[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18842-18844]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7390]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0003: Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1239]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective,

will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of
those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before June 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1239, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
www.fema.gov/pdf/media/factsheets/2010/srp_fs.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Suwannee County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.bakeraecom.com/index.php/florida/suwannee/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Live Oak.......................  City Hall, 101 White Oak Avenue
                                          Southeast, Live Oak, FL 32064.
Unincorporated Areas of Suwannee County  Suwannee County Courthouse,
                                          County Coordinator's Office,
                                          200 Ohio Avenue, South Live
                                          Oak, FL 32064.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mason County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.bakeraecom.com/index.php/kentucky/mason/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Dover..........................  City Hall, 2060 Lucretia
                                          Street, Dover, KY 41034.
City of Maysville......................  City Hall, 216 Bridge Street,
                                          Maysville, KY 41056.
Unincorporated Areas of Mason County...  Maysville City Hall, 216 Bridge
                                          Street, Maysville, KY 41056.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Unincorporated Areas of Flathead County, Montana
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.bakeraecom.com/index.php/montana/flathead-county/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Flathead County  Flathead County Planning and
                                          Zoning Office, 1035 1st Avenue
                                          West, Kalispell, MT 59901.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Socorro County, New Mexico, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://rampp-team.com/nm.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Socorro........................  City Hall, 111 School of Mines
                                          Road, Socorro, NM 87801.
Navajo Nation..........................  Socorro County Annex Building,
                                          198 Neel Avenue, Socorro, NM
                                          87801.
Pueblo of Acoma........................  Realty and Natural Resources
                                          Offices, 33 A Pinsbaari Drive,
                                          Pueblo of Acoma, NM 87034.

Unincorporated Areas of Socorro County.  Socorro County Annex Building,
                                          198 Neel Avenue, Socorro, NM
                                          87801.
Village of Magdalena...................  City Hall, 108 North Main
                                          Street, Suite B Magdalena, NM
                                          87825.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Cowlitz County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.starr-team.com/starr/RegionalWorkspaces/RegionX/CowlitzMM/Preliminary%20Maps/Forms/AllItems.aspx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Castle Rock....................  City Hall, 141 A Street
                                          Southwest, Castle Rock, WA
                                          98611.
City of Kalama.........................  City Hall, 320 North 1st
                                          Street, Kalama, WA 98625.
City of Kelso..........................  City Hall, 203 South Pacific
                                          Avenue, Kelso, WA 98626.
City of Longview.......................  City Hall, 1525 Broadway
                                          Street, Longview, WA 98632.
City of Woodland.......................  Office of the Clerk/Treasurer,
                                          230 Davidson Avenue, Woodland,
                                          WA 98674.
Unincorporated Areas of Cowlitz County.  Cowlitz County Administration
                                          Building, 207 4th Avenue
                                          North, Kelso, WA 98626.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: March 13, 2012.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-7390 Filed 3-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: August 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 43833]
[DOCID:fr02au06-129]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54223; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section 902.02 of the Listed
Company Manual To Exempt Companies Transferring From NYSE Arca From
Initial Listing Fees and the Annual Fee for the Year of Such Transfer

July 26, 2006.
    On June 7, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Section 902.02 of its Listed Company
Manual to provide that there shall be no initial listing and no
prorated annual fee payable with respect to the first partial calendar
year of listing for any company listed on NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca'') that transfers the listing of its primary class of common
shares to the Exchange. The Commission published notice of the proposal
in the Federal Register on June 26, 2006.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54008 (June 16, 2006),
71 FR 36370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change and
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange \4\ and, in particular, the requirements
of Section 6 of the Act \5\ and the rules and regulations thereunder.
The Commission finds specifically that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Sections 6(b)(4) \6\ and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ which
require that an exchange have rules that provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members
and other persons using its facilities, and are designed to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and are not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between issuers. The Commission believes that the fee
waiver is reasonable, given the NYSE's representation that its review
of companies transferring from NYSE Arca to the Exchange will be less
costly than the review of a transfer from other self-regulatory
organizations. While the Commission understands that the Exchange will
rely on the baseline review of any NYSE Arca listed company performed
by NYSE Regulation, the Commission notes that the Exchange must conduct
a thorough regulatory review of companies transferring from NYSE Arca
to the Exchange to ensure that the Exchange can independently confirm
that such companies qualify for listing on the Exchange. The Commission
also believes the proposed waiver may enhance competition by making
NYSE Arca a more attractive listing venue and a viable alternative to
listing on Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
,\8\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2006-43) be, and it hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-12427 Filed 8-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17533]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07465]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17g-1, SEC File No. 270-208, OMB Control No. 3235-0213.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 17g-1 (17 CFR 270.17g-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (the ``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(g)) governs the fidelity bonding
of officers and employees of registered management investment companies
(``funds'') and their advisers. Rule 17g-1 requires, in part, the
following:

Independent Directors' Approval

    The form and amount of the fidelity bond must be approved by a
majority of the fund's independent directors at least once annually,
and the amount of any premium paid by the fund for any ``joint insured
bond,'' covering multiple funds or certain affiliates, must be approved
by a majority of the fund's independent directors.

Terms and Provisions of the Bond

    The amount of the bond may not be less than the minimum amounts of
coverage set forth in a schedule based on the fund's gross assets. The
bond must provide that it shall not be cancelled, terminated, or
modified except upon 60-days written notice to the affected party and
to the Commission. In the case of a joint insured bond, 60-days written
notice must also be given to each fund covered by the bond. A joint
insured bond must provide that the fidelity insurance company will
provide all funds covered by the bond with a copy of the agreement, a
copy of any claim on the bond, and notification of the terms of the
settlement of any claim prior to execution of that settlement. Finally,
a fund that is insured by a joint bond must enter into an agreement
with all other parties insured by the joint bond regarding recovery
under the bond.

Filings With the Commission

    Upon the execution of a fidelity bond or any amendment thereto, a
fund must file with the Commission within 10 days: (i) A copy of the
executed bond or any amendment to the bond, (ii) the independent
directors' resolution approving the bond, and (iii) a statement as to
the period for which premiums have been paid on the bond. In the case
of a joint insured bond, a fund must also file: (i) A statement showing
the amount the fund would have been required to maintain under the rule
if it were insured under a single insured bond; and (ii) the agreement
between the fund and all other insured parties regarding recovery under
the bond. A fund must also notify the Commission in writing within five
days of any claim or settlement on a claim under the fidelity bond.

Notices to Directors

    A fund must notify by registered mail each member of its board of
directors of: (i) Any cancellation, termination, or modification of the
fidelity bond at least 45 days prior to the effective date; and (ii)
the filing or settlement of any claim under the fidelity bond when
notification is filed with the Commission.
    Rule 17g-1's independent directors' annual review requirements,
fidelity bond content requirements, joint bond agreement requirement,
and the required notices to directors are designed to ensure the safety
of fund assets against losses due to the conduct of persons who may
obtain access to those assets. These requirements also seek to
facilitate oversight of a fund's fidelity bond. The rule's required
filings with the Commission are designed to assist the Commission in
monitoring funds' compliance with the fidelity bond requirements.
    Based on conversations with representatives in the fund industry,
the Commission staff estimates that for each of the estimated 3,319
active funds (respondents),\1\ the average annual paperwork burden
associated with rule 17g-1's requirements is two hours, one hour each
for a compliance attorney and the board of directors as a whole. The
time spent by a compliance attorney includes time spent filing reports
with the Commission for fidelity losses (if any) as well as paperwork
associated with any notices to directors, and managing any updates to
the bond and the joint agreement (if one exists). The time spent by the
board of directors as a whole includes any time spent initially
establishing the bond, as well as time spent on annual updates and
approvals. The Commission staff therefore estimates the total ongoing
paperwork burden hours per year for all funds required by rule 17g-1 to
be 6,638 hours (3,319 funds x 2 hours = 6,638 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Based on statistics compiled by Commission staff, we
estimate that there are approximately 3,319 funds that must comply
with the collections of information under rule 17g-1 and have made a
filing within the last 12 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. These estimates are not
derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study
of Commission rules. The collection of information required by rule
17g-1 is mandatory and will not be kept confidential. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control
number.
    Written comments are requested on: (i) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (ii) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden
of the collection of information; (iii) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collected; and (iv) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 27, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07465 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 							PC Code 	129009

			DP Barcode	D358869, D358875

Date                   July 24, 2009

MEMORANDUM

™ OPTIMUM® GAT® Corn and Soybeans

TO:			Vickie Walters, Risk Manager Reviewer

			James Tompkins, Product Manager 25

			Daniel Kenny, Chief

			Herbicide Branch

			Registration Division (7505P)

AND:			Douglas Dotson

Cristina Swartz, Chief

			Registration Action Branch II

			Health Effects Division (7509P)

FROM:		José L. Meléndez, Chemist

			Environmental Risk Branch V

			Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

APPROVED BY:	Mah T. Shamim, Branch Chief

			Environmental Risk Branch V

			Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

This memorandum presents the Tier 1 Estimated Drinking Waters Concentrations (EDWCs) for surface and ground waters for rimsulfuron, a pyrimidinyl sulfonylurea herbicide (CAS name: N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyr idinesulfonamide; CAS No. 122931-48-0), calculated using the Tier 1 aquatic models FIRST and SCI-GROW, for use in the human health risk assessment.  This Drinking Waters Assessment (DWA) is largely based on a previous DWA, dated February 6, 2007 (electronic copy is provided in Appendix B).  The EDWCs were calculated based on the maximum application rate of 0.0625 lb a.i./A/season (for citrus, pome and stone fruits, ground broadcast application, wetted in).  For rimsulfuron, the surface waters acute value is 5.596 ppb, and the cancer/ chronic value is 0.120 ppb.  The groundwater screening concentration is 0.016 ppb of rimsulfuron, which is suitable for acute and chronic (refer to Table 1).  EFED stresses the fact that this is a Tier 1 screening-level analysis and should there be the need, additional levels of refinements are possible.

Currently, rimsulfuron is used on a number of crops, including corn (maximum application rate for corn, 0.03125 lb a.i./A).  EFED evaluated the new uses for rimsulfuron on DUPONT™ OPTIMUM® GAT® herbicide tolerant corn and soybean for pre-emergence and post-emergence control of certain annual grass and broadleaf weeds.  The product name is RESOLVE™ SG Herbicide (water soluble granule, containing 25% a.i.).  It was noted that aerial applications are allowed for these uses and the maximum application rate is 0.0625 lb a.i./A for both crops (same than the previously assessed for citrus, pome and stone fruits).  It was evaluated if the new scenarios posed more exposure than previously assessed.  The results of a FIRST run showed lower EDWCs than the previously assessed scenarios (refer to Appendix A for the table of input parameters used, and a copy of the output file from FIRST).  Therefore, EFED relied on the results of the previous DWA for this assessment.  It appears that, because the pesticide is not wetted in and a specific PCA was used (for corn and soybeans, 0.83), the results were lower for the new scenarios.

None of rimsulfuron’s transformation products were included in this assessment.  Based on a HED’s March 29, 1994 memorandum, it was concluded that, “None of rimsulfuron’s metabolites warrant inclusion in tolerance regulation or separate regulation or inclusion in the dietary risk assessment” (refer to Attachment 1 of Appendix B).  Rimsulfuron shows significant levels of various transformation products that may persist in the environment and may contaminate surface or ground waters.

For information related to the environmental fate characteristics of rimsulfuron, mode of action, uncertainties, etc., please, refer to the previous DWA, provided in Appendix B.  For any questions related to this document, please, contact us in EFED.

Table 1. Maximum Tier I EDWCs for drinking water assessment based on ground application of rimsulfuron*

Use/Rate Modeled:      Fruit trees applied once, by ground sprayers, at a rate of 0.0625 lbs. a.i./A

Chemical	Maximum Surface water EDWC (ppb)	Maximum Ground water

Acute/Chronic EDWC (ppb)

	Acute Value	Chronic/Cancer Value

	Rimsulfuron Parent	5.596	0.120	0.016

* Degradates are not included as recommended by HED Metabolism Committee.  Please, refer to Appendix B for further details.

Appendix A.  FIRST Supplementary Run Inputs Parameter Table and Output File

Table A1.  FIRST input parameters for modeling drinking water EDWCs

Input Parameter	Value*	Reference

Application Rate (lb a.i./Acre)	0.0625 (One Application)	Maximum label rate/Minimum application intervals (Product Label)

Application Intervals (days)	Does not apply, 1 applic.

	Percent Crop Area	0.83	Corn and soybeans

Partition Coefficient “KOC” (L/Kg)	19	Lowest non-sand value (MRID 413563-36)

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days)	64	Determined by multiplying the available half-life by 3 to account for the uncertainty associated with using a single value  (21.3x3; MRID 413563-34)

Wetted In?	No	Product Label

Depth of Incorporation (inches)	0

	Method of Application	Aerial

	Solubility in Water (ppm)	7.3	MRIDs: 419316-02 and 413563-01.

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life (days)	The experiment was exposed to artificial light source thus the value was not used and hydrolysis half-live was entered.

Hydrolysis Half-life @ pH 7 (days)	7.2	Average value at pH 7 (MRID 413563-33)

Direct Aqueous Photolysis Half-life(days)	Stable	Half-lives in dark<irradiated samples (MRID 419316-08)

*   Fate data values are as per Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides; Version II, February 28, 2002.

Appendix A.  FIRST Supplementary Run Inputs Parameter Table and Output File (cont.)

FIRST Output Run:

   RUN No.   1 FOR Rimsulfuron      ON   Soy+Corn      * INPUT VALUES *

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

    RATE (#/AC)   No.APPS &   SOIL  SOLUBIL  APPL TYPE  %CROPPED INCORP

     ONE(MULT)    INTERVAL    Koc   (PPM )   (%DRIFT)     AREA    (IN)

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

  0.063(  0.062)   1   1      19.0    7.3   AERIAL(16.0)  83.0   0.0

   FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

   METABOLIC  DAYS UNTIL  HYDROLYSIS   PHOTOLYSIS   METABOLIC  COMBINED

    (FIELD)  RAIN/RUNOFF  (RESERVOIR)  (RES.-EFF)   (RESER.)   (RESER.)

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

     64.00        2           0.00    0.00-    0.00    7.20       7.20

   UNTREATED WATER CONC (MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Ver 1.1.1  MAR 26, 2008

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

        PEAK DAY  (ACUTE)      ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC)

          CONCENTRATION             CONCENTRATION

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

              5.138                      0.111

Appendix B.  Electronic Copy of Previous Drinking Waters Analysis

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                                                              OFFICE OF

                                                                               PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

                                                                                AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

PC Code No.:		129009

						DP Barcode: 		D 334221

Date:			February 6, 2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations of Parent Rimsulfuron for the Use in Human Health Risk Assessment.

TO:		James Tompkins, Risk Manager 25

		Vickie Walters, Risk Manager Reviewer

		John Redden, Team Leader, ARIA

		Registration Division (7505P)

AND:		Christina Swartz, Branch Chief

RAB2, HED (7509P)

FROM:	M. A. Ruhman, Agronomist, Environmental Fate Reviewer

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

THROUGH:	Mah T. Shamim, Ph.D., Chief

Environmental Risk Branch V

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This memo presents the Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for parent Rimsulfuron for use in an FQPA human health risk assessment.  It is noted that significant quantities of some of rimsulfuron transformation products/degradates may persist in the environment and may contaminate surface/ground water.  None of these transformation products/degradates are included in this risk assessment based on HED Metabolism Committee Memorandum dated March 29, 1994. The Committee concluded that “None of the rimsulfuron metabolites warrant inclusion in the tolerance regulation or separate regulation or inclusion in the dietary risk assessment” (Attachment No. 1).

App. B.  Electronic Copy of Previous Drinking Waters Analysis (cont.)

Rimsulfuron is selective/systemic pyrimidinyl sulfonylurea herbicide.  Rimsulfuron is a member of the sulfonylurea family  with a mode of action that inhibit acetolactate synthase ALS (ALS is also known as acetohydroxyacid synthase AHAS) (HRAC Group B). ALS or AHAS is a key enzyme in biosynthesis of certain amino acids in plants.  This herbicide is currently registered as pre/post emergence weeds control in field corn, potatoes, potatoes grown for seed, and field grown tomatoes.  The registrant is seeking new section 3 registration for new use on grapes, stone Fruit, tree nuts, pistachios, pome fruit, and citrus fruit. These proposed new uses for rimsulfuron may cause the chemical to reach surface and to a lesser extent groundwater under some conditions.

The screening level surface water and ground water estimates for rimsulfuron parent are calculated using tier 1 models of FIRST (version 1.0) and SCI-GROW (version 2.3), respectively.   The estimates are presented in Table 1 for surface/ground water.

Table 1. Maximum Tier I EDWCs for drinking water assessment based on ground application of rimsulfuron*

Full chemical name:  N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyr idine sulfonamide

CAS No.:                     122931-48-0

PC Code:                     129009

Use/Rate Modeled:      Fruit trees applied once, by ground sprayers, at a rate of 0.0625 lbs. a.i./A

Chemical	Maximum Surface water EDWC (ppb)	Maximum Ground water

Acute/Chronic EDWC (ppb)

	Acute Value	Chronic/Cancer Value

	Rimsulfuron Parent	5.596	0.120	0.016

* Degradates are not included as recommended by HED Metabolism Committee.

The above stated values for parent rimsulfuron represent upper-bound estimates of concentrations that might be found in surface water and groundwater due to the propose new use of the chemical on grapes, stone Fruit, tree nuts, pistachios, pome fruit, and citrus fruit using one application at the maximum yearly rate (worst case scenario).  EFED emphasizes that this is a tier 1 screening-level analysis, and should there be a need, by HED, additional refinements can be made. It is noted that this assessment supersedes earlier assessment entitled “Preliminary Drinking Water Exposure Assessment” Dated 02/25, 1998. In this referenced assessment older models and parameter guidance were used.

Only one aerobic soil study was submitted and in order to be protective it was necessary to multiply this half-life by 3 before use in modeling.  The geographic extent of use warrant the submission of new aerobic soil studies using soils representing new/current use areas.  Uncertainties in representation of the default half-life may result in conservative EDWCs.

App. B.  Electronic Copy of Previous Drinking Waters Analysis (cont.)

II. PROBLEM FORMULATION

This is a Tier I drinking water assessment that uses modeling (no monitoring data is available) to estimate the surface and ground water concentrations of pesticides in drinking water source water (pre-treatment) resulting from pesticide use on sites that are highly vulnerable.  This initial tier screens out chemicals with low potential risk and provides estimated exposure concentrations for human health dietary risk assessment.

III. ANALYSIS

(1) Use Characterization

Rimsulfuron herbicide formulation (DPX-E9636 FNV Dry Flowable) contains 25.0% of the active ingredient is proposed to be applied, by injection through sprinkler irrigation or by ground equipment only. For ground application, the herbicide is applied as a uniform broadcast to orchard or vineyard floor or as a uniform band at the base of the trunk or vine.  The best results can be obtained from this systematic pre/early post emergence herbicide by applying to cool soils and by moisture activation within 2-3 weeks of application. Activation can be achieved by rainfall or overhead irrigation of a minimum of ½ to 1 inch.  The herbicide is recommended for use on vigor and healthy trees that have been established for two full growing seasons.  One single application of 4 ounces of product in 10 gallons of <4 or >8 pH buffered water/acre/year is recommended for either the broadcast or the band treatments.  The chemical may be applied twice (maximum 4 ounces) on 50% or less band along the base of the trees with a minimum of 30-day intervals. It is claimed to control susceptible weeds over a period of 60 to 90 days.

The maximum label rates for the proposed new uses are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Rimsulfuron use patterns (Maximum rates/number and minimum intervals are included).

Crop	Spray Type	Target	Application: Maximum Rate/Number and Minimum Interval

	Rate (lb a.i./Acre)	Number	Interval (days)

Citrus/Pome/Stone Fruits, Tree nuts, and Grapes

	Ground

Broadcast injection through sprinkler

Whole Soil Surface	0.0625	1	Not applicable

	Ground

Broadcast Banded

	A soil surface band through base of trees

	0.0625	1

0.03125 *	2	30

* Assuming that each application= half of the yearly application

(2) Environmental Fate/Transport Characterization

Table 1 (Attachment No. 2) contains a detailed summary of the physical/chemical and environmental fate/transport properties of rimsulfuron. Hereunder, is a summary of various parameters that relates to its predicted behavior in various compartments of the

App. B.  Electronic Copy of Previous Drinking Waters Analysis (cont.)

environment and possible contamination of surface/ground water.

(a) Environmental Persistence/Mobility

Rimsulfuron has a low vapor pressure (1.447 x10-11 atms. at 25 oC) and is highly soluble in water (solubility 7.3 ppm at 20 oC).  Based on submitted environmental fate studies, the chemical is short lived in aqueous systems (mainly affected by hydrolysis with hydrolysis half-lives ranging from 5-7 days in acidic/neutral conditions and <1day in alkaline conditions). Also the chemical is short-lived in aerobic/anaerobic soil systems (t1/2= 19-21 days determined for only one soil, shorter half-lives were determined under field conditions: t1/2= 5 to 18 days).  Rimsulfuron appears not to be affected by aqueous/on soil photolysis.

Adsorption/desorption were studied using four soils with varied texture and organic matter contents (clay content= 4-30% and organic carbon content= 0.6-2.5%). The observed partitioning coefficient Koc ranged from 19-74 L Kg-1 suggesting that rimsulfuron may be highly mobile and vulnerable to run-off and leaching.  Therefore, the chemical may reach surface and ground water resources.

(b) Environmental Metabolites and their Persistence/Mobility

Rimsulfuron is expected to transform/degrade into a number of transformation/ degradation products under different environmental conditions (Figure 1, Attachment No. 3).  The three major degradates for rimsulfuron result from contraction or cleavage or the sulfonurea-bridge (IN-70941 and IN-70942 from contraction while IN-J9260 from cleavage).  In contrast, the minor degradates are cleavage degradates (IN-J9260 in systems other than aerobic soil, IN-J290 and IN-T5831). A summary of the degradation profiles in various laboratory systems is included in Table 3.

Table 3. Transformation/degradation profiles of rimsulfuron in various systems.

Degradate

Name 	Max Degradate Concentration in % of applied  and (Time in Days to Max Concentration; Does it Decline Y/N)

	Hydrolysis @ pH7	Aerobic Soil	Anaerobic Soil	Other Studies

IN-70941	17%

(3 days; Y to 1%)	55%

(10 days; Y to 30%)	32%

(10 days; Y to 6%)	H2OPhotolysis: Similar to hydrolysis with reduction in transformation of IN-70941 into IN-70942 and/or increase in the degradation of IN-70942. Plus enhanced formation of IN-J920 and IN-E9260

Aerobic Aquatic Data: May not represent the natural environment as the system was exposed to light

TFD (Terrestrial Field Dissipation) Data: None Identified possibly due to inappropriate LOD/LOQ (limits of detection/quantification)

IN-70942	84%

(30 days; N)	30%

(360 days; N)	56%

(360 days; N)

	IN-E9290	10%

(30 days; N)	19%

(30 days; Y to 16%)	23%

(360 days; N)

	IN-J290	7%

(14 days; Y to 6%)	3%

(30 days; Y to 1%)	8%

(28 days; Y to 6%)

	App. B.  Electronic Copy of Previous Drinking Waters Analysis (cont.)

Degradate

Name 	Max Degradate Concentration in % of applied  and (Time in Days to Max Concentration; Does it Decline Y/N)

	Hydrolysis @ pH7	Aerobic Soil	Anaerobic Soil	Other Studies

IN-T5831	None

Only Minor @ pH 5	1%

(270 days, Y to <1%)	1%

(360 days, N)

Mobility of the transformation products/degradates were checked by TLC (thin layer chromatography) and results indicate high mobility to IN-E9260 and high to medium mobility for IN-70941, IN-70942 and IN-J290. Solubility was reported for only IN-70941 and IN-70942 and was 0.7 ppm for the first and 0.2 ppm for the second. Considering quantities formed and relative persistent, the three rimsulfuron degradates are expected to reach both surface and ground water at varied concentrations.  The time-line for this event is expected to be as follows: IN-79041 at the short to medium-term (because it transforms into IN-70942), IN-70942/IN-E9290/In-J290 at the medium to long-term. Finally, IN-70942 is expected to be the terminal and persistent degradate.

(3) Drinking Water Exposure Modeling

(a) Models

Surface and ground water EECs for drinking water (EDWCs) for rimsulfuron were obtained by modeling using tier 1 FIRST (version 1.0) and SCIGROW (version 2.3) simulated models, respectively.

FIRST (FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool) is a meta-model of PRZM and EXAMS used as a screening tool to estimate pesticide concentrations found in surface water used as drinking water. FIRST was developed by making multiple runs of PRZM using varying sorption coefficients and determining the concentration in the EXAMS index reservoir scenario after a two-inch single storm event. (The Index Reservoir is a standard water body used by the Office of Pesticide Programs to assess drinking water exposure (Office of Pesticide Programs, 2002). It is based on a real reservoir (albeit not currently in active use as a drinking water supply), Shipman City Lake in Illinois, that is known to be vulnerable to pesticide contamination.) The single runoff event moves a maximum of 8% of the applied pesticide into the reservoir (FIRST Users Manual; 08/01/2001).

SCIGROW (Screening Concentration in Ground Water) is a regression model used as a screening tool to estimate pesticide concentrations found in ground water used as drinking water. SCIGROW was developed by fitting a linear model to groundwater concentrations with the Relative Index of Leaching Potential (RILP) as the independent variable. Groundwater concentrations were taken from 90-day average high concentrations from Prospective Ground Water studies; the RILP is a function of aerobic soil metabolism and the soil-water partition coefficient. The output of SCIGROW represents the concentrations that might be expected in shallow unconfined aquifers under sandy soils, which is representative of the ground water most vulnerable to pesticide contamination likely to serve as a drinking water source ( SCIGROW: Users

App. B.  Electronic Copy of Previous Drinking Waters Analysis (cont.)

Manual (11/01/2001, revised 08/23/2002).

If drinking water levels of concern are exceeded for Tier I surface water EDWCs, Tier II modeling will be able to refine these EDWCs by including volatility, Henry’s Law, diffusion in air, and enthalpy considerations. Since SCIGROW is a regression model developed from actual pesticide data with a range of volatilities, systematic conclusions cannot be drawn about over or underestimation of groundwater EDWCs at Tier I.

(b) Modeling Approach and Input Parameters

Input values used in FIRST modeling were based on the label and fate/transport parameters and are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. FIRST input parameters for modeling drinking water EDWCs.

Input Parameter	Value*	Reference

Application Rate (lb a.i./Acre)	0.0625 (One Application)

0.0313 (Two Application)	Maximum label rate/Minimum application intervals (Product Label)

Application Intervals (days)	30

	Percent Crop Area	0.87	Fruit trees

Partition Coefficient “Koc” (L Kg-1)	19	Lowest non-sand value (MRID 413563-36)

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days)	64	One half-life x 3 (21.3x3; MRID 413563-34)

Wetted In?	Yes	Product Label

Depth of Incorporation (inches)	0

	Method of Application	Ground**

	Solubility in Water (ppm)	7.3	MRIDs: 419316-02 and 413563-01; Using water solubility of 7,300 ppm have not affected the results.

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life (days)	The experiment was exposed to artificial light source thus the value was not used and hydrolysis half-live was entered.

Hydrolysis Half-life @ pH 7 (days)	7.2	Average value at pH 7 (MRID 413563-33)

Direct Aqueous Photolysis Half-life(days)	Stable	Half-lives in dark<irradiated samples (MRID 419316-08)

*   Fate data values are as per Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides; Version II February 28, 2002.

** The label permits application through the Sprinkler Irrigation Systems (reason for choosing ground application is stated in the text)

Modeling was simulated for applying the pesticide once or twice as stated in the label. The results, for two applications, were lower compared to one application possibly due to degradation within the 30-day interval between applications (Table 5).  For reference, sample runs are included in Attachment No. 4.

App. B.  Electronic Copy of Previous Drinking Waters Analysis (cont.)

Table 5. Modeled EDWCs of rimsulfuron in surface water.

Application Procedure/Time Line	Peak Day (Acute; ppb)              Annual Average (Chronic; ppb)

Once (applied only one time)	5.596	0.120

Twice (divided in half with 30-day interval)	4.786	0.103

Although higher drift might be associated with sprinkler irrigation, ground application was chosen for the simulation as the EDWCs were more conservative.  This was confirmed by running the model with drift value of up to 16% (aerial application) which gave lower EDWCs (i.e. less conservative values).  The reason for such results is associated with the how concentrations are calculated by the model combined by the fact that this chemical has low affinity to soil particles resulting in higher importance of run-off than drift. As shown in Table 6, the model calculates lower amounts of the pesticide pool available for run-off in aerial compared to ground spray (amount of 2.114 lbs compared to 2.028 lbs). Although, the model calculates higher amount of drift for aerial compared to ground (0.130 lbs for aerial compared to 0.052 lbs for ground), these amounts are only 3-6% of the pesticide run-off pool.

Table 6. Rimsulfuron: Amount of run-off and drift pools as calculated by FIRST.

Pesticide Pools	Ground spray	Aerial spray.	Bases for the calculation

Run-off	2.114 lbs

(427 x 0.0625*x 0.08

x 0.99)	2.028 lbs

(427 x 0.0625*x 0.08

x 0.95)	8% of the total mass of pesticide applied to 427 acres watershed with application efficiency of 99% for ground and 95% for aerial.

Drift	0.052 lbs

(13 x 0.0625*

x 0.064)	0.130 lbs

(13 x 0.0625*

x 0.16)	Fraction of the rate of the amount applied to 13 acres water body with drift values of 6.4% for ground and 16% for aerial.

* The value of 0.0625 = application rate which is equal to 0.0625 lb a.i./Acre.

Input values used in SCI-GROW modeling were based on the label and fate/transport parameters summarized in Table7.

Table 7. SCI-GROW input parameters for modeling drinking water from ground water (EDWCs).

Input Parameter	Value	Reference

Application Rate (lb a.i./Acre)	0.0625	Maximum Yearly Application rate (Product Label)

Maximum Number of Applications/Year	1

	Partition Coefficient “Koc” (L Kg-1)	55	Median of 4 values (<3 fold variations in Kocs (MRID 413563-36)

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days)	21.3	One half-life (MRID 413563-34)

A summary of the results is included in Table 8. For reference, a sample run is included

App. B.  Electronic Copy of Previous Drinking Waters Analysis (cont.)

in Attachment No. 4.

Table 8. Summary of outputs from SCI-GROW for rimsulfuron.

Application Procedure/Time Line	Acute and Chronic Values (ppb)

Once (applied only one time)	0.0158

Twice (divided in half with 30-day interval)	0.0158

IV. MONITORING DATA

Although this pesticide is currently registered for use, no monitoring data was found or submitted.

V. DRINKING WATER TREATMENT

No data were submitted for drinking water treatment effects. However, water treatment may include water softening which generally increase the pH.  This pesticide is expected to hydrolyze at much faster rates in alkaline systems (half-life of 4-11 hours at pH 9 compared to 5-7 days at pHs 5 and 7).  Therefore, enhanced degradation is expected as result of water treatment raising the potential for lower EDWCs in treated water compared to the modeled raw water.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

For surface water, only one aerobic soil half-life was available, EDWCs were calculated based on a default half-life value that is three times longer.  Therefore, EDWCs could therefore be conservative. The registrant may submit additional aerobic soil studies to represent the range of texture and organic matter for soils in the expanded use areas.

For ground water: only one aerobic soil half-life was available and used.  Resultant EDWCs could therefore be underestimated because of the use of single aerobic soil half-life.

App. B.  Electronic Copy of Previous Drinking Waters Analysis (cont.)

ATTACHMENT No. 1:

App. B.  Electronic Copy of Previous Drinking Waters Analysis (cont.)

App. B.  Electronic Copy of Previous Drinking Waters Analysis (cont.)

App. B.  Electronic Copy of Previous Drinking Waters Analysis (cont.)

ATTACHMENT No. 2:

Table 1.  The physical/chemical and environmental fate/transport properties of rimsulfuron: a detailed summary.

Parameter	Value	Source

I. Physical/chemical properties

Classification	Pyrimidinyl Sulfonylurea	Registrant Data and the Web 1

Molecular Formula	C14H17N5O7S2

	PC Code	129009

	Chemical Name (IUPAC) 1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)-3-(3-ethylsulfonyl-2-pyridylsulfonyl)ure a

	Chemical Name (CAS) N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyr idine sulfonamide

	CAS Number	122931-48-0	MRIDs:

419316-02

413563-01

Molecular Weight	431.44

	pKa	4

	H20 Solubility (ppm)	7.3 @ pH 7/25 oC 2

	Vapor pressure (25oC)	1.1x10-8 torr Equal to 1.447x10-11 atms.

	Henry's Law Constant	1.40x10-12 atms. m 3 . mole -1 (Calculated)

	Octanol/Water Partition, Kow	1 @ pH7 and 87 @ pH 5 (log KOW 0.034 @ pH7 &1.94 @ pH 5)

	II. environmental fate/transport properties

Hydrolysis	t½= 4.5- 4.7days @ 25 oC, pH 5; 7.1- 7.3days @ 25 oC, pH 7; 4.2- 10.9Hours @ 25 oC, pH 9.	MRID:

413563-33

Photolysis in water

at pH 7	Half-lives in irradiated samples (11.0-12.4 days) were longer than the dark controls (6.4-6.5 days) indicating that Direct photolysis is NOT an important degradation pathway.	MRID:

419316-08

Photolysis on soil	Half-lives in irradiated/dark control samples were in the range of 11-12 days indicating that photolysis on soil is NOT an important degradation pathway.	MRID:

419316-09

Aerobic soil metabolism	t½ = 21.3 days for two labels (R2= 0.87-0.94) MRID:

413563-34

Anaerobic soil metabolism	t½ = 17.9-18.1 days for two labels (R2= 0.91-0.99) 	MRID:

413563-35

Aerobic aquatic metabolism	t½ =0.5-2 Days at 25 oC in the water column; t½ = 59-77 Days at 5 oC in the water column.

Important Note: Calculated half-lives may NOT represent an aerobic aquatic system because of exposure to light and use of diluted sediment. 	MRID:

432885-02

Adsorption/Desorption

(Kd and Koc in L Kg-1)	Kd =  0.23; 1.36; 0.32 and 1.52 corresponding to:

Koc= 19; 55; Koc= 55; and 61	MRIDs:

413563-36

413563-37

Terrestrial Field/Lysimeter Dissipation 3	t½  (average in the top 0-3” of four soils): 5-18 Days 	MRIDs:

419316-06

419316-10

1 URL:   HYPERLINK "http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/text-search.tcl?query_string =Rimsulfuron"  http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/text-search.tcl?query_string= Rimsulfuron

2 Solubility was reported to be 10 ppm, elsewhere; URL:  HYPERLINK "http://www.eu-footprint.org/ppdb.html"  http://www.eu-footprint.org/ppdb.html

3 The terrestrial field dissipation study for a soil in Newark, Delaware submitted under MRID 419316-10 was classified as unacceptable study.

App. B.  Electronic Copy of Previous Drinking Waters Analysis (cont.)

ATTACHMENT No. 3:

Figure 1: Expected degradation scheme for rimsulfuron in the important compartments of the environment.

App. B.  Electronic Copy of Previous Drinking Waters Analysis (cont.)

ATTACHMENT No. 4: Example Model Runs

A. Surface Water:

RUN No. 1 FOR rimsulfuron      ON   fruit tree    * INPUT VALUES *

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

    RATE (#/AC)   No.APPS &   SOIL  SOLUBIL  APPL TYPE  %CROPPED INCORP

     ONE(MULT)    INTERVAL    Koc   (PPM )   (%DRIFT)     AREA    (IN)

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

   .063(   .063)   1   1      19.0    7.3   GROUND( 6.4)  87.0    .0

   FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

   METABOLIC  DAYS UNTIL  HYDROLYSIS   PHOTOLYSIS   METABOLIC  COMBINED

    (FIELD)  RAIN/RUNOFF  (RESERVOIR)  (RES.-EFF)   (RESER.)   (RESER.)

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

     64.00        0           7.20     .00-     .00     .00       7.20

   UNTREATED WATER CONC (MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Ver 1.1.0 DEC 12, 2005

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

        PEAK DAY  (ACUTE)      ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC)

          CONCENTRATION             CONCENTRATION

  --------------------------------------------------------------------

              5.596                       .120

  --------------------------------------------------------------------

 RUN No. 2 FOR rimsulfuron      ON   fruit tree    * INPUT VALUES *

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

    RATE (#/AC)   No.APPS &   SOIL  SOLUBIL  APPL TYPE  %CROPPED INCORP

     ONE(MULT)    INTERVAL    Koc   (PPM )   (%DRIFT)     AREA    (IN)

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

   .031(   .054)   2  30      19.0    7.3   GROUND( 6.4)  87.0    .0

   FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

   METABOLIC  DAYS UNTIL  HYDROLYSIS   PHOTOLYSIS   METABOLIC  COMBINED

    (FIELD)  RAIN/RUNOFF  (RESERVOIR)  (RES.-EFF)   (RESER.)   (RESER.)

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

     64.00        0           7.20     .00-     .00     .00       7.20

   UNTREATED WATER CONC (MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Ver 1.1.0 DEC 12, 2005

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

        PEAK DAY  (ACUTE)      ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC)

          CONCENTRATION             CONCENTRATION

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

              4.786                       .103

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

App. B.  Electronic Copy of Previous Drinking Waters Analysis (cont.)

B. Ground Water:

SCIGROW

VERSION 2.3

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION

OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SCREENING MODEL

FOR AQUATIC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE

SciGrow version 2.3

Chemical: Rimsulfuron

Time is 1/12/2007   9:20:20

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------

Application      Number of       Total Use      Koc               Soil Aerobic

rate (lb/acre)    applications     (lb/acre/yr)    (ml/g)         metabolism (days)

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------

      0.063               1.0                 0.063       5.50E+01                 21.3

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------

Groundwater screening concentration (ppb) =   1.58E-02

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------

 URL:   HYPERLINK "http://www.alanwood.net/pesticides/"  http://www.alanwood.net/pesticides/

 URL:   HYPERLINK "http://www.plantprotection.org/hrac/Bindex.cfm?doc=moa2002.htm"  http://www.plantprotection.org/hrac/Bindex.cfm?doc=moa2002.htm

 It was not clear if the reported solubility was 7.3 or 7,300 ppm; therefore the solubility of 7.3 ppm was assumed to be the correct solubility as values reported elsewhere were near the 7.3 value (for example, The solubility was reported to be 10 ppm in the EU database).

  PAGE   1

  PAGE

  PAGE   3

Pyridine Ring

Pyrimidine Ring

Sulfonylurea Bridge

Parent Rimsulfuron

@

‚

„

°

Þ

-

2

>

@

€

‚

„

Œ

’

°

Ü

h?3

h?3

%Ü

ä

(

Ü

Ý

  h?3

h?3

h?3

h?3

%

(

ô

愀Ĥ摧殿

瑹䒒/

愀Ĥ摧䒒/

愀Ĥ摧殿

愀Ĥ摧殿

愀Ĥ摧殿

˜þš

㓿ۖĀ̊N曾Ĵ瑹䒒/

＀㓿ۖĀ̊N曾Ĵ瑹䒒/

㐀ۖĀ̊N曾Ĵ瑹䒒/

hN

hN

hN

@

“

a$gd

$

@

“

a$gdN

hN

hN

hN

hN

hN

ô

gdN

kd

hN

hN

hN

hN

gdN

	”

hN

\

ꀀ将

ꀀ将

gdN

ꀀ将

hN

hN

hN

hN

hN

hN

hN

hN

hN

hN

hN

\

耀将

␃愁Ĥ摧⁎

hN

hN

hN

hN

愀Ĥ摧㔅¢

瑹㔅¢

愀Ĥ摧㔅¢

˜þš

˜þš

˜þš

˜þš

㓿ۖĀ̊N曾Ĵ瑹㔅¢

＀㓿ۖĀ̊N曾Ĵ瑹㔅¢

gdN

˜þš

hN

hN

hN

È

È

愀Ĥ摧㔅¢

愀Ĥ摧㔅¢

hN

hN

hN

hN

␃愁Ĥ摧⁎

hN

␃愁Ĥ摧⁎

h

h

hN

hN

hN

hN

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

j

摧㔅¢Ѐ,摧⁎

 hN

, (MINOR                       in all systems, Except as indicated)

Sulfonurea-Brigde Contraction (MAJOR       in all systems)

MAJOR in Aerobic Soil Only

IN-J290: Pyrimidine Amine

IN-E9260: Pyridine Sulfonamide

IN-70941

IN-70942

IN-T5831: Pyrimidinyl Urea