00 5.71E+00 5.53E+00 5.16E+00 4.93E+00 3.62E+00 4.40E+00 4.39E+00

### 167 17 4.83E+00 4.80E+00 4.65E+00 4.59E+00 4.46E+00 3.28E+00 3.99E+00 3.99E+00 18 7.59E+00 7.52E+00 7.23E+00 6.80E+00 6.48E+00 4.51E+00 5.43E+00 5.43E+00 19 1.36E+01 1.35E+01 1.31E+01 1.21E+01 1.15E+01 7.77E+00 9.35E+00 9.34E+00 20 1.00E+01 1.00E+01 9.73E+00 9.10E+00 8.69E+00 6.35E+00 7.83E+00 7.82E+00 21 6.50E+00 6.45E+00 6.27E+00 5.99E+00 5.76E+00 4.29E+00 5.39E+00 5.39E+00 22 9.19E+00 9.09E+00 8.74E+00 8.08E+00 7.67E+00 5.33E+00 6.44E+00 6.44E+00 23 8.26E+00 8.18E+00 8.04E+00 7.58E+00 7.24E+00 5.18E+00 6.33E+00 6.32E+00 24 6.29E+00 6.23E+00 6.02E+00 5.65E+00 5.40E+00 3.95E+00 4.90E+00 4.90E+00 25 6.91E+00 6.84E+00 6.58E+00 6.24E+00 5.98E+00 4.23E+00 5.13E+00 5.13E+00 26 8.47E+00 8.41E+00 8.15E+00 7.55E+00 7.17E+00 5.03E+00 6.08E+00 6.08E+00 27 1.36E+01 1.35E+01 1.29E+01 1.19E+01 1.13E+01 7.68E+00 9.25E+00 9.24E+00 28 7.11E+00 7.06E+00 6.85E+00 6.44E+00 6.30E+00 4.95E+00 6.05E+00 6.08E+00 29 6.01E+00 5.96E+00 5.77E+00 5.57E+00 5.35E+00 3.93E+00 4.84E+00 4.83E+00 30 6.95E+00 6.90E+00 6.64E+00 6.16E+00 5.86E+00 4.18E+00 5.06E+00 5.06E+00

********************************************************************************************* ******* Effective compartment halflives av eraged over simulation duration:

zero washout 0 water col metab halflife (days) = 4657.24671246521 zero hydrolysis 0 photolysis halflife (days) = 242.285964103120 volatile halflife (days) = 114223441.685679 total water col halflife (days) = 230.304257398377

zero burial 0 benthic metab halflife (days) = 5695.31714451520 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 total benthic halflife (days) = 5695.31714451520 *********************************************************************** Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg):

Due to Runoff = 0.5210 1.632 Due to Erosion = 0.0000 0.2673E-04 Due to Drift = 0.4790 1.500 ******* Inputs ******* 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 2979. = water column half Life 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 3643. = benthic Half Life 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 2.000 = Q ten value 2.500 = photolysis half life 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 288.3 = molecular wt 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 3200. = solubility 0.1000E+06 = field area 0.1000E+05 = water body area 2.000 = initial depth 2.000 = maximum depth 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow F T = burial, else no burial 0.1000E-07 = mass tr ansfer coefficient 0.5000 = PRBEN

### 168 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 0.5000 = benthic porosity 1.350 = benthic bulk density 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 1.190 = DFAC 30.00 = SS 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 5.000 = DOC in water column 0.4000 = biomass in water column

Georgia, Pecan, aerial, drift, parent only Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0

******************************************* Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:53

Peak 1-in-10 = 9.73 ppb Chronic 1-in-10 = 6.06 ppb Simulation Avg = 3.67 ppb 4-day avg 1-in-10 = 9.63 ppb 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 9.26 ppb 60-day avg 1-in-10 = 8.75 ppb 90-day avg 1-in-10 = 9.08 ppb

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 8.90 ppb Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 8.90 ppb Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 1 2.45E+00 2.41E+00 2.32E+00 2.12E+0 0 1.99E+00 9.51E-01 1.52E+00 1.52E+00 2 4.53E+00 4.48E+00 4.38E+00 4.01E+0 0 3.78E+00 2.19E+00 3.02E+00 3.01E+00 3 6.21E+00 6.14E+00 5.88E+00 5.40E+0 0 5.09E+00 3.18E+00 4.17E+00 4.17E+00 4 7.03E+00 6.96E+00 6.79E+00 6.32E+0 0 5.99E+00 3.89E+00 4.99E+00 4.98E+00 5 7.35E+00 7.27E+00 7.04E+00 6.49E+0 0 6.13E+00 4.15E+00 5.18E+00 5.17E+00 6 1.75E+01 1.73E+01 1.65E+01 1.50E+0 1 1.40E+01 7.85E+00 1.11E+01 1.11E+01 7 8.08E+00 8.10E+00 8.30E+00 8.78E+0 0 9.19E+00 6.16E+00 9.29E+00 9.50E+00 8 5.35E+00 5.30E+00 5.14E+00 4.79E+0 0 4.81E+00 3.68E+00 4.95E+00 5.07E+00 9 5.73E+00 5.67E+00 5.44E+00 5.02E+0 0 4.75E+00 3.24E+00 4.03E+00 4.03E+00 10 5.24E+00 5.19E+00 5.01E+00 4.73E+00 4.50E+00 3.15E+00 3.86E+00 3.86E+00 11 4.90E+00 4.86E+00 4.72E+00 4.38E+00 4.17E+00 2.95E+00 3.60E+00 3.59E+00 12 9.92E+00 9.80E+00 9.37E+00 8.53E+00 8.02E+00 4.62E+00 6.44E+00 6.43E+00 13 6.38E+00 6.32E+00 6.19E+00 5.82E+00 5.53E+00 4.33E+00 5.47E+00 5.59E+00 14 5.03E+00 4.98E+00 4.78E+00 4.43E+00 4.21E+00 3.19E+00 3.86E+00 3.95E+00 15 5.90E+00 5.83E+00 5.58E+00 5.13E+00 4.84E+00 3.20E+00 4.07E+00 4.07E+00 16 5.48E+00 5.43E+00 5.27E+00 4.95E+00 4.72E+00 3.29E+00 4.06E+00 4.06E+00 17 4.29E+00 4.25E+00 4.12E+00 3.84E+00 3.65E+00 2.76E+00 3.29E+00 3.36E+00 18 4.70E+00 4.65E+00 4.45E+00 4.13E+00 3.91E+00 2.65E+00 3.31E+00 3.31E+00 19 5.24E+00 5.19E+00 4.99E+00 4.72E+00 4.48E+00 3.00E+00 3.83E+00 3.83E+00 20 4.57E+00 4.52E+00 4.39E+00 4.14E+00 3.94E+00 2.87E+00 3.44E+00 3.43E+00 21 4.11E+00 4.07E+00 4.02E+00 3.77E+00 3.57E+00 2.55E+00 3.09E+00 3.08E+00 22 1.44E+01 1.43E+01 1.36E+01 1.23E+01 1.16E+01 6.09E+00 9.02E+00 9.01E+00 23 8.08E+00 8.01E+00 7.77E+00 7.46E+00 7.72E+00 5.80E+00 7.74E+00 7.91E+00

### 169 24 5.25E+00 5.20E+00 5.08E+00 4.81E+00 4.90E+00 3.73E+00 5.02E+00 5.14E+00 25 6.83E+00 6.76E+00 6.47E+00 5.92E+00 5.60E+00 3.65E+00 4.68E+00 4.68E+00 26 5.89E+00 5.83E+00 5.64E+00 5.22E+00 4.96E+00 3.56E+00 4.31E+00 4.30E+00 27 6.80E+00 6.72E+00 6.47E+00 5.95E+00 5.62E+00 3.74E+00 4.74E+00 4.73E+00 28 4.62E+00 4.58E+00 4.41E+00 4.08E+00 3.87E+00 3.04E+00 3.88E+00 3.97E+00 29 6.21E+00 6.16E+00 5.94E+00 5.44E+00 5.12E+00 3.25E+00 4.22E+00 4.21E+00 30 5.59E+00 5.53E+00 5.31E+00 4.88E+00 4.65E+00 3.29E+00 4.02E+00 4.02E+00

********************************************************************************************* ******* Effective compartment halflives av eraged over simulation duration:

zero washout 0 water col metab halflife (days) = 2901.24491598198 zero hydrolysis 0 photolysis halflife (days) = 221.249282307510 volatile halflife (days) = 209980114.624810 total water col halflife (days) = 205.572111995484

zero burial 0 benthic metab halflife (days) = 3547.91380628477 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 total benthic halflife (days) = 3547.91380628477 *********************************************************************** Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg):

Due to Runoff = 0.4669 1.321 Due to Erosion = 0.0027 0.7551E-02 Due to Drift = 0.5304 1.500 ******* Inputs ******* 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 2979. = water column half Life 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 3643. = benthic Half Life 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 2.000 = Q ten value 2.500 = photolysis half life 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 288.3 = molecular wt 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 3200. = solubility 0.1000E+06 = field area 0.1000E+05 = water body area 2.000 = initial depth 2.000 = maximum depth 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow F T = burial, else no burial 0.1000E-07 = mass tr ansfer coefficient 0.5000 = PRBEN 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 0.5000 = benthic porosity 1.350 = benthic bulk density 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 1.190 = DFAC

### 170 30.00 = SS 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 5.000 = DOC in water column 0.4000 = biomass in water column

Georgia, Pecan, no drift, parent only, aerial application Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0

******************************************* Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:55

Peak 1-in-10 = 6.55 ppb Chronic 1-in-10 = 4.07 ppb Simulation Avg = 1.73 ppb 4-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.47 ppb 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.51 ppb 60-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.80 ppb 90-day avg 1-in-10 = 7.11 ppb

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 6.53 ppb Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.54 ppb Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 1 8.22E-02 8.11E-02 7.69E-02 6.96E-02 6.52E-02 2.91E-02 4.90E-02 4.89E-02 2 1.49E+00 1.47E+00 1.41E+00 1.30E+0 0 1.22E+00 5.83E-01 9.30E-01 9.29E-01 3 2.85E+00 2.81E+00 2.69E+00 2.46E+0 0 2.31E+00 1.33E+00 1.84E+00 1.84E+00 4 3.63E+00 3.59E+00 3.49E+00 3.30E+0 0 3.13E+00 1.95E+00 2.57E+00 2.57E+00 5 3.95E+00 3.91E+00 3.75E+00 3.47E+0 0 3.27E+00 2.18E+00 2.73E+00 2.73E+00 6 1.40E+01 1.38E+01 1.31E+01 1.19E+0 1 1.12E+01 5.86E+00 8.67E+00 8.66E+00 7 6.38E+00 6.40E+00 6.55E+00 6.93E+0 0 7.26E+00 4.17E+00 7.32E+00 7.48E+00 8 2.54E+00 2.55E+00 2.61E+00 2.75E+0 0 2.87E+00 1.69E+00 2.97E+00 3.05E+00 9 2.22E+00 2.20E+00 2.11E+00 1.96E+0 0 1.86E+00 1.24E+00 1.56E+00 1.56E+00 10 1.80E+00 1.78E+00 1.73E+00 1.66E+00 1.60E+00 1.16E+00 1.39E+00 1.39E+00 11 1.53E+00 1.51E+00 1.47E+00 1.36E+00 1.29E+00 9.46E-01 1.12E+00 1.14E+00 12 6.57E+00 6.48E+00 6.18E+00 5.60E+00 5.24E+00 2.63E+00 4.02E+00 4.02E+00 13 3.07E+00 3.08E+00 3.15E+00 3.34E+00 3.50E+00 2.34E+00 3.50E+00 3.57E+00 14 1.62E+00 1.63E+00 1.66E+00 1.76E+00 1.84E+00 1.20E+00 1.89E+00 1.94E+00 15 2.44E+00 2.41E+00 2.30E+00 2.12E+00 1.99E+00 1.21E+00 1.61E+00 1.61E+00 16 2.16E+00 2.14E+00 2.10E+00 1.94E+00 1.84E+00 1.30E+00 1.59E+00 1.59E+00 17 1.13E+00 1.14E+00 1.16E+00 1.23E+00 1.28E+00 7.60E-01 1.31E+00 1.34E+00 18 1.20E+00 1.19E+00 1.13E+00 1.07E+00 1.01E+00 6.48E-01 8.40E-01 8.39E-01 19 1.96E+00 1.95E+00 1.87E+00 1.80E+00 1.71E+00 1.00E+00 1.39E+00 1.39E+00 20 1.23E+00 1.22E+00 1.19E+00 1.15E+00 1.20E+00 8.73E-01 1.20E+00 1.23E+00 21 7.89E-01 7.82E-01 7.57E-01 7.10E-01 7.43E-01 5.54E-01 7.59E-01 7.77E-01 22 1.11E+01 1.09E+01 1.03E+01 9.35E+00 8.75E+00 4.09E+00 6.61E+00 6.61E+00 23 5.06E+00 5.07E+00 5.20E+00 5.51E+00 5.78E+00 3.81E+00 5.77E+00 5.89E+00 24 2.62E+00 2.62E+00 2.69E+00 2.84E+00 2.96E+00 1.74E+00 3.05E+00 3.12E+00 25 3.42E+00 3.38E+00 3.23E+00 2.94E+00 2.76E+00 1.66E+00 2.23E+00 2.23E+00 26 2.47E+00 2.45E+00 2.39E+00 2.23E+00 2.11E+00 1.57E+00 1.87E+00 1.91E+00 27 3.40E+00 3.36E+00 3.23E+00 2.95E+00 2.78E+00 1.75E+00 2.28E+00 2.28E+00 28 1.65E+00 1.66E+00 1.70E+00 1.80E+00 1.88E+00 1.05E+00 1.90E+00 1.95E+00 29 2.72E+00 2.68E+00 2.59E+00 2.37E+00 2.22E+00 1.25E+00 1.76E+00 1.76E+00 30 2.21E+00 2.18E+00 2.09E+00 1.92E+00 1.82E+00 1.30E+00 1.56E+00 1.56E+00

### 171 ********************************************************************************************* ******* Effective compartment halflives av eraged over simulation duration:

zero washout 0 water col metab halflife (days) = 2901.24491598198 zero hydrolysis 0 photolysis halflife (days) = 221.249282307510 volatile halflife (days) = 209980114.624810 total water col halflife (days) = 205.572111995484

zero burial 0 benthic metab halflife (days) = 3547.91380628477 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 total benthic halflife (days) = 3547.91380628477 *********************************************************************** Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg):

Due to Runoff = 0.9943 1.321 Due to Erosion = 0.0057 0.7551E-02 Due to Drift = 0.0000 0.000 ******* Inputs ******* 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 2979. = water column half Life 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 3643. = benthic Half Life 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 2.000 = Q ten value 2.500 = photolysis half life 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 288.3 = molecular wt 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 3200. = solubility 0.1000E+06 = field area 0.1000E+05 = water body area 2.000 = initial depth 2.000 = maximum depth 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow F T = burial, else no burial 0.1000E-07 = mass tr ansfer coefficient 0.5000 = PRBEN 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 0.5000 = benthic porosity 1.350 = benthic bulk density 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 1.190 = DFAC 30.00 = SS 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 5.000 = DOC in water column 0.4000 = biomass in water column

California Citrus (Prickly Pear), ground, drift

### 172 Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0

******************************************* Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:58

Peak 1-in-10 = 2.98 ppb Chronic 1-in-10 = 1.83 ppb Simulation Avg = 1.39 ppb 4-day avg 1-in-10 = 2.95 ppb 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 2.86 ppb 60-day avg 1-in-10 = 2.68 ppb 90-day avg 1-in-10 = 2.56 ppb

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 2.22 ppb Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 2.22 ppb Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 1 1.24E+00 1.22E+00 1.16E+00 1.06E+0 0 1.04E+00 6.76E-01 7.68E-01 7.67E-01 2 2.06E+00 2.04E+00 2.01E+00 1.88E+0 0 1.78E+00 1.31E+00 1.54E+00 1.54E+00 3 3.02E+00 2.99E+00 2.88E+00 2.69E+0 0 2.58E+00 1.88E+00 2.24E+00 2.24E+00 4 2.37E+00 2.35E+00 2.27E+00 2.11E+0 0 2.01E+00 1.43E+00 1.84E+00 1.83E+00 5 2.03E+00 2.01E+00 1.94E+00 1.80E+0 0 1.81E+00 1.38E+00 1.65E+00 1.65E+00 6 2.20E+00 2.18E+00 2.11E+00 2.02E+0 0 1.96E+00 1.41E+00 1.73E+00 1.73E+00 7 2.33E+00 2.31E+00 2.22E+00 2.09E+0 0 2.00E+00 1.43E+00 1.75E+00 1.75E+00 8 2.04E+00 2.02E+00 1.95E+00 1.81E+0 0 1.74E+00 1.25E+00 1.54E+00 1.54E+00 9 1.94E+00 1.92E+00 1.85E+00 1.72E+0 0 1.64E+00 1.15E+00 1.43E+00 1.43E+00 10 1.87E+00 1.85E+00 1.78E+00 1.74E+00 1.68E+00 1.21E+00 1.46E+00 1.46E+00 11 2.00E+00 1.98E+00 1.91E+00 1.77E+00 1.68E+00 1.20E+00 1.46E+00 1.46E+00 12 1.91E+00 1.89E+00 1.82E+00 1.69E+00 1.60E+00 1.26E+00 1.39E+00 1.39E+00 13 2.60E+00 2.58E+00 2.48E+00 2.29E+00 2.19E+00 1.54E+00 1.89E+00 1.88E+00 14 2.29E+00 2.27E+00 2.19E+00 2.05E+00 1.96E+00 1.55E+00 1.84E+00 1.84E+00 15 2.18E+00 2.16E+00 2.08E+00 1.99E+00 1.91E+00 1.36E+00 1.70E+00 1.70E+00 16 1.99E+00 1.97E+00 1.90E+00 1.85E+00 1.78E+00 1.27E+00 1.57E+00 1.57E+00 17 1.95E+00 1.93E+00 1.86E+00 1.72E+00 1.66E+00 1.27E+00 1.48E+00 1.48E+00 18 5.09E+00 5.03E+00 4.83E+00 4.44E+00 4.20E+00 2.87E+00 3.44E+00 3.43E+00 19 2.98E+00 2.96E+00 2.89E+00 2.71E+00 2.60E+00 1.84E+00 2.47E+00 2.47E+00 20 2.27E+00 2.25E+00 2.20E+00 2.05E+00 1.95E+00 1.38E+00 1.76E+00 1.76E+00 21 2.00E+00 1.98E+00 1.91E+00 1.86E+00 1.78E+00 1.26E+00 1.56E+00 1.56E+00 22 1.94E+00 1.92E+00 1.85E+00 1.71E+00 1.63E+00 1.16E+00 1.42E+00 1.42E+00 23 2.91E+00 2.88E+00 2.76E+00 2.55E+00 2.43E+00 1.73E+00 2.06E+00 2.06E+00 24 2.22E+00 2.20E+00 2.13E+00 1.98E+00 1.88E+00 1.33E+00 1.69E+00 1.69E+00 25 1.97E+00 1.95E+00 1.88E+00 1.74E+00 1.66E+00 1.18E+00 1.45E+00 1.45E+00 26 1.94E+00 1.92E+00 1.85E+00 1.71E+00 1.63E+00 1.14E+00 1.42E+00 1.42E+00 27 2.41E+00 2.39E+00 2.29E+00 2.11E+00 2.01E+00 1.40E+00 1.69E+00 1.69E+00 28 2.06E+00 2.04E+00 1.96E+00 1.82E+00 1.74E+00 1.23E+00 1.54E+00 1.53E+00 29 2.05E+00 2.03E+00 1.96E+00 1.87E+00 1.82E+00 1.31E+00 1.59E+00 1.59E+00 30 1.97E+00 1.95E+00 1.88E+00 1.75E+00 1.66E+00 1.17E+00 1.46E+00 1.45E+00

********************************************************************************************* ******* Effective compartment halflives av eraged over simulation duration:

zero washout 0 water col metab halflife (days) = 2888.72777828107 zero hydrolysis 0

### 173 photolysis halflife (days) = 235.256836094185 volatile halflife (days) = 169914019.380742 total water col halflife (days) = 217.540151846075

zero burial 0 benthic metab halflife (days) = 3532.60667884456 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 total benthic halflife (days) = 3532.60667884456 *********************************************************************** Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg):

Due to Runoff = 0.2498 0.2478 Due to Erosion = 0.0004 0.4072E-03 Due to Drift = 0.7498 0.7440 ******* Inputs ******* 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 2979. = water column half Life 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 3643. = benthic Half Life 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 2.000 = Q ten value 2.500 = photolysis half life 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 288.3 = molecular wt 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 3200. = solubility 0.1000E+06 = field area 0.1000E+05 = water body area 2.000 = initial depth 2.000 = maximum depth 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow F T = burial, else no burial 0.1000E-07 = mass tr ansfer coefficient 0.5000 = PRBEN 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 0.5000 = benthic porosity 1.350 = benthic bulk density 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 1.190 = DFAC 30.00 = SS 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 5.000 = DOC in water column 0.4000 = biomass in water column

California Citrus (Prickly Pear), ground, no drift Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0

******************************************* Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 11: 8

Peak 1-in-10 = 1.24 ppb Chronic 1-in-10 = 0.779 ppb

### 174 Simulation Avg = 0.349 ppb 4-day avg 1-in-10 = 1.23 ppb 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 1.22 ppb 60-day avg 1-in-10 = 1.27 ppb 90-day avg 1-in-10 = 1.28 ppb

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 1.04 ppb Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 1.04 ppb Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 1 2.32E-02 2.32E-02 2.32E-02 2.32E-02 2.32E-02 1.26E-02 1.43E-02 1.43E-02 2 7.47E-01 7.39E-01 7.06E-01 6.61E-01 6.24E-01 3.96E-01 4.79E-01 4.78E-01 3 1.55E+00 1.53E+00 1.46E+00 1.36E+0 0 1.31E+00 8.75E-01 1.06E+00 1.06E+00 4 5.90E-01 5.91E-01 6.04E-01 6.35E-01 6.61E-01 3.86E-01 6.84E-01 7.00E-01 5 5.46E-01 5.41E-01 5.19E-01 4.91E-01 4.67E-01 3.26E-01 4.00E-01 4.00E-01 6 6.06E-01 6.00E-01 5.77E-01 5.34E-01 5.07E-01 3.55E-01 4.37E-01 4.37E-01 7 6.26E-01 6.19E-01 5.95E-01 5.50E-01 5.24E-01 3.68E-01 4.50E-01 4.50E-01 8 2.70E-01 2.68E-01 2.60E-01 2.55E-01 2.53E-01 1.93E-01 2.62E-01 2.68E-01 9 1.40E-01 1.39E-01 1.35E-01 1.34E-01 1.39E-01 9.59E-02 1.44E-01 1.47E-01 10 2.65E-01 2.62E-01 2.50E-01 2.29E-01 2.17E-01 1.55E-01 1.76E-01 1.75E-01 11 1.95E-01 1.96E-01 2.03E-01 2.02E-01 1.92E-01 1.46E-01 1.71E-01 1.70E-01 12 4.31E-01 4.26E-01 4.07E-01 3.71E-01 3.49E-01 2.03E-01 2.75E-01 2.75E-01 13 8.72E-01 8.62E-01 8.26E-01 7.58E-01 7.18E-01 4.88E-01 5.90E-01 5.89E-01 14 8.63E-01 8.54E-01 8.19E-01 7.53E-01 7.13E-01 4.92E-01 5.94E-01 5.94E-01 15 4.58E-01 4.54E-01 4.42E-01 4.15E-01 4.20E-01 3.00E-01 4.21E-01 4.29E-01 16 3.53E-01 3.49E-01 3.37E-01 3.14E-01 2.99E-01 2.14E-01 2.68E-01 2.68E-01 17 3.24E-01 3.22E-01 3.10E-01 2.87E-01 2.73E-01 2.20E-01 2.53E-01 2.52E-01 18 3.52E+00 3.48E+00 3.32E+00 3.03E+00 2.85E+00 1.82E+00 2.20E+00 2.20E+00 19 1.20E+00 1.20E+00 1.22E+00 1.29E+00 1.34E+00 7.91E-01 1.39E+00 1.42E+00 20 4.94E-01 4.91E-01 4.81E-01 5.05E-01 5.26E-01 3.25E-01 5.45E-01 5.58E-01 21 3.34E-01 3.31E-01 3.20E-01 2.99E-01 2.89E-01 2.10E-01 2.65E-01 2.65E-01 22 1.46E-01 1.45E-01 1.41E-01 1.42E-01 1.48E-01 1.04E-01 1.52E-01 1.56E-01 23 1.25E+00 1.23E+00 1.18E+00 1.07E+00 1.01E+00 6.67E-01 7.88E-01 7.87E-01 24 4.15E-01 4.16E-01 4.25E-01 4.47E-01 4.66E-01 2.69E-01 4.82E-01 4.94E-01 25 1.60E-01 1.60E-01 1.64E-01 1.72E-01 1.79E-01 1.18E-01 1.86E-01 1.90E-01 26 1.26E-01 1.26E-01 1.30E-01 1.36E-01 1.29E-01 8.21E-02 1.18E-01 1.17E-01 27 6.07E-01 6.00E-01 5.72E-01 5.21E-01 4.91E-01 3.41E-01 3.84E-01 3.83E-01 28 2.40E-01 2.40E-01 2.46E-01 2.61E-01 2.51E-01 1.75E-01 2.56E-01 2.58E-01 29 4.43E-01 4.38E-01 4.19E-01 3.85E-01 3.64E-01 2.46E-01 2.97E-01 2.97E-01 30 1.58E-01 1.59E-01 1.62E-01 1.70E-01 1.77E-01 1.05E-01 1.83E-01 1.88E-01

********************************************************************************************* ******* Effective compartment halflives av eraged over simulation duration:

zero washout 0 water col metab halflife (days) = 2888.72777828107 zero hydrolysis 0 photolysis halflife (days) = 235.256836094185 volatile halflife (days) = 169914019.380742 total water col halflife (days) = 217.540151846075

zero burial 0 benthic metab halflife (days) = 3532.60667884456 zero benthic hydrolysis 0

### 175 total benthic halflife (days) = 3532.60667884456 *********************************************************************** Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg):

Due to Runoff = 0.9984 0.2478 Due to Erosion = 0.0016 0.4072E-03 Due to Drift = 0.0000 0.000 ******* Inputs ******* 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 2979. = water column half Life 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 3643. = benthic Half Life 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 2.000 = Q ten value 2.500 = photolysis half life 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 288.3 = molecular wt 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 3200. = solubility 0.1000E+06 = field area 0.1000E+05 = water body area 2.000 = initial depth 2.000 = maximum depth 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow F T = burial, else no burial 0.1000E-07 = mass tr ansfer coefficient 0.5000 = PRBEN 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 0.5000 = benthic porosity 1.350 = benthic bulk density 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 1.190 = DFAC 30.00 = SS 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 5.000 = DOC in water column 0.4000 = biomass in water column

TX alfalfa, parent, aerial, drift Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0

******************************************* Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 11:11

Peak 1-in-10 = 25.2 ppb Chronic 1-in-10 = 13.1 ppb Simulation Avg = 8.79 ppb 4-day avg 1-in-10 = 24.9 ppb 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 24.0 ppb 60-day avg 1-in-10 = 22.1 ppb 90-day avg 1-in-10 = 20.9 ppb

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 17.2 ppb

### 176 Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 17.2 ppb Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 1 4.00E+00 3.97E+00 3.82E+00 3.53E+0 0 3.33E+00 1.74E+00 2.67E+00 2.67E+00 2 1.11E+01 1.09E+01 1.07E+01 9.86E+0 0 9.29E+00 5.25E+00 7.38E+00 7.37E+00 3 6.26E+00 6.21E+00 6.07E+00 5.95E+0 0 5.98E+00 4.70E+00 6.06E+00 6.20E+00 4 1.67E+01 1.65E+01 1.57E+01 1.43E+0 1 1.34E+01 7.59E+00 1.07E+01 1.07E+01 5 2.62E+01 2.59E+01 2.49E+01 2.30E+0 1 2.16E+01 1.34E+01 1.75E+01 1.75E+01 6 1.17E+01 1.17E+01 1.20E+01 1.27E+0 1 1.33E+01 9.42E+00 1.36E+01 1.39E+01 7 1.25E+01 1.24E+01 1.21E+01 1.14E+0 1 1.08E+01 7.87E+00 9.37E+00 9.36E+00 8 1.83E+01 1.81E+01 1.77E+01 1.65E+0 1 1.57E+01 1.00E+01 1.29E+01 1.29E+01 9 1.06E+01 1.05E+01 1.02E+01 9.69E+0 0 9.76E+00 8.19E+00 9.99E+00 1.02E+01 10 1.95E+01 1.92E+01 1.85E+01 1.70E+01 1.62E+01 1.04E+01 1.34E+01 1.34E+01 11 1.04E+01 1.03E+01 1.00E+01 9.81E+00 1.03E+01 8.15E+00 1.05E+01 1.07E+01 12 1.12E+01 1.11E+01 1.07E+01 1.01E+01 9.62E+00 7.23E+00 8.72E+00 8.71E+00 13 1.15E+01 1.14E+01 1.11E+01 1.06E+01 1.01E+01 7.10E+00 8.76E+00 8.75E+00 14 1.57E+01 1.56E+01 1.51E+01 1.41E+01 1.33E+01 9.32E+00 1.15E+01 1.15E+01 15 2.57E+01 2.54E+01 2.44E+01 2.25E+01 2.12E+01 1.32E+01 1.72E+01 1.72E+01 16 1.52E+01 1.50E+01 1.45E+01 1.40E+01 1.34E+01 1.07E+01 1.36E+01 1.39E+01 17 8.29E+00 8.23E+00 8.17E+00 8.62E+00 9.00E+00 6.59E+00 9.26E+00 9.48E+00 18 1.32E+01 1.30E+01 1.25E+01 1.18E+01 1.12E+01 7.31E+00 9.34E+00 9.33E+00 19 3.11E+01 3.08E+01 2.93E+01 2.68E+01 2.55E+01 1.49E+01 2.03E+01 2.03E+01 20 1.50E+01 1.48E+01 1.46E+01 1.54E+01 1.62E+01 1.12E+01 1.64E+01 1.68E+01 21 2.10E+01 2.08E+01 2.04E+01 1.88E+01 1.78E+01 1.14E+01 1.47E+01 1.47E+01 22 1.89E+01 1.87E+01 1.82E+01 1.76E+01 1.69E+01 1.17E+01 1.44E+01 1.44E+01 23 1.54E+01 1.53E+01 1.50E+01 1.42E+01 1.35E+01 9.91E+00 1.19E+01 1.19E+01 24 8.23E+00 8.16E+00 7.98E+00 8.28E+00 8.66E+00 6.28E+00 8.89E+00 9.10E+00 25 1.02E+01 1.01E+01 9.73E+00 9.19E+00 8.78E+00 5.93E+00 7.51E+00 7.50E+00 26 1.39E+01 1.38E+01 1.33E+01 1.23E+01 1.17E+01 7.63E+00 9.69E+00 9.68E+00 27 1.99E+01 1.96E+01 1.92E+01 1.76E+01 1.66E+01 1.03E+01 1.35E+01 1.35E+01 28 1.39E+01 1.38E+01 1.33E+01 1.26E+01 1.20E+01 9.11E+00 1.08E+01 1.10E+01 29 1.63E+01 1.61E+01 1.54E+01 1.48E+01 1.40E+01 9.38E+00 1.18E+01 1.18E+01 30 1.12E+01 1.11E+01 1.07E+01 1.02E+01 9.93E+00 7.76E+00 9.11E+00 9.33E+00

********************************************************************************************* ******* Effective compartment halflives av eraged over simulation duration:

zero washout 0 water col metab halflife (days) = 2716.96690609239 zero hydrolysis 0 photolysis halflife (days) = 220.999441902424 volatile halflife (days) = 138298143.709545 total water col halflife (days) = 204.375139623146

zero burial 0 benthic metab halflife (days) = 3322.56140949802 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 total benthic halflife (days) = 3322.56140949802 *********************************************************************** Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg):

Due to Runoff = 0.7797 5.312 Due to Erosion = 0.0001 0.4190E-03 Due to Drift = 0.2202 1.500

### 177 ******* Inputs ******* 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 2979. = water column half Life 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 3643. = benthic Half Life 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 2.000 = Q ten value 2.500 = photolysis half life 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 288.3 = molecular wt 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 3200. = solubility 0.1000E+06 = field area 0.1000E+05 = water body area 2.000 = initial depth 2.000 = maximum depth 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow F T = burial, else no burial 0.1000E-07 = mass tr ansfer coefficient 0.5000 = PRBEN 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 0.5000 = benthic porosity 1.350 = benthic bulk density 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 1.190 = DFAC 30.00 = SS 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 5.000 = DOC in water column 0.4000 = biomass in water column

MS soybean, Parent only Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0

******************************************* Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 11:16

Peak 1-in-10 = 6.97 ppb Chronic 1-in-10 = 3.54 ppb Simulation Avg = 1.84 ppb 4-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.91 ppb 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.61 ppb 60-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.05 ppb 90-day avg 1-in-10 = 5.71 ppb

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 4.70 ppb Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 4.70 ppb Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 1 4.71E-01 4.66E-01 4.46E-01 4.15E-01 4.02E-01 2.30E-01 3.18E-01 3.18E-01 2 5.86E+00 5.80E+00 5.54E+00 5.03E+0 0 4.73E+00 2.71E+00 3.64E+00 3.64E+00

### 178 3 2.29E+00 2.30E+00 2.35E+00 2.48E+0 0 2.58E+00 1.70E+00 2.66E+00 2.72E+00 4 5.27E+00 5.20E+00 5.08E+00 4.67E+0 0 4.40E+00 2.71E+00 3.49E+00 3.49E+00 5 2.13E+00 2.14E+00 2.19E+00 2.31E+0 0 2.41E+00 1.47E+00 2.48E+00 2.54E+00 6 1.39E+00 1.38E+00 1.34E+00 1.24E+0 0 1.18E+00 8.82E-01 1.06E+00 1.07E+00 7 2.03E+00 2.01E+00 1.93E+00 1.78E+0 0 1.69E+00 1.11E+00 1.42E+00 1.42E+00 8 3.85E+00 3.82E+00 3.65E+00 3.36E+0 0 3.18E+00 2.00E+00 2.56E+00 2.55E+00 9 2.69E+00 2.67E+00 2.57E+00 2.38E+0 0 2.26E+00 1.65E+00 2.01E+00 2.01E+00 10 1.36E+00 1.35E+00 1.32E+00 1.27E+00 1.32E+00 9.74E-01 1.37E+00 1.40E+00 11 3.16E+00 3.12E+00 3.05E+00 2.80E+00 2.63E+00 1.59E+00 2.09E+00 2.08E+00 12 1.34E+00 1.34E+00 1.37E+00 1.45E+00 1.51E+00 9.02E-01 1.55E+00 1.59E+00 13 2.85E+00 2.82E+00 2.70E+00 2.47E+00 2.32E+00 1.44E+00 1.87E+00 1.86E+00 14 7.33E+00 7.24E+00 6.98E+00 6.40E+00 6.02E+00 3.60E+00 4.72E+00 4.71E+00 15 3.08E+00 3.06E+00 3.05E+00 3.22E+00 3.35E+00 2.27E+00 3.45E+00 3.54E+00 16 1.44E+00 1.44E+00 1.48E+00 1.55E+00 1.62E+00 1.10E+00 1.68E+00 1.72E+00 17 3.95E+00 3.90E+00 3.77E+00 3.49E+00 3.29E+00 2.01E+00 2.60E+00 2.60E+00 18 2.07E+00 2.05E+00 1.99E+00 1.89E+00 1.81E+00 1.41E+00 1.85E+00 1.89E+00 19 3.62E+00 3.58E+00 3.44E+00 3.20E+00 3.04E+00 1.95E+00 2.47E+00 2.47E+00 20 7.10E+00 7.03E+00 6.73E+00 6.16E+00 5.80E+00 3.56E+00 4.60E+00 4.60E+00 21 2.84E+00 2.85E+00 2.92E+00 3.07E+00 3.21E+00 1.95E+00 3.31E+00 3.38E+00 22 2.68E+00 2.65E+00 2.55E+00 2.35E+00 2.22E+00 1.52E+00 1.88E+00 1.88E+00 23 1.09E+01 1.08E+01 1.05E+01 9.57E+00 8.99E+00 5.29E+00 6.97E+00 6.96E+00 24 4.66E+00 4.63E+00 4.56E+00 4.68E+00 4.89E+00 3.40E+00 5.03E+00 5.15E+00 25 2.19E+00 2.18E+00 2.21E+00 2.33E+00 2.43E+00 1.64E+00 2.52E+00 2.59E+00 26 1.03E+00 1.03E+00 1.06E+00 1.11E+00 1.16E+00 7.40E-01 1.21E+00 1.24E+00 27 5.40E-01 5.36E-01 5.24E-01 4.98E-01 5.20E-01 3.94E-01 5.39E-01 5.52E-01 28 5.02E+00 4.96E+00 4.73E+00 4.46E+00 4.21E+00 2.43E+00 3.23E+00 3.23E+00 29 2.31E+00 2.29E+00 2.23E+00 2.18E+00 2.27E+00 1.69E+00 2.34E+00 2.40E+00 30 1.35E+00 1.33E+00 1.31E+00 1.25E+00 1.26E+00 9.67E-01 1.31E+00 1.34E+00

********************************************************************************************* ******* Effective compartment halflives av eraged over simulation duration:

zero washout 0 water col metab halflife (days) = 3098.53925897206 zero hydrolysis 0 photolysis halflife (days) = 226.307838768034 volatile halflife (days) = 170342135.750770 total water col halflife (days) = 210.903790226708

zero burial 0 benthic metab halflife (days) = 3789.18379336529 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 total benthic halflife (days) = 3789.18379336529 *********************************************************************** Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg):

Due to Runoff = 1.0000 1.367 Due to Erosion = 0.0000 0.000 Due to Drift = 0.0000 0.000 ******* Inputs ******* 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 2979. = water column half Life 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 3643. = benthic Half Life 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 2.000 = Q ten value

### 179 2.500 = photolysis half life 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 288.3 = molecular wt 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 3200. = solubility 0.1000E+06 = field area 0.1000E+05 = water body area 2.000 = initial depth 2.000 = maximum depth 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow F T = burial, else no burial 0.1000E-07 = mass tr ansfer coefficient 0.5000 = PRBEN 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 0.5000 = benthic porosity 1.350 = benthic bulk density 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 1.190 = DFAC 30.00 = SS 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 5.000 = DOC in water column 0.4000 = biomass in water column

### 180 Appendix F. Estimation of Exposure of T errestrial Plants to Flupyradifurone and Unextracted Residues in Groundwa ter Used as Irrigation Water

To estimate exposure to plants when groundwater contaminated by flupyradifurone is applied to crops, the following method was used.

Assume a field is irrigated with one inch of water containing 96.0 μg flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues/L water.

One acre has 6,272,640 cubic inches of water on the fi eld. The one acre field with one inch of water has 3,630 cubic ft of water (6,272,640 x 0. 00058 cubic ft/cubic inch). The field has 27,156 gallons of water (3,630 cubic ft x 7.481 gallons/cubic ft). Therefore, one inch of water on the one acre field weighs 226,625 lbs (27,156 ga llons x 8.3453 lbs/gallon of water).

226,625 lb of water/acre x 112 μg/L = 0.0218 lbs ai/A 1,000,000,000

### 181 Appendix G. Example STIR ( v. 1.0) input and output data

### 182 Appendix H. Example T-REX (v . 1.5.2) input and output data.

### 183

### 184 Appendix I. Toxicity Comparisons of Flupy radifurone and Transformation Products.

Table I1 contains a list of toxic ity endpoints for aquatic and te rrestrial organisms for which parent and transformation product data exist. Base d on the available ecotoxi city data, none of the transformation products of flupyradif urone tested appear to be mo re toxic than the parent to freshwater fish (rainbow trout, Onchorhynchus mykiss ), freshwater aquatic invertebrates ( Daphnia magna; non-biting midges, Chironomus spp. ), terrestrial invertebrates (honeybees, Apis mellifera ; earthworms, Eisenia fetida ) and freshwater aquatic algae (green algae; Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ). However, in some cases, toxicity studies with transformation products were not carried out at high enough concentr ations to definitively conclude that they are not of equal or greater toxicity to the organi sms tested as compared to the parent compound.

Table I1. Toxicity Comparison of Flupyra difurone and Transformation Products.

Test Material MW (g/mol) Test Species Endpoint Toxicity Value (95% Confidence Interval) Degradate Toxicity Expressed in Parent Compound Equivalents b

Freshwater Fish BYI 02960 (technical) 288.68

Rainbow trout ( Onchorhynchus mykiss ) 96-hr LC 50 >80 mg ai/L N/A

BYI 02960- succinamide 306.69 >100 c mg ai/L >94 mg/L

Sodium Difluoroacetate 96.03 >10 c mg ai/L >30 mg/L a

Freshwater Invertebrates BYI 02960 (technical) 288.68

Daphnia. magna 48-hr EC 50 >77.6 c mg ai/L N/A

Sodium Difluoroacetate 96.03 >10 c mg ai/L >30 mg/L a

6-chloronicotinic acid 157.56 >95.1 mg ai/L >174 mg/L

BYI 02960 (technical) 288.68 21-day NOAEC 3.2 d mg ai/L (parental body length) N/A

BYI 02960- succinamide 306.69 43.3 mg ai/L (time to first brood) 41 mg/L

BYI 02960 (technical) 288.68

Non-biting midge Chironomus riparius 48-hr EC 50 0.0617 mg ai/L (0.0414-0.109) N/A

BYI 02960- succinamide 306.69 >100 mg ai/L >94 mg/L

BYI 02960-azabicyclosuccinamide 288.25 >100 mg ai/L >100 mg/L

6-chloronicotinic acid 157.56 Non-biting midge Chironomus tentans >1 c mg ai/L >1.8 mg/L

### 185 Test Material MW (g/mol) Test Species Endpoint Toxicity Value (95% Confidence Interval) Degradate Toxicity Expressed in Parent Compound Equivalents b

BYI 02960 (technical) 288.68

Non-biting midge Chironomus riparius 28-day NOAEC 0.010 e mg ai/L (emergence rate, development rate) N/A

Sodium Difluoroacetate 96.03 100 f mg ai/L (emergence rate, development rate) 301 mg/L

6-chloronicotinic acid 157.56 100 f mg ai/L (emergence rate, development rate) 183 mg/L

Aquatic Plants

BYI 02960 (technical) 288.68

Green alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata 96-hr NOAEC/ EC 50 80/>80 mg ai/L N/A

Sodium Difluoroacetate 96.03 72-hr NOAEC/ EC 50 10/>10 c mg ai/L 30/>30 mg/L a

BYI 02960- succinamide 306.69 10/>10 c mg ai/L 9.4/>9.4 mg/L a

6-chloronicotinic acid 157.56 100/>100 mg ai/L 183/>183 mg/L

Terrestrial Invertebrates

BYI 02960 (technical) 288.68

Honeybee Apis mellifera 96-hr Contact LD 50 122.8 μg ai/bee N/A

BYI 02960-difluoro-aminofuranone 163.12

48-hr Contact LD 50 >100 μg ai/bee 177 μg/bee

BYI 02960-hyroxy 304.68 >100 μg ai/bee 95 μg/bee a Difluoroacetic acid 96.03 >100 μg ai/bee 301 μg/bee 6-chloronicotinic acid 157.56 >100 μg ai/bee 183 μg/bee

6-chloropicolylalcohol 143.57 >100 μg ai/bee 201 μg/bee

BYI 02960 (technical) 288.68

48-hr Oral LD 50 1.2 μg ai/bee N/A

BYI 02960-difluoro-aminofuranone 163.12 >81.5 μg ai/bee 144 μg/bee

BYI 02960-hyroxy 304.68 >105.3 μg ai/bee 100 μg/bee Difluoroacetic acid 96.03 >107 .9 μg ai/bee 324 μg/bee 6-chloronicotinic acid 157.56 >107.1 μg ai/bee 196 μg/bee

6-chloropicolylalcohol 143.57 >106.7 μg ai/bee 215 μg/bee

BYI 02960 (technical) 288.68 10-day NOAEC 10 mg ai/L N/A

### 186 Test Material MW (g/mol) Test Species Endpoint Toxicity Value (95% Confidence Interval) Degradate Toxicity Expressed in Parent Compound Equivalents b

BYI 02960-difluoro-aminofuranone 163.12 10 mg ai/L 18 mg/L

BYI 02960-hyroxy 304.68 10 mg ai/L 9.5 mg/L a Difluoroacetic acid 96.03 10 mg ai/L 30 mg/L 6-chloronicotinic acid 157.56 10 mg ai/L 18 mg/L

6-chloropicolylalcohol 143.57 10 mg ai/L 20 mg/L

BYI 02960 (technical) 288.68

Earthworm Eisenia fetida 14-day LC 50 192.9 mg ai/kg dry soil N/A

Difluoroacetic acid 96.03 >1,000 mg ai/kg dry soil 3000 mg/kg dry soil

6-chloronicotinic acid 157.56 >1,000 mg ai/kg dry soil 1830 mg/kg dry soil

BYI 02960 (SL 200 G) g 288.68

28-day NOAEC 1.5 mg ai/kg dry soil N/A

Difluoroacetic acid 96.03 62 mg ai/kg dry soil 186 mg/kg dry soil

6-chloronicotinic acid 157.56 95 mg ai/kg dry soil 174 mg/kg dry soil

N/A = Not Applicable

a Due to limits determined by the highest concentration tested, it is not possible to determine if the transformation product is less, equal, or more toxic than the parent compound.

b Degradate toxicity in parent compound equivalents (mg/L) = (MW parent/MW degradate) x (toxicity endpoint of degradate (mg/L)).

c Based on single concentration limit test

d Endpoint based on comparis on to solvent contro l; endpoints for this study will be recalculated before finalizing

study review.

e Spiked water test; endpoint based on nominal concentrations and comparison to pooled controls.

f Spiked water test; endpoint based on nominal concentrations and comparison to pooled controls; only one

concentration tested (100 mg ai/L)

g Transformation product endpoint comparisons do not account for any effects of inert ingredients in SL 200 G as compared to the technical gr ade active ingredient alone.

### 187 Appendix J. OECD and OPP Rating System for Data Evaluation Records and/or Monographs

The OECD rating system is outlined on page 22 of the Guidance Document on the Planning and Implementation of Joint Reviews of Pesticides; March 2011.

Table J1. Summary of OPP and OECD Rating Systems



### OECD Rating OPP Rating OECD Definition Fully Reliable Acceptable GLP compliant and fully compliant with the Test Guideline specified Reliable with Restrictions Supplemental GL P compliant but not fu lly compliant with the Test Guideline specified, but nevertheless judged to provide a reliable basis for regulatory decision making. Not Reliable Invalid Not GLP compliant and/or not compliant with the Test Guideline specified, and judged to not provide a reliable basis for regulatory decision-making.