## Ecological RiskAssessment for the Proposed IR-4 Uses of Acequinocyl (PC 006329) on Succulent Soybean Vegetable (i.e., 

## edamame), Low Growing Berry Subgroup 13-07G, Small FruitVine Climbing (exceptfuzzy kiwifruit) Subgroup 13-07F, Bean (succulent shelled), Cowpea

Forage, Caneberry Subgroup 13-07A, Melon Subgroup 9A, Cucumber, and Cherry (DP 390259)
October25, 2011

5 

# 111••••111 2087873

### Tables ofContents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10 1.1. Nature ofStressor 10 1.2. Potential Risk 10 1.2.1. Aquatic Organisms 10 1.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms 11 1.3. Endangered Species Assessment 11 

### 2. PROBLEM FORMlTLATION 13 2.1. Overview ofRegulatory Action 13 2.2. StressorDescription 13 2.3. Mode ofAction 15 2.4. Use Characterization 15 2.4.1. Targeted Pests 15 2.4.2. Proposed Uses 16 2.4.3. Registered Uses 17 2.4.4. Use Restrictions ]8 2.5. AssessmentEndpoints 18 2.6. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk 19 2.7. Analysis Plan 20 2.7.1. Measures ofExposure 21 2.7.2. Measures ofEffect 23 2.7.3. Integration ofExposure and Effects 25 2.8. Risk Hypotheses 26 2.9. Key Uncertainties and Information Gaps 27 

### 3. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 28 3.1. Label Application Rates and Intervals 28 3.2. Monitoring Data 28 3.3. Aquatic Exposure Estimates 28 3.3.1. Aquatic Modeling Approaches 1 and 2 28 3.3.2. PRZM/EXAMS Modeling 29 3.3.3. Tier 1 Riee Model and Provisional Cranberry Model 31 3.3.4. PRZM-EXAMS, Rice, and Provisional Cranberry Modeling Outputs 32 3.4. Terrestrial Exposure Estimates 35 3.4.1. Birds and Mammals 35 3.4.2. Plants 36 

### 4. ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT 37 4.1. Aquatic Effects Summary 37 4.1.1. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish 37 4.1.2. Toxicityto Estuarine/Marine Fish 39 4.1.3. Toxicityto Freshwater Invertebrates 39 4.1.4. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates 40
6

### 4.1.5. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants 41 4.2. Terrestrial Effects Summary 42 4.2.1. Toxicity to Birds 42 4.2.2. Toxicity to Mammals 43 4.2.3. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants 44 4.2.4. Toxicity to Non-target Insects 45 4.2.5. Toxicity to Earthworms 45 4.3. Incident Database Review 46 

### 5. RISKESTIMATION 46 5.1. Aquatic RQs 46 5.1.1. Aquatic Acute RQs 46 5.1.2. Aquatic Chronic RQs 48 5.2. Terrestrial RQs 50 5.2.1. Avian RQs 50 5.2.2. Mammalian RQs 51 5.2.3. Plant RQs 52 5.2.4. Invertebrate RQs 52 

### 6. RISKCHARACTERIZATION 52 6.1. Aquatic Risk 53 6.1.1. Aquatic Animals 53 6.1.2. Plants 56 6.2. Terrestrial Risk 56 6.2.1. Animals (Birds, Mammals, and Insects) 56 6.3. Endangered Species 57 6.3.1. Aquatic Endangered Species 58 6.3.2. Terrestrial Endangered Species 58 6.3.3. Direct and Indirect Effects 58 

### REFERENCES 60

7

### List ofTables


### Table 1-1.Number ofEndangered Species That May Be Directly Affected by the Proposed Uses ofAcequinocyl 11 Table 1-2. Summary ofPotential Direct and Indirect Effects to Federally-ListedTaxa 12 Table 2-1. Physical and Chemical Properties ofAcequinocyl 13 Table 2-2. Proposed Use Rates for Acequinocy1. 16 Table 2-3: Previous Actions and Assessed Uses for Acequinocyl 17 Table 2-4. Measures ofExposure and Effect Used in Assessing Potential Risks Associated with the Proposed Uses ofAcequinocyl 25 Table 2-5. Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metrics and Levels ofConcern (LOC) per Risk Class .. 26 Table 3-1. Acequinocyl Use Patterns for the Proposed New Uses 28 Table 3-2. PRZM/EXAMS Input Parameters for Approaches 1 and 2 29 Table 3-3. Provisional Tier 1 Cranberry Model Input Parameters 32 Table 3-4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) forAcequinocyl Total Toxic Residues Based on Approaches 1 and 2 Using PRZM/EXAMS and Provisional Cranberry Model 33 Table 3-5. Benthic EstimatedEnvironmental Concentrations (EECs) for Acequinocyl Total Toxic Residues Based on Approaches 1 and 2 Using PRZM/EXAMS 34 Table 3-6. Avian Estimated Exposure Concentrations (EECs) for Proposed Uses 36 Table 3-7. Mammalian Estimated Exposure Concentrations (EECs) for Proposed Uses 36 Table 3-8. Terrestrial Plant EstimatedExposure Concentrations (EECs) for Acequinocyl 37 Table 4-1. Acute Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Freshwater Fish 37 Table 4-2. Chronic Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Freshwater Fish 39 Table 4-3. Acute Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Estuarine/Marine Fish 39 Table 4-4. Acute Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Freshwater Invertebrates 40 Table 4-5. Chronic Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Freshwater Invertebrates 40 Table 4-6. Acute Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates 41 Table 4-7. Acute Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Aquatic Plants 41 Table 4-8. Acute Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Birds 42 Table 4-9. Chronic Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Birds 43 Table 4-10. Acute Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Mammals 43 Table 4-11. Developmental and Reproductive Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Mammals 44 Table 4-12. Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Terrestrial Plants 45 Table 4-13. Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Non-target Insects 45 Table 4-14. Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Earthworms 46 Table 5-1. Summary ofAquatic Acute RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 1 (Assumes No Acequinocyl Degradation) 47 Table 5-2. Summary ofAquatic Acute RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 2 (Combined Acequinocyl and Rl) 47 Table 5-3. Summary ofAquatic Chronic RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 1 (Assumes No Acequinocyl Degradation) 49 Table 5-4. Summary ofAquatic Chronic RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 2 (Combined Acequinocyl and Rl) 50
8

### Table 5-5. Summary ofAvian Chronic RQs 51 Table 5-6. Summary ofMammalian Chronic RQs 52 Table 5-7. Summary ofRQs for Plants in Dry and Semi-aquatic Areas 52 Table 6-1. Chance ofIndividual Effects for Freshwater Invertebrates Based on Acute RQs and Exposure Modeling Approaches 1 and 2 55 Table 6-2. Summary ofPotential Direct and Indirect Effects to Federally-ListedTaxa 58 List of Figures 

### Figure 2-1. Chemical Structures ofAcequinocyl (left) and Major Degradate ofAcequinocyl-OH (R1) (right) 13 Figure 2-2. Conceptual Model for Acequinocyl.. 20

9

### 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Interregional Research Project Number4 (IR-4) has submitted an application to the Environmental Protection Agency, with support from the manufacturerofacequinocyl (PC 006329), Arysta LifeScience North America Corporation, to amend the registration (EPA Reg. # 

### 66330-38) for Kanemite 15 SC containing the active ingredient acequinocyl (15.8% a.i.). The applicationincludes the addition ofuses ofthe pesticide on succulent soybean vegetable (i.e., 

### edamame), low growing berry subgroup 13-07G, small fruit vine climbing (except fuzzy kiwifruit), subgroup 13-07F, bean (succulent shelled), cowpea forage, caneberry subgroup 13-07 A, melon subgroup 9A, cucumber, and cherry (DP 390259). The maximum application rates for the proposed uses are not to exceed 0.3 lb a.i./A for a single applicationrate (0.6Ib a.i./A for a seasonal application rate), with aminimum re-application interval of21 days (14 days for bean (succulent shelled), cowpeaforage, and cherry). The IR-4 petition also includes additional submission ofresidue field trial data and supporting product labels under DP 389520.


### 1.1. Nature of Stressor Acequinocyl, the active ingredient ofthe miticide Kanemite 15 SC, is used for the control ofa variety ofmites. Both the parent acequinocyl (3-dodecyl-l,4-dihydro-l,4-dioxo-2-naphthyl acetate) and its primary degradate, 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-l,4-napthoquinone (also referred to as Rl, deacetylated acequinocyl, hydroxylated acequinocyl, acequinocyl-OH, OH-AKD 2023, or AKM-05) appear to mediate the chemical's mode ofaction through the inhibition ofelectrontransfer in mitochondria. Acequinocyl is classified as very highly toxic to freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates, slightly to moderately toxic to freshwater fish, highly toxic to estuarine/marine fish, practically non-toxic to moderately toxic to birds, practically non-toxic to mammals, and practically non-toxic to honeybees.


### 1.2. Potential Risk
The screening-level risk assessment for acequinocyl identifiedpotential concerns for direct effects on aquatic invertebrates, birds, mammals, and terrestrial invertebrates. Details on potential risk to individual organisms in aquatic and terrestrial environments are discussed below. 

### 1.2.1. Aquatic Organisms Among the aquatic organisms, invertebrates (both in freshwater and estuarine/marine media) are highly sensitive to acequinocyl. Analysis suggests that the proposed uses ofacequinocyl pose risk to both endangered and non-endangered freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates from acute and chronic exposures. In contrast, no risk concerns exist for acute or chronic exposures of either endangered or non-endangered fish in freshwater or estuarine/marine environments.

10

### Only one freshwater non-vascularplant, 

### Selenastrum capricornutum, has been testedto evaluate the acute effects ofacequinocyl. Calculatedrisk quotients (RQs) for this species do not exceed the agency-established acute endangered species risk LOC for aquatic plants.
1.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms Acute RQs were not calculated for birds (oral and dietary) and mammals (oral and dietary) because acute toxicity tests have yielded only non-definitive endpoints. Since no mortality was observed at the highest acequinocyl concentrations tested and estimated exposure concentrations (EECs) are belowthese levels, no acute effects are expected. Dietary-based chronic RQs for birds and mammals consuming short grass exclusively exceed the chronic risk LOC of 1.0. Dose-based chronic RQs for mammals foraging on short grass, tall grass, broadleafplants, and small insects also exceedthe chronic risk LOC. Thereforethe proposed uses ofacequinocyl pose a risk to terrestrial vertebrates. Since acequinocyl is a miticide and the highest dose tested in the acute contact study with honey bees is below the exposure level to preclude risk to federally listed species, risk to listed terrestrial invertebrates is assumed. Acequinocyl does not appearto pose non-endangered or endangered species risk concerns for plants in both dry and semi-aquatic habitats.
1.3. Endangered Species Assessment
A search ofthe LOCATES database (version 2.2) was used to determine which endangered species are present in the states where proposed uses ofacequinocyl will occur. The numbers of endangered species in various taxa that may be directly affected by the proposed uses of acequinocyl are presented in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Number ofEndangered Species That May Be Directly Affected by the Proposed Uses ofAcequinocyl

Mammals Birds Am hibians Re tiles Fish Crustaceans Bivalves Gastro ods Coral 70 82 18 25 

## o 20 71 70 2 

### Based on LOC exceedances, endangered species ofaquatic invertebrates and terrestrial mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates will experience direct effects from the proposed uses ofacequinocyl (Table 1-2). 11

### Table 1-2. Summary ofPotential Direct and Indirect Effects to Federally-Listed Taxa

Specific indirect effects were not identified as refined analysis was not conducted. I Organism Direct Effects IndirectEffectsl

Terrestrial and semi-aquatic monocots and dicots No No Terrestrial invertebrates Yes Yes Birds Yes Yes Terrestrial-phase amphibians Yes Yes Reptiles Yes Yes Mammals Yes Yes rt;quatic vascular plants No Yes

Freshwaterfish No Yes I I Aquatic-phase amphibians No Yes

I Estuarine/marine fish No Yes

Freshwater invertebrates Yes Yes Estuarine/marine invertebrates Yes Yes I

12

### 2. PROBLEM FORMULATION
The purpose ofthis problem formulation is to provide the foundation for the ecological risk assessmentbeing conducted for acequinocyl. As such, it articulates the purpose and objectives ofthe risk assessment, evaluates the nature ofthe problem, and provides a plan for analyzing the data and characterizing the risk (USEPA, 1998).


### 2.1. Overview ofRegulatory Action
The Interregional Research Project-4 (IR-4) has submitted an applicationto the Agency, with support from the manufacturer Arysta LifeScience North America Corporation, to amend the Kanemite 15 SC label (EPA Reg. 

### # 66330-38) containing the miticide acequinocyl (15.8% a.i.). The proposed label amendments to Kanemite 15 SC are for succulent soybean vegetable (i.

### e., edamame), low growing berry subgroup 12-070, small fruit vine climbing (except fuzzy kiwifruit) subgroup 13-07F, bean (succulent shelled), cowpea forage, caneberry subgroup 13- 07A, melon subgroup 9A, cucumber, and cherry.


### 2.2. StressorDescription Acequinocyl (2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-l,4-naphthalenedione) belongs to the quinone class of chemicals. One ofthe major metabolites ofacequinocyl is 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-l,4- naphthoquinone (also referred to as Rl, hydroxylated, deacetylated acequinocyl, acequinocylOH, OH-AKD 2023, or AKM-05). 

### Figure 2-1 shows the molecular structure ofacequinocyl and its major degradate Rl.

OH 

### o 

## o

o 0 

### Figure 2-1. Chemical Structures ofAcequinocyl (left) and MajorDegradate of Acequinocyl-OH (R1) (right) Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. provides a summary ofphysical and chemical properties ofacequinocyl.



### Table 2-1. Physical and Chemical Properties ofAcequinocyl Common Name: Acequinocyl CAS Chemical Name: 2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-I,4-naphthalenedione Empirical Formula: C24H320 4 Chemical Family: Quinoline Vapor Pressure: 1.27 x 10"'mm Hg at 25 C (technical, product chemistry) Water Solubility: 6.69 ug/L at 20 C (technical, product chemistry) OctanollWaterPartition Coefficient (Log Kow):**~6.2** (technical) 

### 13Molecular Weight: 384.5 g/mol (technical, productchemistry) Melting Point: 59.6°C (technical, product chemistry) Henry's Lay Constant: 9.59x 10'7 atm-rrr'zmol (technical, calculated) 

### Acequinocyl appears to undergo fairly rapid transformation in most aquatic and terrestrial environments based on environmental fate dataofuncertain quality. The half-lives for aerobic biotransformation for the [phenyl-U- 14C] and [dodecyl-14C] labels were less than 2 days under laboratory conditions for United Kingdom sandy loam and silt loam soils (MRID 45434911). The major transformation product was identified as Rl for both labels and soils. At the [phenylU_1 4C] label, Rl was detected at a maximum 28.3% at 7 days inUnited Kingdom sandy loam and 33.8% at 2 days in United Kingdom silt loam. At the [dodecyl-i''C] label, Rl was detected at amaximum 23.5% at 7 days inUnited Kingdom sandy loam and 22.1% at 10 days inUnited Kingdom silt loam. A summary ofacequinocyl major degradates and maximum percent formation observed in laboratory and field studies ispresented in Appendix A.


### The persistence ofthe degradate Rl was determined using the submitted fate studies for acequinocyl. Among fate studies submitted for parent, the soil metabolism study was found useful to estimate the persistence ofRl. Based on the aerobic soil metabolism study submitted forparent (MRID 45434911), the half-lives calculated for the degradate Rl in Malham silt loam soil, ranged from 48.8 days for phenyl labeled acequinocyl to 54.2 days for dodecyllabeled acequinocyl in the laboratory conditions.
The soil adsorption Kd for acequinocyl ranged from 678 

### mUg in sandy loam soil to 1,620

### mUg in silty clay loam soil (MRID 45531902) suggesting very low mobility in soil based on a study with one test concentration instead offour test concentrations as required by Subdivision N guidelines. In the field studies, the parent was not detected below 0-15 em 

### soil depth (MRID 45651601). The major route ofdissipation ofacequinocyl under terrestrial field conditions at the New York, Georgia, and Californiatest sites was transformation. The majortransformation product detected in the field study was Rl. At the New York, Georgia and California sites Rl was detected at maximum concentration of37.8%, 37.8% and 26%, respectively in 0-15 

### ernsoil depth. Acequinocyl hydrolyzed at pH dependentrates. The hydrolysis rate at 25° C increased in the order pH 4 (t1/2

### =75.3 days< pH 7 (t1/2 

### = 39.8 hours) < pH 9 (tl/2 

### = 1.3 hours). In the pH 4, pH 7 and pH 9 buffers the major transformation productfrom hydrolyses was Rl. At pH 4 Rl comprised amaximum average of23.2% ofthe applied at 30 days post-treatment; pH 7 comprised amaximum average of54.7% ofthe applied at 96 hours post-treatment; and pH 9 RI comprised amaximum average of48.7% ofthe applied at 1.5 hours post-treatment (MRID 45434908). Photodegradation in water appeared to be the main route ofdegradation in aquatic environments, with half-lives ofless than 15 minutes in sterile lab and river water. The major transformation product Rl was amaximum 13.83% ofthe applied at 14 days post-treatment. Acequinocyl has a vapor pressure of1.69 x 10- 6 

### torr (at 25°C) and very low water solubility of

146.69 I!g/L.


### Based on acequinocyl's high octanol/waterpartition coefficient (Log Kow 6.2), acequinocyl would be expected to bioconcentrate in fish. However, the depuration half-lives were quite rapid (0.7 days in the low exposure experiment and 1.3 days in the high exposure experiment), resulting in much lower bioconcentration factors (BCF ranged from 307X to 387X, MRID 45434923). Althoughthe fate and transportdatabase is complete, most ofthe environmental fate studies submittedprior to the initial registration were classified "supplemental" due to numerous identified deficiencies such as poor chromatographic separation ofacequinocyl and hydroxylated acequinocyl, use ofachloroform: methanol solvent system, lack ofLOD and LOQ data, uneluted radioactive residues in the solid phase extraction process, and lack ofstorage stability data. These issues need to be addressed by the registrant to upgrade the fate studies.
The registrant submitted an amended analytical method for determination ofresidues of acequinocyl and its major metabolite R1 (hydroxy-acequinocyl) in drinking water, ground water and surface water (MRID 48016602), and an amended analytical method for the determination of acequinocyl, hydroxy-acequinocyl, and AKM-18 in soil (MRID 48016601). The Agency is in the process ofreviewing the submitted studies.


### 2.3. Mode ofAction Acequinocyl, the active ingredient ofthe Kanemite 15 SC, is used for the control ofmites. Acequinocyl's mode ofaction is through mitochondrial electrontransport inhibition. Upon application, acequinocyl hydrolyzes to hydroxy-acequinocyl (R1) in the mite body and binds to the Qo center at complex III in mitochondria. The net result is the blockage ofcellular respiration and other adverse metabolic effects in mites. Both the parent acequinocyl and its major metabolite (R1) are thoughtto be capable ofinhibiting the electrontransfer in the mitochondria. It 

### is not clear at this point what portion ofthe miticidal action is contributed by the parent, metabolite R1, or both. Acequinocyl has no systemic activity but provides contact control ofall life stages ofmites. Therefore, thorough plant coverage is necessary for effective mite control. To a lesser extent, acequinocyl is also effective through ingestion. The label states that KANEMITE 15 SC is not expected to have cross-resistance to existing miticides and is reportedly very effective against various species ofmites.


### 2.4. Use Characterization
2.4.1. Targeted Pests
KANEMITE 15 SC is amiticide primarily applied as a foliar ground spray for control ofCitrus red mite (Panonychus citri), European red mite (Panonychus ulmi), Pacific spider mite 15

### (Tetranychuspacificus), 

### Texas citrus mite (Eutetranychus banski), 

### Spruce spider mite (Oligonychus ununquis), 

### Strawberry spidermite (Tetranychus turkestam), 

### Willamette spider mite (Eotetranychus willamette), 

### Two spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae and Tetranychus cinnabarinusi, 

### and Broad mite (Polyphagotarsonamus latus). 

### According to the registrant, when applied to foliage, KANEMITE 15 SC provides quick knockdown and long residual control.
The proposed label addition/amendment for acequinocyl includes its use as a miticide on succulent soybean vegetable (i.e., 

### edamame), low growing berry subgroup 13-07G, small fruit vine climbing (except fuzzy kiwifruit), subgroup 13-07F, bean (succulent shelled), cowpea forage, caneberry subgroup 13-07A, melon subgroup 9A, cucumber, and cherry.
2.4.2. 

### Proposed Uses
The proposed uses for acequinocyl are succulent soybean vegetable (i.e., 

### edamame), low growing berry subgroup 13-07G, small fruit vine climbing (except fuzzy kiwifruit), subgroup 13- 07F, bean (succulent shelled), cowpeaforage, caneberry subgroup 13-07A, melon subgroup 9A, cucumber, and cherry. The maximum application rates for the proposed uses are not to exceed 0.3 lb a.i./A for a single application rate and 0.6 lb a.i./A for a seasonal application rate, with a minimumre-application interval of21 days (14 days for bean (succulent shelled), cowpea forage, and cherry). 

### Table 2-2 summarizes the application rates and application methods for the proposed uses. This information is obtained from the label and is used in the exposure assessment.



### Table 2-2. 

### Proposed Use Rates for Acequinocyl Maximum Annual Minimum Maximum 

# I Application ! Proposed Individual Maximum Application Seasonal Method I Use Application Number of Interval (days) Rate(lb Rate (Ib a.i.fA) Applications a.i.lA)1 Succulent soybean 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray vegetable (edamame) Low growing berry 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray (subgroup 13-07G) Small fruit (vine climbing, except fuzzy 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray kiwifruit, subgroup 13- 07F) Bean, succulent 0.3 2 14 0.6 Ground spray shelled Cowpea forage 0.3 2 14 0.6 Ground spray Caneberry (subgroup 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray**~13-07A)** Melon (subgroup 9A) 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray Cucumber 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray Cherry 0.3 2 14 0.6 Ground spray The proposed label states the maximum application rate on a seasonal basis, ThIS rate IS mferred to be an annual maximum given the restriction oftwo applications per year not to exceed 0.3 lb a.i.lA in a single application.


### 16

### 2.4.3. Registered Uses Acequinocyl initial registration was for greenhouse and shadehouse use on ornamentals and nursery crops (USEPA, 2003). Acequinocyl initial food use registration was for pome fruits, citrus, almonds, pistachios, and strawberries (USEPA, 2004). Previous actions and assessed uses for acequinocyl are presented in 

### Table 2-3. 

### Table 2-3: Previous Actions and Assessed Uses for Acequinocyl

Crop , Applicatiol;lRate Number,()f

'"." Aetipn, Risk Conclusions

'", ".' " ,(lb a.i./A.) ,**~~plica!io?s** "**,~~Ba"code'l**

,Single Seasoriall**(~ppl~~~~i9n·** Date ",
:I '": Annual IDtel"ValinrDays) ," "

" Greenhouse, N/A N/A N/A Section 3 

# · Uses may pose potential risk Shadehouse: New Uses to aquatic invertebrates. Ornamental, Floral, 0291707 

# · Uses are not expected to Foliage, and Nursery 8/7/03 adversely affect fish. Crops 

# · Assuming 1000 gallons of formulated mix containing 0.125 lbs a.i./acre, uses may

I I pose a potential risk to endangeredbirds and mammals. Pome Fruits 0.3 0.6 2 (21) Section 3 

# · Uses pose risk to: freshwater Citrus New Uses invertebrates from acute and Almonds 0285811 chronic exposures and Pistachios 0286428 estuarine/marine Strawberries 0289153 invertebrates from acute Outdoor Ornamentals 0.125 0.250 2 (14) 0290010 exposure. 0287269 

# · Food uses pose risk to shortI 0290009 grass consuming birds and

I I D291174 mammals from chronic 2/3/04 exposure. Citrus, 

# I 0.3 0.6 2 (21) Section 3 

# · Uses pose direct risk to: Tree Nuts New Uses aquatic invertebrates (listed Grapes D337381 and non-listed) from acute Pome Fruits 0330467 and chronic exposures and Strawberries D330471 birds and mammals from Outdoor Ornamentals 0.125 0.25 2 (14) 8115/07 chronic exposure.



# · Uses are not expected to

pose direct risk to: fish from acute or chronic exposures; plants (aquatic and

\ terrestrial; listed and nonlisted); and birds and mammals from acute exposure.

17Crop**AppU~~tion~.ate** Number of action Risk Conclusions (lb a.i.tAY

.... Applications DPBarcode Sillgle SeasonaV**~~PR·*~~t~on** Date Annual IntervaJinDays) Fruiting Vegetables 0.3 0.6 2 (21) Section 3 • Uses pose direct risk to: (except Cucurbits): 1R-4 aquatic invertebrates (listed Eggplant, Ground New Uses and non-listed) from acute Cherry, Pepino, 0368579 and chronic exposures and Peppers (Bell, Chili, 0368426 birds and mammals from Cooking, Pimento, D417967 chronic exposure. Sweet), Tomatillo, D417966 • Uses are not expected to and Tomato 4/29110 pose directrisk to: fish Okra (listed and non-listed) from Edible podded beans acute or chronic exposures; Hops plants (terrestrial vascular and aquatic non-vascular; listed and non-listed); and birds and mammals from acute exposure. N/A =not applIcable


### 2.4.4. Use Restrictions 

### The product label use restrictions specifythat the product is not to be applied via irrigation, via aerial application, or within 75 feet ofaquatic areas. A level, well-maintained vegetative buffer strip between areas to whichthis product is applied and surface water features such as ponds, streams, and springs will reduce the potential loading ofacequinocyl and its dcgradates from runoffwater and sediment. By avoiding applications when rainfall is forecasted to occur within 48 hours, runoffofthis product will be reduced. Currently, the label includes the following surface water statement:
"This productmay contaminate water through drift ofspray in wind. This producthas a potential forrunofffor several days after application. Poorly draining soils and soils with shallow water tables are more prone to produce runoffthat contains this product. A level, well maintained vegetative buffer strip between areas to which this product is applied and surface water features such as ponds, streams, and springs will reduce the potential for contamination of water from rainfall-runoff. Runoffofthis product will be reduced by avoiding applications when rainfall is forecasted to occur within 48 hours. Sound erosion control practices will reduce this product's contribution to surface water contamination."
2.5. Assessment Endpoints


### Assessment endpoints aid in evaluatingpotential risk to an ecosystem from pesticide applications. Endpoints for aparticularpesticide are determined based ontoxicity information from guideline tests and open literature data. Endpoints are measured at the individual level to provide insight about risks at higher levels ofbiological organization such as populations and
18communities.


### Ina screening-level risk assessment, endpoints for both aquatic and terrestrial animal species are survival, growth, and reproductive impairment. For terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants, the screening assessment endpoint is plantperpetuation (measured as seedling emergence and vegetative vigor). For aquatic plants, the assessment endpoint is growth rate and/or biomass production.


### 2.6. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk
The ecosystem primarily at risk from acequinocyl applications is the crop field and outdoor area to which it is applied. Biota, fauna more than flora, in crop fields, outdoor areas, and areas adjoining the sprayed environment may be affected by acequinocyl application and accumulation. Terrestrial species ofpotential concern in the treated areas include non-target insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The adjacent aquatic and terrestrial environments may also be affected due to runoffor spray drift or both. Aquatic species at risk from acequinocyl runoffand drift include freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, and amphibians.
As an insecticide, acequinocyl may not adversely impactplants in the terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems. However, based on the potential to bind to soil with Kd's ranging from 678 to 1,620 mUg, acequinocyl may cause adverse effects to sediment-dwelling organisms. The bioaccumulation factor (BCF of307-387) for acequinocyl further indicates its tendency (though moderate) to accumulate in fish.

The conceptual model, presented in 

### Figure 2-2, generically depicts the potential source of acequinocyl, release mechanisms, abiotic receiving media, biological receptortypes, and possible direct and indirect effects due to exposure to acequinocyl. Acequinocyl is expected to exhibit low mobility in soil and low potential to leach to ground water due to its high Koc values. Therefore, exposure estimates from leaching to groundwaterwere not evaluated in this risk assessment. Potential emission ofvolatile compounds is not considered as a viable release mechanism for acequinocyl because ofa low Henry's Constant (9.59x 10- 7atm-rrr'zmol),

19Stressor Acequinocyl Applied as Foliar Spray I



### ____t

_ I I 'Ground I -1- I I water I I I

, I 1_- 1

Aquatic Plant Population Reduced Growth Rates and Biomass Leaching (lnfiltration/ Percolation)

Aquatic Invertebrates Aquatic Vertebrates Aquatic Plants Surface Water, Sediment

Habitat Alteration: impacting nesting ability, ability to seek cover, etc. !ndividual Aquatic Vertebrates and Invertebrates Reduced Survival Reduced Growth Reduced Reproduction Riparian/ Wetland Foliage/Soil Upland Foliage/ Soil

Perturbing Forage or Prey Availability Individual Terrestrial Plants Seedling Emergence Vegetative Vigor Terrestrial Food Residues (foliage, fruit, insects)/ Soil

Terrestrial Animals Birds, Mammals, Reptiles, Terrestrialphase Amphibians, Bees

Individual Terrestrial Animals Reduced Surv ivai Reduced Growth Reduced Reproduction 'f 

### .------------
I Volatilization :

: I I I

, I I**-----~**

Exposure Method

Receptors

Indirect Effects Source! Exposure Media

Direct Effects Source! Transport Pathway



### Figure 2-2. Conceptual Model for Acequinocyl

IExposure pathways in dashed/red are not evaluated in view ofacequinocyl's low vapor pressure (1.69 x 10- 6 atmm3!mol, 25°C) and low soil mobility (Koc =77,400 mUg)


### 2.7. Analysis Plan
Two approaches were used in performing this risk assessment for the proposed uses of acequinocyl. In Approach l, acequinocyl is conservatively assumed to be stable to all routes of degradation because ofthe uncertainties associated with the environmental fate data, particularly the lack ofvalidation ofanalytical methods and the lack ofstorage stability data. In Approach 2, it is assumed that the half-lives ofacequinocyl and the hydroxylated degradate (Rl) are valid, and the total toxic residues (acequinocyl 

### +Rl) are modeled to address toxicity concerns with Rl. According to the HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC), the residues of concern in the dietary exposure and risk assessment are acequinocyl and the hydroxylated degradate (USEPA, 2007b).

20

### 2.7.1. Measures 

### ofExposure
Measures ofexposure are based on terrestrial and aquatic models that estimate environmental concentrations ofthe chemical being assessed using labeled applicationrates and methods. The measure ofexposure for aquatic species in water bodies receiving runoffand/or spray drift is the estimated environmental concentration (EEC) expected once every ten years based on 30 years ofsimulations. The l-in-lO year peak concentration is used for estimating acute effects to aquatic vertebrate and invertebrate species; the l-in-lO year 2l-day mean concentration is used for assessing chronic exposure ofaquatic invertebrates; and the l-in-lO year 60-day mean concentration is used for assessing chronic exposure offish (and aquatic-phase amphibians). Aquatic EECs are calculated with the Tier II aquatic exposure model PRZMIEXAMS for all proposed uses except for cranberry. For cranberry, aquatic EECs are calculated with the Tier I Rice Model and with the Provisional Cranberry Model. EECs from exposure to Kanemite 15 SC via spray drift were calculatedusing the spray drift model AgDRIFT.
Terrestrial EECs for animals are estimated with T-REX (vl.4.!) and based on upper bound exposure concentrations for various dietary items. Exposure ofnaturally-occurring terrestrial and semi-aquatic (wetland) plant species is typically estimated using OPP's TerrPlant (vl.2.2) model to provide estimates ofexposure to terrestrial plants from single pesticide applications and is assumedto encompass areas outside the immediate use site.


### 2.7.1.1. PRZMIEXAMS
The Tier II model Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v3.12.2; May 12, 2005; Carousel et al., undated) linked with EXposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS v2.98.4.6; Apr. 25, 2005; Burns, 2004) via the model shell PRZM/EXAMS (PE v5.0, Nov. 15,2006) is used to estimate baseline-level exposure ofaquatic environments to acequinocyl. The PRZM model simulates pesticide movement and transformation on and across the agricultural field resulting from crop applications. The EXAMS model simulates pesticide loading via runoff, erosion, and spray drift assuming a "standard" l-hapond, 2-m deep (20,000 rrr') 

### with no outlet that borders a 10-ha treated field. Simulations are run for multiple (usually 30) years, and the Agency estimates peak and running mean values that are expected once every ten years based on the daily values generated during the simulation. The PE, PRZM, and EXAMS models and users manuals are available from the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Water Models web-page (USEPA, 20lla). Exposure estimates generated using the "standard" pond are intendedto representthose that might occur in a wide variety ofvulnerablewaterbodies that occur at the top ofwatersheds including prairie pot holes, playa lakes, wetlands, vernal pools, man-made and natural ponds, and intermittent and first-order streams. As a group, there are factors that make these water bodies more or less vulnerablethan the standard surrogate pond. Static water bodies that have larger ratios ofpesticide-treated drainage area to water body volume would be expected to have higher peak EECs than the standardpond. These water bodies will be either smaller in size or have
21

### large drainage areas. Smallerwater bodies have limited storage capacity and thus may overflow and carry pesticide in the discharge, whereas the standard pond has no discharge. As watershed size increases, itbecomes increasingly unlikely that the entire watershed is planted with a nonmajor single crop that is all treated simultaneously with the pesticide. Headwater streams can also have peak concentrations higher than the standard pond, but they likely to persist for only short periods oftime and are then carried and dissipated downstream.
2.7.1.2. Rice Model The Tier I Rice Model (vl.O, May 8, 2007) is used to characterize screening-level exposure to acequinocyl that may occur in water bodies receiving released bog water following use on cranberry. The Tier I Rice model is used to assess the proposed use on cranberry because the Provisional Tier I Cranberry Model, which is specific to cranberry use, is not vetted and approved for use in risk assessment.
The Tier I Rice Model relies on an equilibriumpartitioning conceptto provide conservative exposure estimates resulting from application ofpesticides to rice paddies. When apesticide is applied to a rice paddy, the model assumes that it will instantaneously partition between a water phase and a sedimentphase. The model does not account forpesticide degradation, mass transfer betweenthe aqueous phase and the sediment, volatilization, dilution, or other dissipation processes. The Tier I Rice Model is calibrated to generate estimates that are consistent with or conservative for dissolved concentrations measured within rice paddies and in discharged paddy water.
The model is not evaluated or calibrated for concentrations measured in sediment and does not account for residues bound to suspended sediment. Furthermore, the model is not calibrated to evaluate exposure in cranberry bogs. A description ofand guidance for using the Tier I Rice Model may be found on the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) Water Models webpage (USEPA, 201Ia).
2.7.1.3. Provisional Tier 1 Cranberry Model
In order to further characterize exposure from the proposed use on cranberry, the Provisional Tier I Cranberry Model is used to estimate screening-level peak and mean concentrations of acequinocyl that may occur in water bodies receiving released bog water following use on cranberry. This model is produced by making two provisional refinements to the Tier I Rice Model, including the addition ofsimple degradation processes in dry and flooded conditions and a water depth oftwelve inches, rather than the water depth offour inches used in the rice model. The cranberry bog water depth of twelve inches is amaximum depth recommended by the Cape Cod Cranberry Growers Association (200 I). A more detailed description ofthe Tier I Cranberry Model and the equations used in the provisional Tier I Cranberry Model are presented in Appendix B. 

### Cranberry bogs are almost exclusively oriented in a series as water from one bog is used to flood 

### 22

### subsequentbogs. Without substantial time for degradation and assuming similar acequinocyl application regimes in each cranberry field, bog water may increase in concentration beyond what is modeled in this assessment.


### 2.7.1.4. AgDRIFT AgDRIFT (v2.01; May 24, 2001) is used to estimate aquatic exposure resulting from spray drift ofKanemite 15 SC into the "standard" 1-ha pond. Details concerning the specifics and uncertainties associated with theAgDRIFT model are available online at www.agdrift.com. 

### 2.7.1.5. T-REX (v1.4.1)
T-REX is a spreadsheet-based model that calculates the residues on avian and mammalian food items along with the dissipationrate ofa chemical applied to foliar surfaces (for single or multiple applications) in orderto estimate exposure and risk quotients. The results are presented by weight class for various sized birds and mammals for each type ofapplication. The T-REX model and user's manual are available from the EPATerrestrial Models web-page (USEPA, 2011b). 

### 2.7.1.6. TerrPlant (v1.2.2)
TerrPlant is a Tier 1 model for screening-level assessments ofpesticides thatprovides estimates ofexposure to plants in dry and semi-aquatic areas from single pesticide applications. The TerrPlant model is based on 2 scenarios, a runoffscenario and adrift scenario. The runoff scenario, characterized as "sheet runoff' (one treated acre to an adjacent acre for dry areas) and "channel runoff' (l0 acres to a distant low-lying acre for semi-aquatic or wetland areas), is based on a pesticide's water solubility and the amount ofpesticide present on the soil surface and in its top one centimeter. Spray drift is assumed to be 1% for ground applications; 5% for aerial, airblast, forced air, and spray chemigation applications; and 0% for granular applications. Plant exposure concentrations are derived from a single, maximum application rate only and do not allow for degradation ofthe pesticide for multiple application scenarios.


### 2.7.2. Measures of Effect
Effects that a pesticide may produce in an animal orplant (terrestrial or aquatic) are evaluated using registrant-submitted studies conductedwith a limited number ofsurrogate test species and based on OCSPP guidelines. Toxicity studies have been submitted for freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, aquatic plants, birds, mammals, bees, and otherterrestrial invertebrates and are presented in 

### Appendix C. New studies submitted since the conditional registration can be identified by their 850 guideline series.
Bobwhite quail and/ormallard duck serve as representative/test species for birds and also as surrogate species for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians. Fish serve as surrogate species for aquatic-phase amphibians. Studies conducted on laboratory rats, mice, or rabbits serve as the
23

### basis for mammal data. Toxicity endpoints for terrestrial plants are based on a range of broadleafand grass species. Lemna 

### serves as the test species for vascular aquatic plants. Where data are available, separate endpoints are used for freshwater and estuarine/marine animals.
Effects ofapesticide on flora and fauna may also be evaluated using studies located via a query ofthe open literature in the ECOTOX database. A quick query ofECOTOX database on October 19, 2011 did not yield any results for acequinocyl.
The most sensitive endpoints used for risk characterization are derived from studies that have undergone review and have been classified as "acceptable" (conducted under guideline conditions and considered to be scientifically valid) or "supplemental" (conditions deviated from guidelines but the results are considered to be scientifically valid).
Table 2-4 lists the measures ofenvironmental exposure and ecological effects used to assess the potential risks ofacequinocyl to non-target organisms. The methods used to assess risk are consistentwith those outlined in the document "Overview ofthe Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office ofPesticide Programs" (USEP A, 2004b).

24

### Table 2-4. Measures ofExposure and EffectUsed in Assessing Potential Risks Associated with the Proposed Uses ofAcequinocyl

The most sensitive species tested within taxonomic groups IS used for baselme-level risk assessments

. 2Freshwater fish represent surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians. 3Aquatic EECs are based on the modeling described in Section 3.3. "Spray drift EECs are based on the modeling described in Section 3.3. sBirds represent surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. "Residues on food items are based on modeling using TREX as described in Section 3.3.
7EECs are based on modeling using TerrPlant as described in Section 3.3. AssessmentEndpoint Measures**ofEc~logic~JJtffeeF Measqr~o.fJtxIJ9~ur~**  •. Survival Lowesttested LCsoorECso Peak EECs3

II Aquatic animals (acute toxicity test) Lowest tested LCsoor ECso Spray drift EECs4 (Freshwater fish and Survival (acute toxicity test using formulations) invertebrates and estuarine! 21-day EECs for I marine invertebrates)' Reproduction LowestNOAEC invertebrates and 60-day and Growth (early life-stage or full life-cycle tests) EECs for fisrr' Aquatic plants Survival and LowestECso(for non-listed plants) and Peak EECs 3 (vascular and non-vascular) growth corresponding NOAEC or ECos (for listed plants)

I Survival Lowest acute LDso(single oral dose test)

Birds' and LCso(subacute dietary test) Reproduction Lowest NOAEC Upper-bound residues on and Growth (2l-weekreproduction test) food items" Survival Lowest acute LDso(single oral dose test) Mammals Reproduction LowestNOAEC and Growth (2-generation reproduction test) Terrestrial and semi- Survival and Lowest EC2S (for non-listed plants) and EECs 7 aquatic plants growth correspondingNOAEC or ECos (for listed plants) Terrestrial invertebrates Survival Lowest LDsoor LCso Upper-bound residues on insects \. 

### . .



### 2.7.3. Integration ofExposure and Effects
The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated to evaluate the risks ofadverse ecological effects to non-target species. For the acequinocyl risk assessment, the risk quotient (RQ) method is used to compare estimated exposure and measuredtoxicity values. The RQ method involves dividing EECs by acute and chronic toxicity values. The resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency's Levels ofConcern (LOC) (USEPA, 2004b) 

### (Table 2-4). These criteria are used to indicate when applications ofacequinocyl, as directed on the label, have the potential to cause adverse effects to listed and non-listed non-target organisms.

25

### Table 2-5. Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metrics and Levels ofConcern (LOC) per Risk Class

EEC - (ppm or ppb) In water 2 LDso/sq ft = (mg/sq ft) / (LDso

### * wt ofanimal) LDso/day = (mg oftoxicant consumed/day) / (LDso

### * wt ofanimal) I AquaticADi.ma)sl

Acute Risk Potential for effects to non-listed animals EEC/LCsoor

### tc., 0.5 from acute exposures Acute Restricted Potential for effects to animals from acute EEC/LCsoor ECso 0.1 Use exposures. Risks may be mitigated through
I restricted use classification. Acute Endangered Potential for effects to listed species from EEC/LCsoor 

### sc., 0.05 Species acute exposures Chronic Risk Potential for effects to non-listed and listed EECINOAEC I animals from chronic exposures Aquatic Plants' Acute Risk Potential for effects to non-listed plants EEC/ECso I

I from acute exposures

I Acute Endangered Potential for effects to listed plants from EEC/ECos or NOAEC I

Species acute exposures Birds" Acute Risk Potential for effects to non-listed birds from EEC/LCsoor LDso/sq ft or LDso/day 0.5 acute exposures Acute Restricted Potential for effects to birds from acute EEC/LCSDor LDso/sq ft or LDso/day

I 0.2 Use exposures. Risks may be mitigated through (or LDso< 50 mg/kg) restricted use classification. Acute Endangered Potential for effects to listed birds from EEC/LCsoor LDso/sqft or LDso/day 0.1 Species acute exposures Chronic Risk Potential for effects to non-listed and listed EECINOAEC I I birds from chronic exposures WildMammals' Acute Risk Potential for effects to non-listed mammals EEC/LCsoor LDso/sq ft or LDso/day 0.5 from acute exposures Acute Restricted Potential for effects to mammals from acute EEC/LCsoor LDso/sqft or LDso/day 0.2 Use I exposures. Risks may be mitigated through (or LDso< 50mg/kg) restricted use classification

I Acute Endangered Potential for effects to listed mammals from

. EEC/LCsoor LDso/sqft or LDso/day 0.1

Species acute exposures Chronic Risk Potential for effects to non-listed and listed EECINOAEC I mammals from chronic exposures Terrestrialand**Semi";AQuati~P)ants** Acute Risk Potential for effects to non-listed plants EEClEC2s I

I from acute exposures Acute Endangered Potential for effects to listed plants from EEC/ECDSor NOAEC I Species acute exposures Terrestrial Invertebrates Acute Risk Potential for effects to listed terrestrial EEC/LDsoor LCso I 0.05 I invertebrates from acute exposures I I

- I RiskPreSUPlRtiQll< I RiskDescri.ptioll 

## I**R~** I LOC I



### 2.8. Risk Hypotheses 

### 26

### The following ecological risk hypotheses are being employed for this acequinocyl baseline risk assessment:

• Terrestrial vertebrates (birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians) and non-target invertebrates are subjectto adverse directeffects such as reduced survival, growth, and reproduction when exposedto acequinocyl/hydroxylated acequinocyl.

• Aquatic vertebrates (fish and amphibians) and invertebrates in surface waters (freshwater or saltwater) are subjectto adverse effects such as reduced survival, growth, and reproduction when exposedto acequinocyl/hydroxylated acequinocyl residues via spray drift or runofffrom treated fields following acequinocyl application. • Aquatic plants are subjectto adverse direct affects when exposedto acequinocyl/hydroxylated acequinocyl either through contact, sorption, or root uptake.

• Terrestrial plants are subjectto adverse direct effects such as reduction in vegetative vigor and seedling emergence when exposedto acequinocyl/hydroxylated acequinocyl. 

### 2.9. Key Uncertainties and Information Gaps A major source ofuncertainty, both in the initial and the current aquatic risk assessment, is due to two common issues identified inmostofthe submitted fate studies. First, the analytical methods used in the fate studies were inappropriate to assess the rate ofdegradation of acequinocyl and to identify its major transformation products. The registrant submitted an amended analytical method for determination ofresidues ofacequinocyl and its major metabolite hydroxylated acequinocyl in drinking water, ground water and surface water (MRID 48016602), and an amended analytical method for the determination ofacequinocyl, hydroxylated acequinocyl, and AKM-18 in soil (MRID 48016601). The Agency is in the process ofreviewing the submitted studies. The second common deficiency is the lack ofstorage stability data to determine ifthe degradation of

### [14C] acequinocyl and its transformation products occurs during storage and before sample analysis. Due to a range ofenvironmental variables and other factors, the Tier 1 Rice Model and Provisional Cranberry Model are expected to generate conservative EECs for characterization that are likely to exceed peak measured concentrations ofpesticides in water bodies downstream ofa single cranberry bog. However, cranberry bogs are almost exclusively oriented in a series as water from one bog is used to flood subsequentbogs. Without substantial time for degradation and assuming similar acequinocyl application regimes in each cranberry field, bog water may increase in concentration beyond what is modeled in this assessment. Uncertainty also stems from the selection oftoxicity endpoints from the studies that used formulated productinstead ofthe technical grade active ingredient as suggested by the guidelines (e.g., 

### acute effects ofacequinocyl on estuarine/marine fish; chronic effects ofacequinocyl on freshwater fish). Risk may have been under/overestimated in these situations when the endpoint is derived from studies that used formulated product. Furthermore, none ofthe fish and bird studies reported a definitive acute endpointresulting in increased uncertainty in this risk assessment. 

### 27

### 3. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
3.1. Label Application Rates and Intervals Acequinocyl maximum individual application rate, application frequency, minimum interval between applications, and maximum yearly application rate are detailed below in 

### Table 3-1. This information is obtained from the label and used in the exposure assessment. All applications are assumed to occur via foliar spray withoutthe use ofirrigation equipment and farther than 75 feet from surface waters. 

### Table 3-1. Acequinocyl Use Patterns for the Proposed New Uses Maximum Minimum Maximum Individual Number of Application Annual Application Crop Application Applications Interval Application Method Rate (days) Rate I (Jbs a.i.lA) (lbs a.i.lA!year) Succulent soybean vegetable, low growing berry subgroup 13- 07G, small fruit vine climbing

I 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground (except fuzzy kiwifruit),

I I spray subgroup 13-07F, caneberry subgroup 13-07A , cucumber Bean (succulent shelled), cowpea 0.3 2 14 0.6 Ground forage, cherry spray


### 3.2. Monitoring Data
There are no available monitoring data for acequinocyl at the time ofthis assessment (September 2011).


### 3.3. Aquatic Exposure Estimates

Two modeling approaches are used for the aquatic exposure assessment due to uncertainties associated with the analytical methods used in the fate studies. Aquatic EECs are calculated with the Tier II PRZM/EXAMS aquatic exposure model for all proposed uses except for cranberry. The Tier I Rice Model and Provisional Cranberry Model are used to calculate water column EECs for cranberry for characterization purposes.


### 3.3.1. Aquatic Modeling Approaches 1 and 2
Two approaches are used in performing this risk assessment for the proposed acequinocyl uses. In Approach 1, acequinocyl is conservatively assumedto be stable to all routes ofdegradation because ofthe uncertainties associated with the environmental fate data, mainly the lack of validation ofthe analytical methods and the lack ofstorage stability data. In Approach 2, it is assumed that the half-lives ofacequinocyl and the degradation productRl are valid and the total 28toxic residues (acequinocyl 

### + R1) are modeled to address toxicity concerns with Rl. According to the HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC), the residues ofconcern in the dietary exposure and risk assessment are acequinocyl and the hydroxylated degradate, that is, Rl (US EPA, 2007b).
3.3.2. 

### PRZMIEXAMS Modeling
PRZM/EXAMS is used to estimate acequinocyl 

### + R1 concentrations in both the water column and benthic pore water for all proposed uses (except cranberry). Water columnEECs are used for comparison with toxicity endpoints for fish and invertebrates that live in the water column and are consideredto be exposed to the active ingredient and majordegradate through spray drift, runoff, and erosion. Pore waterEECs are used for comparison with toxicity endpoints for invertebrates that live in or on the sediment.
PRZM/EXAMS spray drift fraction is calculated using AgORIFT_v.2.01 to estimate reduction of spray driftdeposition as a function ofdistance from the treated field. Using the high boom, low ground setting for aTier 1 aquatic assessment, AgORIFT estimates drift deposition from applications 75 feet from the edge ofthe field to be 0.0155 ofthe fraction ofapplied (AgDRIFT output file is located in 

### Appendix D). The AgDRIFT calculated spraydrift fraction of1.55% (l00 x 0.0155 ofthe fraction ofapplied) for a 75 foot buffer is greaterthan the PRZM/EXAMS edge offield default of 1% value.
The assumptions ofApproaches 1 and 2 and PRZM/EXAMS input parameter values modeling are provided in 

### Table 3-2.



### Table 3-2. 

### PRZMIEXAMS Input Parameters for Approaches 1 and 2

Parameter (Units) Input Value and Unit Source/Comments Approach 11 

### I Approach**2~** Maximum 0.336 kg a.i./acre (all uses) Proposed label Application Rate MaximumNumber 2 (all uses) Proposed label ofApplications Minimum 21 days (succulent soybean vegetable, low growing berry, Proposed label Reapplications small fruit, caneberry, melon, cucumber) Interval 14 days (succulent shelled bean, cowpea forage, cherry)

29Parameter (Units) Input Value and Unit Source/Comments Approach 11 

### I Approach**2~** Modeling Scenarios Succulent soybean vegetable (edamarne): EFED standard PRZM/EXAMS MS soybean scenarios Low growing berry (\3-07G):

FL strawberry (not applicable for cranberry) Small fruit (vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 13-07F):

CA grape NY grape Bean, succulent shelled and cowpea forage:

MI bean OR bean Caneberry (\3-07A): In the absence ofa standard

CA grape caneberry scenario, grape NY grape scenarios are used as surrogate Melon (9A): scenarios

MI melon MO melon NJ melon Cucumber:

FL cucumber**~:** MI cherry Initial Application Succulent soybean vegetable (edamame): The date ofinitial application was Dates (dd-mm) MS soybean (12-09) calculated from the Pre-Harvest Low growing berry (\3-07G): Interval (PHI) and application

FL strawberry (24-0 I) interval as written on the proposed Small fruit (vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 13-07F): labels.

CA grape (03-08) NY grape (17-09) Bean, succulent shelled and cowpea forage:

MI bean (14-08) OR bean (12-08) Caneberry (13-07 A):

CA grape (09-08) NY grape (23-09) Melon (9A):

MI melon (24-07) MO melon (09-07) NJ melon (29-06) Cucumber:

FL cucumber (18-11) Cherry:

MI cherry (30-06) Application Method Ground, Foliar (CAM = 2) Acequinocyl is a foliar application Application 0.99 EFED standard default for ground Efficiency Fraction applications Spray Drift Fraction 0.016 Based on AgDRIFT calculation for a 75 foot buffer strip. Incorporation depth 0 Default for foliar applications ICcm)

30Parameter (Units) Input Value and Unit Source/Comments Approach 11 Approach 2z Molecular Weight 384.5 Product Chemistry (g/mole) IPSCND Input I (succulent soybean vegetable) 1 = remaining pesticide on foliage is converted to surface application 3 (low growing berry, small fruit, succulent shelled bean, to the top soil layer cowpea forage, caneberry, melon, cucumber, cherry) 2 = remaining pesticide on foliage is completely removed after harvest
3 = remainingpesticide nn foliage is retained as surface residue and continues to undergo decay. Water Solubility 0.0067 MRID 45434906 (mg/L) Vapor Pressure 1.268 x 10·M MRID 45434905 (torr) Henry's Law 9.59x \0' Calculated Constant (atm-rrr'fmol) K, (ml/g) 1027 3 9704 MRID 45531902; 45434907 Hydrolysis Half-life stable 9.6 MRID 45434908 (days) Aqueous Photolysis stable 0.19 MRID 45434909 Half-life (days) Aerobic Soil stable 48.5 MRID 45434911 Metabolism (days) 90th percentile confidence interval on the mean (EFED guidance)' Aerobic Aquatic stable 97 Twice the aerobic soil metabolism Metabolism (days) t1/2 (EFED guidance)' Anaerobic Aquatic stable 649.8 MRID 45434913 Metabolism (days) Three times the aquatic metabolism tt/2(EFED guidance)"
1Acequinocyl was assumed to be stable m the environment 2Combined half-life values for acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH (Rl) degradate
3 Mean Kd offour values was used because the study was conducted on only one test concentration
4 Mean Kd offour values was used because binding was not correlated with organic carbon content. S Input Parameter Guidance Manual, Pesticides (Version 2.1; Oct. 22, 2009)


### 3.3.3. Tier 1 Rice Model and Provisional Cranberry Model
The Tier I Rice Model is used to characterize screening-level exposure ofwater bodies receiving released bog water following acequinocyl 

### +Rl on cranberry. This model is used to assess the proposed use on cranberry because exposure models specific to cranberry uses are not vetted and approved for use in risk assessment (see 

### Section 2.7.1). The Tier I Rice Model has two inputs: the applicationrate and the organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc). The maximum annual applicationrate on cranberry (0.6 lbs a.i.lA) is 31modeled. The mean KFOC values for Approaches 1 (l027) and 2 (970) are input as well. The exposure estimates from the Tier I Rice Model for Approaches Tier 1 and 2 are both 5 ug/L for annual use. The Provisional Cranberry Model is an unvetted refinementto the approved TierI Rice Model to address fate and transport ofpesticide residues in cranberry bogs (see 

### Section 2.7.1.4 for an overview). The Provisional Cranberry output file and equations used in the model are briefly described in 

### Appendices Band F. 

### Table 3-3 lists the input parameters used for the Provisional Cranberry Model.
Due to the uncertainty in using the Tier 1 Rice model on cranberry and the unvetted Provisional Cranberry model, the calculated EECs from both models are calculated for the low growing berry scenario for characterization purposes only and are not used to calculate risk in this assessment.



### Table3-3. Provisional Tier 1 Cranberry Model Input Parameters

1Acequinocyl was assumed to be stable In the environment.
2 Combined half-life values for acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH (Rl) degradate
3 Since Provisional Cranberry model requires a half-life value, 1000 days was used to represent stable conditions. 

# IInputl'S''''''''''

, Value Source/Comments 

## '", Approa.ebl , Approacb21 Application Rate (lbs a.i./A) 0.3 Proposed label Applications per Year 2 Proposed label Kd (ml/g) 1027 970 MRlD 45531902; 45434907 Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life stable' 48.5 MRID 45434911 (days) I90thpercentile confidence interval on the imean (EFED guidance) I Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism stable.' 97 ITwice the aerobic soil metabolism tl12 I IHalf-life (days) I I (EFED guidance) I



### 3.3.4. PRZM-EXAMS, Rice, and Provisional Cranberry Modeling Outputs
Table 3-4 presents PRZM/EXAMS EECs in surface water for acequinocyl and Rl for the proposed uses. PRZM/EXAMS allows estimated concentrations above the limit ofsolubility.
The predicted aquatic acequinocyl concentrations are lower with Approach #2 when compared to Approach# 1. Since the parentis assumed to be stable in Approach # 1, it is to be expected that the concentrations predicted in Approach 1 are higherthan Approach 2 which estimated both acequinocyl and Rl using combined half-lives. The modeled surface water concentrations are more conservative in the first approach than the second due to the use ofstable half-lives in Approach 1. The EECs derived via Approach #1 represent upper bound values whereas those derived via Approach #2 represent lowerbound values.

32The l-in-lO-yearmean EECs for acequinocyl modeled scenarios range from 1.56 ug/L to the 

### 6.69 ug/L (limit ofsolubility) for Approach #1 and from 0.27 to 2.64 ug/L for Approach #2. The 21-day average concentrations for acequinocyl range from 1.06 to 6.69 ug/L (limit of solubility) and 0.07 to 0.53 ug/L for Approaches 1 and 2, respectively. The 60-day average concentrations for acequinocyl range from 0.80 to 6.69 ug/L (limit ofsolubility) and 0.03 to 0.34 ug/L for Approaches 1 and 2, respectively. The 

### PRZM/EXAMS output files for selected modeled scenarios are provided in the 

### Appendix F.

Table 3-4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for Acequinocyl Total Toxic Residues Based on Approaches 1 and 2 Using PRZMIEXAMS and Provisional Cranberry Model**~i$Cs** ••.

## rrom.•**~.atersourees**


### .... .... . i\pproachl·

... .····A:pproaeh 2
I Proposed Use Seen.ario TottllToxic**Resid~es.** .. . . TotalTQxieResidues

. (no aceauinocvl'detiralhltionl (combinedacequinociTlandRt)

I 

### .. Ope!,k

.. 

# ..3 t;odllf**60:d~Y·· LP~llk**  21;'(hiy**60~ay** I

.. '

.. : ····Averaue '<\verage ':

.. A:verage A:vera2e Soybean MS soybean 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* 1.16 0.27 0.18 (13.61) (11.29) (11.22) FL strawberry 6.69* 6.69* 6.69*
I (not applicable (12.64) (10.34) (10.03) 0.29 0.07 0.05 to cranberry) Rice model (surrogate 5.00 <5.00 <5.00 5.00 <5.00 <5.00 Low-growing berry model for (13-070) cranberry') Provisional cranberry

I model 4.8i 4.31 1 4.38 1 1.563 I (applicable to cranberry') Small fruit CA grape" 1.56 1.06 1.04 0.27 0.04 0.03 (vine climbing except NY grape" 4.65 1.10 0.81 1.99 0.51 0.33 kiwi fruit) MI bean 6.69* 6.69* 6.68 0.55 0.16 0.11 Succulent shelled (8.61) (6.83) bean and cowpea 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* forage OR bean (12.14) (10.52) (10.20) 0.29 0.07 0.06 Caneberry CA grape" 1.57 1.06 1.05 0.27 0.04 0.03 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* (13-07A) NY grape" (11.49) (8.69) (8.63) 2.15 0.53 0.34 MI melon 2.73 1.94 1.76 0.28 0.06 0.04 Melon MO melon 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* 1.23 0.19 0.12 (9A) (11.58) (8.78) (8.42) NJ melon 5.06 4.13 3.92 0.55 0.12 0.09
I 6.69* 6.69* 6.69*

'I Cucumber FL cucumber (12.47) (9.96) (9.81) 0.38 0.09 0.06

33EECs

### from SurfaceWaterSou.rees

Proposed Use

Cherry Scen.ario

MI cherry Approach.1 Total icResIdues no ace I

## de rallation Peak. '. 21

...day 60,:,day' Avera e Avera e

6.69* 6.69* (11.92) (9.04) (8.92) 2.64 0.48 0.32 The rice model is an approved EFED model that was employed to represent flooding ofthe cranberry bog. EECs generated by the rice model are not for used quantitatively in the risk analysis.
2The provisional cranberry model is employed for characterization purposes only. EECs generated by the provisional cranberry model are not used quantitatively in the risk analysis.
3S ased on a one-year simulation; 1-10 year calculation is not applicable. "Grape scenarios were used to represent the proposed small fruit and caneberry uses; different initial application dates were used that reflect labeled treatment and pre-harvestintervals specific to each crop. *Value exceeds solubility limit ofacequinocyl (6.69 ug/L at 20°C).


### PRZMlEXAMS pore water EECs are presented in

### Table 3-5. Benthic pore water EECs are used for comparison with toxicity endpoints for invertebrates that live in or on the sediment. The rice and cranberry models are unable to calculate benthic pore water concentrations.



### Table 3-5. 

### Benthic Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for Acequinocyl Total Toxic Residues Based on Approaches 1 and 2 Using PRZMIEXAMS BenthicEECsfrom Sqrl.ceWaterS()urces 

### (u!zlt)

. Approacb1

...... Approach 2 Proposed Use Scenario TotalToxic ,Residues T()talTox,ic Residues (no ace 'uinocylde2radation)

.(combined aeequinee I and

### an Peak 21-day 60-day Peak 21-day 60-day Averaee Average Averase Average Soybean MS soybean 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* 0.18 0.18 0.17 I (ll.18) (11.15) (11.12)

Low-growing berry

I FL strawberry 6.69*
I 6.69* 6.69*

I (l3-07G) (not applicable (9.81) (9.81) (9.79) 0.04 0.04 0.04 to cranberry) Small fruit CA grape/ 1.03 1.03 1.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 (vine climbing except NY grape/ 0.84 kiwi fruit) 0.82 0.80 0.29 0.29 0.28 Succulent shelled MI bean 9.63 6.62 6.61 0.09 0.09 0.08 bean and cowpea OR bean 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* 0.04 0.04 0.04 forage (10.12) (10.10) (10.04) Caneberry CA grape" 1.03 1.03 1.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 (13-07A) NY grape/ 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* 0.29 0.29 0.28 (8.64) (8.64) (8.63)

I MI melon 1.84 1.84 1.84 0.03 0.03 0.02

I Melon MO melon 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* 0.11 0.11 0.11

(9A) (8.29) (8.24) (8.15)

I NJ melon 3.68 3.67 3.67 0.07 0.07 0.07


### 34Proposed Use

Cucumber Cherry Scenario

FL cucumber
MI cherry Approach'l

... Total**TOlic~** noae .uinoc 1

## de Pe«k

.··21.day

. AVera 

# e 6.69* 6.69* (9.78) (9.78 6.69* 6.69* (8.75) (8.75 (8.74) 0.06
0.31 0.06
0.31 0.05
0.29 The rice and provisional cranberry models are unable to calculate benthic pore water concentrations.
2 Grape scenarios were used to represent the proposed small fruit and caneberry uses; different initial application dates were used that reflect labeled treatment and pre-harvest intervals specific to each crop. 

### * Value exceeds solubility limit ofacequinocyl (6.69 ug/L at 20°C).


### 3.4. Terrestrial Exposure Estimates Acequinocyl exposure concentrations for terrestrial fauna are determined using the screeninglevel exposure model, TREX (Version 1.4.1) (US EPA, 2006). The TREX simulation-model incorporates the nomogram (Fletcher et al., 1994; Hoerger and Kenaga, 1972; Pfleeger et al., 1996) relationship betweenthe amount ofpesticide applied and the amount ofpesticide residue present on a given food item. TREX calculates pesticide residues on each food item on adaily interval for one yearusing a first order decay function based on concentrations present from both the initial and additional applications.
EECs are simulated using an applicationrate of0.3 lbs a.i./A, application intervals of 14 days and 21 days, amaximum of2 applications per year, and the default foliar dissipation half-life of 35 days as well as the specific half-life ofacequinocyl as determined from Magnitude ofResidue Studies (OPPTS 860.1500). In the initial risk assessment for food uses in 2004 (D285811, D286428, D289153, D290010, D287269, D290009, D291174), a first-order foliar dissipation half-life was estimated for apples (tl/2= 20.5 days), pears 

### (ti» = 7.63 days), oranges (tl/2 = 16.1 days) and almonds (tl/2= 17.9 days) using the acceptable Magnitude ofResidue Studies for acequinocyI. Based on the half-lives determined for these four food items, the upper 90% confidence bound on the upper confidence limit ofthe mean half-life of20 days was derived and used in calculatingthe residue concentrations in addition to the default half-life of35 days. TREX input parameters are presented in 

### Appendix G. Outputs generated by TREX are presented in 

### Appendix H.
3.4.1. Birds and Mammals
EECs for birds and mammals are presented in 

### Table 3-6 and 

### Table 3-7, respectively. These estimates are based on the upper Kenagabound dose and the assumption that the species in question eats one type offood item and forages only in treated and/or overspray areas.

35

### Table 3-6. Avian Estimated Exposure Concentrations (EECs) for Proposed Uses Dietary-based Dose-basedEECs (mgllcg-bw) EECs FeedingCategory (mg/kg-CoOd**i~em) Sm.QU<~Q**  I}**Me~Uum(100** 2:)
... Larse 1000I) l4-day**~l** 

### .. day 14':day 21

.. day**14~day** 2l

.. day 14-day 21-day interval interval interval interval interval interval interval interval Acequinocyl half-life 35 da s; applicationtwice at 0.30 Ib aj.lA Short grass 126.57 119.50 144.15 136.10 82.20 77.61 36.60 34.75 Tall grass 58.0] 54.77 66.07 62.38 37.67 35.57 16.87 15.93 Broadleafplants/small 71.19 67.22 81.08 76.56 46.24 43.66 20.70 19.55 I insects

Fruits/pods/seeds/large 7.9] 7.47 9.01 8.51 5.14 2.17 2.30 2.17 I insects Granivores (seeds)


## -- -- 2.00 1.89 1.14 1.08 0.51 0.48 Acequinocyl half-life 20 da s; applicationtwice at 0.30 lb a.i.!A Short grass 116.32 106.77 132.48 121.60 75.54 69.34 33.82 31.05 Tall grass 53.31 48.94 60.72 55.74 34.62 31.78 15.50 14.23 Broadleafplants/small 65.43 60.06 74.52 68.40 42.49 39.01 19.03 17.46 insects Fruits/pods/seeds/large 7.27 6.67 8.28 7.60 4.72 4.33 2.11 1.94 insects Granivores (seeds)



### -- -- 1.84 1.69 1.05 0.96 0.47 0.43



### Table 3-7. Mammalian Estimated Exposure Concentrations (EECs) for Proposed Uses Dietary-based Dose-based EECs (mg/kg-bw) EECs Feeding Category (mg/kg-food item) Small (l52) Medium (35 2) Larze (lOOO 2)
I 14-day 21-day 14-day 21-day 14-day 21-day 14-day 21-day interval interval interval interval interval interval interval interval Acequinocyl half-life 35 days; application twice at 0.30 Ib a.i.!A Short grass 126.57 119.50 120.67 113.94 83.40 78.75 19.34 18.26 Tall grass 58.01 54.77 55.31 52.22 38.22 36.09 8.86 8.37 I

I**~roadleaf** plants/small 71.19 67.22 67.88 64.09 46.91 44.29 10.88 10.27

Insects

I :ruits/pods/seeds/large 7.91 7.47 7.54 7.12 5.21 4.92 1.21 1.14

Insects Granivores (seeds)

-- 

### -- 1.68 1.58 1.16 1.09 0.27 0.23 Acequinocyl half-life 20 days; application twice at 0.30 Ib a.i./A Short grass 116.32 106.77 110.90 101.80 76.65 70.36 17.77 16.31 Tall grass 53.31 48.94 50.83 46.66 35.13 32.25 8.15 7.48 Broadleafplants/small 65.43 60.06 62.38 57.26 I 43.12 39.58 10.00 9.18 insects Fruits/pods/seeds/large I insects 7.27 6.67 6.93 6.36 4.79 4.40 1.11 1.02 Granivores (seeds)


## -- -- 1.54 1.41 1.06 0.98 0.25 0.23


### 3.4.2. Plants
EECs for terrestrial! semi-aquatic plants from a single application ofacequinocyl at the 36

### maximum label rate (i.

### e., 0.3 lb a.i./A) are presented in Table 3-8. Since the solubility of acequinocyl is below 10 ppm, the default runoffvalue of 1% 

### is used as the input value in terrestrial plant modeling (Appendix I). For terrestrial modeling, spray drift is assumed to be 1% 

### for ground applications. Acequinocyl application for the proposed uses yields total loading EECs from runoffplus drift of 0.006 and 0.033 lb a.i./Afor dry areas and semi-aquatic areas, respectively. The EEC due to drift is 0.003 lb a.i./A.



### Table 3-8. Terrestrial Plant Estimated Exposure Concentrations (EECs) for Acequinocyl TotalLoading EEC (Runoff+Drift) DriftEEC Application Rate (Jb a.i.tA) (Jb a.i.tA) Dry Areas I Semi-aquatic Areas All Areas OJ lb a.i.IA (all proposed uses) 0.006 

### I 0.033 0.003


### 4. ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
4.1. Aquatic Effects Summary
4.1.1. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish
Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 summarize the available acute and chronic toxicity endpoints for freshwater fish.

Table 4-1. Acute Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Freshwater Fish Species Product Toxicity Endpoint Toxicity Study MRID# Tested Classification Classification Bluegill Sunfish Technical 96-hr LCso: > 1.1 mg a.i./L >I< Moderately Supplemental 45434918 (Lepomis grade NOAEC: 1.1 mg a.i.IL toxic macrochirus) LOAEC: > 1.1 mg a.i.IL Endpoints affected: None Zebrafish Technical 96-hr t.c.; > 1.1 mg a.i.lL Moderately Supplemental 45434919 (Danio rerio) grade NOAEC: 1.1 mg a.i./L toxic LOAEC: >1.1 rng a.i.lL Endpoints affected: None Common Carp Technical 96-hr LCso: >2.3 mg a.i./L Moderately Supplemental 46370502

(Cyprinus grade NOAEC: 2.3 mg a.i./L toxic

carpio) LOAEC: >2.3 mg a.i.IL Endpoints affected: None Rainbow Trout Technical 96-hr LCso: >33 mg a.i.IL Slightly toxic Invalid 45434920 (Oncorhynchus grade NOAEC: 33 mg a.i.IL (previously and mykiss) LOAEC: >33 mg a.i.IL supplemental) 45868502 Endpoints affected: None

37Species Product Toxicity Endpoint Toxicity Study MRID# Tested Classification Classification Rainbow Trout Formulated 96-hr LC50: 67 mg a.i.lL Slightly toxic Invalid 45530601 (Oncorhynchus NOAEC: <II mg a.i./L (previously mykiss) LOAEC: II mg a.i./L acceptabIe) Endpoints affected: Mortality Bluegill Sunfish Formulated 96-hr LC50: >90 mg a.i./L Slightly toxic Invalid 45428605 (Lepomis NOAEC: 90 mg a.i./L (previously macrochirus) LOAEC: >90 mg a.i./L acceptabIe) Endpoints affected: None "'denotes value used for risk characterization


### The reported LCso

### values for freshwater fish, which ranged from> 1.1 ppm to >90 ppm, indicate that acequinocyl is slightly to moderately toxic. Acequinocyl (technical grade) is classified as moderately toxic to bluegill sunfish (MRID 45434918) and zebra fish (MRID 45434919). All of these values exceed the solubility ofthe chemical in water without the presence ofcarriers or emulsifiers. Previously accepted studies with formulated product in both warm water (MRID 45428605) and cold water (MRID 45530601) fish species have beenjudged for this risk assessment to be invalid because ofthe presence ofprecipitate and the lack ofconcentration measurements with centrifuged aliquots ofaquarium water. The previously supplemental study oftechnical grade material with rainbow trout (MRIDs 45434920, 45868502) has also been judged for this risk assessment to be invalid because ofthe presence ofprecipitate as well as high variability in measuredtest concentrations over the course ofthe exposure. These studies will receive revised DERs. The non-definitive toxicity endpoint derived from the bluegill sunfish study involving technical ingredient was selected for consideration in the freshwater fish risk assessment. However, this study does not yield a definitive endpoint so no risk quotients are calculated and risks to freshwater fish are discussed in a semi-quantitative mannerin the risk characterization section ofthis document. One fish study with common carp (MRID 46370502) has been classified as supplemental due to problems associated with the measurement oftest chemical concentrations when technical grade product was used. The concentration ofthe hydroxylated degradate was quantified, but the study was unsuccessful in establishing a definitive endpoint.
Effects ofchronic acequinocyl exposure on freshwater fish (rainbow trout) were also determined using the formulated product (MRID 45428607; Table 4-2). 

### The results from this study are useful in assessing risk as the experiment included a formulation blank and theNOAEC/LOAEC 

### values were expressed after correcting for the amount ofactive ingredient. It 

### should be noted that the uncentrifuged measured concentrations in this study were proposed in the DER as material to the endpoint. However, the study exhibited significantprecipitate, and so the centrifuged sample measures were relied upon for endpoint selection in this study.

38

### Table 4-2. Chronic Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on FreshwaterFish Species Product Study MRID# Tested Toxlelty Endpoint Classification Rainbow Trout Formulated NOAEC: 0.52 mg a.i./L Supplemental 45428607 (Oncorhynchus (0.07 mg/L centrifuged measured)* mykiss) LOAEC: 1.1 mg a.i./L Endpoints Affected: Larvae survival *The freshwater fish endpoint was for uncentnfuged measured concentrations. Centnfuged samples yielded measured active ingredient concentrations 13 to 19%ofthe uncentrifuged. For the purposes ofthis risk assessment the NOAEC will be 0.52 mglL a.i. X 0.13 = 0.07 mglL, and this adjusted value is used to calculate RQs 

### 4.1.2. Toxicity to EstuarinelMarine Fish Acequinocyl has been tested on sheepshead minnow using both technical grade and formulated products (Table 4-3). Both studies were unable to establish a definitive endpoint (MRID 45434921 and MRID 45428606). For this risk assessment, the study using formulated product (MRID 45428606) has beenjudged invalid because ofthe presence ofprecipitate and the lack of concentration measurements with centrifuged aliquots ofaquarium water.
No tests have been submittedfor effects ofchronic acequinocyl exposure on estuarine/marine fish. For this risk assessment, a chronic endpoint is conservatively assumedto be equivalentto the endpoint observed for freshwater fish (NOAEC: 0.07 mg/L). An acute to chronic ratio approach cannot be used as there are no definitive acute endpoints for estuarine/marine fish or freshwater fish.

Table 4-3. Acute Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on EstuarinelMarine Fish Species Product Toxicity Endpoint Toxicity Study MRID# Tested Classification Classification Sheep shead Technical 96-hrLCso: >0.19 mg a.i./L* Highly toxic Supplemental 45434921

Minnow Grade NOAEC: 0.19 mg a.i./L (Cyprinodon LOAEC: >0.19 mg a.i./L variegatus) Endpoints Affected: None Sheepshead Formulated 96-hrLCso: >68 mg a.i./L Slightly toxic Invalid 45428606

Minnow NOAEC: 68 mg a.i./L (previously tCyprinodon LOAEC: >68 mg a.i./L acceptable) variegatus) Endpoints Affected: None *denotes value used for nsk characterization 

### 4.1.3. Toxicity to FreshwaterInvertebrates
Based on the most recent daphnid study (MRID 46372101) submittedby the registrantto address data gaps for the conditional registration, both the parent and the Rl degradate are toxic, and Rl may be slightly more toxic than the parent with LCsos of2.4 and 2.7 ug a.i.lL, respectively ( Table 4-4). However, in view ofthe uncertainty associated with the individual contributions of acequinocyl and RI to overall toxicity, the most conservative LCso. 2.4 ug a.i./L, is used in this
39

### risk assessment The summation ofparent and the hydroxylated degradate would effectively increase the toxicity endpointby a factor of 1.92. The effects ofincluding the hydroxylated degradate in the endpoint on risk conclusions will be discussed in the risk characterization section of this document.

Table 4-4. Acute Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Freshwater Invertebrates Species Product Toxicity Endpoint Toxicity Study MRID# Tested Classification Classification Daphnia Technical Parent acequinocyl Very highly Acceptable 46372101

magna Grade 48-hr LC50: 2.7 ug a.i.!L toxic NOEAC: 0.66 ug a.i.!L LOEAC: 1.9 ug a.i./L R1 degradate 48-hr LC50: 2.4 ug a.i./L'"

NOEAC: 0.86 ug a.i./L LOAEC: 1.7 ug a.i.!L Parent acequinocyl + R1 degradate 48-hr LC50: 5.2 ug a.i.!L

NOEAC: 1.5 ug a.i./L

I LOEAC: 3.6 /lg a.i.!L

I Endpoints affected: mortality and sublethal effects Chironomus Formulated 96-hr LC50: >86 mg a.i./L Slightly toxic Supplemental 45782303

riparius NOAEC: 86 mg a.i.!L LOAEC: >86 mg a.i.!L I Endpoints affected: None

'" denotes value used to calculate RQs


### Table 4-5 below describes the effects ofchronic exposure ofacequinocyl on daphnids. The sensitive endpoints were number ofyoung and dry weight and length and dry weight ofparents attermination, and the NOAEC and LOAEC were reported as 0.98 and 1.8 ppb, respectively (MRID 

### 45434922).

Table 4-5. Chronic Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Freshwater Invertebrates

Daphnia

magna Technical Grade NOAEC: 0.98 ug a.i.!L'" LOAEC: 1.8 ug a.i.!L

Endpoints affected: Numberofyoung, length and dry weight of arents attermination Supplemental 45434922

'"denotes value used to calculate RQs 

### 4.1.4. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates Acequinocyl is very highly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates (LCso

### of0.94 ppb for mysid 40

### shrimp and ECso

### of0.59 ppb for shell deposition in eastern oysters) 

### (Table 4-6). No chronic study has been submitted for estuarine/marine invertebrates. An EFED memo dated 8 August 2010 concluded that given the instability ofacequinocyl in seawater (MRID 47814901), the conduct ofa mysid reproduction study will yield uncertain endpointresults and will not likely alter risk assessment conclusions. Thus the conduct ofsuch a study will have limited risk assessmentutility. Therefore, for the purposes ofthis risk assessment, an estimated value for a chronic effects endpoint is assumed by taking the acute to chronic ratio (ACR) observed in freshwater invertebrates 

### (i.e., 2.4 !J,g/L/ 0.98 !J,g/L 

### =2.45) and applying it to the most sensitive estuarine/marine invertebrate acute endpointto yield a chronic effects endpoint of0.24 !J,g/L (0.59 I-lg/L/2.45 = 

### 0.24 ug/L) for estuarine/marine invertebrates. An alternative to this ACR application is to use the same value applied to the mysid shrimp acute endpoint 

### (i.e., 0.94 !J,g/L) which would yield a chronic endpoint of0.38. The effects ofthis alternative endpoint on risk conclusions will be discussed in the risk characterization section.



### Table 4-6. Acute Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on 

### Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea

virginica) Mollusk Shell

Deposition Mysid Shrimp (Americamysis bahia) Technical Grade

Technical

Grade 96-hr ECso: 0.59 figa.i./L

### * Very highly toxic NOAEC: <0.11 figa.i./L LOAEC: 0.11 figa.i./L

Endpoints affected:

Shell deposition 96-hr LCso: 0.94 figa.i./L Very highly toxic NOAEC: 0.27 figa.i./L LOAEC: 0.50 figa.i./L

Endpoints affected:

Sublethal effects Supplemental

Supplemental 45434916

45434917



### *denotes value used to calculate RQs 

### 4.1.5. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants
Two studies with freshwater green algae have been submitted for acequinocyl (MRID 45435008 using technical grade product and MRID 45428611 using a formulated product) 

### (Table 4-7). 

### Both studies have been classified as Supplemental.



### Table 4-7. Acute Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Aquatic Plants

FreshwaterAlgae Technical

(Selenastrum Grade capricornutum) FreshwaterAlgae Formulated

(Selenastrum capricornutum)


### *denotes value used to calculate RQs 72-hr

## sc., >78.0 mg a.i.lL NOAEC:**~78.0** mg a.i.IL Endpoints affected: none 72-hr ECso: 0.96 mg a.i./L

### * NOAEC/LOAEC: 0.0017/0.0055 mg a.i.lL Endpoints affected: cell density


### 41 Supplemental

Supplemental 45435008

45428611

### 4.2. Terrestrial Effects Summary 4.2.1. Toxicity to Birds Avian oral and dietary toxicity data, presented in 

### Table 4-8, indicate that none of the acute studies generated a definitive endpoint. Toxicity values or LDsos from the acute oral gavage studies using the technical grade acequinocyl range from >2000 to >2250 mglkg-bw. Studies using dietary-based exposures generated LCsos ranging from >4952 to >5970 mg/kg-diet. Based on this data, acequinocyl is classified as practically non-toxic to upland game bird species. 

### Table 4-8. Acute Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Birds

Japanese Technical 14-day LD50: >2,000 mg a.i./kg-bw Practically Supplemental 45435002

Quail Grade NOAEC: 2,000 mg a.i.lkg-bw non-toxic (Coturnix Endpoints affected: None coturnix japonica) Bobwhite Technical 14-day LD50: >2250mg a.i/.kg-bw* Practically Acceptable 46615501

Quail Grade NOAEL: 2250mg a.i./kg-bw non-toxic (Colinus Endpoints affected: None vir inianus)

Japanese Technical 8-day LC50: >4,952 mg/kg-diet Slightly toxic Supplemental 45435004

Quail Grade NOAEC: 926 mg/kg-diet (Coturnix Endpoints affected: coturnix Body weight gain japonica)

Mallard Technical 8-day LCso: >5000 mg/kg-diet* Practically Acceptable 45435003

Duck Grade NOAEC: 488 mg/kg-diet non-toxic (Anas Endpoints affected: platyr- Body weight gain hynchos) Bobwhite Technical 8-day LC50: >5970 mg a.i./kg-diet Practically Acceptable 46622701

Quail Grade NOAEC: 5970 mg a.i./kg-diet non-toxic (Colinus LOAEC: >5970 mg a.i./kg-diet vir inianus) End oints affected: None

Bobwhite Formulated 14-day LD50: >300 mg a.i./kg-bw Moderately Acceptable 45530603

Quail NOAEC: 300 mg a.i./kg bw toxic (Colinus Endpoints affected: None virginianus) "denotes value used for risk characterization 

### Chronic avian toxicity studies with acequinocyl indicate no parental, reproductive, or offspring effects up to 2515 ppm (the highest dose tested) in bobwhite quail (MRID 45435006) 

### (Table 4-9). Mallard ducks appearto be more sensitive than the bobwhite quail with aNOAEC value of 100 ppm (MRID 45435005).
42

### Table 4-9. Chronic Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Birds

Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos) Technical Grade NOAEC: 100 mg a.i./kg-diet'" LOAEC: 500 mg a.i./kg-diet Endpoints affected: females bodyweight gain Acceptable 45435005

Bobwhite Quail Technical (Colin us Grade virginianusy

'"denotes value used to calculate RQs NOAEC:**~2515** mg a.i./kg-diet LOAEC: >2515 mg a.i./kg-diet Endpoints affected: None Acceptable 45435006



### 4.2.2. Toxicity to Mammals
EFED uses toxicity data for laboratory rodents and non-rodents from the Health Effects Division as surrogate data for wild mammal toxicity and risks. Acute oral gavage toxicity studies in rats and mice yielded LDsos greater than 5000 mg/kg-bw/day. Therefore acute toxicity of acequinocyl to mammals is expected to be very low and RQs are not calculated 

### (Table 4-10).
Table 4-10. Acute Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Mammals

Rat (Rattus norvegicus) Mouse

(Mus musculus) Technical Grade

Technical

Grade LD50: >5000 mg/kg-bw" (males and females)

LD50: >5000 mg/kg-bw

(males and females) Practically non-toxic Practically non-toxic Acceptable

Acceptable 45435011

45435010

'"denotes value used for risk characterization 

### Sub-acute (developmental) studies with rats (MRID 45531908 and MRID 45651706) and rabbits (MRID 45531907 and 45651705) and atwo-generation study with rats have been classified as acceptable. Results are presented in 

### Table 4-11. The NOAEC for the two-generation reproduction study is used for deriving chronic mammalian risk quotients (MRID 45531909). The parental and offspring NOAEC of100 ppm is more sensitive than the reproductive NOAEC of>1500 ppm.

43

### Table 4-11. Developmental and Reproductive Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Mammals

Rabbit (Leporidae)

Rat (Rattus norvegicus)

Rat (Rattus norvegicus) Technical Grade

Technical

Grade

Technical

Grade Maternal NOAEL: 60 mg a.i.Ikg-bw/day LOAEL: 120 mg a.i.Ikg-bw/day Developmental NOAEL: 60 mg a.i./kg-bw/day LOAEL: 120 mg a.i./kg-bw/day Parental NOAEC(m): 100rug/kg-diet" LOAEC(m): 800 mg/kg-diet NOAEC(t): >1500 mg/kg-diet Offspring NOAEC(m/t): 100mg/kg-diet LOAEC(m/t): 800 mg/kg-diet Reproduction NOAEC(m/t): >1500 mg/kg-diet Maternal NOAEL: 150 mg a.i./kg-bw/day LOAEL: 500 mg a.i.zkg-bw/day Developmental NOAEL: 500 mg a.i./kg-bw/day LOAEL: 750 mg a.i.lkg-bw/day Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable 45531907 and 45651705

45531909

45531908 and 45651706



### * denotes value used to calculate RQs 

### 4.2.3. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants
In a 21-day Tier I seedling emergence test, four mono cots and six dicots were exposed to 0 (control), 0.3, and 0.91b a.i./acre formulated acequinocyl (MRID 45428609) 

### (Table 4-12). Shootheight was affected by acequinocyl treatment for carrot only, and the EC2s was estimated to be 0.7 lb a.i./acre. Percent emergence, phytotoxicity, shoot height, and dry weight in acequinocyl- treated groups were not significantly different from controls for monocots.
In a 21-day Tier I vegetative vigor test, monocots and dicots were exposed to 0 (control), 0.3, and 0.9 lb a.i./acre formulated acequinocyl applied post emergence (MRID 45428610) 

### (Table 4- 12). Shootheight for only beet and cabbage were significantly different from controls (less than 10% for each) at 0.9 lb a.i./acre. Otherparameters such as phytotoxicity and plant dry weight were not affected. The EC2s was estimated to be >0.9 lb a.i/acre for both mono cots and dicots.

44

### Table 4-12. Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl on Terrestrial Plants

Seedling Formulated Emergence Tier I (Monocots and Dicots) Vegetative Vigor Formulated Tier I (Monocots and Dicots) 2I-day EC25 Monocots: >0.9 Ib a.i.lA

Dicots: 0.7 lb a.i.lA 2I-dayNOEC Monocots: 0.9 lb a.i.IA

Dicots: OJ lb a.i.lA 21-day EC25 Monocots and Dicots: >0.9 lb a.i.lA 2 I-day NOEC Monocots: 0.9 lb a.i.lA

Dicots: 0.3 lb a.i.IA Acceptable

Acceptable 45428609

45428610



### 4.2.4. Toxicity to Non-target Insects Two studies, one using the technical ingredient (MRID 454350047) and the other using the formulated product (MRID 45428608), have been submittedby the registrant for determining acute effects ofacequinocyl exposure on honey bees. Toxicity endpoints are presented in 

### Table 4-13. Acequinocyl is classified as practically non-toxic to honey bees.



### Table 4-13. Toxic Effects ofAcequinocyl onNon-target Insects

Honey bees Technical Contact Practically Acceptable 45435007 (Apis Grade 48-hr LDso: > 100 ug a.i./bee* nontoxic mellifera) NOAEL: 100 ug a.i./bee (mortality) Honey bees Formulated Contact Practically non- Acceptable 45428608 (Apis 72-hr LDso : >350 !J.g a.i./bee toxic mellifera) NOAEL: 175 ug a.i./bee LOAEL: 350!J.ga.i./bee (mortality) Oral Honey bees Formulated 72-hr LDso: >315 ug a.i./bee Practically non- Supplemental (Apis NOAEL: 43.8 ug a.i./bee toxic melli era) LOAEL: 87.5 a.i./bee *denotes value used in risk characterization 

### 4.2.5. Toxicity to Earthworms Currently, Of'P does not require earthwormtoxicity testing forpesticide registration. However, registrant-submitted earthworm studies have been evaluated and classified as supplemental ( 

### Table 4-14) using guideline OPPTS 850.6200. 

### Inthese studies, no earthworm mortality occurred at levels up to 1000mg/kg-soil, although body weight gain was reduced at 1000 mglkgbw. 45

### Table 4-14. Toxic Effects ofAcequinocylon Earthworms Species ProductTested TQxicityEndpoint Study MRID#

, Classification Earthworm Technical Grade 14-day LCso: > 1000 mg a.i./kg Supplemental 45435009

(Eisenia NOAEC/LOAEC: 50011000 mg a.i.lkg foetida) (reductions in body weight gain) Earthworm Formulated 14-day LCso: >156 mg a.i./kg Supplemental 45782304

(Eisenia NOAEC/LOAEC:**~156/>156** mg a.i.lkg foetida)


### 4.3. IncidentDatabase Review
A review ofthe Ecological Incident Information System (EllS, version 2.1.1), which is maintained by the Agency's Office ofPesticide Programs (OPP), the Avian Monitoring Information System (AIMS), which is maintained by the American Bird Conservancy, and the Aggregate Summary Module (ASM) (v. 1.0) ofOPP's incident database, which is maintained by the Information Technology and Resource Management Division, was completed on October 16, 2011 and did not yield any ecological incidents involving acequinocyl.


### 5. RISKESTIMATION
Dataon acequinocyl's exposure and toxicity effects are used to determine the risk quotients for various species. Risk quotient, an indicator ofthe likelihood ofadverse ecological effects on non-target species, is calculated by dividing the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) by acute or chronic toxicity values. The highest EECs and the most sensitive endpoints were used to determine a conservative estimate ofrisk. The resulting RQs are compared to the Agency's pre-established levels ofconcern (LOCs) to determine the regulatory action. In general, higherthe RQ, greater is the potential risk. Details on the RQ method and LOCs are presented in 

### Table 2-4.
5.1. Aquatic RQs
5.1.1. Aquatic Acute RQs
A summary ofaquatic acute RQs is presented in 

### Table 5-1 and 

### Table 5-2 for the two exposure modeling approaches. No acute RQs for freshwater or estuarine/marine fish could be calculated because ofthe lack ofa definitive acute toxicity endpoint for either taxon. However the ratio of peakEECs (i.e., 0.27 to 6.69Ilg/L) to non-definitive acute toxicity endpoints for fish (i.e., 

### 1100 j..Lg a.i./L for freshwater fish; 190 ug a.i./L for estuarine marine fish) would be appreciably less than any acute LOC established by the Agency. No acute LOCs are exceeded for aquatic plants with any ofthe crop scenarios using either model approach.
Acute RQs exceed the acute endangered species (0.05) risk LOC for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates for all crop scenarios regardless ofthe model used to calculate 46

### EECs. Acute restricted use (0.1) and acute (0.5) risk LOCs are exceeded for all crop scenarios for exposure model approach 1 which assumes no acequinocyl degradation and some crop scenarios for exposure model approach 2 which considers combined exposure to acequinocyl and the Rl degradate.



### Table 5-1. Summary ofAquatic Acute RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 1 (Assumes No Acequinocyl Degradation)

See Table 3-4 ***RQ exceeds acute endangered species (0.05), acute restricted use (0.1), and acute (0.5) risk LOCs. Proposed Use Scenario PilaR I.:**···'rr~~~.eter ls~~arin~{Marine**  Aquatic

### .~.~:el .• InvefttlJmteS

'" Invel1tebrl:ltes, ,.**;~Iants**



### .(Plr/L) 

## R<f

.. 

### RQ RQ

# 't~ ; I 

### T·

......'**TQI!~ity To~icity**  

# "1"

..... y, ¢ijdp!iiitt:

.emlpoint: 

### O.!:91!2iL 960

### I!I!IL Soybean MS soybean 6.69 2.79*** 11.34*** «0.05 FL strawberry

I (not applicable to 6.69 2.79*** I 1.34*** «0.05 cranberry) Low-growing berry Rice model 

# I

I (surrogate model for 5.00 2.08*** 8.47*** «0.05 (l3-07G) cranberry)

I Provisional cranberry

I II model (applicable to 4.87 2.03*** 8.25*** «0.05 cranberry) Small fruit CA grape 1.56 0.65*** 2.64*** «0.05 (vine climbing except kiwi fruit) NY grape 4.65 1.94*** 7.88*** «0.05 Succulent shelled bean and MI bean 6.69 2.79*** t 1.34*** «0.05 cowpea forage OR bean 6.69 2.79*** 11.34*** «0.05 Caneberry CA grape 1.57 0.65*** 2.66*** «0.05 (13-07A) NY grape 6.69 2.79*** 11.34*** «0.05 MI melon 2.73 1.14*** 4.63*** «0.05 Melon MOmelon 6.69 2.79*** 11.34*** «0.05 (9A) NJ melon 5.06 2.11*** 8.58*** «0.05 Cucumber FL cucumber 6.69 2.79*** 11.34*** «0.05 Cherry MI cherry 6.69 2.79*** 11.34*** «0.05
I



### Table 5-2. Summary ofAquatic Acute RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 2 (Combined Acequinocyl and Rl) Proposed Use

So bean Scenario

MS so bean Peak EEC I

.(Ilg/L)

1.16 Freshwater 

### Invertebrates 

### RQ Toxicity' endpoint: 2.4 /L

0.48** EstuarinelMatine ·Invettebtates

. 

### RQ
ToxicitY endpoint: 0.$9

1.97*** Aquatic

.Plants



### RQ



### 47See Table 3-4 *RQ exceeds acute endangered species risk LaC (0.05). **RQ exceeds acute endangered species (0.05) and acute restricted use (0.1) risk LaCs. ***RQ exceeds acute endangered species (0.05), acute restricted use (0.1), and acute (0.5) risk LaCs. Proposed Use Scella.rio Peak**.Fr~sbwlt~l'** . Es.u8rinelMlrine Aquatic EEC1**ll~~rt~~rlt** •**lpyeJ1~~** ..ates Plants

.. .. ..... 

### (JigIL)

... L. J.tQ. ". 

### RQ RQ Toxicity Toxicity Toxicity endpoin.t;**endpoin~:** endpoint: 

### 2.4

....l!IL O.59Jtszffi 960uwL FL strawberry
I (not applicable to 0.29 0.12** 0.49*** «0.05 cranberry) Low-growing berry Rice model

I (surrogate model for 5.00 2.08*** 8.47*** «0.05 (l3-07G) cranberry') Provisional cranberry I I model (applicable to 4.38 1.83*** 7.43*** «0.05 cranberry') Small fruit CA grape 0.27 0.11 ** 0.46* * «0.05 (vine climbing except kiwi fruit) NY grape 1.99 0.83*** 3.37*** «0.05 Succulent shelled bean and MI bean 0.55 0.23** 0.93*** «0.05 cowpea forage OR bean 0.29 0.12** 0.49** «0.05 Caneberry CA grape 0.27 0.11 ** 0.46** «0.05 ( 13-07A) NY grape 2.15 0.90*** 3.64*** «0.05 Melon MI melon 0.28 0.12** 0.47** «0.05 Mamelon 1.23 0.51 *** 2.08*** «0.05 (9A) NJ melon 0.55 0.23** 0.93*** «0.05 Cucumber FL cucumber 0.38 0.16** 0.64*** «0.05 Cherry MI cherry 2.64 1.10*** 4.47*** «0.05 1,



### 5.1.2. Aquatic Chronic RQs
Calculated chronic RQs for fish and invertebrates are presented in Table 5-3 and Table 5-4 for the two exposure modeling approaches. No chronic RQs exceed the chronic risk LaC (1.0) for freshwater or estuarine/marine fish using either approach. Chronic RQs exceed the chronic risk LaC of 1.0 for all invertebrates for all uses under exposure model approach 1. In contrast, chronic RQs did not exceed the chronic risk LaC for invertebrates under exposure model approach 2 with the exception ofthe model for NY grape which was used for small fruit and caneberry (estuarine/marine invertebrates only).

48

### Table 5-3. Summary ofAquatic Chronic RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 1 (Assumes No Acequinocyl Degradation) Proposed Use ," Sc¢nario**21~day.t ~94dar**  

## 't\" .. ,FW vE/M:.·'· ElM ImC1 EEC y' 'Fish v

.Invert :. Fish Invert

. (p,gtL)**(p,~)** 

### RQ RQ 

### RQ RQ

. T city Toxicity**To~icity** Toxicity

.**e~d<t: ,end~()int:**  y**eq~pohlt:. endp~~nt:** 

."",,'::

.." >/

. ". 70!1&gfL

.O.9.JlgtL**70j1glL~** 0.24J'g/L3 Soybean MS soybean 6.69 6.69 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88* FL strawberry (not applicable to 6.69 6.69 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88* cranberry)

I Rice model

I Low-growing berry (surrogate model 5.00 5.00 0.07 5.10* 0.07 20.83* (13-07G) for cranberry') Provisional cranberry model 4.31 4.40* 17.96* (applicable to cranberry) Small fruit CA grape 1.06 1.04 0.01 1.08* 0.01 4.42* (vine climbing except NY grape 1.10 0.81 0.01 1.12* 0.01 4.58* kiwi fruit) Succulent shelled MI bean 6.69 6.68 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88* bean and cowpea forage OR bean 6.69 6.69 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88* Caneberry CA grape 1.06 1.05 0.02 1.08* 0.02 4.42* (13-07A) NY grape 6.69 6.69 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88* Melon MI melon 1.94 1.76 0.03 1.98* 0.Q3 8.08* MOmelon 6.69 6.69 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88* (9A) NJ melon 4.13 3.92 0.06 4.21 * 0.06 17.21* Cucumber FL cucumber 6.69 6.69 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88* Cherry MI cherry 6.69 6.69 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88* Abbreviations: Invert = invertebrate; FW = freshwater; E/M = estuarine/marine ISee Table 3-4
2Assumed endpoint value is equivalentto freshwater fish chronic endpoint. No definitive acute value is available for estuarine/marine fish. Acute data available suggest a less sensitive estuarine/marine fish so assumption used for chronic effects is conservative.
3Assumed endpoint value is based on an acute to chronic ratio of2.45 for the freshwater invertebrate endpoints as applied to the most sensitive acute estuarine marine invertebrate endpoint of0.59 ug/L (0.59 ug/L /2.45 = 0.24 ).lg/L). *exceeds chronic risk LOC (1.0)

49

### Table 5-4. Summary ofAquatic Chronic RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 2 (Combined Acequinocyl and Rl) PropesedtJse> Scenario**Y~~-~·f** 601f(lar FW FW ElM ElM 

# '.'C,.· 1··'EI¥C/ I··· 

### ·Jl.h i**Inv.~rt** Fish Invert '(,lgJL) 

### (IlWD)·'· 

### RQ RQ RQ RQ Toxicity**To~icjty** Toxicity Toxicity endpoint:**~ndp9int;** endpoint: endpoint: 520,lgAL O.98,lglt**5~O** !J.glL2**O.~4** ,lglL3 Soybean MS soybean 0.27 0.18 0.0026 0.28 0.0026 1.13* FL strawberry (not applicable to 0.07 0.05 0.0007 0.07 0.0007 0.29 cranberry) Rice model Low-growing berry (surrogate model 5.00 5.00 0.0714 5.10* 0.0714 20.83* (l3-07G) for cranberry) Provisional cranberry model 1.56 1.59* 6.51 * (applicable to cranberry) Small fruit CA grape 0.04 0.03 0.0004 0.04 0.0004 0.17 (vine climbing except NY grape 0.51 0.33 0.0047 0.52 0.0047 2.13* kiwi fruit) Succulent shelled MI bean 0.16 0.11 0.0016 0.16 0.0016 0.67 bean and cowpea OR bean 0.07 0.06 0.0009 0.07 0.0009 0.29 forage Caneberry CA grape 0.04 0.03 0.0004 0.04 0.0004 0.17 (l3-07A) NY grape 0.53 0.34 0.0049 0.54 0.0049 2.21 * Melon MI melon 0.06 0.04 0.0006 0.06 0.0006 0.25 MOmelon 0.19 0.12 0.0017 0.19 0.0017 0.79 (9A) NJ melon 0.12 0.09 0.0013 0.12 0.0013 0.50 Cucumber FL cucumber 0.09 0.06 0.0009 0.09 0.0009 0.38 Cherry MI cherry 0.48 0.32 0.0046 0.24 0.0046 0.39 Abbreviations: Invert = Invertebrate; FW = freshwater; E/M = estuanne/manne ISee Table 3-4
2Assumed endpoint value is equivalent to freshwater fish chronic endpoint. No definitive acute value is available for estuarine/marine fish. Acute data available suggesta less sensitive estuarine/marine fish so assumption used for chronic effects is conservative. 3Assumed endpoint value is based on an acute to chronic ratio of2.45 for the freshwater invertebrate endpoints as applied to the most sensitive acute estuarine marine invertebrate endpoint of0.59**~g/L** (0.59 ug/L I 2.45 = 0.24 ug/L). *exceeds chronic risk LOC (1.0) 

### 5.2. TerrestrialRQs
5.2.1. Avian RQs Avian acute RQs could not be calculated as there was no mortality in birds at the highest concentrations tested in both the acute and sub-acute toxicity tests resulting in non-definitive 50endpoints. A discussion ofthe potential risks to birds from acute exposure is discussed in the risk characterization section ofthis document.
Avian chronic RQs for two different acequinocyl application intervals (14 days and 21 days) and two different acequinocyl foliar dissipation half-lives (20 days and 35 days) are presented in Table 5-5. The chronic risk LOC (1.0) is exceeded for birds ofall weightclasses that consume short grass exclusively regardless ofthe application interval or foliar dissipation half-life.

Table 5-5. Summary ofAvian Chronic RQs

< i**Diet~ry!.b~~ed. Chrollic~qs**  Food items for BiI·ds 

## ttwo.**3Pplieati~ns** at**O.30Jba~i./A** .. .y



### . 14.;dav'iiterval·'·' 

### .r; 21"dav interval Modeled uslnz foliar dissipation half-life of35 days Short grass 1.27* 1.20* Tall grass 0.58 0.55 Broadleafplants/small insects 0.71 0.67 Fruits/pods/seeds/large insects 0.08 0.07 Modeled using foliar dissipation half-life of20 days Short grass 1.16* 1.07* Tall grass 0.53 0.49 Broadleafplants/small insects 0.65 0.60 Fruits/pods/seeds/large insects 0.07 0.07 Equals or exceeds chronic fisk LOC (1.0)
5.2.2. Mammalian RQs
Mammalian acute RQs could not be calculated due to the lack ofdefinitive endpoints in mammalian acute toxicity studies with acequinocyL A discussion ofthe potential risks to mammals from acute exposures is presented in the risk characterization section ofthis document.
Mammalian chronic RQs are presented in Table 5-6. Dose-based chronic RQs exceedthe chronic risk LOC of 1.0 for all weight classes ofmammals thatfeed on short grass, tall grass, broadleafplants, and small insects regardless ofapplication interval or foliar dissipation half-life. On the otherhand, dietary-based chronic RQs are above the chronic risk LOC (1.0) for mammals consuming short grass exclusively regardless ofapplication interval or foliar dissipation half-life used in the modeling.



### 51

### Table 5-6. Summary ofMammalian Chronic RQs

Ace uinoc I half-life 35 da s; two a lications each at 0.30 Ib a.i./A 14 da s a art Short rass 1.27* 1.20* 10.98* 10.37* 9.38* 8.86* 5.03* 4.75* Tall rass 0.58 0.55 5.03* 4.75* 4.30* 4.06* 2.30* 2.18* Broadleafplants/ 0.71 0.67 6.18* 5.83* 5.28* 4.98* 2.83* 2.67* I small insects

Fruits/pods/seeds/ 0.08 0.07 0.69 0.65 0.59 0.55 0.31 0.30 lar e insects Seeds ( ranivores) 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.07 0.07 Ace uinoc I half-life 20 da s; two a lications each at 0.30 Ib a.i.IA 14 da sa art Short rass 1.16* 1.07* 10.09* 9.26* 8.62* 7.91 * 4.62* 4.24* Tall rass 0.53 0.49 4.63* 4.25* 3.95* 3.63* 2.12* 1.94* Broadleafplants/ 0.65 0.60 5.68* 5.21* 4.85* 4.45* 2.60* 2.39* small insects Fruits/pods/seeds/ 0.07 0.07 0.63 0.58 0.54 0.49 0.29 0.27 lar e insects Seeds ( ranivores) 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.06 0.06 "Equals or exceeds chronic risk LOC (1.0)


### 5.2.3. PlantRQs
The acute risk LOC of 1.0 forterrestrial and semi-aquatic plants was not exceeded for the proposed maximum, single application rate of0.3 

### lb a.i.lA for acequinocyl 

### (Table 5-7). Therefore, potential risk to plants from acute exposure is expected to be below levels ofconcern.


### Table 5-7. Summary ofRQs for Plants in Dry and Semi-aquatic Areas Plant Type ,**Li$t~** Status .: ,; Habitat Sp,ray Drift

" Dry Semi-Aquatic Monocot Non-listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Monocot Listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Dicot Non-listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Dicot Listed <0.1 0.11 <0.1


### 5.2.4. Invertebrate RQs Currently, EFED does not routinely quantify the potential risk ofpesticides to terrestrial invertebrates. An examination ofthe potential forterrestrial invertebrates to be at risk from the proposed used ofacequinocy1is discussed in the risk characterization section ofthis document.


### 6. RISK CHARACTERIZATION
52

### Risk characterization integrates exposure and effects data to determine the ecological risk resulting from the use ofacequinocyl and the likelihood ofimpacts on aquatic and terrestrial biota. Risk characterizationprovides estimation and description ofthe risk; articulates risk assessment assumptions, limitations, and uncertainties; synthesizes an overall conclusion; and provides risk managers with informationto support regulatory decision making. Despite the same use rates, acequinocyl EECs and calculated RQs are different in this assessment compared to the initial assessment completed in 2003. This is due to the use ofnew scenarios as a result ofexpanded label uses in new crops, modifications to crop planting dates for some existing scenarios, selection oftoxicity endpoints from new submitted studies in certain cases, and use ofthe model TREX in the place ofELL-FATE.
6.1. Aquatic Risk
6.1.1. Aquatic Animals


### No definitive acute RQs couldbe calculated for freshwater fish or estuarine/marine fish due to the absence ofa definitive acute toxicity endpointfor either taxa. However, aquatic EECs for all use scenarios (i.e., 0.03 to 6.69 ug/L) fall 5 to 6 orders ofmagnitude belowpesticide concentrations demonstrated to produce no signs ofacute toxicity in these taxa (i.e., 

### 1100 ug a.i./L for freshwater fish; 190 ug a.i./L for estuarine marine fish). This suggests that the potential for adverse acute toxic effects to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, regardless oftheir listed status, is low.
Chronic RQs for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish are well below the chronic risk LOC (l.0). However, the interpretation for chronic effects to estuarine/marine fish is limited by the taxon's toxicity endpoint which is assumed to be equivalentto the chronic toxicity value for freshwater fish. Calculated chronic RQs for estuarine/marine fish using the surrogate chronic effects endpoint are at least one order ofmagnitude below the chronic risk LOC for exposure modeling approach 1 and at least two orders ofmagnitude below the chronic risk LOC forexposure modeling approach 2. This allows for aconsiderable margin oferror in the available assumed toxicity values without affecting risk conclusions.
All ofthe proposed uses for acequinocyl, regardless ofthe modeling approach, pose potential risk from acute exposure for both listed and non-listed aquatic invertebrates. Approach 1 for modeling exposure assumes stability ofthe parentcompound (i.e., a functional assumption that any degradates produced are essentially equivalentto the parent toxicologically). This is importantbecause RQs derived in this assessment for aquatic invertebrates use parent-only toxicity endpoints. However, evaluation ofthe available toxicity data for invertebrates suggests that degradates were present in the freshwater invertebrate study at concentrations that could elevate the assumed toxicity endpoint (parent plus degradate) by a factor of 1.92. Therefore, there is apotentially valid alternative course ofanalysis that would compare the exposure concentrations yielded via approach 1 with the toxicity endpointexpressed as parent compound plus degradate. In this case, because the exposure concentrations remain unchanged but the
53toxicity endpointrises by 1.92 times, the corresponding RQs would drop by the same factor. An examination ofall ofthe acute RQs generated by approach I for freshwater invertebrates indicates that adjusting them downward by a factor of 1.92 would not alter the conclusions ofthe risk assessment.
The lack ofchronic effects datafor estuarine/marine invertebrates increases uncertainty in the conclusions for risk to this taxon from chronic exposure. The application ofthe acute to chronic ratio from a freshwater cladoceranto the acute endpoint derived from a bivalve study contributes to this uncertainty. There is the potential that the large taxonomic difference between cladocerans and bivalves makes extrapolating the acute to chronic ratio from one taxon to the other inappropriate. Ifthe same acute to chronic ratio is applied to the available mysid acute endpoint (a taxon more closely related to the cladocerans), the resulting chronic estimate would be closerto that measured for freshwater invertebrates. However, given the conclusions reached for freshwater invertebrate risks, such an alternative estimate ofchronic estuarine/marine sensitivity would have little effect on the risk assessment conclusions. Aquatic invertebrates could be exposed to a wide range ofacequinocyl concentrations in a natural water setting depending on the type ofwaterbody. The waterbody modeled by EXAMS is static with no downstream dilution effects. Therefore, specific effects exerted by acequinocyl on aquatic invertebrates and the extent ofresulting risk are difficult to predict. However, based on 21-day and 60-day average EECs derived from both modeling approaches, risks to estuarine/marine invertebrates appearto exceedthose for freshwater invertebrates. Acequinocyl's potential for off-site movement is generally low as it strongly adsorbs to soils. If acequinocyl moves from the target areato nearby aquatic areas, the potential exists for it to adsorb to soil sediments resulting in adverse impacts to benthic-dwelling organisms. However, considering that acequinocyl's half-life is less than 2 days in aerobic soils, adsorption to sediments is not a major concern. To determine ifsediment-dwelling organisms could be adversely affected from the proposed uses, concentrations ofacequinocyl in benthic pore water were calculated using PRZM/ EXAMS 

### (Table 3-5). Benthic pore water concentrations for various scenarios ranged from 0.8 to 6.69 ug/L using exposure modeling approach 1 and 0.02 to 0.31 

### ug/L using exposure modeling approach 2. Since the submittedtoxicity endpoint (LC

### so: >86,000 

### ug/L) for the sediment-dwelling 

### Chironomus riparius is several orders ofmagnitude higherthan estimated pore waterconcentrations, risks to sediment-dwelling organisms from the proposed uses ofacequinocyl are expected to be low. 

### It should be noted thatthe registrantsubmitted study on chironomids (MRID 45782303) was not conducted according to the sediment toxicity guideline (850.1735) as it employed a water-only exposure method. Therefore the results ofthe study may not account for any direct sediment/organismtransfer ofthe pesticide. However, giventhe relatively large margins between estimated pore water concentrations and the toxic effects endpoint, it is unlikely that arepeat ofa study involving sediment and water exposure would markedly alter risk conclusions.


### 6.1.1.1 Risks Based on the Probit Slope Analysis
54

### The probit dose-response slope is used to calculate the chance ofan individual mortality event corresponding to the acute endangered species risk LOC or RQs. When an estimate for the probit slope generated for the associated toxicity study isunavailable, adefault slope of4.5 is used. The analysis using the EFED Individual Effects Chance Model (lEC, version 1.1) can estimate the probability ofan individual mortality event down to 1 in 1 x 10-16

. 

### Chance ofindividual effects was not calculated for fish because none ofthe toxicity studies yielded adefinitive measure ofmortality (i.

### e., LCso ). 

### Chance ofindividual effects for estuarine/marine invertebrates was not calculated because the most sensitive endpoint from oysters is for acontinual variable ofgrowth and not a discrete measure ofmortality. The assumptions ofthe IEC model are not compatible for this type ofendpoint. A slope of6.2 with 95% confidence bounds (4.0,8.4) was used for the LCso

### ofthe most sensitive acute freshwater invertebrate (Daphnia magna; 

### LCso

### =2.4 ug 

### a.i./L; MRID 46372101). The results ofthe probit slop analyses for freshwater invertebrates are presented inTable 6-1. Chance ofan individual mortality ranged from 1 in 1 to 1 in 8 for exposure modeling approach 1 and 1 in I 

### to 1 in 1.76x108 

### for exposure modeling approach 2. The high probabilities of individual effects for most ofthe scenarios provide support for the conclusion that aquatic invertebrates are at risk from acute exposure to acequinocyl from the proposeduses.

Table 6-1. Chance ofIndividual Effects for FreshwaterInvertebrates Based on Acute RQs and Exposure Modeling Approaches 

### 1 and 

### 2 Proposed Scenario ,Slope! Freshwaterll)vertebrates

## «:b~P~jz;l[tiitesb,..~r Use (95%Cn RQs Invert tes

.

. ..•...**..··(95~o** .' Approach1 Approaeh'.2 a**)\ppf()ael1t~;·** ApprO,ilcll2 (no (combined i.,**!n~~~~~~jnocYI** I' (combined acequi l10eyl acequinocyt

. degradation) acequjnocynmd deltradationl I"··"· andRI) RI) Soybean MS soybean 6.2 2.79*** 0.48** I in 1 1 in 41 (4.0, 8.4) (l in 1 to I in 1) (I in9 to I in270) FL strawberry 6.2 I 1 1 in 1.76xl0M (not applicable to 2.79*** 0.12** In (1 in 8.69x103 to Low-growing cranberry) (4.0, 8.4) (l in 1 to 1 in 1) 1 in 1.93x10 14) berry Rice model (13-070) (surrogate model 6.2 2.08*** 2.08*** I in 1 1 in 1 for cranberry) (4.0, 8.4) (1 in 1 to 1 in 1) (I in 1 to 1 in 1)
6.2 1 in 8

I 1 in 7.16x108 Small fruit CA grape (4.0, 8.4) 0.65*** 0.1 1** (l in4 to (1 in 1.59xl04to (vine climbing 1 in 17) 1 in 2.46xl0 15) except kiwi fruit) 

### NY 6.2 1.94*** 0.83*** 1 in I 1 in 3 grape (4.0, 8.4) (1 In 1 to 1 in I) (1 in 3 to I In 4)

I Succulent 6.2 1 in 1 1 In 2.64xl04

shelled bean MI bean 2.79*** 0.23** (1 in 187 to and cowpea (4.0, 8.4) (1 in 1 to I in 1) 1 in 2.42xl07)



### 55Proposed Scenario Slopel FreshwaterInvertebrates Chance of Effects for Freshwater Use (95%CI) RQs**Invel1~brl:ltes** (95%Cb Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 1 Approach 2 (no (combined (no acequinocyl (combined acequinocyl acequinocyl degradation) acequinocyl and dearadatien) and Rl) Rl) forage

I OR bean 6.2 I in I I in 1.76xlOK (4.0, 8.4) 2.79*** 0.12** (I in 1 to 1 in 1) (I in 8.69x103 to I in 1.93xI0 14) 6.2 I I in 8 I in 7.16x IOK CA grape 0.65*** 0.11 ** (1 in 4 to (I in 1.59xl04 to
I Caneberry (4.0, 8.4) I in 17) I in 2.46xI0 15) (13-07A) 6.2 I in I I in 3 NY grape (4.0, 8.4) 2.79*** 0.90*** (1 in I to I in 1) (I in 2 to I in 3) 6.2 I in 2 I in l.76xIOK MI melon 1.14*** 0.12** (I in 8.69xI03 to

\ (4.0, 8.4) (I in 2 to 1 in 2) I in 1.93x10 14) Melon 6.2 I in I I in 29

I (9A) MOmelon (4.0, 8.4) 2.79*** 0.51*** (1 In I to I in I) (I in 8 to I in 143) 

## I I in I in 2.64xI04 NJ melon 6.2 2.11*** 0.23** (I in I to I in (I in 187 to (4.0, 8.4) I) I in 2.42xI07) 6.2 I in I I in 2.49xI06

I Cucumber FL cucumber 2.79*** 0.16** (I in 1.37xl03 to (4.0, 8.4) (I in I to 1 in I) I in 8.68xI0 1O)

I Cherry MI cherry 6.2 2.79*** 1.10*** I in I I in 2 (4.0,8.4) (I in I to 1 in I) (I in 2 to I in 2) Abbreviation: CI = Confidence mterval IMRlD 46372101 ***RQ exceeds acute endangered species (0.05), acute restricted use (0.1), and acute (0.5) risk LOCs. 

### 6.1.2. Plants Aquatic non-vascular (algal) plants are not a concern for risk from acequinocyl uses because acute RQs are well below the acute endangered species risk LOC for aquatic plants.


### 6.2. Terrestrial Risk
6.2.1. Animals (Birds, Mammals, and Insects)
Because avian (oral and dietary) and mammalian (oral) acute studies did not establish definitive endpoints, RQs for acute exposure could not calculated in the risk estimation section ofthis assessment. To gain a betterunderstanding ofhow the EECs for the maximumproposed acequinocyl applicationrate relate to the toxicity data currently available for birds and mammals, TREX was used to calculate RQs with the highest concentrationtested in the avian and mammalian studies serving as inputs (i.e., 

### acute: LDsos= 

### of2250 mg/kg-bw

### and 5000 mg/kg

### diet for birds; 5000 mg/kg-bw

### for mammals). In this exercise all ofthe acute RQs calculated using upperbound Kenaga values (see 

### Appendix H) were less than 0.1 except for dose-based 56RQs ranging from 0.08

- 0.12 for small birds consuming short grass exclusively. Therefore, direct risk to non-listed and listed birds and mammals from acute exposure to acequinocyl is expected to be low.
The potential for adverse effects to mammals is based on chronic dose-based and dietary-based RQs. Dose-based mammalian RQs exceedthe chronic risk LOC (1.0) for three out offive food categories for all weight classes assessed regardless ofapplication interval or half-life assumed. Chronic dietary-based exceedances occur only for mammals that feed on short grass exclusively. Such mammals would include microtine voles. Similarly only chronic short grass dietary exposures trigger concern for riskto birds. For most bird species, chronic consumption ofshort grass is not an expected feeding guild. However, large birds such as waterfowl do feed on grasses to a great extent. Even so, reliance on mean residue estimates in bird's diet might obviate concern for chronic effects in birds. RQs for terrestrial invertebrates (e.g., insects) are not routinely calculated for non-listed species. The Agency has not established LaCs for these organisms otherthan for listed species (0.05). The acute contactLDsois>100**~g** 

### a.i.zbee (MRID 45435007). Assuming the weight ofan individual bee is 0.128 g, the acute contact LDso for these organisms is >781 mg a.i./kg-bw (> 100 ug a.i./bee / 0.128 g-bw = >781 ug a.i./g-bw = >781 mg/kg-bw). Acequinocyl residues on insects as estimated by dietary-based EECs (mg/kg-insect) generated via TREX range from 7.47 to 71.19 mg/kg-insect depending on insect size (small, large), application interval, and halflife (see 

### Table 3-6 and 

### Table 3-7). Although a definitive LDso was not established in the acute contact study, lethargy was observed as a sublethal effect. 

### Inorder to gain a betterunderstanding ofhow the EECs for the maximum proposed acequinocyl applicationrate relate to the toxicity data currently available for terrestrial invertebrates, the ratio ofthe highest EEC 

### (i.e., 71.19 mg/kginsect) to the non-definitive toxicity endpoint 

### (i.e., >781 mg/kg-bw) was calculated using the conservative assumption that the highest concentration tested represents the toxicity endpoint. 

### In this exercise, the acute ratio is >0.05. Because the highest dose tested is below the exposure level required to preclude risk to federally listed species, the specific riskto listed terrestrial invertebrates from the proposed uses ofacequinocyl is unknown. 

### Inthe absence ofadditional data, risk to listed terrestrial invertebrates is assumed.


### 6.2.2. Plants
As can be expectedwith an insecticide for a broad variety ofagricultural crops, acequinocyl use does not appearto pose any risk to terrestrial plants. The LOC of 1.0 for terrestrial and semiaquatic plants was not exceeded for the proposed uses due to eitherrunoffor drift of acequinocyl.


### 6.3. Endangered Species Endangered species thatcould potentially be affected by the proposed uses ofacequinocyl are identified using the searchable LOCATES database. EFED's screening-level assessment 57

### considers broadly described taxonomic groups and assumes that aquatic organisms in a surface water body and terrestrial plants and wildlife are located on or adjacentto the treated site. The assessment also assumes that this adjacent area has the highest potential for exposureto the pesticide and that exposures are likely to decrease with increasing distance from the treatment area. The list ofthreatened and endangered species that could be directly affected by the proposed acequinocyl uses is provided in 

### Appendix

### J. A total of433 organisms in taxa that include amphibians (18), arachnids (12), birds (82), bivalves (71), coral (2), crustaceans (20), gastropods (70), insects (63), mammals (70), and reptiles (25) are identified to be at direct risk from the proposed uses ofacequinocyl. It 

### should be noted that endangered species at risk for indirect effects from the proposed used ofacequinocyl are not included in this analysis. 

### 6.3.1. Aquatic Endangered Species
This screening-level risk assessment for acequinocyl identifies potential concerns for listed freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates. 

### 6.3.2. Terrestrial Endangered Species
The currentrisk assessment suggests that acequinocyl has the potential to impactendangered birds, mammals, terrestrial invertebrates, and organisms that may depend on them for survival or reproduction. Since birds serve as surrogate species for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles, it is expected that amphibians and reptiles are also at risk.


### 6.3.3. Direct and Indirect Effects The summary ofpotential direct and indirect effects to endangered species is presented in 

### Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference
.. In view ofthe sensitivity ofaquatic invertebrates and terrestrial birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates to acequinocyl, direct impact ofproposed uses could result in loss ofthe above species due to mortality. The loss ofthese species will also result in structural and functional changes ofboth the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Importantly, changes will be manifested in the form ofreduced biodiversity and disruption ofthe food chain. 

### Table 6-2. Summary ofPotential Direct and Indirect Effects to Federally-Listed Taxa Or2atti$m 

### ., ...... ;. DirectEffects Indirect·Effects! Terrestrial and semi-aquatic monocots No No and dicots Terrestrial invertebrates Yes Yes Birds Yes Yes Terrestrial-phase amphibians Yes Yes Reptiles Yes Yes Mammals Yes Yes

I Aquatic vascularplants I No Yes 

### 58Orasnism

..... ... ... 

### . .... 

# .**·Dir~ct.Effects** IndirectEffectsl • ...
... Freshwater fish No Yes Aquatic-phase amphibians No Yes Estuarine/marine fish No Yes Freshwater invertebrates Yes Yes Estuarine/marine invertebrates Yes Yes Specific indirecteffects were not Identified as refined analysis was not conducted

59

### REFERENCES Dekeyser. M.A. 2005. Review: Acaricide mode ofaction. Pest. Manag. Sci. 61: 103-11

### O. Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation ofthe EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, an instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants. Env. Toxicol. Chern. 13:1381-1391. Hoerger, F. and E. E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: correlation ofrepresentative data as a basis for estimation oftheirmagnitude in the environment. in: 

### F. Coulston and F. Korte (editors), Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology. Vol 1. 

### Georg Thieme Publishers, Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 9-28. Khambay, RP.S and P. Jewess. 2000. The potential ofnatural naphthoquinones as the basis for a new class ofpest control agents

- an overview ofresearch at IACR-Rothamsted. Crop Protection 19: 597-601. Pfleeger, T.G., A. Fong, R. Hayes, H. 

### Ratsch and C. Wickliff. 1996. Field evaluation ofthe EPA (Kenaga) nomogram, amethod for estimating wildlife exposure to pesticide residues on plants. Env. Toxicol. Chern. 15:535-543, 1996.
USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Published on May 14, 1998, Federal Register 63(93):26846-26924. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Washington, D.C. EPA/630/R-95/002F. 191 pp. April.
USEPA. 2003. Section 3 Request for Uses ofAcequinocyl (P.c. Code: 006329) on Greenhouse, Shadehouse, Ornamental, Floral, Foliage and Nursery Crops (OP Barcode 0291707)
USEPA. 2004. Section 3 Request for Uses ofAcequinocyl (P.c. Code: 006329) on Pome Fruits, Citrus, Almonds, Pistachios, Strawberries and Outdoor Ornamentals submitted under OP Barcodes: 0285811,0286428,0289153,0290010,0287269, 0290009, 0291174. February 3, 2004. (US EPA 2004, OP Barcodes: 0285811,0286428,02891.53,0290010,0287269, 0290009,0291174)
USEP A. 2004b. Overview ofthe Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office ofPesticide Programs. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office ofPesticide Programs. Available at http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf(Accessed June 19,2009).
USEPA. 2007. Tier II Drinking Water Assessment for Acequinocyl. (P.C. Code: 006329) (OP Barcode 0337221)
USEPA. 2011. Water Models. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Science and Policy, Models and Databases. Last updated Aug. 8,2011. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/ 60

### Appendix A Summary ofAcequinocyl Major Degradates and Maximum PercentFormation Observed in Laboratory and Field Studies

Formed immediately after application, Maximum Degradate Concentration (0/0 ofapplied) and Time to Max Concentration Degradate Hydrolysis Aqueous Soil Photolysis Aerobic Soil Anaerobic Aerobic TFD Photolysis Metabolism Aquatic Aquatic

RI (2-dodecyl-3- pH 7: I River water: 33.8% (2 days) Water: 12.2% (0 days) NY: 37.8% (3 hr) 54.7% (96 hr) 11.6% (30 min) I 18% (0 days) GA: 37.8% I hydroxy-I,4-

-- Sediment: CA: 26.4% I naphthaledione) 41.5% (3 days)
AKM 18 [2-(1,2- pH7: 23.7% (6 days) 9.2% (2 days) Water: 19.5% (I day) NY: 16.5% (3 hr)**~ioxotetradeCYl)ben** 7.1%(48 hr)



### -- 2.7% (7 days) Sediment: zoic acid] 34.3% (269 days)

I Buffer solution:

AKM-08 [2-(2-oxo- dodecyl)-3-

-- 12.9%(2 hr)



### -- 

### -- -- -- -- hydroxy-I,4- naphthoquinone] Buffer solution: O-Phthalic acid


### -- 12.7% (24 hr)



### -- 

## -- -- 

### -- -- River water: II.9% (24 hr) River water: Phenol


### -- 10% (24 hr) 

### -- -- -- -- --
CBAA (2-carboxy

## I 

# I 11.3% (2 days) u-oxo-benzene


### -- -- -- -- -- I 

# 1- -- acetic acid)

61

### Appendix B Description of the Provisional Tier I Cranberry Model
The Provisional Cranberry Model addresses fate and transport ofpesticide residues in cranberry bogs. The model is derived from the EFED approved Tier I Rice Model. This cranberry model is currently used provisionally in EFED. Deviations from the approved Tier I Rice Model will be explained in the following section. Aquatic exposure was estimated for acequinocyl using PRZM/EXAMS and the Provisional Cranberry Model (discussed in Section 2.7.1.3).
The Provisional Cranberry Model relies on an equilibrium partitioning concept to provide highend screening estimates ofEECs resulting from application ofpesticides to cranberry bogs. When soils with pesticide residue are flooded, the model assumes that partitioning ofthe residue occurs instantaneously. The Provisional Cranberry Model relies on the Tier I Rice Model as a proxy for model calibration. The Tier I Rice Model was calibratedto generate estimates that are similar to or greater than dissolved concentrations measured within rice paddies and in discharged paddy water. The model does not account for pesticide degradation, mass transfer between the aqueous phase and the sediment, volatilization, dilution, or other dissipation processes. The sediment interaction depth was determined by calibrating the model to maximum residues measured in paddy water in dissipation studies. Pesticide degradation, mass transfer, volatilization, dilution and other dissipation processes may have occurred in those datasets but probably had little effect on the calibrationbecause the model was calibratedto the maximum measured residues. The model was not evaluated or calibratedfor concentrations measured in sediment and does not account forresidues bound to suspended sediment. Guidance for using the Tier I Rice Model may be found on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Models web-page (USEPA, 2007). The Tier I Rice Model is adapted to a cranberry bog scenario by accounting for degradation of the pesticide prior to flooding and increasing water column depth to reflect conditions in a cranberry bog at harvest. Cranberry bog water column depth is not well characterized. Bogs on the east coast are filled for harvest to approximately 24 inches while bogs in other growing regions are shallower and are not likely filled to the same depth. East coast harvesters typically flood the bog to 12 inches to shake the berries from the vine and flood another 12 inches to collect the berries. Thus, the conservative assumption made in this assessment is that bog water column depth is 12 inches. EECs will also be generated at 24 inches for comparison. Assumptions ofthe Tier I Rice Model, other than these modifications, apply to this provisionally modified model. Due to a range ofenvironmental variables and other factors, the Provisional Cranberry Model is expected to generate conservative EECs that are likely to exceedpeak measured concentrations ofpesticides in water bodies downstream ofa single cranberry bog. However, cranberry bogs are almost exclusively oriented in a series as water from one bog is used to flood subsequent bogs. Without substantial time for degradation and assuming similar acequinocyl application regimes in each cranberry field, bog water may increase in concentrationbeyond what is modeled in this assessment.
62

### Provisional CranberryModel.

n m .'

## = m .' xe-k 4/n at al n I where, mai' = mass perunit area at flood [kglha] mai'n = mass

### a~plied per unit area on the nth application [kglha] k, 

### =upper 90t percentile rate constant on dry bog 

### [lid] tn= interval from the nth application to harvest [d] n 

### =number ofpre-harvest applications
followed by:

and, ifappropriate:

where, 

### Cwo 

### =initial waterconcentration 

### [llg/L] K, 

### =water-sedimentpartitioning coefficient [L/kg] Koc 

### = organic carbon partitioning coefficient [L/kg] d., 

### =water column depth

### =0.305 m dsed

### = sediment depth

### = 0.01 m 9sed

### =porosity ofsediment

### =0.509 Pb 

### =bulk density ofsediment

### = 1300 kg/rn'

63

### Appendix 

### C Ecological Studies Submitted for Acequinocyl



# -

Birds 71-1a Avian acute oral LDs o, Japanese quail 45435002 Supplemental' 71-1a Avian acute oral LDs o, Mallard duck 45435001 Invalid 7I-Ib Avian acute oral LDs o, Bobwhite quail (Formulation) 45530602 Acceptable 71-2a Avian subacute dietary LCs o, Bobwhite quail (Formulation) 45530603 Invalid 71-2a Avian subacute dietary LCs o, Japanese quail 45435004 Supplemental' 71-2b Avian subacute dietary LCs o, Mallard Duck 45435003 Acceptable 71-4a Avian Reproduction, Bobwhite quail 45435006 Acceptable 71-4b Avian Reproduction, Mallard duck 45435005 Acceptable 850.2100 Avian acute oral LDs o, Bobwhite quail 4661550 I Acceptable" 850.2200 Avian dietary LCso, Bobwhite Quail 46622701 Acceptable" Fish and Invertebrates 72-1a Freshwater fish acute LCso/ECso, Bluegill sunfish 45434918 Supplemental72-lb Freshwater fish acute LCsolECs o, Bluegill sunfish 45428605 Acceptable (Formulation) 72-1c Freshwater fish acute LCso/ECs o, Rainbow trout 45434920 Invalid and (Both studies) 45868502 72-ld Freshwater fish acute LCsolECs o, Rainbow trout 45530601 Acceptable (Formulation) 72-1 Freshwater fish acute LCso/ECs o, Zebrafish 45434919 Supplemental' " 850-1075 Freshwater fish acute LCsu, Common carp (Rl degradate) 46370502 Supplemental"
72-2a Freshwater invertebrate, Daphnia ECso 45434915 Invalid 72-2a Freshwater invertebrate, Chironomid LCso(Formulation) 45782303 Supplemental:' 72-3a Estuarine/marine fish acute LCso, Sheepshead minnow 45434921 Supplemental" 72-3d Estuarine/marine fish acute LCs o, Sheepshead minnow 45428606 Acceptable (Formulation) 72-3b Estuarine/marine acute invertebrate ECs o, Eastern oyster 45434916 Supplemental' 72-3c Estuarine/marine acute invertebrate ECso, Mysid shrimp 45434917 Supplemental" 72-4a Freshwater early life stage chronic, Rainbow trout 45428607 Supplemental (Formulation) 72-4b Freshwater invertebrate life cycle, Daphnia 45434922 Supplemental 72-4c Estuarine/marine fish early life-stage, Sheepshead minnow No study N/A 72-4b Estuarine/marine life cycle, Mysid No study N/A 850.1010 Freshwater invertebrate LCso, Daphnia 46370502 Invalid 850.1010 Freshwater invertebrate LCso, Daphnia 46372101 Acceptable" Mammals 81-1 Acute mammalian oral LDs o, Rat 45435011 Acceptable 6483-3a

83-3b

83-4 Plants 122-la

123-1b 122-2 123-2 123-2 Non-target Insects 141-1 141-1 Non-guideline Non-guideline (OPPTS 850.6200) Acute mammalian oral LDso, Mouse Mammalian Developmental, Rat

Mammalian Developmental, Rabbit

2-Generation Reproduction Study, Rat

Terrestrial plants (Tier I) - Seedling Emergence (Formulation) Terrestrial plants (Tier I) - Vegetative Vigor (Formulation) Aquatic plants (Tier I), Freshwater algae Aquatic plants (Tier I), Freshwater algae (Formulation) Vascular Plant, Lemna gibba

Acute Contact, Honeybee (Technical) Acute Contact, Honeybee (Formulation) Acute Oral, Honeybee (Formulation) Earthworm (Technical) 45435010 45531908 and 45651706 45531907 and 45651705 45531909

45428609

45428610 45435008 45428611 No study

45435007 45428608 45428608 45435009 Acceptable Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable
Acceptable Acceptable Supplemental Supplemental N/A
Acceptable Acceptable Supplemental Supplemental Non-guideline Earthworm (Formulation) (OPPTS 850.6200) N/A =not applicable 'Not recommended species 2Poorrecovery ofthe test chemical in addition to other guideline deviations
3Test chemical was not measured in all test groups
4New studies submitted since the conditional registration

65 45782304 Supplemental

### Appendix D AgDrift Output File
AgDRIFHD:2 .01 AgDRIFT® Aquatic Assessment Aquatic Body: EPA-Defined Pond Downwind Water Body Width : 208.7 ft Average Depth: 6.56 It Active Rate: Active Ratc: 0.3 Ibac Calculations: Distance To Water Body From Edge ofField: 75 fl. (input) Initial Average Deposition' 0.0155 Fraction ofApplied Initial Average Deposition: 5.22 g/ha Initial Average Concentration: 0.0047 Iblac lie!': I RunlO' ,'\gDRIFT® :: .0 I

66

### Appendix E Example PRZMIEXAMS OutputFiles Approach 1
stored as MSSoy2.out Chemical: Acequinocyl PRZM environment: MSsoybeanSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:58:06 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06: 14:08 Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:14 Water segment concentrations (ppb)
Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 1.157 0.5422 0.2128 0.1612 0.116 0.03019 1962 0.3193 0.1853 0.126 0.118 0.1125 0.08364 1963 1.05 0.4797 0.1864 0.1056 0.08804 0.05985 1964 1.164 0.5356 0.1944 0.144 0.1413 0.0979 1965 0.3557 0.184 0.1167 0.1139 0.1097 0.08118 1966 0.3063 0.1541 0.09023 0.08517 0.08048 0.06452 1967 0.5416 0.2818 0.1387 0.081 0.07698 0.05597 1968 0.3034 0.1522 0.09044 0.08053 0.07694 0.0636 1969 0.4845 0.237 0.1118 0.0814 0.07293 0.05393 1970 0.6445 0.3147 0.1585 0.1166 0.1066 0.07262 1971 0.9595 0.5489 0.2402 0.1332 0.112 0.07794 1972 0.4555 0.2462 0.1621 0.1151 0.1109 0.08968 1973 0.5026 0.3008 0.1343 0.1163 0.1029 0.08591 1974 0.6183 0.3066 0.1739 0.1129 0.1066 0.088 1975 2.533 1.136 0.3715 0.2337 0.2004 0.11 1976 0,3306 0.212 0.1427 0.1357 0.135 0.1025 1977 0.7794 0.3869 0.2048 0.134 0.1118 0.07788 1978 0.7434 0.3645 0,178 0.111 0.0989 0.0838 1979 0.8939 0.5879 0.2676 0.1834 0.1536 0.1135 1980 0.3334 0.21 0.1666 0.1499 0.1453 0.1103 1981 0.8708 0.4062 0.1492 0.1037 0.09433 0.072 1982 0.8995 0.5569 0.2846 0.1674 0.1479 0.08581 1983 0.7217 0.4444 0.2236 0.1488 0.1318 0.1096 1984 1.71 0.801 0.2749 0.2117 0.1791 0.1103 1985 0.4902 0.3265 0.152 0.1387 0.1331 0.105 1986 0.4341 0.2485 0.1426 0.1199 0.1082 0.07652 1987 0.8002 0.3754 0.1448 0.09945 0.09273 0.07675 1988 0.3636 0.1928 0.1336 0.1084 0.09817 0,0731 1989 0.838 0.506 0.2001 0.1405 0.1171 0.08123 1990 0.403 0.2192 0,1454 0.13 0.1219 0.09278
Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 2.533 1.136 0.3715 0.2337 0.2004 0.1135 0.0645161290322581 1.71 0.801 0.2846 0.2117 0.1791 0.1103 0.0967741935483871 1.164 0.5879 0.2749 0.1834 0.1536 0.1103 0.129032258064516 l.l57 0.5569 0.2676 0.1674 0.1479 0.11 0.161290322580645 1.05 0.5489 0.2402 0.1612 0.1453 0.1096 0.193548387096774 0.9595 0.5422 0.2236 0.1499 0.1413 0.105 0.225806451612903 0.8995 0.5356 0.2128 0.1488 0.135 0.1025 0.258064516129032 0.8939 0,506 0.2048 0.144 0.1331 0.0979 

### 670.290322580645161 0.8708 0.4797 0.2001 0.1405 0.1318 0.09278 0.32258064516129 0.838 0.4444 0.1944 0.1387 0.1219 0.08968 0.354838709677419 0.8002 0.4062 0.1864 0.1357 0.1171 0.088 0.387096774193548 0.7794 0.3869 0.178 0.134 0.116 0.08591 0.419354838709677 0.7434 0.3754 0.1739 0.1332 0.1125 0.08581 0.451612903225806 0.7217 0.3645 0.1666 0.13 0.112 0.0838 0.483870967741936 0.6445 0.3265 0.1621 0.1199 0.1118 0.08364 0.516129032258065 0.6183 0.3147 0.1585 0.118 0.1109 0.08123 0.548387096774194 0.5416 0.3066 0.152 0.1166 0.1097 0.08118 0.580645161290323 0.5026 0.3008 0.1492 0.1163 0.1082 0.07794 0.612903225806452 0.4902 0.2818 0.1454 0.1151 0.1066 0.07788 0.645161290322581 0.4845 0.2485 0.1448 0.1139 0.1066 0.07675 0.67741935483871 0.4555 0.2462 0.1427 0.1129 0.1029 0.07652 0.709677419354839 0.4341 0.237 0.1426 0.111 0.0989 0.0731 0.741935483870968 0.403 0.2192 0.1387 0.1084 0.09817 0.07262 0.774193548387097 0.3636 0.212 0.1343 0.1056 0.09433 0.072 0.806451612903226 0.3557 0.21 0.1336 0.1037 0.09273 0.06452 0.838709677419355 0.3334 0.1928 0.126 0.09945 0.08804 0.0636 0.870967741935484 0.3306 0.1853 0.1167 0.08517 0.08048 0.05985 0.903225806451613 0.3193 0.184 0.1118 0.0814 0.07698 0.05597 0.935483870967742 0.3063 0.1541 0.09044 0.081 0.07694 0.05393 0.967741935483871 0.3034 0.1522 0.09023 0.08053 0.07293 0.03019
0.1 1.1633 0.5848 0.274170.1818 0.153030.11027 Average ofyearly averages: 0.0828666666666667 Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Comments Units
atm-rrr'B/mol Value g/rnol 9.5ge-7 torr mg/L Data used for this run: Output File: MSSoy2 Metfile: w03940.dvf PRZM scenario: MSsoybeanSTD.txt EXAMS environment file:pond298.exv Chemical Name: Acequinocyl Description Variable Name Molecular weightmwt 384.5 Henry's Law Const. henry Vapor Pressure vapr 1.27e-8 Solubility sol 0.0067 Kd Kd 970 mg/L Koc Koc mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 0.19 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 97 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 649.8 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 48.5 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 9.6 days Half-life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 em Application Rate: TAPP 0.336 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFFO.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.016 fraction ofapplication rate applied to pond Application Date Date 12-09 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-rnmm Interval I interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 68app. rate 1 apprate 0.336 kg/ha Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND3 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond Flag forrunoffcalc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or to


### Approach 2 stored as MSSoy2.out Chemical: Acequinocyl PRZM environment: MSsoybeanSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:58:06 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06: 14:08 Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06: 14:14 Water segment concentrations (ppb)
Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 1.157 0.5422 0.2128 0.1612 0.116 0.03019 1962 0.3193 0.1853 0.126 0.118 0.1125 0.08364 1963 1.05 0.4797 0.1864 0.1056 0.08804 0.05985 1964 1.164 0.5356 0.1944 0.144 0.1413 0.0979 1965 0.3557 0.184 0.1167 0.1139 0.1097 0.08118 1966 0.3063 0.1541 0.09023 0.08517 0.08048 0.06452 1967 0.5416 0.2818 0.1387 0.081 0.07698 0.05597 1968 0.3034 0.1522 0.09044 0.08053 0.07694 0.0636 1969 0.4845 0.237 0.1118 0.0814 0.07293 0.05393 1970 0.6445 0.3147 0.1585 0.1166 0.1066 0.07262 1971 0.9595 0.5489 0.2402 0.1332 0.112 0.07794 1972 0.4555 0.2462 0.1621 0.1151 0.1109 0.08968 1973 0.5026 0.3008 0.1343 0.1163 0.1029 0.08591 1974 0.6183 0.3066 0.1739 0.1129 0.1066 0.088 1975 2.533 1.136 0.3715 0.2337 0.2004 0.11 1976 0.3306 0.212 0.1427 0.1357 0.135 0.1025 1977 0.7794 0.3869 0.2048 0.134 0.1118 0.07788 1978 0.7434 0.3645 0.178 0.111 0.0989 0.0838 1979 0.8939 0.5879 0.2676 0.1834 0.1536 0.1135 1980 0.3334 0.21 0.1666 0.1499 0.1453 0.1103 1981 0.8708 0.4062 0.1492 0.1037 0.09433 0.072 1982 0.8995 0.5569 0.2846 0.1674 0.1479 0.08581 1983 0.7217 0.4444 0.2236 0.1488 0.1318 0.1096 1984 1.71 0.801 0.2749 0.2117 0.1791 0.1103 1985 0.4902 0.3265 0.152 0.1387 0.1331 0.105 1986 0.4341 0.2485 0.1426 0.1199 0.1082 0.07652 1987 0.8002 0.3754 0.1448 0.09945 0.09273 0.07675 1988 0.3636 0.1928 0.1336 0.1084 0.09817 0.0731 1989 0.838 0.506 0.2001 0.1405 0.1171 0.08123 1990 0.403 0.2192 0.1454 0.13 0.1219 0.09278
Sorted results 

### 69Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 2.533 1.136 0.3715 0.2337 0.2004 0.1135 0.0645161290322581 1.71 0.801 0.2846 0.2117 0.1791 0.1103 0.0967741935483871 1.164 0.5879 0.2749 0.1834 0.1536 0.1103 0.129032258064516 1.157 0.5569 0.2676 0.1674 0.1479 0.11 0.161290322580645 1.05 0.5489 0.2402 0.1612 0.1453 0.1096 0.193548387096774 0.9595 0.5422 0.2236 0.1499 0.1413 0.105 0.225806451612903 0.8995 0.5356 0.2128 0.1488 0.135 0.1025 0.258064516129032 0.8939 0.506 0.2048 0.144 0.1331 0.0979 0.290322580645161 0.8708 0.4797 0.2001 0.1405 0.1318 0.09278 0.32258064516129 0.838 0.4444 0.1944 0.1387 0.1219 0.08968 0.354838709677419 0.8002 0.4062 0.1864 0.1357 0.1171 0.088 0.387096774193548 0.7794 0.3869 0.178 0.134 0.116 0.08591 0.419354838709677 0.7434 0.3754 0.1739 0.1332 0.1125 0.08581 0.451612903225806 0.7217 0.3645 0.1666 0.13 0.112 0.0838 0.483870967741936 0.6445 0.3265 0.1621 0.1199 0.1118 0.08364 0.516129032258065 0.6183 0.3147 0.1585 0.118 0.1109 0.08123 0.548387096774194 0.5416 0.3066 0.152 0.1166 0.1097 0.08118 0.580645161290323 0.5026 0.3008 0.1492 0.1163 0.1082 0.07794 0.612903225806452 0.4902 0.2818 0.1454 0.1151 0.1066 0.07788 0.645161290322581 0.4845 0.2485 0.1448 0.1139 0.1066 0.07675 0.67741935483871 0.4555 0.2462 0.1427 0.1129 0.1029 0.07652 0.709677419354839 0.4341 0.237 0.1426 0.111 0.0989 0.0731 0.741935483870968 0.403 0.2192 0.1387 0.1084 0.09817 0.07262 0.774193548387097 0.3636 0.212 0.1343 0.1056 0.09433 0.072 0.806451612903226 0.3557 0.21 0.1336 0.1037 0.09273 0.06452 0.838709677419355 0.3334 0.1928 0.126 0.09945 0.08804 0.0636 0.870967741935484 0.3306 0.1853 0.1167 0.08517 0.08048 0.05985 0.903225806451613 0.3193 0.184 0.1118 0.0814 0.07698 0.05597 0.935483870967742 0.3063 0.1541 0.09044 0.081 0.07694 0.05393 0.967741935483871 0.3034 0.1522 0.09023 0.08053 0.07293 0.03019
0.1 1.1633 0.5848 0.274170.1818 0.153030.11027 Average ofyearly averages: 0.0828666666666667 Inputs generated by pe5.pl- Novemeber 2006
Data used for this run: Output File: MSSoy2 Metfile: w03940.dvf PRZM scenario: MSsoybeanSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Acequinocyl Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weightmwt 384.5 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 9.5ge-7 atm-m-S/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.27e-8 torr Solubility sol 0.0067 mg/L Kd Kd 970 mg/L Koc Koc mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 0.19 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 97 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 649.8 days Halfife 70none, monthly or total(average ofentire run) 0.5 IR EPA Pond RUNOFF none Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 48.5 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 9.6 days Half-life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.336 kglha Application Efficiency: APPEFFO.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.016 fraction ofapplication rate appliedto pond Application Date Date 12-09 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-rnmor dd-rnmm Interval 1 interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate I apprate 0.336 kg/ha Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND3 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC Flag for Index Res. Run Flag forrunoffcalc.

71

### Appendix F Provisional Cranberry and Rice 

### EECs



### 72

## IProvisional Cranberry Model v2.0 Equation: EEC

### =(App rate· 100/ (dw + (dsed • (8 + (p. Kd / 1000»») • exp (-day· kAAM) ·Water column depth is 12 inches (0.305 m) to 18 inches (0.457 rn).

Days pre-flood App. rate at flood (lbslA)

# --------=.;~:~;I**2~1 ~:~~I**  Application Inputs 

## lApP. ra

.. ('''''')

ITotal residues per area at flood (lbslA): 0.601 Approach 1 Inputs Parameter Value Koc (Ukg) If no Koc, enter Kd (Ukg)**1!D~!lIJ.II.I:1** AAM tl/2 (d) ASM t1/2 (d) 1000 Model Parameters Parameter Value Water column depth (m) 0.305 Sediment depth (m) 0.01 Organic fraction of sedim 0.01 Sediment bulk density (k 1300 Sediment porosity 0.509 Calculated Parameters Parameter Value Kd input (Ukg) AAM rate constant ASM rate constant App. rate (kg/ha) 1027 0.000693147 0.00069 0.66727756 DWEECs

Approach 2 Inputs Parameter Value Koc (Ukg) If no Koc, enter Kd (Ukg)**l:ii~**

# •••••**~1** AAM t1/2 (d) ASM t1/2 (d) 49 Model Parameters Parameter Value Water column depth (m) 0.305 Sediment depth (m) 0.01 Organic fraction of sedim 0.01 Sediment bulk density (k 1300 Sediment porosity 0.509 Calculated Parameters Parameter Value Kd input (Ukg) AAM rate constant ASM rate constant App, rate (kg/ha) 970 0.007145847 0.01415 0.577936434 DWEECs

### Tier 1. 

### Rice Model File Compound App, Rate Kd EEC (kf/ha (p.tg/L) Acequinocyl 0.67 1027 5 (Method 1) Acequinocyi 0.67 970 5 (Method 2)

74

### Appendix G Inputs for the TREX Model (version 1.4.1, October2008) for Proposed Uses ofAcequinocyl a) Half-life 

### =20 days; a plication interval 

### = 14 da s TREX MODEL INPUTS These valu.. willb. used In the calculation ofexposur

...tim.ta, for foUat, granular, llquld and/or seed applloatlons of p••tloidtl,

ChemiCilI Nama: Us.: Produot nama and form: 0/.A.I. (1 ••dlnCllero mUlt be entered

for formullUonl <1'•••1.): ApptlCIIlfon Rate (Ibl/A): Half·Ur. (days): Appllotltlon IntBrval (days):

Number of AppUcationl:

""

...Md Speole. Inpub (optional. u

.. def.ulb lorRa.lor nation.lle

...1

......menta What body welaht rang. il

.......d (grams)? Birds Mammals

Small 20 15

Medium 100 35 1000 1000 Note: SaUte

.. of wildlife diet ar. assumed to ba availabla for leu than one .at for this model. Endpoints

Avian

End nt

Mammalian

Size**~1iI)** 01 mammal used in toxicity study OefllUItrat body weight is no grams
End nI

I, .,tlm,tad dally do

.. (mgJkgbw) ,..port_d from In_ IVlllabl_ onronio "'Immll .tudy? (YI. or n·1**E.l~m.t.d** Cnronlo O.i1yDo•• Eql.llnlMI to "'pol'tN CnronlCl 01.1.", Endpoinl mWltIJ·bW be.ed on .tlndard FDAlab rat conver510n

LD5011·2 8rt1.l1oc.nt Application Type: Entin data below:

0.00% Applloation rate, Ibl a.UAcre, from 810 Do not Ule tnt, I"puti- -i Do not u.e tni. inputf- -i Do not use Chll**Inputi-_-.:'=~_-i** % Inoorpor.t.d

........**_~=:.:..._-'** I, appllctltlon rate aiven In Ibs 1.i.lAcr.?

TREX MODEL INPUTS p,
.. , acequinocyi 

### b) Half-life = 

### 20 days; application interval = 

### 21 days 

### 75TREX MODEL INPUTS These value. Will be us.d In the calculation of exposure estimates for foliar, granular, liquid andlor seed applloatlons of**~.t1old.l.**

Product name and % A.I. (ludlng zero must bII en for formulation, <1"1. Application Rate (lb.,AI: Helr.llteldays): Application Interval (daysl:

Numbe, of Applloations: _sed Speclea Inputs (optional, use defaults 'or RQa'or national level aase••mentsl What body ,,"igtll range II ."."ed I(grams)? Birds Mammals

Small 20 15

Medium 100 35

Lat"'. 1000 1000 I Note: Source. of wildlife diet at. assumed to be avall_bte ror less than one vear fot this model. Endpoints

Avian, Indicate

### te., .pecl ••**Opt~IT** ...t TOlloltyValue EndDOlnt Toalel tuvalue below**:~=:\BodY** 0"'10"11 Tut s..*CtH IMIM Refe,eno. MRIO LDIiO (mg/kg-trw) 2260.00 M.Nlrddll'Ck 

# -;i

- lellO fmglkg-dlet) 8000.00 Bob

...... 1te**qua~**

- --;1 HOAEL (mglllg.bw) IMllII'rddU'k NOAEC (mglkg-dlet) , 100.00 '**1~·~;ddUCk**

### ~I Enter the Mln

..u et a/. Scaling Factorl 1,15 Mammalian

Acute Studv Ch,on'. Stu.v "<311I" Size (gJ01mamm.1 used intoxioity study 'JiO ;: D.r.ult ret body weight isno grams
En

....nt To.loltv value 

### R."'

...../u.;M LDIO(mg/kg.bw) ,,&000.00 >I' :L>' LelO (mglkCl-dlet) ",,:c','< :, Reported Chronic. Endpoint '100,00 ,I' mgf).q·diet •

" 

## ''',

-**I~** IStlmatad dally don Imglkgbw) ",portad 'rom tna anllab!a 

## ·,U >"illh, onronlo memma/study? (ye. or nol
"

brlmated Cnronio Celly Do•• mgfkg-bw beud on Eq

...

i

....l.nt to r'port.d Cnronlo 5 stenderd FDA lab rat

DietaryEndpoint conversion

LOSO ft·2 Broldan • Applic.tlon Type: UQuid • Enter data below:



### "

# ..".:;--

# ".

given In Ibs a.i.IAcre? Application rate, Ibs a.lJAcre, 'rom 910 Do n01 u.e this Input Do not u•• tt1ls Input Do ncr u

.. thIs input 0/.Incorporat.d 0.00%
TREX MODEL INPUTS Page 2 acequinocyl



### 76

### c) Half-life 

### = 35 da s; a TREX MODEL INPUTS 

### lication interval

### = 14 da s

The.e value' wm be used in the calculation ofexposu,. estimate' for ton.r. granular,lIquid anellor seed applications0' pulicide•.

Chern!!;.' HalM: Use: Product name and form: % A.I. (1 ••dlnCl aere must be en

for formulations <1".**Appllc.~on** Rlt. (Ibs/AI: Half-llf. (days): Application In"rvll (days):

Number of Applications: As d Speol

.. lnpullllopUo""I,u
.. default, 'or RQ, 'or""Uo""llevel a ments What body welot'li renge I, l"lued (or.msl? Birds Mammals

Small 20 15

Medium 100 35 1000 1000 La, • Note: Souro•• ofwildlife diet .r. assumed to b. IVlllabl. for leu than one .a, for this model. Endpoints

Avian

End nt T lD60 (mg/kg-bw}
LC60 (mglkg-dletl NOAEL (mglku-bw)
NOAEC (mglkg-dletl TodoityVa.,.**0Dl:~1** T..-&Dtcin Name R.,.,.". MRiD

Mammalian

Size (g) of mammal used in toxicity study Default rat body weight is 350 Grams
End nt T xjol vllua LD60(mg/kg.bw)**~OG** LC60**(mglk"-dl.t)"",,_...-.~** ""'"'i Repormd Chronic endPolnt"""

.....

# == _tII I.limlted dally do

.. lmfl'll,lbW),..portedfromtheIvalloble ll"",nlo "'ul"'.lltloOdy? (y

.. or "'1

Elllmated Chronlo Daily 00100 SquiVIJenllo rwported Chronlo DietaryEndpoint m;lkv-bw beled on .t.ndard FDAlab rat conversion

lD5011-2 Broadent Application Type: .... Uquid

...
II appUc:.lltlon rate given In lb. a.f.{Acte7 Application rate, Ibl ••I./Acre, from 910 Do not u.e this inputf- -\ Do not Ule thll Inputf- -\ Do not use thll Inputl_=""==="",,...-i 'I. Incorporated
TREX MODEL INPUTS Page 2 Icequinocyl



### 77

### d) Half-life = 

### 35 da s; a TREX MODEL INPUTS 

### lication interval = 

### 21 days

These values will be used In the caloulation of exposure estimates for 'oliar, granular, liquid and/or seed applications 01pesticide•.

Chemical Namtl: Use: Product name and form' 'IeA.1. (I••dlng lero mUI' be enter. for formulatlonl <''10••1.). Application Rllte (Ibs/A): Half-life (dayl): Application Interval (daYI):

Number of Applications: As

.....d Speolealnputalopllonal, use defaultsfor RQs for nattonall.vel

.....sments What body weight range is an_sud (grams)?

Small

Medium
La, • Birds
20
100 1000 Mammals
15
35 1000
Nottl: Sauro

... of wlldll,. diat are assumed to be available for lesl than one Endpoints

Avian ., for this model.**T~c** Rlue LOrSO**Im"'kg-bW)J-,,"",~=~~Mlnll"d** dlld<

1.15 Mammalian

End nt

Reported Chronic Endpoint"
Is ••limlted dilly don (l'I'Ig/llgbw) report.d frOI'l'lthe evallable ohronio mammal'tudy? (yM IH "'I Optlon.o:lTNt

::::, Body OnIIoMl Tut !kteel

.. HII'IMI Toldolty Value Re1erence IMRJD)

LD501\-2

TREX MODEL INPUTS Estimated Chronlo Dally 00" Equivalent to raportld Chronlo O'atary Etldpoint

Application Type: mglkg-bw based on standard FDAlab rat oonvarslon

I, application ,ata given in Ibs a.I.IAcra7, Applloation rata, lbs a.I.IAcre, Prom810 Dc not use this Input'!-

_ 00 not use this input'f--

_ ne nct usa this Input,!-_-=-=,,-

__ % Incorporat.d'L..._===,,"--J
aoequinooyl



### 78

### Appendix H Outputs (UpperBound Kenaga) for the TREX Model (version 1.4.1, October2008) for Proposed Uses ofAcequinocyl a) Half-life = 

### 20 days; application interval Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Chemical Name: acequinocyl U.e crop Formulation KanemiteTM 15 SC Application Rlite 0.3 Ibs a.iJ8Crw**H.I'~Ii'.** 20 days Application 'nterval 14 days Mnimum # Apps.Near 2

Length ofSimulation 1 year 

### 14 days Acute and Chronic ROs are based on the Upper Bound Kenaga Residues. The maximum single day residue estimation is used for both the acute and reproduction ROs. RQ. reported IS "0.00" in the RQ tables below should be noted as <0.01 in your asse••menl This is due to rounding and significant figure is.ue. In Excel.

Endpoints
Bobwhite quail L050 (mglkg-bw) 2250.00 Avian Mallard duck) LC50 (mglkg-diet) 5000.00 Mallard duck NOAEL(mglkg-bw) 0.00 Mallard duck NOAEe (mglkg-dlet) 100.00

L050 (mglkg-bw) 5000.00 Mammals Le50 (mglkg-diet) 0.00 NOAEL (mglkg-bw) 5.00 NOAEe (;"glkg-diel 100.00 Dietary-based EEes (ppm) Kenalill_ Values Short Grass 111.32 TaUOr8SS 53.31 Broadie.' plantslsm Insacts 55.43 Fruits/pods/s••ds/l; insects 7.27



### 79Avian Results

Avian Body I**~:o.** (.dryl**'"'i~~iwet)** % bodywg! FI Class Welohtla' bwld8vl consumed Iko-dIeUdavl Small 20 

### , 2' 114 2.28E-02 Mid 100 13 es es 8.49E-02 Large 1000 sa 29' 29 2.91E-01 20 5 5 25 5.06E-03 Granivores 100 13 14 14 1.44E-02 1000 sa 65 

### • 6.48E-02

Avian Body Adjusted LD50 WeI.htl.l Imllik.-bwl

20 ,.20.97 100 2063.57 1000 2914.87Av.anCla

..... Wei ht.

# ,_ Dose-based EECs .mall mid Iarll" GranlvOf.l{grams) mg/k.-bwl 20 100 1000 20 100 1000 Short Grass 132.48 75.54 33.82 

# I I rail Gress 60.72 34.62 15.50 Broadleaf l.ntslam Inaeets 74.52 42.49 19.03 Frulta/Dods/'eedana Insects 8.28 4.72 2.11 1.e4 LOS 0.47

Avian Acute RQa Dose-based RQs SIzeClass (g,arnal (Ooae-baaed EECladjuated LD60) 20 100 1000 Short Grass o.ue u.u4 u.u' Tall Grass 0,04 0.02 0.01 Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 0.05 0.02 0.01 Frulhl/podsJseedsllg Insects 0,01 0.00 0.00 Seed. ( raolvore) 0.00 0.00 u.oo Dietary-based RQs RQa**~~e:::!~a"d** EECILC500' Acute Chronic Short Grass 0.02 1.16 Tall Grass 0.01 0.53 Brcadleaf plants/sm Insects 0.01**0.6~** Fruits/pods/seeding meecte 0.00 0.07 Note- To provide risk managementWllh the maximum possible information it is recommended that both the dose-based and concentration-based RQ!i be calculated wnen data are available

aceqllinocyl Mammalian Results crop Upper bound Kenaga Residues

Mammalian**~::ht** Ing

..uen (Fdry)**In~~~~wet)** % bodywgt FI

Cia

.. t. bwtIdavl

. coMumed Ik.-dlaUdavl 15 3 14 95 1.43E-02 Herblvoresl J5 5 2' es 2.31E-02 Insectivores '000 31 153 15 1.SJE..Q1 15 a a 21 3.18E..o3 Gralnvores J5 5 5 15 5.13E-03 '000 J1 3' 3 J.40E-02
Mammalian Body Ad)

...... Adjusted

CI

.... Welahf LD50 NOAfL 15 10989.15 10.99 Herbivoresl J5 8891.40 8.89 msect'veree '000 3845.80 '.85 15 10989.15 10.99 Gralnvores J5 8691.40 8.89 '000 3845.80 J.65
Mammalian I

..... and od weiht Dose-Based EECs HerblvoresllnMCtlvor. (grams) Gramvores(gram.,
malka·bw 15 35 1000 15 35 1000 Short Grua 110.90 76.65 17.n 

# I Tall Grass SO.83 35.13 8.15 Broadleaf plants/sm Insecta 62.38 43.12 10.00 FrulbfpodsJaeeds/lg Inaects 6.93 4.79 1.11 1.54 1.06 0.25 Dose-based RQs sma!**mam~1** Medium memfIMII LargemammaJ 15 r.rna 35 rams 1000 or'rn_ Dose-based EECIL0500' NOAELl Acute Chronic Acute Chronic: 

# A_
Ch,oillc ShortG'8U 0.01 10.09 0.01 8.62 0.00 4.62 Tall GraBS 0,00 4JI3 0.00 3.95 0.00 2_12 BrcacHest plants/am Ineecte 0.01 5.68 0.00 4.85 0.00 2.60 Frulta/pod-'Ig insecta 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.29 Seeds (granlvore) 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.06 Dietary-based RQs MammaJRQs**~~~~~;b.sed** EECILC600' Acute ChronIc Short Grass .DIV/OI 1.16 Tall Grass .DlvlOl 0.53 Broadleaf plante/am Insecta 'OIVIOI 0.65 FrultllJDodslseedana insects 'DIVIOI 0.07

Note To provide risk management With the maximum possible Information It ISrecommended thai both the dose-based and concentration-based RQs be ceicnateo**~en** dala are availableUpper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

RQs reported as "0.00" in the RQtables below should be noted as <0.01 in your assessment. This Is due to rounding and significant figure issues In Excel. acequlnocyl

crop KanemiteTM 115 SC 0.3 Ibs a.Uaere 20**d8~S** 21 days 2 1 year ChamlcalName:.

## I
Use Formulation Application Rate I Half-life Application Interval Maximum" ApPI.lYearll

Length of Simulalionll-------''---------1 

### Half-life = 

### 20 days; application interval = 

### 21 days Acute and Chronic ROs are based on the Upper Bound Kenaga Residues. The maximum single day residue estimation is used for both the acute and reproduction ROs. b)

Endpoints 

## I Mallird duck LD50 (mglkg-bw) 2250.00
I IAVian Bobwhite quail LC50 (mglkg-dlet) 5000.00 Mallard duck NOAEL(mglkg-bw) 0.00 Mallard duck NOAEC (mglkg-diet 100.00
LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 5000.00 Mammals LC50 (mglkg-diet) 0.00 NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 5.00 NOAEC (mglkg-diet) 100.00 Dietary-based EECs (ppm) Kenaga Valu•• Short Grass 106.77 Tall Gr.81 4a.94 Broadleaf plantslsm Insects 60.06 Fruits/pods/seedsllg Insecta 6.67

81Avian Results

Avian**W~C::;/,** IngutlonIFdry) lngoa.lon(

.....1

... ooaywgt I Cia

.. I.bw/d_' 100daY' __umad ko-d_v' Small 20 5 23 "4 2.28E.Q2 Mid 100 13 65 65 6.49E-02 Large 1000 56 291 29 2.91E.Ql 20 5 5 25 S.06E.o3 Granlvorel 100 13 14 14 1.44E-02 1000 56 65 6 6.46E-02

AvklnBody Adjusted LD50 Wel.hlla' molk.-bw

20 1168.28 100 1487.25 1000 2100.80
Avian CI

..... and B We1

.hts larams Dose-basedEECs small mid latge Qranlvor_(grams) maJkg.bw) 20 100 1000 20 100 1000 Short Grus 121.60 69.34 31.05 

## I I TaU Grall 55.14 31.78 14.23 Stoadleaf plants/am Insects 68.40 39.01 11.46 Frulta/pods/seedsna insects 7.60 4.33 1.94 1.69 0.96 0.43

Avian Acul8 RQa Dose-based RQs Size Claaa (grama) (Dose-baaed EECIadjual8d Lo60) 20 100 1000 Short Grass u.ju o.os 0.0 Tall Gran 0.05 0.02 0.01 Broadleaf planllJlm tneecte 0.08 0.03 0.01 Frulls/podalseedsna Insects 0.01 0.00 0.00 Seeds granlvore) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dietary-based RQs RQa (Dietary-baaed EECILC60 or I.,n••**~,** Acute Chtonlc Short Grus 0.02 1.07 rail Gran 0.01 0.49 Sroadlest plantBIam tneecte 0.01 0.60 FrUltlifpodSfaeedsng Insects 0.00 0.07 Note' To provide risk management 'Nilh the maximum possible information. It is recommended that both the dose-based and concentration-based RQs be calculated when data are available

acequlnocyl Mammalian Results crop Upper bound Kena'Ja Realduea

Mammalsn Body**n~s=t:;V1** ngoatlon IF_I '" llOdy wg """,,:'.:uclaY) Class Weight 100d";' consumed 15 3 " 95 1.43E-02 Herbiyorea' 35 5 23 

# .. 2.31E-02 Insectivores 1000 31 153 15 1,53E-01 15 3 3 21 3.18E-03 Gralnvores 35 5 5 15 5.13E-OJ 1000 31 34 3 3.4OE-02
Mammalian 

## =ht Ad)ua'" Adjusted

Clsae LD50 NOAEL 15 10989.15 10.99 Herblvoresl 35 8891.40 8.89 insectivores 1000 3845.80 3.85 15 10989.15 10.99 Gralnvores 35 8891.40 8.89 1000 3845.80 3.85
ammaUa"

.......ndB we 

## ht Dose-Based EECs Herbivores/Insectivores (grama) t1ranlvores(gram&)
mn/kn-bw t5 35 1000 15 35 1000 Short Grass 101.80 70.36 16.31 

## I Tall Gra

.. 46.66 32.25 7.46 Broadlellf plantIJsm Insects 51.26 39.58 9.16 Frults/pods/soedlng Insects 6.36 4.40 1.02 1.41 0.98 0.23 Dose-based RQs smal mammal Medium mammal large mamma 15 rams 35 rama 1000 ram. ooae·baaed EEC/Lo60 or NoAELl Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acut. Chronc Short Grass 0.01 9.26 0.01 1.91 0.00 4.24 Tall Gra

.. 0.00 4.25 0.00 3.63 0.00 1.94 Broadleaf plants/sm inaeets 0.01 5.21 0.00 4.45 0.00 2.39 Frults/podaJlg Inaacla 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.21 Seeds (granlvorel 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.06 Dietary-based RQs MammalRQI**'~~~~6;t'**..ed EEC/LC60 or Acu10 ChronIc Short Grass ,OlVJOI 1.01 TaUGrasa 'DIVIOI 0.49 Broadleaf planta/llm rneeete fIIDIVlO1 0.60 FrultllJpodll/.eeds/l Insects IIlDIVIOI 0.01

Note: To provide risk management Withthe maximum possible mrormeuoo. It is recommended that both the dose-based and concentration-based RQs be calculated when data are availableUpper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation
Chemical Name: acequinocyl Use crop Formulation KanemiteTM 15 SC Application Rate 0.3 Ib, a.Uaere Hatf-life 35 days Application Interval 14 days Maximum IIApps.Near 2

Lenllth of Simulation 1 year 

### c) Half-life = 

### 35 days; application interval = 

### 14 days Acute and Chronic ROs are based on the Upper Bound Kenaga Residues. The maximum single day residue estimation is used for both the acute and reproduction ROs. RQs reported as "0.00" In the RQ tables below should be noted as <0.01 in your assessment. This;s due to rounding and significant figure issues In Excel.

Endpoints
Mal1ard duck L050 (mg/kg-bw) 2250,00 Avian Bobwhite quail LC50 Imgll<g-dlel) 5000.00 Mallard duck NOAEL(mglkg-bw) 0.00 Mallard duck NOAEC (mgll<g-diet) 100.00
L050 (mg/kg-bwl 5000.00 Mammals LC50 (mgll<g-diet) 0.00 NOAEL Img/kg-bw) 5.00 NOAEC (mgll<g-diet) 100.00 Dietary-based EECs (ppm) Kenaoa Values Short Grass 126.57 Tall Gra

.. 58.01 Broadlesf plantS/1m Insects 71.19 Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 7.91



### 83Avian Results

Avian Body ngesUon I dry)**Ing,,:,:~~wetl** ", bodY wilt FI Class Wolohtlo' '0 bwfdav' cortlumed ko-dle!ldavl Small 20 5 23 114 2.28E-Q2 Mid 100 13 85 8. 6.49E-02 Large 1000 

# .. 291 29 2.91E-Q1 20 5 5 25 5.06E.o3 Gfanlvaree 100 13 14 14 1.44E..Q2 1000 

# .. 65 6 6.46E-Q2

Avian Body Adjuate<lUJ50 Welohtlo' molka-bw

20 1188.26 100 1487.25 1000 2100.80
Avian Cia

.... and od Wei hit r

..... Dose-based EECs amall mid large Granlvorea(gr4ms) mg/kg-bw) 20 100 \000 20 100 1000 Short Grass 144.15 82.20 38.80 

## I 

## I Tall Grass 66.07 37.67 16.67 Broadleaf olanta/am Insects 81.08 46.24 20.70 Frults/pOds/seedsAg Insects 9.01 5.14 2.30 2.00 1.14 0.51

Avl.n Acute RQI Dose-based RQs SIze CI

... (graml) (Ooll.baled EEC/.dJul18d L06D) 20 100 1000 Short Grass 0.12 0.00 U.U2 rail Grass 0.06 0.03 0.01 Broadleaf planllJsm Insects 0.07 0.03 0.01 Frulta/pods/seedang Insects 0.01 0.00 0.00 S • ( eemvere 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dietary-based RQs RDs I**~~"'':~:t'assd** EECILC6D or Acut<l Chronic Short Grass 0,03 1.27 rail GrallS 0.01 0.56 Broadleaf planWam Insects 0.01 0.71 FrultslpodsJseedsllg Insects 0.00 0.08 Note' To provide risk management withthe maximum possible information, it is recommended Ihat both the dose-based and concentration-based RQs be calculated when data are a

.....auable

acequlnocyl Mammalian Results crop Upper bound Kenaga Residues

Mammalian**Bo~y** Inr,.::.:::.'Y Inll""f::,.:'.Jwotj "body Wgl FI

C

.... We'oht consumed Iko-d1.Vdavl 15 3 14 95 1.43E-02 Herblvores' 35 5 23 66 2.31E-02 insectivores 1000 31 153 15 1.53E-01 15 3 3 21 3.18E-03 GralnvOres 35 5 5 15 5.13E-03 1000 31 34 3 3.40E-02

Mammalian Body Adjusted**A~Juste<l**

Class W.laht LOSO NOAEL 15 10989.15 10.99 Herbi

.....ores/ 35 8891.40 8.89 Insectlvores 1000 3845.80 3.85 15 10989.15 10.99 Grainvores 35 8891.40 8.89 1000 3845.80 3.85
ammallan 1

......ndB we ht Dose-Based EECs Herblvor." InsecUvor. (grama] GtanlvorM(gr.",s)**malk.a~bw** 15 35 1000 15 35 1000 Short Grass 120.61 83.40 19.34 Tall Grass 55.31 38.22 8.86 Broadleaf plants/sm Inse-cts 87.88 46.91 10.88 Frults/pods/seedsng Insects 7.54 5.21 1.21 1.66 1.16 0.27 Dose-based RQs Small mammal Medium mammal Large mammal 15 ram. 35 ram. 1000 tam. Oose·based EEC/LD5D or NOAELl cut<l ChronIc AcUte Chronic 

# A_

Chronic Short Grass 0.01 10.96 0.01 9.38 0.01 5.03 Tall Grass 0.01 5.03 0.00 4.30 0.00 2.3D Broadloa' plants/sm Insects 0.01 6.18 0.01 5.28 0.00 2.83 Frults/pods/Ig Insects 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.31 Seeds ·(granivoreJ 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.07 Dietary-based RQs Mammal RQs (Oletary-ba.ed EECILC50 or**INn"~,,,** Acute Chronic Short Grass lOIVlUl 1.27 Tall Grass MOIVIOI 0.58 Broadleaf plants/sm ineecte MOIVIOI 0.71 Frults/DodaJseedsna Insects liD/VIOl 0.08

Note To prov Oe fisk management Withthe maximum possible information. it is -eccmmerceo that both the dose-based and concentration-based RQs be calculated when data are available

### d) Half-life = 

### 35 days; application interval = 

### 21 days Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Chemical Name: ecequinccyl
use crop Formulation KanemiteTM 15 SC Application Rate 0.3 Ibs s.i.laere Half-life 35 days Application Interval 21 days Maximum # AppsJYear 2

LengthorSimulation 1 year
Endpoints
Mallard duck LD50(mg/kg-bw) 2250.00 Avian Bobwhite quail LC50 (mglkg-dletl 6000.00 Mallard duck NOAELlmglkg-bwl 0.00 Mallard duck NOAEC(mglkg-diet) 100.00
LD50(mg/kg-bwl 5000.00 Mammals LC50 (mglkg-dlet) 0.00 NOAEL(mg/kg-bW) 5.00 NOAEC(mg/ka-diet) 100.00 Dietary-based EECs (ppm) Kenag_ Values Short Grass 119.50 TaUGrass 64.77 Braadlnt plants/am Insects 67.22 Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 7.47



### 85 Acute and Chronic RQs are based on the Upper Bound Kenaga Residues. The maximum single day residue estimation is used for both the acute and reproduction RQs. RQs reported as "0.00" In the RQ tables below should be noted as <0.01 In your assessment. This is due to rounding and significant figure Issues in Excel.Avian Results

Avian Body**In,\:":~:.~ry) '~~~\wet)**  % bodywgt I Clas. Welaht/a! cor\tumed ka-dlolldov\ Small 20 5 23 

### \,. 2.28E-02 Mid '00 '3 65 65 6.49E-02 Large 1000 56 291 2. 2.91E-01 20 5 5 25 5.06E-03 cranlvcres 100 13 '4 14 1.44E-02 1000 56 65 6 6.46E-02

Avlon**~ody** AdjusWd LDSO Wei hllal Imal1<a-bw1

20 1168.26 100 1481.25 fOOO 2100.80Avian CIaa

... and B W. his rams Dos.e-based EECs .mall mkl large GranivOIa(gramal malka-bwl 20 100 1000 20 '00 1000 Short Grass 136.10 17.61 34.75 

# I I Tall Grass 62.38 35.57 15.93 Broadleaf olanta/sm Insecta 76.56 43.66**'9.5~** FruitsJDodalseedslla Insects 8.51 4.85 2.17 1.89 1.08 0.48

Avian AcU\!l RQa Dose-based RQs SI%8 Claaa Corama, (Doae-baaed EEC/adJust&d LDSO) 20 100 1000 ShortOrs

.. u.tz u.ve u.uz Tall Gran 0.05 0.02 0.01 Braadleaf plantalsm Insects 0.01 0.03 0.01 FrultsJpOdsls-.dsJlg insects 0.01 0.00 0.00 Seeds (granlvore) 0.00 0.00 o.uu Dietary-based RQs RQa (Dlatary-baoed EEC/LCSOor I

..**~.~~,** Acute Chrome Short Grass 0.02 1.20 Tall Gran 0.01 0.55 BJoadleaf plantalsm Insecta 0.01 0.67 Fruitl/podslseedsflg Insects 0.00 0.07

Note. To provide risk management with the maxrmum possible information. it is recommended that both the dose-based and concentration-based RQs be calculated when data are available

aC8gulnocyl Mammalian Results crop Upper bound Kenaaa Residues

Mammalian Bod)' nget;uon**I~dry) nge~:~~wat}**  %bOd)'wgt 

### "

Class Welaht iabwlIdov! consumed lko-dlotldev! 15 3 14 95 1.43E..Q2 HerblvoresJ 35 5 23 86 2.31E-02 insectivores 1000 31 153 15 1.53E..Q1 15 3 3 21 3.18E-03 aratnvcres 35 5 5 '5 5.13E-03 '000 31 3. 3 3.40E-02
Mammatlan Body Adjuslsd AdjUll'od

Class Weicht L050 NOAEL 15 10989.15 10.99 Herblvoresl 3. 8891.40 8.89 Insectivores '000 3845.80 3.85 15 10989.15 10.99 Grainvores 35 8891.40 8.89 1000 38J15.80 3.85
ammallan Cas
... and Bod wei ht Dose-Based EECs Herbivoreliinuctivores (vrama) Gtanlvorea(grams} malka-bw 15 35 1000 15 35 1000 Short Grass 113.94 78.75 18.26 Tall Grass 52.22 36.09 8.37 BroadIeat' planwsm Insects 64,09 44.29 10.27 Fruits/podsiseedsJlg Insects 7.12 4.92 1.14 1.58 1.09 0.25 Dose-based RQs Smallmttmmal M8dlum mammal Large mammal 15 rams 35 tams 1000 rams Oose-bosed EEC/LDSDor NOAELI Acute Chronic Acute ChrOl'llc Aeuls Chronic Short Gr

... 0.01 10.37 0.01 8.86 0.00 4.75 Tall Gran 0.00 4.75 0.00 4.06 0.00 2.18 Btoadleaf plants/am Insects 0.01 5.63 0.00 4.98 0.00 2.61 FrultsJpod8llg Insecta 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.30 Seeds',aranlvorej 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.01 Dietary-based RQs MammalRQs**1~6~~~;bosed** EEC/LC60 or Acute Chronle Short Grass .OIVIO! 1.20 Tall Grass 'OIVIDI 0.55 Broadleaf plantalsm Insects 'OIVIDI 0.61 Frults/podaiseedlSng rnsecte NOIVIOI 0.01

Note. To prtvtde risk management with the maximum possible information, it is recommended that both the cose-oaeec and concentration-based RQs be catcutated When data are available

### Appendix I Inputs and Outputs for the TerrPlantModel (version 1.2.2) for Acequinocyl Uses

TerrPlant v. 1.2.2 Green values signify user inputs (Tables 1, 2 and 4). Input and output gUidance is in popups indicated by red arrows.**T~;2;_~jl§;~;~tJy** ;c, )j>, ,,:/; ,,:Oi"':ts? \' , Input Parameter Symbol Value (user inputs) Units Application Rate A 0.3

Incorporation I 1 none Runoff Fraction R 0.01 none

Drift Fraction D 0.01 none n.,.'8i,;**;tl1~r,i** ' I"**,;,,"~j,;jV;;:,.,',:;,;** ',it, Description ECluation EEC Runoff to dry areas (NI)*R 0,003 Runoff to semi-aquatic areas (NI)*R*10 0.03 Spray drift A*D 0.003 Total for dry areas «(AlI)*R)+(A*D) 0.006 Total for semi-aauatic areas ((AlI)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.033

Plant e Seedling Emergence EC25 NOAEC Vegetative Vigor EC25 NOAEC Monocot 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.3

listed <0.1 <0.1 non-listed <0.1 <0.1 non-listed <0.1 <0.1

### 3!·<'~l'1~~tl.~~,~:'~;,**~~I;~roU~~ru~Q~ ah,~Qr**  Listed Status Semi-A uatic S ra Drift Dicot

Dicot listed <0.1 0.11 <0.1 1*lfRQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulting in potential for risk to that plant group.



### 87