Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
Acetamiprid
Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision
Case Number 7617
January 2020
Approved by:
Elissa Reaves, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Pesticide Re-evaluation Division
Date: 1-22-2020
1
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION 4
A. Summary of Acetamiprid Registration Review 5
B. Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Risk Assessments and Agency Responses . 6
II. USE AND USAGE 8
III. SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENTS 9
A. Human Health Risks 9
1. Risk Summary and Characterization 10
2. Human Incidents and Epidemiology 11
3. Tolerances 11
4. Human Health Data Needs 12
B. Ecological Risks 12
1. Risk Summary and Characterization 13
2. Ecological Incidents 16
3. Ecological and Environmental Fate Data Needs 17
C. Benefits Assessment 17
IV. PROPOSED INTERIM REGISTRATION REVIEW DECISION 18
A. Proposed Risk Mitigation and Regulatory Rationale 18
1. Proposed Addition of PPE for Basal Bark Treatments in Landscape Uses 18
2. Updated Gloves Statement 19
3. Proposed Addition of Best Management Practices Language for Handling and Adding
Water-Soluble Packets to Spray Tanks 19
4. Advisory Statements for Acetamiprid Seed Treatment Uses 19
5. Environmental Hazard Statement for Pollinators 20
6. Spray Drift Management 20
7. Proposed Spray Drift Buffers 22
8. Pesticide Resistance Management 23
B. Tolerance Actions 23
C. Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 24
D. Data Requirements 24
V. NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE 24
A. Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision 24
B. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 24
Appendix A: Summary of Proposed Actions for Acetamiprid 26
2
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
Appendix B: Proposed Labeling Changes for Acetamiprid Products
Appendix C: Endangered Species Assessment
Appendix D: Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
I. INTRODUCTION
This document is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA or the agency) Proposed Interim
Registration Review Decision (PID) for acetamiprid (PC Code 099050, case 7617), and is being
issued pursuant to 40 CFR §§ 155.56 and 155.58. A registration review decision is the agency's
determination whether a pesticide continues to meet, or does not meet, the standard for
registration in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The agency may
issue, when it determines it to be appropriate, an interim registration review decision before
completing a registration review. Among other things, the interim registration review decision
may require new risk mitigation measures, impose interim risk mitigation measures, identify data
or information required to complete the review, and include schedules for submitting the
required data, conducting the new risk assessment and completing the registration review.
Additional information on acetamiprid, can be found in EPA's public docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0329) at www.regulations.gov.
FIFRA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, mandates the
continuous review of existing pesticides. All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States
must be registered by the EPA based on scientific data showing that they will not cause
unreasonable risks to human health or to the environment when used as directed on product
labeling. The registration review program is intended to make sure that, as the ability to assess
and reduce risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to
meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects. Changes in science, public
policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time. Through the registration review
program, the agency periodically re-evaluates pesticides to make sure that as these changes
occur, products in the marketplace can continue to be used safely. Information on this program is
provided at http://www.epa. gov/pesticide-reevaluation. In 2006, the agency implemented the
registration review program pursuant to FIFRA § 3(g) and will review each registered pesticide
every 15 years to determine whether it continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration.
EPA is issuing a PID for acetamiprid so that it can (1) move forward with aspects of the
registration review that are complete and (2) implement interim risk mitigation (see Appendices
A and B). The agency is currently working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (together, the Services) to develop methodologies for
conducting national threatened and endangered (listed) species assessments for pesticides.
Therefore, although EPA has not yet fully evaluated risks to listed species, the agency will
complete its listed species assessment and any necessary consultation with the Services for
acetamiprid prior to completing the acetamiprid registration review. Likewise, the agency will
complete endocrine screening for acetamiprid, pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA) § 408(p), before completing registration review. See Appendices C and D,
respectively, for additional information on the listed species assessment and the endocrine
screening for the acetamiprid registration review.
Acetamiprid is a neonicotinoid insecticide with products registered for use to control a variety of
sucking and chewing insect pests. It is a chloropyridinyl neonicotinoid, distinct from the
nitroguanidine neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, and thiamethoxam),
4
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
which are subjects of separate PIDs. All neonicotinoids function by binding to nicotinic
acetylcholine receptors in the post-synaptic neurons of an insect's central nervous system.
The first product containing acetamiprid was registered in 2002. Acetamiprid did not undergo
reregi strati on, as the first product containing acetamiprid was registered after November 1984.
Formulations include liquid, wettable powder (WP), wettable powder in soluble packets (WSP),
soluble granule (SG) or dry flowable (DF) products, baits and sticky traps, impregnated
materials, and ready-to-use products. Products containing acetamiprid are registered for use on a
variety of agricultural crops and crop seeds, and in livestock premises. Acetamiprid products
may also be used in residential, institutional, public, commercial, and industrial settings.
This document is organized in five sections: Introduction, which includes this summary and a
summary of public comments and EPA's responses; Use and Usage, which describes how and
why acetamiprid is used and summarizes data on its use; Scientific Assessments, which
summarizes EPA's risk and benefits assessments, updates or revisions to previous risk
assessments, and provides broader context with a discussion of risk characterization; Proposed
Interim Registration Review Decision, which describes the mitigation measures proposed to
address risks of concern and the regulatory rationale for EPA's proposed interim registration
review decision; and, lastly, Next Steps and Timeline for completion of this registration review.
A. Summary of Acetamiprid Registration Review
Pursuant to 40 CFR § 155.50, EPA formally initiated registration review for acetamiprid with the
opening of the registration review docket for the case. The following summary highlights the
docket opening and other significant milestones that have occurred thus far during the
registration review of acetamiprid.
September 2012 - Thq Acetamiprid Preliminary Work Plan (PWPj, Acetamiprid. Human
Health Assessment Scoping Document in Support of the Registration Review, and
Problem Formulation for the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk, Endangered
Species, and Drinking Water Assessments in Support of the Registration Review of
Acetamiprid were posted to the docket for a 60-day public comment period.
March 2013 - The Final Work Plan (FWP) for acetamiprid was issued. Stakeholders
submitted five public comments on the PWP, none of which changed the schedule, risk
assessment needs, or anticipated data needs for acetamiprid.
May 2013 - A Generic Data Call-In (GDCI) for acetamiprid was issued for data needed
to conduct the registration review risk assessments. All the requested data were
submitted, and the GDCI is satisfied.
February 2018 - The agency announced the availability of thq Acetamiprid. Draft Human
Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review and the Registration Review:
Preliminary Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Acetamiprid for a
60-day public comment period. This comment period was later extended by an additional
30 days based on comments from technical registrants (see the Summary of Public
5
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
Comments on the Draft Risk Assessments and Agency Responses section, below, for
more information). The EPA received ten public comments from nine sources, including
the technical registrants, a crop council, public agencies, researchers, and environmental
interest groups. These comments and the agency's responses are summarized below.
Comments submitted by one of the technical registrants, Nippon Soda Co, Ltd, and
supported by the other technical registrant, GeneraTec LLC, provided the agency with
data to refine its human health risk assessment. These data changed the Margin of
Exposure (MOE) for two application scenarios. See section III of this document for
details.
January 2020 - The agency is now announcing the availability of the PID in the docket
for acetamiprid, for a 60-day public comment period. Along with the PID the following
documents are also posted to the acetamiprid docket:
o Response to Public Comments on the Acetamiprid Draft Risk Assessment for
Registration Review (dated 12/4/19);
o Response to Public Comments and Update to the Preliminary Environmental Fate
and Ecological Risk Assessment (PRA) for Acetamiprid (dated 10/30/19); and
o Acetamiprid: BEAD Benefit Assessment and Response to Public Comments in
Support of Registration Review (dated 1/15/20)
B. Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Risk Assessments and Agency
Responses
The public comment period for the Acetamiprid. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for
Registration Review and the Registration Review: Preliminary Environmental Fate and
Ecological Risk Assessment for Acetamiprid was extended from the standard 60 days by an
additional 30 days, to a total of 90 days after the agency received public comment from the
technical registrants requesting the extension so that they might prepare additional data to
support the acetamiprid registration review. During the public comment period, which opened on
February 27, 2018 and closed on June 29, 2018, the agency received public comments from nine
sources. Comments were submitted by the two technical registrants of acetamiprid, Nippon Soda
Co., Ltd. and GeneraTec, LLC. The agency also received comments from The Northwest
Horticultural Council, the California Specialty Crops Council, the National Cotton Council, the
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the US Department of Agriculture's
(USD A) Office of Pest Management Policy, a researcher of the Michigan State University, and
the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). Substantive comments, comments of a broader
regulatory nature, and the agency's responses to those comments are summarized below. The
agency thanks all commenters for their comments and has considered them in developing this
PID.
Comments Submitted by the Northwest Horticultural Council in EPA-HQ-QPP-2012-0329-
0048, Michigan State University in EPA-HQ-QPP-2012-0329-0045, the California Specialty
Crops Council in EPA-HQ-QPP-0329-0046, the USDA's Office of Pest Management Policy
in EPA-HO-QPP-2012-0329-0047. and the National Cotton Council in EPA-HO-QPP-2010-
0329-0049
6
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
Comment: These commenters highlighted the uses and benefits of acetamiprid and of all
neonicotinoid pesticides. They stressed that acetamiprid is effective against a diversity of insect
pests, including species which have been particularly damaging to crops. They also underscored
the use of acetamiprid to control pests of specialty and high value crops. Commenters also
stressed the relative safety of acetamiprid to workers and to beneficial insects and pollinator
species, as compared to other pesticides, including in comparison to other neonicotinoid
pesticides.
EPA Response: The agency thanks these groups and individuals for submitting comments. The
agency considered these comments in the development of this PID. Sqq Acetamiprid: BEAD
Benefit Assessment and Response to Public Comments in Support of Registration Review for
more information.
Comments Submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity in EPA-HQ-QPP-2012-0329-
0031
Comment: CBD's comments focus on the EPA's duty to consult with the Services on the
registration review of acetamiprid in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The
CBD comments mention various aspects of the risk assessment process, specifically use of the
best available data, including all necessary data and studies, particularly to develop listed species
risk assessments, and evaluation of effects on listed species and their designated critical habitat.
CBD also expressed concern regarding the rigor of the agency's preliminary determinations
regarding the effects of acetamiprid on listed species and their designated critical habitat for the
acetamiprid registration review. In addition, CBD expressed concern about effects on pollinators
and other beneficial insects, effects on human health or environmental safety concerning
endocrine disruption, and any additive, cumulative or synergistic effects of the use of the
pesticide.
EPA Response: The EPA has reviewed CBD's comments and plans to address many of the
concerns regarding listed species as part of the implementation plan for assessing the risks of
pesticides to listed species based on the recommendations of the April 2013 National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) report. See Endangered Species Assessment in Appendix C of this document
for more information. The EPA will address concerns specific to acetamiprid, particularly with
regard to pollinators, ESA, and endocrine disruption, in connection with the development of its
final registration review decision for this pesticide. See Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
in Appendix D of this document for more information regarding endocrine disruption. The EPA
is currently developing an agency policy on how to consider claims of synergy being made by
registrants in their patents. On September 9, 2019, the EPA released an interim process for public
comment, available at regulations.gov in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0433. The comment period
closed on October 24, 2019. After the agency has considered the public comments received on
the proposed policy, and once the policy has been finalized, the EPA will consider its
implications on the EPA's final decision for acetamiprid.
Comment Submitted by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd./Nisso America, Supported by GeneraTec
LLC in EPA-HO-QPP-2012-0329-0051
7
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
Comment: The two technical registrants of acetamiprid, Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. (or Nisso
America) and GeneraTec LLC, submitted comments refuting assumptions and resulting
conclusions in the agency's human health and ecological risks assessments for acetamiprid.
The registrants requested that the agency use data previously submitted to assess the risk to
occupational handlers in greenhouses and revise the assessed risks to occupational handlers in
landscape settings. The registrants stated that these data approximate landscape application
scenarios better than the agency's default assumptions. The registrants also highlighted an error
in a data summary table that appears in Acetamiprid. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for
Registration Review.
Additionally, the registrants questioned values presented in Registration Review: Preliminary
Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Acetamiprid, such as biotic metabolism
half-life values and others. Nisso America also presented new data from studies assessing acute
toxicity to larval honey bees (Apis mellifera). While the registrants recognized that the larval bee
toxicity data result in risks of concern for bees where before there were none, the registrants
believe that typical use patterns of acetamiprid are unlikely to adversely impact bees.
EPA Response: After using the submitted data to revise its assumptions, the agency in turn
revised its risk estimates for occupational handlers of acetamiprid using backpacks to make basal
bark drench applications with liquids and wettable powders. Although the agency's baseline
assumptions of this scenario yielded worker risks of concern, the submitted data yielded
acceptable risk estimates. See Response to Public Comments on the Acetamiprid Draft Risk
Assessment for Registration Review, available in the public docket, and Section III. Scientific
Assessments below for more details. EPA also acknowledges there was a typographical error in
Table 9.1.1 of the Acetamiprid. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review
but concludes that the correct values were used in its calculations, even if the data summary was
recorded incorrectly.
The agency also responded to each of the registrant's comments on the values and assumptions
underlying its environmental fate and ecological risk conclusions in the Response to Public
Comments and Update to the Preliminary Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment
(PRA) for Acetamiprid, available in the public docket. The agency corrected an error in the
calculation of one aerobic soil metabolism half-life reported in the PRA. In this same document,
the agency presented new risk conclusions for larval honey bees, based on the new toxicity data.
As noted by the registrant, in some cases, the new data produced risks of concern that were not
identified in the original document. See the aforementioned response to public comments
document for more details.
II. USE AND USAGE
Acetamiprid is a neonicotinoid insecticide that has contact and systemic activity used to control a
variety of insects, primarily piercing sucking pests, but also select lepidopteran and coleopteran
species. Acetamiprid is registered for use on many crops, including grapes, apples, cotton, beans,
soybeans, corn, berries, nuts, stone fruits, and potatoes. Seed treatment uses of acetamiprid
8
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
include canola, mustard, and potato seed pieces. Registered non-agricultural sites include indoor
and outdoor residential settings. It is also registered for use in institutional, public, commercial
(including food handling establishments), industrial, and animal/livestock settings. In agricultural
settings, acetamiprid products are applied to leaves, seeds, and soils, as well as directly to insect
nests, such as ant nests. In the home they may be applied to surfaces or used in bait traps or
dispensed as an aerosol, for treatment of household pests, such as bedbugs, for control of ticks
and fleas on dogs, and in landscaping. Formulations include liquid, wettable powder, wettable
powder in soluble packets, soluble granule or dry flowable products, baits and sticky traps,
impregnated materials, and ready-to-use products. Acetamiprid may be applied by aircraft,
groundboom, airblast equipment, backpack, and pressurized handwand.
Between 2014 and 2018, approximately 80,000 pounds (lbs) of acetamiprid were used to treat
over 850,000 acres (A), with average annual application rates ranging from 0.04 lbs to 0.16
pounds active ingredient per acre (lbs a.i./A). During this period, crops with the highest usage in
terms of average pounds applied were apple (25,000 lbs), walnut (15,000 lbs), and cotton
(10,000 lbs). The greatest percent crop treated (PCT) values were reported for apple (40%),
celery (40%), and strawberries (40%).
The agency has limited usage data on non-agricultural use sites. In 2016, over 10,000 lbs of
acetamiprid were reported to have been used by pest management professionals (i.e., applicators
who typically apply pesticides to turf and ornamental plants, including in residential areas)1.
Nursery and floriculture data from 2009 suggest that acetamiprid was used in 20% or more of
businesses in this sector among surveyed states; the median application rate was 0.131 lb a.i./A.
More recent data for this sector are unavailable. At the state-level, California reported that from
2013 to 2017, on average, less than 1,000 lbs. of acetamiprid were applied in nursery and
greenhouse sites1.
More details are available in Acetamiprid: BEAD Benefit Assessment and Response to Public
Comments in Support of Registration Review and Acetamiprid (099050) Screening Level Usage
Analysis (SLUA), July 15, 2019.
III. SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENTS
A. Human Health Risks
A summary of the agency's human health risk assessment is presented below. The agency used
the most current science policies and risk assessment methodologies to prepare a risk assessment
in support of the registration review of acetamiprid. For additional details on the human health
assessment for acetamiprid, see the Acetamiprid. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for
Registration Review (or DRA), which is available in the public docket.
1 Non-agricultural Market Research Data (NMRD), 2017. Data on consumer and professional pest control markets
collected and sold by a private market research firm.
9
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
1. Risk Summary and Characterization
Dietary, Residential, Aggregate, Bystander, and Occupational Post-Application Risks
No risks of concern were identified for dietary, residential, aggregate, bystander, or occupational
post-application exposures. Both acute and chronic estimated dietary risks were below 100% of
the population adjusted dose and thus not of concern. Acetamiprid is classified as "not likely to
be carcinogenic in humans."
In all residential handler exposure scenarios, the combined estimates of the exposure and
toxicity, or margin of exposure (MOE), was greater than the level of concern (LOC), so there are
no residential handler exposure risks of concern. The same is true of all residential post-
application exposure scenarios. An assessment of the exposure to acetamiprid via spray drift also
did not identify any risks of concern. In accordance with the FQPA, the agency aggregated
pesticide exposure and risk from three major categories {i.e., food, drinking water, and
residential exposure), and there are no aggregate risks of concern. Finally, there are no
occupational post-application risks of concern. Based on the acute toxicity of acetamiprid, the
restricted entry interval (REI) of 12 hours is adequate to protect agricultural workers from post-
application risks.
Occupational Handler Risks
Nearly all the exposure scenarios for those working with acetamiprid yield risk estimates that are
not of concern. Assuming baseline clothing (single layer of clothing, including long sleeves and
pants, without chemical resistant gloves), the MOEs for combined dermal and inhalation
exposure scenarios for occupational handlers ranged from 170 to 700,000. Occupational handlers
applying pet spot-on treatments do not have dermal risks of concern (MOEs=120 to 1,200). In all
scenarios, the LOC is 100.
In the human health DRA, there were two occupational exposure scenarios that resulted in risks
of concern, assuming baseline attire (single layer clothing; i.e., long pants, long sleeves, and
socks and shoes):
Mixing, loading, and applying liquid and wettable powder formulations to the basal bark
of landscaping, trees/shrubs/bushes using backpacks, where the MOE was 20
(LOC=100); and,
Mixing, loading, and applying liquid and wettable powder formulations to the basal bark
of landscaping, trees/shrubs/bushes using manually-pressurized handwands. For this
scenario, the MOE is 11 (LOC=100); however, with the addition of gloves, the MOE is
1,600.
Even with the addition of double layer and gloves, there were still risks of concern with the
backpack scenarios (MOE=65; LOC=100). During the public comment period for Acetamiprid.
Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, the registrant requested review of
a monograph (MRID# 436232) produced by the Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force
(AHETF) for backpack sprayer exposure from liquid formulation applications (BP-L) to foliage.
10
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
This monograph had previously been used to better model exposure to occupational handlers in
greenhouse setting; however, the registrant argued that it is also applicable to modeling exposure
to occupational handlers in landscape settings. The agency reviewed and incorporated the data
into its assessment of landscape handler risks (see Response to Public Comments on the
Acetamiprid Draft Risk Assessment for Registration Review for details). As a result, the MOE
was updated to 150 (LOC=100) for occupational handlers making basal bark treatments with
acetamiprid using backpacks, with double layer clothing and chemical resistant gloves.
While potential risks of concern were identified for the handwand scenarios, these risks are
mitigated by gloves (MOE=1,600; LOC=100). All acetamiprid products registered for use on
ornamental trees/shrubs/bushes, including in landscape settings, currently require the use of
gloves; therefore, potential for risk is considered mitigated and these scenarios will not be
explored further in this document.
2. Human Incidents and Epidemiology
The current Incident Data System (IDS) analysis from January 1, 2012 to April 28, 2017, shows
24 incidents reported in the Main IDS involving acetamiprid as a single active ingredient and 35
cases involving multiple active ingredients and 117 incidents reported to Aggregate IDS. A
query of the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR)-Pesticides
Database over the period 1998-2013 showed that acetamiprid was involved in 43 cases, primarily
agricultural in nature.
On September 19, 2019, an incident was reported that alleges that a bus traveling on a highway
at 10:30 p.m. was exposed to drift from a nighttime airblast application of acetamiprid (product
registration 8033-23-70506) to a citrus orchard. Twenty-nine persons were potentially exposed,
with eight reporting itchy and watery eyes. This incident was reported after the search of the
incident databases described above and so was not returned in the results of that search, nor was
it reported in the Acetamiprid: Tier I Update Review of Human Incidents and Epidemiology for
Draft Risk Assessment available in the public docket.
The agency will continue to monitor the incident reports. Additional analyses will be conducted
if ongoing human incident monitoring indicates a concern.
3. Tolerances
The tolerances for residues of acetamiprid are listed in 40 CFR § 180.578(a), 180.436 (b) and (c),
including its metabolites and degradates, for plants and livestock commodities, and for residues
resulting from applications made in food handling establishments. EPA is proposing tolerance
actions to reflect changes to crop groups, as summarized in Table 1: Summary of Proposed
Tolerance Actions below. The acetamiprid human health risk assessment recommended changes
to various tolerance levels to conform with the agency's rounding practice {i.e., adding a trailing
zero) at that time. Since the risk assessment was issued, the agency has decided to follow the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) rounding class practice,
which does not recommend adding a trailing zero. The agency anticipates the following changes
11
-------
Docket Number KPA-HQ-OPP-2G12-0329
www.repilations.gov
to the tolerances for acetamiprid. The agency intends to undertake these tolerance actions
pursuant to its Federal Food, Drug Cosmetic Act (PFDCA) authority.
Table 1: Summary of Proposed Tolerance Actions
.Uiiamipi id 4n ( I'K lSn.?~N: Minimal \ <¦! l'i (ip<>M
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
species assessment for acetamiprid. See Appendix C for more details. As such, potential risks for
non-listed species only are described below.
1. Risk Summary and Characterization
Terrestrial Risks
Mammals
Acetamiprid is highly toxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis, based on a 14-day LD50
(lethal dose to 50% of the test subjects) of 149 mg a.i./kg bw (where bw=bodyweight) in rats.
The chronic toxicity endpoint (the no observed adverse effect concentration, or NOAEC=160 mg
a.i./kg diet) is based on reduced body weight and reduced body weight gains.
While there are no acute (Level of Concern or LOC=0.5) or chronic (LOC=1.0) risks of concern
from foliar applications of acetamiprid, there are both acute and chronic risks of concern from
consumption of acetamiprid-treated seeds. The maximum acute seed treatment risk quotient
(RQ) is 2.65 and the maximum chronic RQ is 48.31. (RQs greater than the established LOC
represent potential risks of concern for a given exposure scenario). For context, a small mammal
(weighing approximately 15 g) would receive an acutely lethal dose of acetamiprid after
ingesting 214 treated canola seeds, or 30% of its diet over a foraging area of 2.53% of its home
range. Similarly, a small mammal would reach the chronic LOC after consuming 107
acetamiprid-treated canola seeds, representing 15% of its diet.
Birds. Reptiles, and Terrestrial-Phase Amphibians
Acetamiprid is very highly toxic to passerine speciese.g., zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata)
and moderately toxic to larger birdse.g., mallard duck (Anasplatyrhynchos)on an acute oral
exposure basis. The 14-day LD50 is 5.68 mg a.i./kg bw in zebra finches and 84.4 mg a.i./kg bw in
mallard ducks. The chronic toxicity endpoint (NOEAC=99 mg a.i./kg diet) is based on reduced
number of eggs laid and hatched.
There are both acute (LOC=0.5) and chronic (LOC=1.0) risks of concerns to birds from both
foliar applications and seed treatments with acetamiprid. From foliar applications, the maximum
acute RQ is 23.51 and the maximum chronic RQ is 1.26. For seed treatments, the maximum
acute RQ is 167.83 and the maximum chronic RQ is 40.49. For context, a passerine bird would
receive an acutely lethal dose of acetamiprid after ingesting as few as 5.4 acetamiprid-treated
seeds, or 0.5% of its diet over a foraging area of 0.06% of its home range. Similarly, a passerine
bird would reach the chronic LOC after consuming 88 acetamiprid-treated canola seeds,
representing 7.8% of its diet and approximately 1% of its home range.
Terrestrial Invertebrates (honey bees)
Since the publication of the PRA, the agency has revised the toxicity estimates and resulting RQs
for larval bees upwards by approximately an order of magnitude. For more information on
revisions to the PRA, see the Response to Public Comments and Update to the Preliminary
13
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.repilations.gov
Environmental Fate mid Ecological Risk Assessment (PRA) for Accrannprid available in the
public docket. The information presented below reflects these updated estimates. The toxicity
and resulting RQs for adult bees remain unchanged since the PRA.
Honey bees may be exposed to acetaimprid through ingestion of residues in nectar and pollen
foraged from treated plants, contact with pesticide residues on plants treated with foliar
applications, and direct contact via spray drift. Acetaiiiiprid is classified as moderately toxic to
adult bees and highly toxic to larvae oil an acute exposure basis. For adult bees, the acute contact
LD50 is 10.53 pg a.i./bee and the acute oral LD50 is 8.96 pg a.i./bee. For larvae, the acute oral
LD;»o was 1.16 pa a.i. larva. The chronic endpoint for bees (the no observed adverse effects level,
or NOAEL^O. 12 pg a.i.-bee/day) is based on a decrease in larval survival.
There are acute (LOC 0.4) and chronic (LOC 1.0) risks of concern to adults and larvae from
registered uses of acetainiprid. For adult bees, the maximum acute RQ is 1.86 and the maximum
chronic RQ is 6.90. For larvae, the maximum acute RQ is 6.59 and the maximum chronic RQ is
63.7.
Measured residue data suggest that the actual residues of acetainiprid 011 treated plants may be up
to 99°0 lower than the estimated environmental concentrations (EEC's) used to generate RQs.
Moreover, though there are risks of concern to individual honey bees, which serve as a surrogate
for -ma-Apis bees, colony-level studies show that these risks are not likely to translate into long-
term adverse effects on the colony. These studies indicate that adverse effects of acetainiprid are
likely transitory and so will probably not pose long-term risks to colony health. However, there
are 3" repotted incidents associated with the use of acetainiprid involving honey bees, w ish the
numbei s of colonies affected per incident ranging from 9 to 12JK3U. The majority t~6%) of the
bee-related incidents occurred in Canada. Of the eight incidents that occurred inside of the U.S.,
six were classified as either "unlikely" or were the result of illegal use of acetainiprid.
Additional data may be necessary to hilly evaluate risks to non-target terrestrial invertebrates,
especially pollinators. Although the EPA identified the need for certain data to evaluate potential
effects to pollinators when initially scoping the registration review for acetainiprid, the problem
formulation and registration review DCI for acetainiprid were both issued prior to the EPA's
issuance of the June 2014 Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees~. This 2014 guidance
lists additional pollinator studies that were not included in the acetainiprid registration review
DCI. Therefore, the EPA is currently determining whether additional pollinator data are needed
for acetainiprid. If the agency determines that additional pollinator exposure and effects data are
necessary, then the EPA will issue a DCI to obtain these data. The pollinator studies that could
be required are listed in Table 1: Potential Pollinator Data Requirements below.
Table 1: Potential Pollinator Data Requirements
(.tiirtrfiiu''
Tier 1
850.3020
Acute contact toxicity study with adult honey bees
7
Available at fattps://www, epa, gov/site5/pro
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.repilations.gov
(uidrlim-
Studv
850.3030
Honey bee toxicity of residues 011 foliage
Non-Guideline (OECD 213)
Honey bee adult acute oral toxicity
Non-Guideline (OECD 237)
Honey bee larvae acute oral toxicity
Non-Guideline
Honey bee adult chronic oral toxicity
Non-Guideline
Hone? bee larvae chronic oral toxicity
Tier 2f
Non-Guideline
Field trial of residues in pollen and nectar
Non-Guideline (OECD 75)
Semi-field testing for pollinators
t*" <*"» "J"
Tier j
850.3040
Full-Field testing for pollinators
* The need for higher tier tests for pollinators will be determined based upon the results of lower tiered tests and/or
other lines of evidence and the need for a refined pollinator risk assessment
Terrestrial Plants
Non-target terrestrial plants may be exposed to aeetamiprid via runoff and drift from foliar
application sites. Terrestrial plant toxicity studies with aeetamiprid resulted in reductions in
shoot length in both moiiocotyledonous (monocots) and dicotyledonous (dicots) plants and
reductions in plant weight in monocots. The EC25 (the dose at which 25°o of the test subjects
show adverse effects) for monocot seedling emergence was 0.23 lb a.i. A. The EC25 for dicot
seedling emergence was 0.16 lb a,i/A. The EC'.»? lor monocot vegetative vigor was 0.46 lb ai./A.
The EC25 for dicot vegetative vigor was 0.0056 lb a.i, A. There are risks of concern (LOC-l.O)
for monocots for both aerial |RQ values tip to 1.24) and for ground applications (RQ values up to
1.15). For dicot. there are risks of concern following aerial (RQ values up to 4.64) and ground
applications (RQ values tip to 1.66).
Aquatic Risks
Freshwater and Estuarme/Marme Fish
Aeetamiprid is practically non-toxic to freshwater (96-hr LCso>100 mg a.i./L; 96-hr LCso is the
concentration of a.i. in which half of the test subject are immobilized after 96 hours) and slightly
toxic to estuarine/manne fish (96-hr LCso=100 mg a.i./L) on an acute exposure basis. The
cluonic toxicity endpoint for freshwater fish (NOAEC 19.2 mg a.i./L) is based on reduced
growth. Chronic toxicity data are not available for estuarine/marine fish.
There are 110 acute risks of concern (LOC=0.5) for freshwater or estuarine/marine fish. Since
freshwater fish serve as surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians, there are no risks of concern
for this taxon as well There are no chronic risks (LOC=LO) of concern for freshwater fish;
however, chrome risks to estuarine mmine fish were not calculated due to the absence of data.
Overall, the likelihood of adverse effects to aquatic vertebrates is considered low. given the
available data; therefore, the agency is not requiring chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine
fish at this time.
15
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
Freshwater and Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates
Since the publication of the PRA, the agency has revised the toxicity estimates and resulting RQs
for freshwater invertebrates upwards by approximately an order of magnitude. For more
information on revisions to the PRA, see the Response to Public Comments and Update to the
Preliminary Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment (PRA) for Acetamiprid
available in the public docket. The information presented below reflects these updated estimates.
The toxicity and resulting RQs for estuarine/marine invertebrates remain unchanged since the
PRA.
Aquatic invertebrates may become exposed to acetamiprid through residues in runoff, flooding
of treatment sites, and spray drift. Acetamiprid is very highly toxic to both freshwater and
estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. The 96-hr LC50 for freshwater
invertebrates is 3.31 |ig a.i./L. The 96-hr LC50 for estuarine/marine invertebrates is 66 |ig a.i./L.
The freshwater invertebrate chronic toxicity endpoint (NOAEC=0.36 |ig a.i./L) is based on adult
emergence and on the average number of days to emergence. The estuarine/marine invertebrate
chronic toxicity endpoint (NOAEC=2.5 |ig a.i./L) is based on reduced body weight in males.
There are both acute (LOC=0.5) and chronic (LOC=1.0) risks of concern to both freshwater and
estuarine/marine invertebrates from registered uses of acetamiprid. For freshwater invertebrates,
the maximum acute RQ is 10.2 and the maximum chronic RQ is 91.7. For estuarine/marine
invertebrates, the maximum acute RQ is 0.57 and the maximum chronic RQ is 14.56.
Aquatic Vascular and Non-Vascular Plants
Toxicity studies showed no effects to the growth of both vascular and non-vascular aquatic
plants up to the highest concentrations tested (1.1 mg a.i./L). The RQs for both vascular and non-
vascular plants were lower than the LOC of 1.0; therefore, there are no risks of concern for
aquatic plants from the currently registered uses of acetamiprid.
2. Ecological Incidents
A review of the Incident Data System (IDS) in October 2017 indicated 55 incidents involving
adverse effects to terrestrial plants between 2004 and 2015. All 55 plant incidents were
associated with the use of just two formulations of acetamiprid. The certainty code for all but
two incidents was "possible", while the certainty code for the remaining two was "unlikely".
These incidents suggest that there is potential for effects to occur to terrestrial plants from the
current uses of acetamiprid.
Thirty-seven reported incidents in the IDS involved bees. Of these, six were assigned the
"unlikely" certainty level, one was assigned "highly probable", and the remaining majority were
characterized as "probable". Four incidents were not assigned a certainty level. Although bee kill
incidents have been associated with the use of acetamiprid on cotton and apples, the incidents
were listed as misuses.
16
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
One aquatic incident was reported after water used to extinguish a fire at an agrochemical
warehouse later contaminated a river, killing 700 to 1,000 fish. A complete list of the chemicals
present in the runoff is not known, but acetamiprid was present and the certainty level assigned
was "possible".
The October 2017 IDS analysis of aggregated incident reports identified 78 aggregate incidents
reported between October 1, 2004 and June 30, 2016. Seventy-four involved damage to plants,
while four involved wildlife; however, the wildlife affected were not specified.
EPA will continue to monitor the incident information, and additional analysis will be conducted
if ongoing ecological incident monitoring indicates a concern.
3. Ecological and Environmental Fate Data Needs
There are no data gaps related to the environmental fate database for the acetamiprid registration
review at this time. The agency will consider calling in pollinator data as a separate action.
C. Benefits Assessment
Acetamiprid controls piercing/sueking insects, an assortment of lepidopterans, and some
coleopterans pests in numerous agricultural crops. Such pests include aphids, whiteflies, oriental
fruit moth, apple maggot, pear psylla, adelgid, borer and scale insects, flea beetle, certain flies,
and wireworm. Acetamiprid reduces not only direct damage incurred by insect pests but also the
spread of plant diseases by insect vectors. There are also applications of acetamiprid in
residential pest control, such as for cockroaches and bedbugs.
Acetamiprid seed treatments in mustard and canola are primarily used to target flea beetles and
wireworms. Flea beetle is a major economic concern in canola plantings with more than half of
all canola acreage treated for this pest. Acetamiprid is a viable control method for these pests, but
it is not the top option since most canola seed is preferentially treated with thiamethoxam.
In many crop systems (e.g., vegetables, fruits, and tree nuts), aphids, thrips, whiteflies, codling
moth, and other insects targeted by acetamiprid not only cause direct yield loss but also vector
important crop diseases (e.g., cucurbit yellow stunting disorder, mosaic viruses, yellow spot
virus) that can result in high yield losses. Specifically, for vegetable crops like celery or leafy
greens, insecticidal control is important because any visible scarring from insect feeding can
result in downgrading or rejection of harvested crops.
In pome and stone fruits, acetamiprid functions as a broad-spectrum spray to control numerous
pests simultaneously including codling moth, oriental fruit moth, apple maggot, pear psylla,
aphids, and mealybugs. These insects can also cause yield loss via direct feeding or vectoring
diseases, which may impact the quantity or quality of marketable fruit.
In strawberry production, acetamiprid is primarily used to target aphids, lygus bug, and thrips.
These are some of the top insect pests targeted generally in strawberries because of the damage
17
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
they cause (e.g., direct feeding, vectoring diseases, etc.). Acetamiprid is one of the top two
insecticide options, by acres treated, for aphids and thrips within strawberry production.
In walnut production, acetamiprid is primarily used to target walnut husk fly and codling moth,
both of which attack the developing fruit on walnut trees which contains the nut within. These
are the top two insect pests targeted in walnuts. In California (i.e., where almost all walnuts are
produced), acetamiprid is the top recommended insecticide for control of walnut husk fly and the
top choice for control of moderate populations of codling moth in walnut production. Based on
usage data, acetamiprid is the second most used control option for walnut husk fly and a
generally used option for codling moth.
For more information on the benefits of acetamiprid, see the Acetamiprid: BEAD Benefit
Assessment and Response to Public Comments in Support of Registration Review available in the
public docket.
IV. PROPOSED INTERIM REGISTRATION REVIEW DECISION
A. Proposed Risk Mitigation and Regulatory Rationale
EPA has identified risks of concern to occupational handlers applying liquids and wettable
powders as basal bark treatments using backpacks. EPA has also identified risks to mammals and
birds that consume treated seeds, to birds from foliar applications, to terrestrial invertebrates
from foliar applications, to aquatic invertebrates from foliar applications, and to terrestrial plants.
To mitigate the risks to occupational handlers, EPA proposes updating personnel protective
equipment (PPE) standards for certain applications of acetamiprid. To mitigate risks to birds,
invertebrates and terrestrial plants, EPA proposes spray drift mitigation and buffer zones to limit
the movement of acetamiprid. To mitigate risks to birds and mammals, EPA proposes standards
for handling acetamiprid-treated seeds. The agency is also proposing updated gloves statements,
insecticide resistance management language, an environmental hazard statement for pollinators,
and best practices language for water soluble packaging.
1. Proposed Addition of PPE for Basal Bark Treatments in Landscape Uses
As discussed in Section III of this document, EPA found risks of concern for occupational
mixer/loader/applicators of liquid and wettable powder formulations as basal bark treatments
using backpacks in landscaping. Requiring these occupational handlers to wear double layer
clothing and chemical-resistant gloves mitigates these risks of concern to acceptable levels.
Therefore, EPA proposes PPE standards of gloves and double layer clothing for occupational
handlers using backpacks in landscaping (trees, shrubs, and bushes).
EPA expects that this mitigation will have low impacts on most current users of acetamiprid.
Backpack sprayer basal bark treatments of acetamiprid in forestry or residential settings are
likely a minor component of pest control in these sites. Additionally, professional applicators
will likely have the required PPE readily available, so cost increases are not likely. Nevertheless,
18
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
for the users of acetamiprid as a basal bark treatment, the use of additional PPE (i.e., wearing
double layers or respirators when applying pesticides) can reduce their productivity because of
the physiological stress when working in high temperatures and/or humid conditions.
2. Updated Gloves Statement
The agency is proposing to update the glove statement currently on labels to be consistent with
the Label Review Manual3. The proposed new glove language does not fundamentally change
the personal protective equipment that workers need to use, and therefore should impose no
impacts on users.
Specifically, all statements that refer to the chemical resistance category selection chart are
proposed to be removed from acetamiprid labels, as they might cause confusion for users. These
statements are proposed to be replaced with specific chemical-resistant glove types.
3. Proposed Addition of Best Management Practices Language for Handling and
Adding Water-Soluble Packets to Spray Tanks
For products formulated in water-soluble packaging, the agency proposes to incorporate up-to-
date instructions for proper mixing and loading of water-soluble packets to ensure that packets
are allowed to dissolve in water via mechanical agitation as intended and to prevent rupturing, as
well as an up-to-date engineering controls statement.
4. Advisory Statements for Acetamiprid Seed Treatment Uses
Acute and chronic dietary risks of concern have been identified for birds and mammals exposed
to acetamiprid-treated seeds. The potential for risk depends on the size of the animal and the
treated seed. However, the risk potential is also dependent on factors affecting exposure (e.g.
application rates, timing, seed depth).
To help mitigate these risks, EPA is proposing that all pesticide products that contain
acetamiprid and are registered for seed treatment uses include the following advisory statements:
"Cover or collect treated seeds spilled during loading and planting in areas (such as in
row ends)."
"Dispose of all excess treated seed by burying seed away from bodies of water."
"Do not contaminate bodies of water when disposing of planting equipment wash water."
The purpose of these required advisory statements is to encourage the adoption of best
management practices when handling and planting acetamiprid-treated seeds that will reduce the
exposure of birds and mammals to treated seeds. Covering or collecting spilled seed and burying
excess seed are all measures that will reduce the likelihood that animals will find and consume
treated seeds. Disposing of excess seeds and equipment wash water away from water bodies,
which tend to be gathering points for birds and mammals, decreases the chance of contaminating
3 https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registratioti/label-review-mannal
19
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
those water bodies with neonicotinoid residues and the chance that animals will discover and
consume treated seeds while visiting a body of water.
5. Environmental Hazard Statement for Pollinators
As discussed in Section III of this document, registered uses of acetamiprid poses potential risks
to bees. Therefore, the agency proposes the following pollinator advisory language for all
products with outdoor uses:
"This product is moderately toxic to bees and other pollinating insects exposed to direct
treatment, or to residues in/on blooming crops or weeds. Protect pollinating insects by
following label directions intended to minimize drift and to reduce risk to these
organisms."
6. Spray Drift Management
The agency is proposing label changes to reduce off-target spray drift and establish a baseline
level of protection against spray drift that is consistent across all acetamiprid products. Reducing
spray drift will reduce the extent of environmental exposure and risk to non-target plants and
animals. Although the agency is not making a complete endangered species finding at this time,
these label changes are expected to reduce the extent of exposure and may reduce risk to listed
species whose range and/or critical habitat co-occur with the use of acetamiprid.
The agency is proposing the following spray drift mitigation language be included on all
acetamiprid product labels. The proposed spray drift language is intended to be mandatory,
enforceable statements and supersede any existing language already on product labels (either
advisory or mandatory) covering the same topics. The agency is providing recommendations
which allow acetamiprid registrants to standardize all advisory language on acetamiprid product
labels. Registrants must ensure that any existing advisory language left on labels does not
contradict or modify the new mandatory spray drift statements proposed in this proposed interim
decision once effective.
These mandatory spray drift mitigation measures are proposed for aerial applications for all
products delivered via liquid spray:
Applicators must not spray during temperature inversions.
For aerial applications, do not apply when wind speeds exceed 15 mph at the application
site. If the windspeed is greater than 10 mph, the boom length must be 65% or less of the
wingspan for fixed wing aircraft and 75% or less of the rotor diameter for helicopters.
Otherwise, the boom length must be 75% or less of the wingspan for fixed-wing aircraft
and 90% or less of the rotor diameter for helicopters.
For aerial applicators, if the windspeed is 10 miles per hour or less, applicators must use
'/2 swath displacement upwind at the downwind edge of the field. When the windspeed is
between 11-15 miles per hour, applicators must use 3/4 swath displacement upwind at the
downwind edge of the field.
For aerial applications, the release height must be no higher than 10 feet from the top of
the crop canopy or ground, unless a greater application height is required for pilot safety.
20
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
Specify spray droplet size of Medium or coarser (ASABE S572.1)
These mandatory spray drift mitigation measures are proposed for ground applications delivered
via liquid spray:
Applicators must not spray during temperature inversions.
Do not apply when wind speeds exceed 15 mph at the application site.
For air blast applications, nozzles directed out of the orchard must be turned off in the
outer row.
For air blast applications, applications must be directed into the canopy foliage.
For ground boom applications, apply with the release height no more than 4 feet above
the ground or crop canopy.
Specify spray droplet size of Medium or coarser (ASABE S572.1)
In addition to including the following spray drift restrictions on acetamiprid labels, all references
to volumetric mean diameter (VMD) information for spray droplets are proposed to be removed
from all acetamiprid labels where such information currently appears. The proposed new
language in below, which cites American Society of Agricultural & Biological Engineers
(ASABE) S572.1, eliminates the need for VMD information.
Impacts of Spray Drift and Runoff Mitigation
Wind Speed. Boom Length/Swath Displacement Release Height and Temperature Inversions
Current requirements for aerial applications are:
Do not apply acetamiprid when wind speeds exceed 10 mph at the application site. The
boom length must be 75% or less of the wingspan or rotor diameter.
The release height of 10 feet from the top of target, unless a greater application height is
required for pilot safety is advisory.
Mandatory language prohibiting applications during temperature inversions.
There are no requirements for swath displacement on current labels.
For aerial applications, proposed changes will allow applications of acetamiprid at higher wind
speed, which will provide growers with greater flexibility to make applications in a timely
manner. Further, at wind speeds of 10 mph or less, the boom length for helicopter is increased to
90 percent of the rotor diameter, which may necessitate fewer passes to complete an application,
likely decreasing application costs. There are no proposed changes for applications during
inversions. The agency has not assessed the impacts of a V2 or 3/4 swath displacement upwind at
the downwind edge of the field or a 10-foot release height; however, the agency does not
anticipate impacts as a result of a mandatory swath displacement or 10-foot release height as this
corresponds to good application practices. The agency invites comments if this mitigation would
impact growers.
Currently, there are no mandatory requirements for ground applications. Based on previous
reviews of recommended release heights for optimal coverage across common nozzle types, a
release height of 4 feet or less should not impact growers when making applications of
21
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
acetamiprid. The agency has been proposing wind speed restrictions and proposing prohibitions
against applying during temperature inversions for several years in many decisions. Proposed
mandatory windspeed requirements and prohibitions on applications during temperature
inversions could result in delays to intended applications and, more generally, could reduce the
amount of time users have to apply acetamiprid. Management of production activities may be
more complex. Potentially, growers might switch to a different active ingredient that does not
have this restriction, but that could be costly and potentially difficult in a short period of time.
This could also lead to reduced yield and/or quality. Additionally, temperature inversions are
more likely to occur a couple of hours before sunset and after sunrise, which is when
applications may be timed to avoid spraying during windy hours of the day or when pollinators
are active. This may complicate growers' ability to follow good stewardship programs.
Droplet Size
The agency is proposing a restriction on droplet size because coarser droplets have been
demonstrated to decrease spray drift and therefore reduce potential risks to non-target species.
Because chemical-specific data for the performance of droplet sizes is limited, the EPA was not
able to evaluate the effects of Medium or coarser droplet sizes (as defined by ASABE S572.1)
specifically for acetamiprid. Therefore, the EPA does not know the effect this requirement will
have on the performance of acetamiprid across various use patterns. In general, the agency
expects a droplet size requirement would not likely have a major impact in pest control scenarios
where acetamiprid is valued for its systemicity in plants and residual control of target pest(s);
however, acetamiprid also offers value to users for its contact activity which may be impacted by
a droplet size requirement due to potential reductions in coverage and possibly efficacy in killing
the target pest(s). In general, potential negative impacts to growers from requiring larger droplets
could include reductions in efficacy, increased selection pressure for the evolution of insecticide
resistance due to a decrease in lethal dose delivered to target insects, increased application rates
used by growers, increased costs associated with reduced yield, more insecticide applications,
purchase of alternative products, or an inability to use tank mix or premix products. The EPA
encourages comments on any potential impacts to growers from specifying a mandatory
minimum droplet size on product labels.
Requirements for Air Blast Sprayers
There are currently no specific label requirements for air blast applications. The agency does not
expect impacts to the users of acetamiprid from requirements to direct spray into the canopy and
to turn off nozzles that would treat the outer orchard rows as this corresponds to good application
practices. The agency invites comments if this mitigation would impact applicators.
7. Proposed Spray Drift Buffers
In addition to the proposed spray drift mitigation measures above, the EPA is proposing buffers
from waterbodies of 25 ft for ground application and 150 ft for aerial applications to limit the
amount of spray drift that enters waterbodies. These proposed mitigation measures will establish
a baseline level of protection for waterbodies against spray drift that is consistent across all
22
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
acetamiprid products. Reducing the overall amount of spray drift that reaches waterbodies will
reduce the extent of environmental exposure and risk to aquatic organisms.
Currently, labels are silent on buffers to water bodies. Impacts could include yield losses in
untreated portions of fields. If growing areas are adjacent to water bodies, buffers may require
growers to leave a portion of the land dedicated to crops untreated, remove land from production,
or apply another insecticide without this proposed requirement. The impact of this mitigation can
be highly localized and may depend on the size and shape of a field. Leaving an area untreated in
a field can harbor insects and vectored diseases and serve as a source of re-infestation and
inoculum, requiring subsequent applications, thus increasing costs. Alternatively, a grower could
switch to a different chemical that does not have a buffer requirement, at least along the edge of
the field next to the water body. Potential alternatives are typically more expensive per acre than
acetamiprid.
Aerial applications are common in crops such as cantaloupes, squash, lettuce, and cotton. The
effect of buffers will be larger for crops that are typically grown in small fields, such as
cucurbits, than on crops typically grown in larger fields, such as cotton. See Acetamiprid: BEAD
Benefit Assessment and Response to Public Comments in Support of Registration Review.
8. Pesticide Resistance Management
Pesticide resistance occurs when genetic or behavioral changes enable a portion of a pest
population to tolerate or survive what would otherwise be lethal doses of a given pesticide. The
development of such resistance is influenced by a number of factors. One important factor is the
repeated use of pesticides with the same mode (or mechanism) of action. This practice kills
sensitive pest individuals but allows less susceptible ones in the targeted population to survive
and reproduce, thus increasing in numbers. These individuals will eventually be unaffected by
the repeated pesticide applications and may become a substantial portion of the pest population.
An alternative approach, recommended by resistance management experts as part of integrated
pest management (IPM) programs, is to use pesticides with different chemical modes (or
mechanisms) of action against the same target pest population. This approach may delay and/or
prevent the development of resistance to a particular mode (or mechanism) of action without
resorting to increased rates and frequency of application, possibly prolonging the useful life of
pesticides.
The EPA is proposing resistance-management labeling, as listed in Appendix B, for products
containing acetamiprid, in order to provide pesticide users with easy access to important
information to help maintain the effectiveness of useful pesticides. Additional information on the
EPA's guidance for resistance management can be found at the following website:
https://www.epa.eov/pesticide-reeistration/prn-z guidance-pesticide-registrants-pesticide-
resi stan ce-management.
B. Tolerance Actions
The agency is proposing several crop group conversions/revisions, as well as typographical
corrections to be consistent with agency rounding procedures. Refer to Section III. A 3 for
23
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
details. The agency will use its FFDCA rulemaking authority to make the needed changes to the
tolerances.
C. Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision
In accordance with 40 CFR §§ 155.56 and 155.58, the agency is issuing this PID. Except for the
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the
agency has made the following Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision: (1) no
additional data are required at this time; and (2) changes to the affected registrations and their
labeling are needed at this time, as described in Sections IV. A and Appendices A and B.
In this PID, EPA is making no human health or environmental safety findings associated with the
EDSP screening of acetamiprid, nor is it making a complete endangered species finding.
Although the agency is not making a complete endangered species finding at this time, the
proposed mitigation described in this document is expected to reduce the extent of environmental
exposure and may reduce risk to listed species whose range and/or critical habitat co-occur with
the use of acetamiprid. The agency's final registration review decision for acetamiprid will be
dependent upon the result of the agency's ESA assessment and any needed § 7 consultation with
the Services and an EDSP FFDCA § 408(p) determination.
D. Data Requirements
The agency does not anticipate calling in data for the acetamiprid registration review at this time.
The EPA will consider requiring submission of pollinator data as a separate action.
V. NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE
A. Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision
A Federal Register Notice will announce the availability of this PID for acetamiprid and will
allow a 60-day comment period on the PID. If there are no significant comments or additional
information submitted to the docket during the comment period that leads the agency to change
its PID, the EPA may issue an interim registration review decision for acetamiprid. However, a
final decision for acetamiprid may be issued without the agency having previously issued an
interim decision. A final decision on the acetamiprid registration review case will occur after:
(1) an EDSP FFDCA § 408(p) determination and (2) an endangered species determination under
the ESA and any needed § 7 consultation with the Services.
B. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
Once the Interim Registration Review Decision is issued the acetamiprid registrants must submit
amended labels that include the label changes described in Appendices A and B. The revised
24
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
labels must be submitted to the agency for review within 60 days following issuance of the
Interim Registration Review Decision in the docket.
25
-------
Deckel Nmuhes EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www. re gulati oils. gov
Appendix A: Summary of Proposed Actions for Acetamiprid
Registration Review Case #: 7468
PC Coda:099050
Chemical Type: Insecticide
Chemical Family: Neonicotinoid
Mode of Action: Group 4: Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Competitive Modulators
Occupational Handlers
Mammals and Birds,
Reptiles, and Terrestrial-
Phase Amphibians
Birds, Reptiles, and
Terrestrial-Phase
Acute toxicity and weight
loss, aehavioraI chsnges^
labored breathing, and
reproductive effects
Terrestrial Invertebrates Foliar treatments
s)
Aquatic Invertebrates
Acute and chronic
Require specific handling
and management of
treated seeds
Acute toxicity arid
reproductive effects
Acute toxicity and
increased mortality in
adult and larva! workers
and drones
Seedling emergence and
vegetative vigor
Acute toxicity and
decreased size and
reproductive effects
Environmental hazard
statement on labels
Spray drift and runoff
mitigation language
Spray drift and runoff
mitigation language
h.iii.,iimiI»ihW« mi imnnn mi miimT!&«.ii.«fff?i.iTOWi.i
Spray drift and runoff
mitigation language
26
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www regulations gov
T>: >1 T.;tlic1imj ( han^s for WtUtmipriii Products
!>i'MT!pii'!li
ri'iipiisi-il f :i(n l i ;niS!i:lUi- iii4" \»'i i :i lllijii ii! I'l'mllli"! *
I'lai t'ilIS i!! 111! i Jll'l'i
End I se Products
Mode of Action Group 4
Note to registrant:
Include the name of the ACTIVE INGREDIENT in the first column
Include 1 lie word '"GROUP" m the second column
Include 4A in the third column (for herbicides this is the Mechanism of Action, for
fungicides this is rhe FRAC Code, and for insecticides this is the Primary Site of Action)
Include the type of pesticide {i.e.. HERBICIDE or FUNGICIDE or INSECTICIDE)
in the fourth column.
Front Panel, upper right
quadrant.
All text should be black,
bold face and all caps
on a wliite background,
except the mode of
action code, which
should be white, bold
face and all caps on a
black background; all
text and columns should
be surrounded by a
black rectangle.
ACETAMIPRID
GROUP
I'pdated tj-Ioves
Statement
Update the gloves statements to be consistent with Chapter 10 of the Label Review Manual. In particular, remove
reference fo specific categories in EPA's chemical-resistance category selection chart and list the appropriate
chemical-resistant glove t>pes to use.
In the Personal
Protective Equipment
(PPE) within the
Precautionary
Statements and
Agricultural Use
Requirements, if
applicable
For protluns with
liquid or wetjable
po wder foriiHihiiions
that allow basal bark
application in hiiidsoape
settings lo trees. bushes,
and \itrubs by backpack
Update the gloves statements to be consistent with Chapter 10 of the Label Review Manual, In particular, remove
reference to specific categories in EPA's chemical-resistance category selection chart and list the appropriate
chemical-resistant glove types to use,
"Coverall worn over short-sleeved shirt and short pants, socks, chemical-resistant footwear, and waterproof or
chemical-resistant gloves*."
*The gloves statement should be consistent with Chapter 10 of the Label Review Manual.
In the Personal
Protective Equipment
(PPE) within the
Precautionary
Statements
27
-------
Docket Number FPA-HQ-OPP-20! 2-032"
www.regulatio.ns.gov
Ijiliiin
Pi i>|>i!M-d i abi l i .iiiiLuaui- '"i \i elaiiiipi id l'i odiu
i'l.iccmelii "li 1 .aliel
Fuvii onmental Hazard
Statement for
Pollinators
"This product is moderately toxic to bees and other pollinating insects exposed to direct treatment, or to residues
in/on blooming crops or weeds. Protect pollinating insects by following label directions intended to minimize drift
and to reduce risk to these organisms."
Environmental Hazards
Resistance management
labeling statements for
insecticides acaricides
Include resistance management label language for insectiddes/acaricides from PKN 2017-1
(https://wuAV.epa. gov,'pes ticide-restistration'Pe&ticide-reiasttation-aotices-vear)
Directions for Use
Additional Required
Labelling Action
Remove information about volumetric mean diameter from all labels where such information currently appears.
Directions for Use
Directions for
mixing loading products
packaged iu waiti-
soluble bags
Instructions for Introducing Water Soluble Packages Directly into Spray tanks:
"Water Soluble Packages (WSPs) are designed to dissolve in water. Agitation may be used, if necessary, to help
dissolve the WSP. Failure to follow handling and mixing instructions can increase your exposure to the pesticide
products in WSPs. WSPs. when used properly, qualify as a closed mixing loading system under the Agricultural
Worker Protection Standard [40 CFR 1 "0.607(d)].
Handling Instructions
Follow these steps when handling pesticide products in WSPs.
1. Mix in spray tank only,
2. Handle the WSP in a manner that protects package from breakage and* or unintended release of contents.
If package is broken, put on PPE required for clean-up and then continue with mixing instructions.
3. Keep the WSP in outer packaging until just before use.
4. Keep the WSP dry prior to adding to the spray tank.
5. Handle with dry gloves and according to the label instructions for PPE.
6. Keep the WSP intact. Do not cut or puncture the WSP.
7. Reseal the WSP outer packaging to protect any unused WSP(s).
Mixing Instructions
Follow the steps below when mixing this product, including if it is tank-mixed with other pesticide products. If
being tank-mixed, the mixing directions 1 through 9 below take precedence over the mixing directions of the other
tank mix products. WSPs tnay. in some cases, be mixed with other pesticide products so long as the directions for
use of all the pesticide product components do not conflict. Do not tank-mix this product with products that
prohibit tank-mixing or have conflicting mixing directions,
1. If a basket or strainer is present in the tank hatch, remove prior to adding the WSP to the tank.
2. Fill tank with water to approximately one-third to one-half of the desired final volume of spray.
3. Stop adding water and stop any agitation.
4. Place intact;unopened WSP into the tank.
Directions for Use
28
-------
Docket Nunibei EPA-}IQ-OPP-2012-052O
www.regulatioiis.gov
Description
}'< i>{)<:¦>('(! 1 .ihi'l i :l|iVi'i: U.i" I"!' \v i i:f )lii|i; ii! i'i'inliil !¦>
I'l.ii i iiu-nt is 1 alu'I
5, Do not spray water from a hose or fill pipe to break or dissolve the WSP.
6 Start mechanical and recirculation agitation from the bottom of tank without using any overhead
recirculation, if possible If overhead recirculation cannot be turned off. close the hatch before starting agitation.
7. Dissolving the WSP may take up to 5 minutes or longer, depending on water temperature, water hardness
and intensity of agitation,
S. Stop agitation before tank lid is opened.
9. Open the lid to the tank, exercising caution to avoid contact with dusts or spray mix. to verify that the
WSP has Ml}- dissolved and the contents have been thoroughly mixed into the solution.
10. Do not add other allowed products or complete filling the lank until the bags have fully dissolved and
pesticide is thoroughly mixed.
11. Once the WSP has folly dissolved and any other products have been added to the tank, resume filling the
tank with water to the desired level, close the tank lid. and resume agitation.
12. Use the spray solution when mixing is complete.
13. Maintain agitation of the diluted pesticide mix during transport and application.
14. It is unlawful to use any registered pesticide, including WSPs. in a manner inconsistent with its label.
ENGINEERING CONTROLS STATEMENT
Water soluble packets, when used correctly, qualify as a closed mixing loading system under the Worker
Protection Standard [40 CFR I "'0.607(d)]. Mixers and loaders handling this product while it is enclosed in intact
water soluble packets may elect to wear reduced PPE of long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, socks, a chemical-
resistant apron, and chemical -resistant gloves, Mien reduced PPE is worn because a closed system is being used,
handlers must be provided all PPE specified above for "applicators and other handlers" and have such PPE
immediately available for use in an emergency, sticli as in case of a spill or equipment break-down.
The following proposed label language applies to end-use products that have agricultural uses
Mandatory Spray Drift
Management
Application Restrictions
for all products delivered
via liquid spray
application and allow
aerial application
"MANDATORY SPRAY DRIFT MANAGEMENT
Aerial Auuliratioiiv
Do not release spray at a height greater than 10 ft above the ground or vegetative canopy, unless a greater
application height is necessary for pilot safety.
Applicators are required to use a Medium or coarser droplet size tASABE S572.1 >.
If the windspeed is 10 miles per hour or less, applicators must use V; swath displacement upwind at the
downwind edge of the field. When the windspeed is between 11-15 miles per hour, applicators must use * 4
swath displacement upwind at the downwind edge of the field.
Do not apply when wind speeds exceed 1? mph at the application site. If the windspeed is greater than 10
mph. the boom length must be 65° o or less of the wingspan for fixed wing aircraft and 75°o or less of the rotor
Directions for Use. in a
box titled "Mandatory
Spray Drift
Management*" under the
heading "Aerial
Applications"
29
-------
Docket Number EPA-I1Q-OPP-:012-0320
www.regulations. gov
Description
i'i..pi!Mi! i al«rl 1 .anuaa^i- fur \i liaiitipilt! i'l.idiu
IMai i itl'. 'it i>ii 1 .aliel
diameter for helicopters. Otherwise, the boom length must be 75% or less of the wingspan for fixed-wing
aircraft and 90% or less of the rotor diameter for helicopters.
Do not apply during temperature inversions."
Mandatory Spray Drift
Management
Application Restrictions
for products that allow
airblast applications
"MANDATORY SPRAY DRIFT MANAGEMENT
Ail blast applications:
Sprays must be directed into the canopy.
Do not apply when wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour at the application site.
User must turn off outward pointing nozzles at row ends and when spraying outer row.
Do not apply during temperature inversions."
Directions for Use. in a
box titled "Mandatory
Spray Drift:
Management" under the
heading "Airblast
Applications"
Mandatory Spray Drift
Management
Application Restrictions
for products applied as
liquids and allow ground
boom applications
'MANDATORY SPRAY DRIFT MANAGEMENT
Ground Boom Applications:
User must only apply with the nozzle height recommended by the manufacturer, but no more than 4 feet above
the ground or crop canopy.
Applicators are requited to use a Medium or coarser droplet size (ASABE S5"2.1).
Do not apply when wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour at the application site.
Do not apply during temperature inversions."
Directions for Use. in a
box titled "Mandatory
Spray Drift
Management" under the
heading "Ground Boom
Applications'"
Mandatory Spra> Drift
Management
Application Restrictions
for products that are
applied as liquids and
allow booni-less ground
sprayer applications
MANDATORY SPRAY DRIFT M ANAGEMENT
Boom less Ground Applications:
Applicators are required to use a Medium or coarser droplet size (ASABE S572.1) for all applications.
Do not apply when wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour at the application site.
Do not apply during temperature inversions."
Directions for Use. in a
box titled "Mandatory
Spray Drift
Management" under the
heading "Boom-less
Applications"
Advisory Spray Drift
Management Language
for all products deliv ered
via liquid spray
applications
"SPRAY DRTFT ADVISORIES
THE APPLICATOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR AVOIDING OFF-SITE SPRAY DRIFT.
BE AWARE OF NEARBY NON-TARGET SITES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS.
IMPORTANCE OF DROPLET SIZE
An effective way to reduce spray drift is to apply large droplets, Use the largest droplets that provide target pest
control. While applying larger droplets will reduce spray drift, the potential for drift will be .greater if applications
are made improperly or under unfavorable environmental conditions.
Controlling Droplet Size - Ground Boom (note to registrants: remove if ground boom is prohibited on product
labels!
Directions for L^se. just
below the Spray Drift
box. under the heading
"Spray Drift
Advisories"
30
-------
Deckel Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.repilalioiis.gov
Description
f'i iip'iM'i! 1 nhi'l i liamipi iii I'tmlinix
l'l;n l*tfIt'lli "II 1
Volume - Increasing fee spray volume so that larger droplets are produced mill reduce spray drift. Use the
highest practical spray volume for the application. If a greater spray volume is needed, consider using a nozzle
with a higher flow rate.
« Pressure - Use the lowest spray pressure recommended for the nozzle to produce the target spray volume and
droplet size.
Spray Nozzle - Use a spray nozzle that is designed for the intended application. Consider using nozzles designed
to reduce drift.
Controlling Droplet Size - Aircraft (note to registrants: remove if mrtal application is prohibited on product
inhph)
« Adjust Nozzles - Follow nozzle manufacturers recommendations for setting up nozzles. Generally, to reduce
fine droplets, nozzles should be oriented parallel with the airflow in flight.
BOOM HEIGHT - Ground Boom mate to registrants: remove if ground boom is prohibited on product labels)
For ground equipment, the boom should remain level with the crop and have minimal bounce.
RELEASE HEIGHT - Aircraft mote to registrants: remove if aerial application is prohibited on product labels}
Higher release heights increase the potential for spray drift.
SHIELDED SPRAYERS
Shielding the boom or individual nozzles can reduce spray drift. Consider using shielded sprayers. Verify that the
shields are not interfering with the uniform deposition of the spray on the target area.
TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY
When making applications in hot and dry conditions, use larger droplets to reduce effects of evaporation.
TEMPERATURE INVERSIONS
Drift potential is high during a temperature inversion. Temperature inversions are characterized by increasing
temperature with altitude and are common on nights with limited cloud cover and light lo no wind. The presence
of an inversion can be indicated by ground fog or by the movement of smoke from a ground source or an aircraft
smoke generator. Smoke that layers and moves laterally in a concentrated cloud (under low w ind conditions)
indicates an inversion, while smoke that moves upward and rapidly dissipates indicates good vertical air mixing.
Avoid applications during temperature inversions,
WIND
Drift potential generally increases with wind speed. AVOID APPLICATIONS DURING GUSTY WIND
conditions".
Applicators need to be familiar with local wind patterns and terrain that could affect spray drift,"
31
-------
Docket Number EPA-i IQ-OPP-20 12-0 >20
www.regiilations.gov
!' = f l"nr \( id ('induct'-
I'Ltri'Stli-fii "(i 1 ,:du'l
Advison Spray Drift
Management Language
for products that are
applied as liquids and
allow boom-less ground
sprayer applications
"SPRAY DRIFT ADVISORIES
Room less Ground Applications:
Setting nozzles at the lowest effective height will help lo reduce the potential for spray drift."
Directions for Use. just
below the Spray Drift
box. under the heading
"Spray Drift
Advisories"
Advisory Spray Drift
Managi'inem Language
for all products that allow
liquid applications with
handheld technologies
'SPRAY DRIFT ADVISORIES
Handheld Teclmoloav Aimlicatioii-.:
Take precautions to minimize spray drift."
Directions for Use. just
below the Spray Drift
box. wider the heading
"Spray Drift
Advisories"
Buffer /uiit's to Watei
13 i)diC II
Ground Application
"Do not apply by ground within 25 feet of aquatic habitats (such as. but not limited to. lakes, reservoirs, rivers,
streams, marshes, ponds, estuaries, and commercial fish ponds 1."
Aerial Application
"Do not apply by air within 150 feet of aquatic habitats (such as. but not limited to. lakes, reservoirs, rivers,
streams, marshes, ponds, estuaries, and commercial fishponds),"
Directions for use
Seed handling latigtiage
for products that allow
seed treatment
Add the following statements to labels to clean up spills, dispose of excess seed, and to avoid contamination of
water bodies:
"Cover or collect treated seeds spilled during loading and planting in areas (such as in row ends)."
"Dispose of all excess treated seed by burying seed away from bodies of water."
"Do not contaminate bodies of water when disposina of plantins equipment wash water."
Directions for use
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
Appendix C: Endangered Species Assessment
In 2013, the EPA, along with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a
summary of their joint Interim Approaches for assessing risks to endangered and threatened
(listed) species from pesticides. These Interim Approaches were developed jointly by the
agencies in response to the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) recommendations that
discussed specific scientific and technical issues related to the development of pesticide risk
assessments conducted on federally threatened and endangered species.
Since that time, EPA has conducted biological evaluations (BEs) on three pilot chemicals
representing the first nationwide pesticide consultations. These initial consultations were pilots
and were envisioned to be the start of an iterative process. The agencies are continuing to work
to improve the consultation process. For example, advancements to the initial pilot interim
methods have been proposed based on experience conducting the first three pilot BEs. Public
input on those proposed revisions is currently being considered.
Also, a provision in the December 2018 Farm Bill included the establishment of a FIFRA
Interagency Working Group to provide recommendations for improving the consultation process
required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for pesticide registration and
Registration Review and to increase opportunities for stakeholder input. This group includes
representation from EPA, NMFS, FWS, USDA, and the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ). Given this new law and that the first nationwide pesticide consultations were envisioned
as pilots, the agencies are continuing to work collaboratively as consistent with the congressional
intent of this new statutory provision. EPA has been tasked with a lead role on this group, and
EPA hosted the first Principals Working Group meeting on June 6, 2019.
Given that the agencies are continuing to develop and work toward implementation of
approaches to assess the potential risks of pesticides to listed species and their designated critical
habitat, the ecological risk assessment supporting this PID for acetamiprid does not contain a
complete ESA analysis that includes effects determinations for specific listed species or
designated critical habitat. Although the EPA has not yet completed effects determinations for
specific species or habitats, for this PID, the EPA's evaluation assumed, for all taxa of non-target
wildlife and plants, that listed species and designated critical habitats may be present in the
vicinity of the application of acetamiprid. This will allow the EPA to focus its future evaluations
on the types of species where the potential for effects exists once the scientific methods being
developed by the agencies have been fully vetted. Once that occurs, these methods will be
applied to subsequent analyses for acetamiprid as part of completing this registration review.
33
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
Appendix D: Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
As required by FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA reviews numerous studies to assess potential adverse
outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectively, these studies include acute, sub-chronic and
chronic toxicity, including assessments of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, developmental,
reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. These studies include endpoints which may be
susceptible to endocrine influence, including effects on endocrine target organ histopathology,
organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss,
and sex ratios in offspring. For ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and
chronic studies that assess growth, developmental and reproductive effects in different
taxonomic groups. As part of its most recent registration decision for acetamiprid, EPA reviewed
these data and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios from
the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), acetamiprid is
subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).
EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide
active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect
produced by a "naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator
may designate." The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making the statutorily required
determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a
chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal
systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to
interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA
will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2
testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine-related effects caused by the substance, and
establish a dose-response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect.
Under FFDCA section 408(p), the agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between October
2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call-ins for the first group of 67 chemicals,
which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. The agency has reviewed
all of the assay data received for the List 1 chemicals and the conclusions of those reviews are
available in the chemical-specific public dockets. A second list of chemicals identified for EDSP
screening was published on June 14, 20134 and includes some pesticides scheduled for
Registration Review and chemicals found in water. Neither of these lists should be construed as
a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors. Acetamiprid is not on either list. For further
information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the lists of chemicals, future
lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website.5
4 See fattp://www.regiitations.gov/#idoeumentDetait;D=EPA~HQ~OPPT~2009~0477~0074 for the final second list of
chemicals.
5 http://www.epa.gov/endo/
34
-------
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0329
www.regulations.gov
In this proposed interim decision, EPA is making no human health or environmental safety
findings associated with the EDSP screening of acetamiprid. Before completing this registration
review, the agency will make an EDSP FFDCA section 408(p) determination.
35
------- |