UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

MEMORANDUM  	                           			DP Barcodes: DP334029,
P334030, 					 			DP332756, DP333122, DP333123, DP333124,
DP333125, DP333126, DP330568,
DP330569

PC Code: 129099

								April 13, 2007

SUBJECT:	New Use Drinking Water Assessment for Imidacloprid on Peanuts,
Soybeans and IR-4 Registration for Crop Group 13A: Caneberries

TO:		Jennifer R. Tyler

RAB1 (7509P)

Health Effects Division

		Barbara Madden, Risk manager Reviewer

		RIMUERB (7505P)

		Registration Division

FROM:	Ronald D. Parker, Ph.D. Senior Environmental Engineer

ERB5 (7507P)

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

THRU:	Mah Shamim, Branch Chief

ERB5 (7507)

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. This memo summarizes estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) for new uses of Imidacloprid insecticide on
peanuts and soybeans and on IR-4 Crop Group 13A (Caneberries). Exposure
concentration values for all crops were calculated with the FQPA Index
Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) which is described below. New ground
water concentration values were not estimated because they have been
shown previously to be substantially lower in magnitude than the surface
water concentrations. See Imidacloprid: Tier I Drinking Water EECs for
Use in the Human Health Risk Assessment”, February 25, 2003, from
Michael Barrett (EFED) to Jennifer Tyler (HED) attached to this memo as
Appendix B.

Calculated EDWCs for these new Imidacloprid uses do not exceed
concentrations for crops evaluated previously and therefore overall
result of this exposure assessment is unchanged. Assessment results are
as follows in Table 1.

Table 1. Drinking Water EDWCs for  Peanuts, Soybeans and Caneberries (CG
13)

Models Used	Maximum  Percent Cropped Area (PCA)	1/10 Peak (Acute) (ppb)
1/10 Annual (Chronic non-cancer) (ppb)	Avg Annual

(Chronic cancer) (ppb)

FIRST	Peanuts (0.87)	9.2	4.0	4.0

FIRST	Soybeans (0.41)	4.6	2.0	2.0

FIRST	Caneberries (0.87)	35.0	15.3	15.3

The previous highest acute value was 36.0 (range: 35.4 to 36.0) for
Imidacloprid usage on citrus. The previous highest chronic value was
17.2 (range: 16.5 to 17.2) also for usage on citrus.

A summary of the input parameter values used in the modeling for this
assessment is presented in Table 2 below. The output file for FIRST is
attached in Appendix 1.

PROBLEM FORMULATION

This assessment uses environmental fate and transport computer
simulation modeling to estimate possible human exposure to pesticide in
drinking water which might occur as a result of Imidacloprid application
to the assessed crops. There are a number of possible routes of exposure
by which applied pesticide might reach a drinking water source. A
schematic diagram of possible routes of exposure is presented in Figure
1 below. The main routes are through pesticide runoff to surface waters
or leaching to ground waters which might serve as a source of supply for
a public or private drinking water facility.

For human health exposure assessments undertaken for FQPA, EFED has
developed an “index agricultural watershed-drinking water reservoir”
or “index reservoir” scenario. The concept behind use of a model of
an “index” reservoir to screen pesticides, is that the chosen
reservoir – and its associated characteristics – would become the
standard set of conditions by which EPA would judge the potential of a
pesticide to contaminate drinking water derived from surface water.  The
“index” reservoir was selected from a group of reservoirs that
provide drinking water to communities throughout the country.  EPA
selected the particular reservoir because it had characteristics
associated with a higher potential for pesticide contamination of
surface water. Because the “index” reservoir has characteristics
that are associated with a higher potential for pesticide contamination
of surface water, the model is likely to be protective of other drinking
water sources which are less vulnerable to contamination. The reservoir
simulated is a small drinking water reservoir located in Shipman,
Illinios. Shipman City Lake is 13 acres in area, 9 feet deep, and has a
watershed area of 427 acres. The “index agricultural
watershed-drinking water reservoir” configuration is moved to
simulation sites which are consistent with the growth of the crop being
assessed. The fields associated with the reservoir are designed as
“high-exposure” soil-weather combinations with the goal of
representing a site worse that 90% of the area on which the crop is
grown. True relative vulnerability of the site vis-à-vis the sites
which were not developed for modeling is not known.

Figure 1. Possible routes of human exposure to pesticide through
drinking water.

Background Information on FIRST Fate and Transport Model:

FIRST is a screening-level computer model designed to estimate the
pesticide concentrations found in water for use in drinking water
assessments. It provides high-end values on the concentrations that
might be found in a small drinking water reservoir due to the use of
pesticide. Like GENEEC, the model previously used for Tier I screening
level, FIRST is a single-event model (one run-off event), but can
account for spray drift from multiple applications.  FIRST uses a
Drinking Water Reservoir instead of a pond as the standard scenario. The
FIRST scenario includes a 427 acres field immediately adjacent to a 13
acres reservoir, 9 feet deep, with continuous flow (two turnovers per
year). The pond receives a spray drift event from each application plus
one runoff event. The runoff event moves a maximum of 8% of the applied
pesticide into the pond. This amount can be reduced due to degradation
on field and the effect of binding to soil. Spray drift is equal to 6.4%
of the applied concentration from the ground spray application and 16%
for aerial applications.

FIRST also makes adjustments for the percent crop area. While FIRST
assumes that the entire watershed would not be treated, the use of a PCA
is still a screen because it represents the highest percentage of crop
cover of any large watershed in the US, and it assumes that the entire
crop is being treated. Various other conservative assumptions of FIRST
include the use of a small drinking water reservoir surrounded by a
runoff-prone watershed, the use of the maximum use rate, no buffer zone,
and a single large rainfall. Lower tiers of assessment such as this one
are designed to screen out chemicals with low potential risk and allows
OPP to focus resources on more refined risk assessments for chemicals
that potentially present more significant risks.

It is recognized that most watersheds large enough to support a
community drinking water system (CWS) are not entirely planted in only
one crop. The modeling system, therefore, has developed a method to
consider a maximum percent cropped area (PCA) factor to account for this
fact. Maximum national PCA values are used for each of the crops in this
assessment. PCA values are developed for four major crops based upon
national crop maps. A PCA of 0.87 represents the maximum area of all
other crops in there respective watershed.

Exposure Assessment Methodology

A single simulation site is designed to represent the risk of
Imidacloprid usage throughout the national growing area of the crop.
Figure 2 represents the assessment area for soybeans and Figure 3
represents this assessment area for peanuts.

Peanuts and Soybeans

The exposure assessment for peanuts and soybeans is based in the
screening-level FIRST model. Calculated EDWCs for these new Imidacloprid
uses do not exceed concentrations for crops evaluated previously and
therefore overall result of this exposure assessment is unchanged. For
this reason a higher tier assessment was not required. A tier 1
assessment such as this, may over-estimate concentrations routinely
found in the environment, but are unlikely to under-estimate
environmental values.

New ground water concentration values were not estimated because they
have been shown previously to be substantially lower in magnitude than
the surface water concentrations. See Imidacloprid: Tier I Drinking
Water EECs for Use in the Human Health Risk Assessment”, February 25,
2003, from Michael Barrett (EFED) to Jennifer Tyler (HED) attached to
this memo as Appendix B.

Figure 2. Peanut Assessment Area (Census of Agriculture, 2002)

Figure 3. Peanut Assessment Area (Census of Agriculture, 2002)

Crop Group 13A (Caneberrries)

This exposure assessment also includes application on IR-4 Crop Group
(Caneberries). This group includes the following crops:

1).  Amur River grape, Vitis amurensis Rupr (Vitaceae)

2).  Aronia berry, Aronia spp. (Rosaceae)

3).  Bayberry, Myrica spp. (Myricaceae)

4).  Bearberry, Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng (Ericaceae)

5).  Bilberry, Vaccinium myrtillus L. (Ericaceae)

6).  Blackberries, Rubus spp. (Rosaceae)

7).  Blueberry, Vaccinium spp. (Ericaceae)

8).  Blueberry, Lowbush, Vaccinium angustifolium Aiton (Ericaceae)

9).  Buffalo Currant, Ribes aureum Pursh. (Grossulariaceae)

10). Buffaloberry, Shepherdia argentea (Pursh) Nutt.(Eleagnaceae)

11). Che, Cudrania tricuspidata Bur. ex Lavallee (Moraceae)

12). Chilean guava, Myrtus ugni Mol. (Myrtaceae)

13). Chinese Egg Gooseberry, Actinidia rubricallus Dunn (Actinidiaceae)

14). Chokecherry, Prunus virginiana L. (Rosaceae)

15). Cloudberry, Rubus chamaemorus L. (Rosaceae)

16). Cranberry, Vaccinium macrocarpon Aiton (Ericaceae)

17). Currant, Black, Ribes nigrum L. [Grossulariaceae (Saxifragaceae)],
and Currant, Red, Ribes rubrum L. (syn: R. sativum (Rchb.) Syme)
[Grossulariaceae (Saxifragaceae)]

18). Elderberry, Sambucus spp. (Caprifoliaceae)

19). European Barberry, Berberis vulgaris L. (Berberidaceae)

20). Gooseberry, Ribes spp. [Grossulariaceae (Saxifragaceae)]

21). Grape, Vitis spp. (Vitaceae)

22). Highbush cranberry, Viburnum opulus L. var. Americanum Aiton
(Caprifoliaceae)

23). Honeysuckle, Lonicera caerula L. var. emphyllocalyx Nakai
(Caprifoliaceae)

24). Huckleberry, Gaylussacia spp. (Ericaceae)

25). Jostaberry, Ribes x nidigrolaria Rud. Bauer & A. Bauer.
[Grossulariaceae (Saxifragaceae)]

26). Juneberry (including Saskatoon Berry), Amelanchier spp. (Rosaceae)

27). Kiwifruit, fuzzy, Actinidia deliciosa (A. Chev.) C.F. Liang & A.R.
Ferguson (Actinidaceae)

28). Kiwifruit, hardy, Actinidia arguta (Siebold & Zucc.) Planch. Ex Miq
(Actinidaceae)

29). Lingonberry, Vaccinium vitis-idaea L. (Ericaceae)

30). Maypop, Passiflora incarnata L. (Passifloraceae)

31). Mountain Pepper Berries, Tasmannia lanceolata (Poir.) A.C.
Sm.(Winteraceae)

32). Mulberry, Morus spp. (Moraceae)

33). Muntries, Kunzea pomifera F. Muell. (Myrtaceae)

34). Native Currant, Acrotriche depressa R. Br. (Epacridaceae)

35). Partridgeberry, Mitchella repens L. (Rubiaceae)

36). Phalsa, Grewia subinaequalis DC. (Tiliaceae)

37). Pincherry, Prunus pensylvanica L. f. (Rosaceae)

38). Raspberries, Rubus spp. (Rosaceae)

39). Riberry, Syzygium luehmannii (Myrtaceae)

40). Salal, Gaultheria shallon Pursh (Ericaceae)

41)  Schisandra berry (Schisandra chinensis (Turcz.) Baill.
(Schisandraceae)

42). Sea Buckthorn, Hippophae rhamnoides L. (Eleagnaceae)

43). Serviceberry, Sorbus spp. (Rosaceae)

44). Strawberry, Fragaria x ananassa Duchesne, (Rosaceae)

45). Wild raspberry, Rubus muelleri Lefevre ex P.J. Mull (Rosaceae)

Approximately two-thirds of US blackberry/raspberry production occurs in
the states of Washington and Oregon, but 33 other states also report
some production.  Harvest data from 2002 is presented in Figure 1 and 2.

Figure 4.  Map of Blackberry Harvested Acres.

Figure 5.  Map of the Raspberry Harvested Acres.

2005 - BLACKBERRIES (   HYPERLINK
"http://www.oregon-berries.com/cx6/Worldwide_Production_of_Blackberries_
Strik_3-2006_acres.pdf_"
http://www.oregon-berries.com/cx6/Worldwide_Production_of_Blackberries_S
trik_3-2006_acres.pdf  )

USA =           11,905 acres

Oregon =       7,755 acres

California =          700 acres

Texas =          680 acres

Arkansas =          600 acres

Georgia =          315 acres

North Carolina =     125 to 250 acres

Ohio =               125 to 250 acres

Virginia =          125 to 250 acres

Washington =          125 to 250 acres

Another 26 states reported from 5 to 125 acres of blackberries.

Strik, B.C. et al., 2006

Crop and State Acreage Harvested (
www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/op/azinphos/bead_ Caneberry 1.pdf )

Raspberries, Washington =      9,500 acres

Raspberries, Oregon =           4,100

Raspberries, California =      1,800

Blackberries, Oregon =          5,850

Source: Oregon Ag. Stat. Service, 2000.

ANALYSIS

Environmental Fate Summary

Imidacloprid is stable to hydrolysis, and typically persists for many
months in soil.  However, imidacloprid appears to be more rapidly
transformed under anaerobic conditions and appears to be particularly
photolabile in pure, clear shallow water. Given that imidacloprid is
mobile, and likely to be highly persistent in the subsurface, it may
leach to ground water (results of the prospective ground-water
monitoring studies confirm this).  Imidacloprid may also pose a
contamination hazard to surface waters via runoff, and may be especially
persistent in surface water with high turbidity.

The environmental fate for imidacloprid is as follows (See Appendix D
for further details):

Water solubility (200C) = 580 ppm

Hydrolysis (pH 5 and 7) = stable

Hydrolysis (pH 9) = 355 days

Photolysis half-life, distilled water = 0.2 days

Photolysis half-life,soil = 39 (estimates from the single study range
from 39 to 171 days)

Aerobic soil metabolism half-life = 359 (188 to 660 days, 4 soils
including 1 in U.S.)

Anaerobic Aquatic = 27 days

Freundlich adsorption coefficient between 0.96 to 4.76

Soil leaching (Koc) = 178 (132 to 256) ml/g

Field dissipation half-life (0 to 3-inch depth) = 107 to >>365 days (5
sites)

EFED concludes that the available data on Imidacloprid show that the
compound is mobile and persistent, has potential to leach to ground
water, and also presents concerns for transport to surface water by
runoff.  No direct environmental fate studies have been conducted for
the degradates {several of which retain the
(pyridinyl)methyl-imidazoli-amine backbone of the imidacloprid
molecule}, including the following: 1)  imidacloprid guanidine,
1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-2-imidazolidinimine {Alias NTN 38014,
NTN 33823};  2)  imidacloprid olefin,
1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridin1yl)methyl]-1,3-dihydro-2H-imidazol-2-imine; and
3)  imidacloprid urea,
1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-2-imidazolidinone.{NTN 33519}. Please
refer to the Table 2 for modeling input parameters. See Appendix C for
chemical structures of these degradates.

Use Characterization

Table 1 is a summary of all new agricultural use patterns for
Imidacloprid. The use information was obtained from the current labels
for products containing Imidacloprid.

Table 4a. IR-4 Application to Caneberries (Crop Group 13A)

Formulation

(% active ingredient)	Number Appls

(Min Interval)	Application Rate

fluid oz (lbs) / acre	Max Per Season fluid oz (lbs) / acre	Pre-Harvest
Interval (days)

Admire® 2 Flowable

(21.4%)	1-2 (not given)	16.0-32.0 (0.25-0.50)	32.0 (0.50)	7

PROVADO® 1.6 Flowable (17.4%)	3 (7)	8.0 (0.10)	24.0 (0.30)	3

PROVADO® 70 WG

(70%)	3 (7)	2.3 (0.10)	6.9 (0.30)	3

PROVADO® PRO

(16.5%)	3 (7)	8.0 (0.10)	24.0 (0.30)	3

GAUCHO® 550 SC

(42.8%)	1-2 (not given)	7.0-14.0 (0.25-0.50)	14.0 (0.50)	7

Table 4b. Application to Soybeans

Formulation

(% active ingredient)	Number Appls

(Min Interval)	Application Rate -

fluid oz (lbs) / acre	Max Per Season - fluid oz (lbs) / acre	Pre-Harvest
Interval (days)

ENCORE

(40.7%)	3 (7)	1.50 (0.047)	4.50 (0.14)	7

TRIMAXTM PRO

(40.7%)	3 (7)	1.35 (0.047)	4.05 (0.14)	7

Table 4c. Application to Peanuts (only)

Formulation

(% active ingredient)	Number Appls

(Min Interval)	Application Rate -

fluid oz (lbs) / acre	Max Per Season - fluid oz (lbs) / acre	Pre-Harvest
Interval (days)

PROVADO® PRO

(16.5%)	3 (5)	3.5 (0.044)	10.5 (0.13)	14

GAUCHO® 75 ST

(seed treatment only)	1 (N/A)	0.67-1.33 fl oz /cwt

N/A

Table 4d. IR-4 Application to Peanuts, Proso millet, pearl millet, kava,
oats, artichoke

Formulation

(% active ingredient)	Number Appls

(Min Interval)	Application Rate -

fluid oz (lbs) / acre	Max Per Season - fluid oz (lbs) / acre	Pre-Harvest
Interval (days)

Admire® 2 Flowable

(21.4%)	1 (peanuts)

1-2 (artichoke)

1 (kava)	16.0-24.0(0.25-0.38)

16.0-32.0(0.25-0.50)

10.0-24.0(0.16-0.38)	24.0 (0.38) 32.0 (0.50)

24.0 (0.38)	14

7

21

PROVADO® 1.6 Flowable (17.4%)	3 (5) (peanuts)

4(14) (artichoke) 3(5) (kava)	3.5 (0.044)

4.0-10.0 (0.05-0.10)

3.5 (0.044)	10.5 (0.13)

40.0 (0.50)

10.5 (0.13)	14

7

7

PROVADO® 70 WG

(70%)	3 (5) (peanuts)

4(14) (artichoke) 3(5) (kava)	1.0 (0.044)

1.1-2.9 (0.05-0.10)

1.0 (0.044)	3.0 (0.13)

11.5 (0.50)

3.0 (0.13)	14

7

7

GAUCHO® 480 Flowable (40.7%)

(seed treatment only)	(millet)

(barley)

(oats)	8.0 fl oz/cwt

1.0-3.0 fl oz/cwt

1.0-3.0 fl oz/cwt

GAUCHO® 550 SC

(42.8%)	1 (peanuts)

1-2 (artichoke)

1 (kava)	7.0-10.5(0.25-0.38)

7.0-14.0(0.25-0.50)

4.4-10.5(0.16-0.38)	10.5 (0.38) 14.0 (0.50)

10.5 (0.38)	14

7

21

GAUCHO® 600 Flowable (48.7%)

(seed treatment only)	(oats, barley, millet)

	8.0 fl oz/cwt

GAUCHO® 600 SC

(48.7%)	1 (peanut)         1-2 (artichoke)

1 (kava)	6.4-9.6 (0.26-0.38)

6.4-12.8  (0.25-0.50)

6.4-9.6 (0.26-0.38)	9.6 (0.38)

12.8 (0.50)

9.6 (0.38)	14

7

21

Table 2. FIRST Input Parameters for Imidacloprid New Uses.

Parameter

Input

Source

Solubility (ppm)

580

Product chemistry submissions

Hydrolysis t1/2 @ pH 7 (days)

Stable

MRID 42055337

Aerobic soil t1/2 (days)

520	MRIDs 452393-01, 02, 42073501; 90% upper bound confidence limit of
mean

Aerobic aquatic t1/2 (days)

1040	2x the aerobic soil input value, per EFED guidance document

Photolysis t1/2 in water (days)	39	Input guidance & MRIDs 42256376;
42256377

Organic carbon partition coefficient - Koc (mL/g)

178

MRIDs 425208-01 and 420553-38

Application rates (lb a.i./Acre)

0.5	Label maximum rate for Tree Nuts

(Crop Group 14)

Applications / year

1	Label maximum rate for Tree Nuts

(Crop Group 14)

Application spacing

N/A	Label maximum rate for Tree Nuts

(Crop Group 14)

Table 1. Drinking Water EDWCs for  Peanuts and Soybeans

Concentration Duration	Crop (PCA)	1/10 Peak (Acute)	1/10 Annual (Chronic
non-cancer)		Avg Annual

(Cancer)

Conc. (ppb)	Peanuts (0.87)	9.2		4.0	4.0

Concentration Duration	Crop (PCA)	1/10 Peak (Acute)	1/10 Annual (Chronic
non-cancer)		Avg Annual

(Cancer)

Conc. (ppb)	Soybeans (0.41)	4.6	2.0	2.0

Appendix 1a. FIRST Results for Caneberries, Peanuts and Soybeans

   RUN No.   1 FOR Imidacloprid     ON   Caneberry     * INPUT VALUES *

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

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

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

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

   .500(   .500)   1   1     178.0  580.0   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.)

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

    520.00        2          N/A     39.00- 4836.00   1040.0    855.93

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

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

        PEAK DAY  (ACUTE)      ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC)

          CONCENTRATION             CONCENTRATION

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

15.287

 RUN No.   1 FOR Imidacloprid     ON   Peanuts       * INPUT VALUES *

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

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

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

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

   .044(   .131)   3   5     178.0  580.0   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.)

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

    520.00        2          N/A     39.00- 4836.00   1040.0    855.93

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

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

        PEAK DAY  (ACUTE)      ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC)

          CONCENTRATION             CONCENTRATION

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

              9.189                      4.010

   RUN No.   2 FOR Imidacloprid     ON   Soybeans      * INPUT VALUES *

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

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

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

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

   .047(   .140)   3   7     178.0  580.0   GROUND( 6.4)  41.0    .0

   FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

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

   METABOLIC  DAYS UNTIL  HYDROLYSIS   PHOTOLYSIS   METABOLIC  COMBINED

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

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

    520.00        2          N/A     39.00- 4836.00   1040.0    855.93

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

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

        PEAK DAY  (ACUTE)      ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC)

          CONCENTRATION             CONCENTRATION

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

              4.614                      2.013

Appendix B. February 2003 Imidacloprid Drinking Water Assessment

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

PC Code: 129099

DP BARCODES:D271770, D271825, D278761, D285742, D286723, D285499

MEMORANDUM					February 25, 2003

SUBJECT:	Imidacloprid: Tier I Drinking Water EECs for Use in the Human
Health Risk Assessment.

TO:		Jennifer R. Tyler

RAB1/HED (7509C)

FROM:	Michael R. Barrett, Ph.D. Chemist

ERB5/EFED (7507C)

THRU:	Mah Shamim, Branch Chief

ERB5/EFED (7507C)

This memo summarizes the Tier I estimated environmental concentrations
(EECs) for imidacloprid total residues in surface water and in ground
water for use in the human health risk assessments.  The EECs are
summarized in Table 1 (Tier 1 EECs for parent imidacloprid alone are
also provided for comparison).  EFED used the simulation model FIRST to
calculate the surface water EECs and used the regression model SCI-GROW
to calculate the ground water EEC.  Insufficient ground and surface
water monitoring data are available to fully assess exposure from
monitoring data.  Modeling output and chemical structures of
imidacloprid and its degradates are provided in Attachments 1 and 2,
respectively.

For the surface water and ground water assessments the citrus use was
modeled, which has the highest overall seasonal application rate
(modeled as two applications of 0.25 lb ai/A at a 14-day interval, this
gives the highest EECs for any use with the tier I models).  A summary
of the model input parameter values used in FIRST is presented in Table
2.  A summary of the model input parameter values used in SCI-GROW is
presented in Table 3.

Updated modeling was performed using the FIRST model (previous modeling
was performed with GENEEC, which has been replaced with FIRST for
drinking water exposure assessments by EFED).  In the absence of
definitive data on the persistence and mobility of the important
degradates (imidacloprid urea, imidacloprid guanidine, and imidacloprid
olefin) the total residues were modeled using tentatively identified
total residue data from aerobic soil metabolism studies and then
assuming that the partitioning of all residues was at the same degree as
imidacloprid parent.  Each of these assumptions is conservative in terms
of tending to result in overestimate of exposure except for with respect
to the partioning of imidacloprid urea, which, from published studies,
appears to be more mobile than the parent compound. A tendency to
underestimate imidacloprid urea with this procedure should not
significantly affect the total residue Estimated Environmental
Concentration (EEC) calculations in this review because the extent of
formation of imidacloprid urea in soil metabolism studies was small and
the levels of the urea degradate found to leach in field studies were
also small.

Background on Imidacloprid Total Residue Modeling Inputs.  For inputs
related to persistence of imidacloprid total residues, the sum of all
compounds of interest was subject to first-order regression modeling in
the same fashion as is typically done for parent compounds alone in
EFED.  In some cases the registrant did not unambiguously identify the
residues chromatographed from soil extracts, in these cases, the peaks
containing the degradates were summed with the realization that some of
the peaks could, in addition to the compounds of interest,  contain some
amount of degradates other than imidacloprid urea, imidacloprid olefin,
or imidacloprid guanidine.

Information on imidacloprid degradate soil mobility is found in both
guideline studies submitted and the published literature.  One study on
soil adsorption / desorption for the imidacloprid guanidine degradate
has been received from the registrant (MRID 42520802); Koc values ranged
from 327 to 942 g/ml in five soils indicating significantly less
mobility than for imidacloprid parent.  In published studies (not
officially submitted to EPA) investigators found that the relative
mobility of imidacloprid and certain degradates was imid. urea >
imidacloprid > imid. olefin >= imid. guanidine  Separate studies with
the degradates on persistence and mobility (especially from aerobic soil
metabolism and batch equilibrium adsorption / desorption studies)
submitted to OPP under Subdivision N (Environmental Fate study)
guidelines would be needed to more accurately model the total residues,
especially should higher tier assessments be needed in the future.  The
current assessment is sufficiently conservative for a Tier 1 assessment
since the assumptions for the parent alone already estimate near-maximum
surface water exposure (as demonstrated by the small differences in the
exposure levels between the parent only and total residue EECs in Table
1).  The very high persistence of imidacloprid in the environment is the
primary reason that only a small increase in EECs results from adding
degradates in this Tier 1 assessment.

Table 1.  Estimated Tier 1 concentrations of imidacloprid in drinking
water.

Chemical

	       Surface Water (ug/L)

 Groundwater (ug/L)

Acute

Chronic

Acute and Chronic

Imidacloprid parent

35.28 to 35.89

2.18 to 16.52

1.43

Imidacloprid total residues

35.42 to 36.04

2.20 to 17.24

2.09

Table 2.  FIRST input parameters (pesticide specific) for imidacloprid
total residues: citrus modeling scenario.

Parameter

Input

Source

Solubility (ppm)

580

Product chemistry submissions.

Hydrolysis Half-Life (pH 7) (days)

0

MRID 42055337

Aerobic soil t1/2 (days)

1016

MRIDs 452393-01, 02, 42073501; 90% upper bound confidence limit of mean

Aerobic aquatic t1/2 (days)

2031

2x the aerobic soil input value, per EFED guidance document

Photolysis t1/2 in water (days)

0.2 to 391

Input guidance & MRIDs 42256376; 42256377

Organic carbon partition coefficient - Koc (mL/g)

162

MRIDs 425208-01 and 420553-38

Application rate (lb a.i./Acre)

0.25

Label -max. rate for citrus (foliar application)

# applications/year

2

Label maximum for citrus

Table 3.  SCI-GROW input parameters for Imidacloprid.

Parameter

Input

Source

Aerobic soil metabolism t1/2 (days)

483

MRIDs 452393-01, 02, & 03; 42073501; mean value

Koc (mL/g)

172

MRIDs 425208-01 and 420553-38

Application rate (lb a.i./Acre)

0.5

Label -max. rate for citrus

Review of Degradate Monitoring Data:

Degradate exposure was assessed both through monitoring data (for ground
water sources only) and modeling (both ground and surface water).  In
ground water sampled from two small-scale Prospective Ground-Water (PGW)
Monitoring study sites, the degradates imidacloprid urea, imidacloprid
guanidine, and imidacloprid guanidine olefin were all a very minor
component of the detected residues.  However, it is important to
understand that total residues detected were almost always less than 0.5
ppb (ug/L) and usually less than 0.1 ppb whereas the minimum detection
limit for imidacloprid and each of its degradates was 0.03 ppb.  The
implication of this is that theoretically, degradation products, if they
were present at slightly less than 0.03 ppb would be the dominant
residues present in many samples.

At the Michigan study site, imidacloprid urea was the most commonly
detected degradate in soil pore water, but generally much less
frequently than parent imidacloprid (Table 2).  In ground water
imidacloprid parent was consistently detected in one of six monitoring
well clusters in the treated field beginning about 500 days after
application and continuing through the close of the study some 5 years
after application.  No degradation products were detected in ground
water during this period (there were a very few detections before
application that may have been due to previous uses nearby or sample
contamination).  The maximum concentration of imidacloprid parent
detected in ground water in any one sample at the Michigan study site
was 0.24 ppb.

Table 4.  Percentage of quantified residues present as degradation
products at representative days after imidacloprid treatment in soil
pore water at a 9-foot depth: Prospective ground-water monitoring study
in Montcalm County, Michigan (1996 to 2001).

Days after Treatment

Lys. ID

446

747

1126

1605

L1	nd	0.0%	21.4%	0.0%

L2	nd	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

L3	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

L4	nd	nd	nd	nd

L5	nd	nd	0.0%	0.0%

L6	nd	0.0%	nd	nd

A second PGW study was conducted in Monterrey County, California.  This
study is inadequate to fully address the leaching potential of
imidacloprid because very little ground-water recharge occurring during
the course of the study as evidenced by the almost complete lack of
detection of the bromide tracer (applied concurrently with imidacloprid)
in ground water.  The limited number of detections in soil pore water
and ground water indicated that imidacloprid urea may contribute to the
total residue that leached at the California site.  No imidacloprid
guanidine or imidacloprid olefin was found in any groundwater sample.
Imidacloprid urea was detected in seven groundwater samples at a maximum
concentration of 0.05 ppb (just over the method detection limit of 0.04
ppb).  The maximum combined imidacloprid, imidacloprid-guanidine,
imidacloprid olefin, and imidacloprid-urea residue found in the suction
lysimeters was 0.62 ppb at 633 days post application.  The maximum
combined imidacloprid residue in the ground water at the California site
was 0.14 ppb found 149 days post application.

Important input parameter used in running the FIRST and SCI-GROW models
are provided in Tables 3 and 4.  Modeling output and chemical structures
of imidacloprid and its degradates are provided in Attachments 1 and 2,
respectively.

   RUN No.   3 FOR Imidacloprid Total Residues  ** INPUT VALUES **

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

    APP RATE   APPS/   TOTAL/     SOIL   AEROBIC SOIL METAB

    (LBS/AC)   YEAR    SEASON     KOC     HALFLIFE (DAYS)

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

       .250      2       .500      172.0     483.00

   GROUND-WATER SCREENING CONCENTRATION (IN UG/L - PPB)

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

                           2.090082

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

APPENDIX C: Imidacloprid and Degradates Mentioned in this Memorandum

Appendix D: Environmental Fate and Transport

a. Degradation

Hydrolysis of Imidacloprid (161-1)–Imidacloprid was stable to
hydrolysis in pH 5 and 7 buffer solutions, and slowly degraded at pH 9
with an extrapolated half-life of 355 days (MRID 42055337; EFGWB review
nos. 92-0210, 92-0196).  No degradation products accumulated
significantly during the course of the study.

Photolysis in water (161-2) - The only environmental fate study in which
extensive degradation occurred within a period of hours or a few days
was the aqueous photolyis study (MRID 42256376; EFGWB reviews
no.92-0847, 92-1039, and 92-1042).  The possibility of rapid photolysis
has some obvious implications for surface water exposure, but should not
be assumed to universally occur in surface waters because there is not
supporting evidence from surface water monitoring studies, the
photolytic rate can be substantially different from distilled water in
natural waters, and the amount of pesticide actually exposed to sunlight
can be quite low in many surface waters.

Imidacloprid degraded with an "environmental" half-life of 4.2 hours
(0.2 days) in pH 7 buffer solutions maintained at 24 C.  The 50% and 75%
disappearance times were approximately 1 and 2 hours, respectively.

Residue analysis.  Thin-layer chromatography (TLC) in multiple solvent
systems and radiometric detection (exposure of TLC plates to X-ray film)
was used to confirm the identity of imidacloprid and two degradation
products.  In addition, residues were also determined with reverse phase
high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).  A linear analyzer was
used to quantify residues eluted on TLC plates.   Imidacloprid guanidine
was the most prominent degradate, accumulating to 17% of the applied
imidacloprid at the last sampling interval 2 hours after treatment.  The
only other degradation product that was identified was imidacloprid
urea, which constituted 10% of the applied material 2 hours
posttreatment.  No effort was made to carry the experiment on to follow
the degradation of imidacloprid more completely, and other degradation
products were not identified.  Two other separated, but unidentified
photodegradation products reach maximum levels of 13% and 8% of the
applied imidacloprid when the experiment was terminated after 2 hours of
irradiation.`

The initial concentration of imidacloprid was 5.4 mg/l (5400 ppb) in
sterile, buffered solution. The study was conducted with a Xenon lamp
rather than natural sunlight (the study summary mentions that "under
natural sunlight 60% of the compound were [sic] degraded after 4 hours",
but a detailed description of the natural sunlight experiment was not
provided).  The light intensity of the lamp was 8.9 to 9.5 uW/cm2
compared to 4.1 to 5.3 uW/cm2 for "sunlight intensity on bright days" at
the Yuki Institute in Japan, where the experiment was apparently
conducted.  Imidacloprid was shown to be more stable in sterile solution
kept in the dark, but the last sample was taken only after two hours.

This study failed to identify most of the residues by two hours after
application, and also failed to demonstrate the long-term stability of
imidacloprid in the dark control.  Although the stability of
imidacloprid at pH 7 in solution has been demonstrated in a separate
hydrolysis study, this should have been confirmed in the exact same
solution that was used for the photolysis study.  A further limitation
was that the long-term stability of imidacloprid degradation products to
photolysis was not evaluated.

Photolysis on soil (161-3) – Imidacloprid degraded with a
registrant-calculated second-order half-life of 39 days (calculated
environmental half-life of 171 days). Two experiments were run, one  for
5 and the other for 15 days.  At the end of the 15 days, imidacloprid
parent accounted for 81.6% of the applied radioactivity; consequently an
accurate estimate of the degradation rate under the conditions of this
test is not possible.

Aerobic soil metabolism (162-1) – Imidacloprid degraded in a Kansas
sandy loam soil (series name or classification unknown; MRID 421073501)
with a half life well over 1 year (the duration of the study),
extrapolation of the data with assumption of continued decay at a
first-order rate results in a calculated half-life of 660 days (Table
E-1).  In contrast, in three European soils (MRID 452393), the
first-order half-lives were calculated to be 248, 341, and 188 days.
The mean first-order half-life was 359 days (90% upper bound confidence
value of 520 days); however there appeared to be greater persistence
during the latter part of these studies than predicted by a simple
first-order model.  These studies were conducted at 20 C (except 22 C
for the Kansas soil), persistence might have been lower at 25 C, the
temperature of most laboratory soil metabolism studies.

Under aerobic conditions no specific compound has been identified as
accumulating to 10% or more of the applied in soil or water.  The lack
of identification of major degradates was a factor of both the limited
transformation of parent compound over the duration of these studies and
the failure to identify the nature of much of the residues.

Anaerobic soil metabolism (162-2) - No anaerobic soil metabolism study
has been conducted; however, an anaerobic aquatic soil metabolism study
was conducted in lieu of this study.

Anaerobic aquatic soil metabolism (162-2) - Imidacloprid degradation was
evaluated in a water / sediment mixture (obtained from a pond in
Stilwell, Kansas) (MRID 42256378).Characteristics of the sediment were:
silt loam textural class (14% sand, 58% silt, 28% clay), 3.2% organic
matter, pH 6.9.  The pond water was not characterized.  The study was
conducted with 500 ml pond water and 100 g of sediment in flasks under
unspecified conditions; imidacloprid was added to the overall system at
a concentration of 0.56 ppm (presumably part per million by weight). The
incubation flasks were purged with nitrogen and the maintenance of
anaerobic conditions was documented with periodic measurement of redox
potential, pH, and oxygen concentration.  Imidacloprod degraded with a
first order anaerobic half-life of 27 days over the 358-day
post-application incubation period.   Under the anaerobic conditions of
this study, imidacloprid underwent a nitro-reduction reaction to the
degradate imidacloprid guanidine, a compound which accumulated to 66% of
applied 249 days after application of parent imidacloprid.  Imidacloprid
guanidine appears to be extremely persistent under anaerobic conditions;
residues of this degradate still represented 64% (50% in the sediment
and 14% in the water) of the applied imidacloprid at the last sampling
date of 358 days posttreatment. Virtually no mineralization of
imidacloprid occurred, evolved carbon dioxide represented less than 0.2%
of the applied imidacloprid.

b. Mobility

Mobility/Adsorption/Desorption (163-1) -Based on two sets of batch
equilibrium studies (MRID 420553-38 - American soils; and M in a total
of eight soils (four American and four German), parent imidacloprid is
moderately mobile with Freundlich adsorption coefficients ranging
between 0.96 and 4.76.  Soil organic carbon partition coefficients (Koc)
values did not vary greatly, the range for eight soils was 132 to 256
ml/g (161 to 239 for the four American soils) with an average Koc of
178.  Results for the American and German soil studies are given in
Tables E-2 and E-3, respectively.  Several articles reflecting further
research on imidacloprid sorption in soil have since been published in
the open literature, which provide insight into topics such as the
increased sorption observed with time and also with lower initial
concentrations of imidacloprid in soil water.  Sorption coefficients
measured in published studies are generally in the same range as the
registrant-submitted studies, at least over the short-term (Oi, 1999,
Cox et al. 1998).

In addition to the above-mentioned studies, an aged soil column leaching
study with imidacloprid parent (MRID 420553-39) and an adsorption /
desorption study with imidacloprid guanidine (MRID 425208-02) have been
completed.  In the imidacloprid guanidine study the same four American
soils were studied as with the parent compound (compare Table E-4 with
Table E-2). The degradate was more strongly adsorbed than parent
imidacloprid in all four of the test soils.

Prospective ground-water studies.

Prospective ground-water studies have been conducted at two locations
and in both cases the predominant compound detected in soil, soil-pore
water throughout the vadose zone, and in ground-water (when detectable)
was parent imidacloprid.  Of the three degradates analyzed for
(imidacloprid guanidine, olefin, and urea derivatives) only imidacloprid
urea leached at concentrations that were frequently detectable (minimum
detection limit of 0.02 ug/L).

There is a possibility that exposure to these degradates could be
significant. Therefore, it is important that either specific analytical
methods for the degradates or some sort of total residue method for
residues in water and soil samples should be developed and made publicly
available (specific methods would be required for any degradate
identified as being of toxicological concern).

c. Accumulation

Accumulation in Laboratory Fish (165-4)  This data requirement has been
waived.  Octanol/water partitioning (Kow) data provided by the
registrant implies a low potential to bioaccumulate (Kow for
imidacloprid = 3.7 @21 C).

d. Field Dissipation

Terrestrial field dissipation (164-1). Terrestrial field dissipation
studies have been submitted from Georgia (loamy sand, bareground),
Minnesota (sandy loam, planted to corn), California (sandy loam, planted
to tomatoes), Minnesota (loam, turf plot), and a Georgia loamy sand
(turf plot) (Table E-5).  The dissipation half-lives (based on analyses
of 0-6 inch soil cores only) ranged from 107 days to much greater than 1
year (no significant dissipation over the one year of the study at three
of the sites).  In each of these studies a single or broadcast
application at 0.5 lb ai/A was made.

e. Special Field Studies

Small-Scale Prospective Ground-Water Monitoring Studies (164-1).

The registrant is currently conducting two small-scale Prospective
Ground Water Monitoring studies: one each in Montcalm County, Michigan
and Monterey County, California.  In both studies, the registrant is
monitoring for imidacloprid parent, imdacloprid guanidine, imdiacloprid
olefin, and imidacloprid urea in the vadose zone and in shallow ground
water.

In the California study (located near Salinas, Monterey County)
imidacloprid was applied at 0.45 lb ai/A within the planting furrow
(broccoli crop) in July 1996.  At this site, more leaching of
imidacloprid residues has been found to occur in the "control" plot than
in the treated area.  The registrant believes the imidacloprid found in
control plot samples is from four foliar applications of imidacloprid in
1995 and 1996. Although it appears that sufficient irrigation water has
been applied at this site to facilitate some ground-water recharge,
interpretation of this study is complicated by the relative
insensitivity of the analytical method for the conservative tracer
(bromide) to be used to confirm this.  In fact, there have been only a
handful of detections of bromide in the first 3+ years of sampling of
ground water, providing no definitive evidence that sufficient water has
been applied at the site for any pesticide residues to reach ground
water.  Our conclusion therefore is, that even though there have only
been three detections of imidacloprid in ground water (at 0.09, 0.10 and
0.14 ppb; the method has a claimed ability to quantitate imidacloprid at
0.01 ppb in water samples although apparently only detections above 0.05
ppb have been reported), there still could be substantial potential for
imidacloprid to leach to ground water following application to irrigated
vegetable or fruit crops in California (if sufficient water is added and
time allowed for the aquifer to be recharged with water from the surface
postttreatment).  Additionally, we note that all three of the
imidacloprid degradates were detected leaching through the vadose zone
and there were also a few detections of imidacloprid urea in ground
water at the California study site.

In the Michigan study (located near Vestaburg, Montcalm County)
imidacloprid was applied at 0.34 lb ai/A by an unspecified method
(potato crop) May 31, 1996.  Imidacloprid has been found to be leaching
at a variable rate and concentration in all six of the lysimeter
clusters with residues so far having occasionally exceeded 1 ppb at 12
feet, the lowest depth sampled (Figure 2).  Residues in ground water so
far are somewhat lower, reaching up to 0.24 ppb (Figure 3).  This study
is ongoing, and it appears there may be a potential for higher residue
levels to be detected.  Note that the Tier 1 screening model
concentration of 1.4 ppb is higher than residues observed in
ground-water but lower than the concentration observed in the deepest
soil pore-water (12-foot depth) at the Michigan study site.  Complete
breakthrough into ground water had not yet clearly been observed;
consequently it is possible that higher concentrations of imidacloprid
in ground water could still be observed.   Consistent with this is that
residues in the deepest soil-pore water and in groundwater were
increasing in most lysimeter and well clusters at some point during the
last year of sampling (there has been a marked seasonal fluctuation in
concentrations in imidacloprid in soil pore-water).

f. Other (non-registrant) Ground-Water Monitoring

Recently, EPA has received several reports summarizing monitoring of
ground water that is vulnerable to contamination in New York state
(primarily Long Island).  For imidacloprid, there have been about 27
detections of imidacloprid above a detection limit of 0.2 ppb in about
5000 ground water samples taken by the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services, to date, with much of the monitoring targeted to areas
with known histories of imidacloprid use and previously documented
ground-water contamination issues.  Overall, imidacloprid detections are
rare in drinking water wells.  Three wells had detections above the
model-predicted maximum of 1.4 ppb.  After closer investigation,
however, EPA has concluded that those three wells are not reliable
indicators of imidacloprid values that can be expected in groundwater
from agricultural use of imidacloprid.  The first of these wells is a
private well in Mattituck, Long Island in which imidacloprid was found
at a level of 6.69 ppb.  An investigation by the New York authorities,
however, concluded that these high levels were due to misuse of the
pesticide in a greenhouse adjacent to the well where imidacloprid
contaminated water was drained onto the ground in the immediate vicinity
of the well.  The second well was one of five shallow monitoring wells
installed directly down gradient from imidacloprid use sites for the
purpose of monitoring pesticide levels.  One of those wells, "Jamesport
B-2", showed levels of imidacloprid as high as 2.06 ppb.  It was
discovered, however, that this well was in all likelihood contaminated
as a result of a manmade sump nearby that was constructed to alleviate
ponding in the field and directly connected surface water to ground
water.  Imidacloprid was detected in only one of the other five wells,
and the level of imidacloprid detected in the other well did not exceed
0.24 ppb.  Finally, imidacloprid has been detected in shallow ground
water wells directly downgradient from a site investigating use of tree
injection treatments of imidacloprid.  The highest level of imidacloprid
found in these wells was 3.9 ppb.  These wells, however, are not
representative of wells used to supply ground water for drinking water.
The wells were screened at extremely shallow depths (screens beginning
only 4 to 10 feet from surface) due to the fact that the depth to ground
water averaged about five feet.  It was concluded by the researchers
(EFED makes no comment on this at this time without further
investigation ourselves) that these wells are "no more representative of
what would likely occur in drinking water supplies than pesticide
concentrations in samples taken from a weir draining an agricultural
field are representative of what would occur in a community water supply
drawing from a river or reservoir downstream."

stored as NCPnutIRAM1.out

Chemical: Imidacloprid

PRZM environment: NCpeanutC.txt	modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at
15:12:46

EXAMS environment: ir298.exv	modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 14:34:12

Metfile: w13737.dvf	modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 08:06:30

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year	Peak	96 hr	21 Day	60 Day	90 Day	Yearly

1961	8.1	7.953	7.367	6.508	5.93	2.519

1962	3.863	3.827	3.696	3.464	3.194	1.713

1963	11.14	10.92	10.15	8.586	7.616	3.199

1964	2.483	2.439	2.265	2.063	1.878	1.353

1965	2.228	2.188	2.028	1.732	1.583	0.8783

1966	4.888	4.831	4.669	4.236	3.88	1.76

1967	2.51	2.482	2.437	2.155	1.951	1.026

1968	3.475	3.412	3.159	2.73	2.437	1.171

1969	3.227	3.168	2.956	2.748	2.535	1.238

1970	3.921	3.871	3.614	3.088	3.035	1.609

1971	2.678	2.654	2.582	2.304	2.088	1.095

1972	2.966	2.913	2.725	2.57	2.421	1.185

1973	4.622	4.54	4.348	4.201	3.882	1.779

1974	2.979	2.925	2.721	2.392	2.177	1.179

1975	5.882	5.778	5.36	5.112	4.922	2.463

1976	4.409	4.328	4.052	3.441	3.062	1.553

1977	4.356	4.302	4.01	3.616	3.311	1.596

1978	5.522	5.438	5.292	4.991	4.598	2.16

1979	8.897	8.763	8.513	7.559	6.885	3.324

1980	8.085	7.962	7.38	6.253	5.559	2.761

1981	1.969	1.934	1.833	1.682	1.58	1.022

1982	2.115	2.076	1.936	1.667	1.501	0.7642

1983	4.422	4.376	4.118	3.795	3.55	1.646

1984	10.77	10.58	9.798	8.374	7.946	3.867

1985	3.776	3.708	3.549	3.099	2.827	1.675

1986	3.755	3.704	3.471	3.128	2.893	1.429

1987	4.329	4.257	4.051	3.843	3.598	1.703

1988	2.561	2.538	2.448	2.258	2.073	1.082

1989	2.865	2.812	2.607	2.271	2.166	1.144

1990	2.346	2.304	2.155	2.009	1.895	0.9624

Sorted results

Prob.			Peak	96 hr	21 Day	60 Day	90 Day	Yearly

0.032258064516129	11.14	10.92	10.15	8.586	7.946	3.867

0.0645161290322581	10.77	10.58	9.798	8.374	7.616	3.324

0.0967741935483871	8.897	8.763	8.513	7.559	6.885	3.199

0.129032258064516	8.1	7.962	7.38	6.508	5.93	2.761

0.161290322580645	8.085	7.953	7.367	6.253	5.559	2.519

0.193548387096774	5.882	5.778	5.36	5.112	4.922	2.463

0.225806451612903	5.522	5.438	5.292	4.991	4.598	2.16

0.258064516129032	4.888	4.831	4.669	4.236	3.882	1.779

0.290322580645161	4.622	4.54	4.348	4.201	3.88	1.76

0.32258064516129	4.422	4.376	4.118	3.843	3.598	1.713

0.354838709677419	4.409	4.328	4.052	3.795	3.55	1.703

0.387096774193548	4.356	4.302	4.051	3.616	3.311	1.675

0.419354838709677	4.329	4.257	4.01	3.464	3.194	1.646

0.451612903225806	3.921	3.871	3.696	3.441	3.062	1.609

0.483870967741936	3.863	3.827	3.614	3.128	3.035	1.596

0.516129032258065	3.776	3.708	3.549	3.099	2.893	1.553

0.548387096774194	3.755	3.704	3.471	3.088	2.827	1.429

0.580645161290323	3.475	3.412	3.159	2.748	2.535	1.353

0.612903225806452	3.227	3.168	2.956	2.73	2.437	1.238

0.645161290322581	2.979	2.925	2.725	2.57	2.421	1.185

0.67741935483871	2.966	2.913	2.721	2.392	2.177	1.179

0.709677419354839	2.865	2.812	2.607	2.304	2.166	1.171

0.741935483870968	2.678	2.654	2.582	2.271	2.088	1.144

0.774193548387097	2.561	2.538	2.448	2.258	2.073	1.095

0.806451612903226	2.51	2.482	2.437	2.155	1.951	1.082

0.838709677419355	2.483	2.439	2.265	2.063	1.895	1.026

0.870967741935484	2.346	2.304	2.155	2.009	1.878	1.022

0.903225806451613	2.228	2.188	2.028	1.732	1.583	0.9624

0.935483870967742	2.115	2.076	1.936	1.682	1.58	0.8783

0.967741935483871	1.969	1.934	1.833	1.667	1.501	0.7642

0.1			8.8173	8.6829	8.3997	7.4539	6.7895	3.1552

				Average of yearly averages:	1.6952

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: NCPnutIRAM1

Metfile:	w13737.dvf

PRZM scenario:	NCpeanutC.txt

EXAMS environment file:	ir298.exv

Chemical Name:	Imidacloprid

Description	Variable Name	Value	Units	Comments

Molecular weight	mwt	255.6633	g/mol

Henry's Law Const.	henry	4.0e-12	atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure	vapr	1.5e-9	torr

Solubility	sol	580	mg/L

Kd	Kd		mg/L

Koc	Koc	178	mg/L

Photolysis half-life	kdp	39	days	Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism	kbacw	1040	days	Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism	kbacs	81	days	Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism	asm	520	days	Halfife

Hydrolysis:	pH 7	0	days	Half-life

Method:	CAM	2	integer	See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth:	DEPI	0.0	cm

Application Rate:	TAPP	.0143	kg/ha

Application Efficiency:	APPEFF	0.99	fraction

Spray Drift	DRFT	0.064	fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date	Date	05-04	dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 2	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 3	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 4	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 5	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 6	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 7	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 8	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 9	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 10	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 11	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 12	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 13	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 14	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 15	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 16	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 17	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 18	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 19	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 20	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 21	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 22	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 23	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 24	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 25	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Record 17:	FILTRA

	IPSCND	1

	UPTKF

Record 18:	PLVKRT

	PLDKRT

	FEXTRC	0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run	IR	IR

Flag for runoff calc.	RUNOFF	total	none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)

stored as NCPnutIRAM2.out

Chemical: Imidacloprid

PRZM environment: NCpeanutC.txt	modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at
15:12:46

EXAMS environment: ir298.exv	modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 14:34:12

Metfile: w13737.dvf	modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 08:06:30

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year	Peak	96 hr	21 Day	60 Day	90 Day	Yearly

1961	7.66	7.521	6.965	6.07	5.551	2.37

1962	3.818	3.766	3.64	3.43	3.16	1.676

1963	11.79	11.57	10.74	9.091	8.063	3.364

1964	2.56	2.515	2.335	2.134	1.931	1.397

1965	2.255	2.214	2.052	1.752	1.594	0.8817

1966	4.894	4.821	4.67	4.259	3.901	1.774

1967	2.402	2.38	2.344	2.085	1.892	1.006

1968	3.381	3.319	3.072	2.657	2.371	1.115

1969	3.357	3.295	3.074	2.832	2.62	1.273

1970	4.079	4.026	3.759	3.213	3.151	1.671

1971	2.761	2.728	2.662	2.374	2.154	1.13

1972	2.947	2.894	2.71	2.496	2.369	1.173

1973	4.384	4.306	4.108	3.94	3.662	1.695

1974	2.793	2.742	2.552	2.254	2.027	1.072

1975	5.6	5.5	5.099	4.794	4.615	2.333

1976	4.561	4.477	4.192	3.56	3.168	1.584

1977	4.32	4.259	3.978	3.559	3.268	1.581

1978	5.65	5.581	5.416	5.147	4.75	2.228

1979	8.434	8.3	8.088	7.191	6.521	3.162

1980	8.464	8.326	7.723	6.545	5.818	2.845

1981	2.04	2.003	1.901	1.734	1.626	1.058

1982	2.116	2.089	1.957	1.687	1.517	0.7739

1983	4.559	4.494	4.239	3.915	3.663	1.688

1984	10.34	10.15	9.399	7.971	7.344	3.622

1985	3.979	3.907	3.754	3.253	2.974	1.714

1986	3.576	3.544	3.334	2.992	2.775	1.392

1987	4.285	4.215	3.986	3.737	3.519	1.672

1988	2.49	2.463	2.382	2.205	2.031	1.068

1989	2.772	2.721	2.521	2.149	2.016	1.064

1990	2.363	2.32	2.161	2.004	1.883	0.9564

Sorted results

Prob.			Peak	96 hr	21 Day	60 Day	90 Day	Yearly

0.032258064516129	11.79	11.57	10.74	9.091	8.063	3.622

0.0645161290322581	10.34	10.15	9.399	7.971	7.344	3.364

0.0967741935483871	8.464	8.326	8.088	7.191	6.521	3.162

0.129032258064516	8.434	8.3	7.723	6.545	5.818	2.845

0.161290322580645	7.66	7.521	6.965	6.07	5.551	2.37

0.193548387096774	5.65	5.581	5.416	5.147	4.75	2.333

0.225806451612903	5.6	5.5	5.099	4.794	4.615	2.228

0.258064516129032	4.894	4.821	4.67	4.259	3.901	1.774

0.290322580645161	4.561	4.494	4.239	3.94	3.663	1.714

0.32258064516129	4.559	4.477	4.192	3.915	3.662	1.695

0.354838709677419	4.384	4.306	4.108	3.737	3.519	1.688

0.387096774193548	4.32	4.259	3.986	3.56	3.268	1.676

0.419354838709677	4.285	4.215	3.978	3.559	3.168	1.672

0.451612903225806	4.079	4.026	3.759	3.43	3.16	1.671

0.483870967741936	3.979	3.907	3.754	3.253	3.151	1.584

0.516129032258065	3.818	3.766	3.64	3.213	2.974	1.581

0.548387096774194	3.576	3.544	3.334	2.992	2.775	1.397

0.580645161290323	3.381	3.319	3.074	2.832	2.62	1.392

0.612903225806452	3.357	3.295	3.072	2.657	2.371	1.273

0.645161290322581	2.947	2.894	2.71	2.496	2.369	1.173

0.67741935483871	2.793	2.742	2.662	2.374	2.154	1.13

0.709677419354839	2.772	2.728	2.552	2.254	2.031	1.115

0.741935483870968	2.761	2.721	2.521	2.205	2.027	1.072

0.774193548387097	2.56	2.515	2.382	2.149	2.016	1.068

0.806451612903226	2.49	2.463	2.344	2.134	1.931	1.064

0.838709677419355	2.402	2.38	2.335	2.085	1.892	1.058

0.870967741935484	2.363	2.32	2.161	2.004	1.883	1.006

0.903225806451613	2.255	2.214	2.052	1.752	1.626	0.9564

0.935483870967742	2.116	2.089	1.957	1.734	1.594	0.8817

0.967741935483871	2.04	2.003	1.901	1.687	1.517	0.7739

0.1			8.461	8.3234	8.0515	7.1264	6.4507	3.1303

				Average of yearly averages:	1.6780

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: NCPnutIRAM2

Metfile:	w13737.dvf

PRZM scenario:	NCpeanutC.txt

EXAMS environment file:	ir298.exv

Chemical Name:	Imidacloprid

Description	Variable Name	Value	Units	Comments

Molecular weight	mwt	255.6633	g/mol

Henry's Law Const.	henry	4.0e-12	atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure	vapr	1.5e-9	torr

Solubility	sol	580	mg/L

Kd	Kd		mg/L

Koc	Koc	178	mg/L

Photolysis half-life	kdp	39	days	Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism	kbacw	1040	days	Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism	kbacs	81	days	Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism	asm	520	days	Halfife

Hydrolysis:	pH 7	0	days	Half-life

Method:	CAM	2	integer	See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth:	DEPI	0.0	cm

Application Rate:	TAPP	.0143	kg/ha

Application Efficiency:	APPEFF	0.99	fraction

Spray Drift	DRFT	0.064	fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date	Date	06-04	dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 2	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 3	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 4	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 5	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 6	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 7	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 8	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 9	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 10	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 11	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 12	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 13	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 14	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 15	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 16	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 17	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 18	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 19	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 20	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 21	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 22	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 23	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 24	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 25	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Record 17:	FILTRA

	IPSCND	1

	UPTKF

Record 18:	PLVKRT

	PLDKRT

	FEXTRC	0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run	IR	IR

Flag for runoff calc.	RUNOFF	total	none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)

stored as MSSoyIRJA1.out

Chemical: Imidacloprid

PRZM environment: MSsoybeanSTD.txt	modified Wedday, 23 August 2006 at
10:35:02

EXAMS environment: ir298.exv	modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 14:34:12

Metfile: w03940.dvf	modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 08:05:46

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year	Peak	96 hr	21 Day	60 Day	90 Day	Yearly

1961	0.7086	0.6894	0.6482	0.5944	0.5394	0.2073

1962	0.6536	0.6358	0.5677	0.458	0.4439	0.2073

1963	0.4843	0.4715	0.4283	0.3291	0.2914	0.1668

1964	0.9896	0.9679	0.8777	0.7881	0.7416	0.3319

1965	1.742	1.694	1.512	1.2	1.021	0.3793

1966	1.469	1.446	1.324	1.083	0.9331	0.3959

1967	0.991	0.9637	0.888	0.7251	0.6337	0.2743

1968	0.6374	0.6227	0.5635	0.4736	0.413	0.1921

1969	1.647	1.604	1.438	1.13	0.9739	0.3572

1970	0.8212	0.7988	0.744	0.6615	0.6149	0.2977

1971	1.442	1.403	1.251	0.9863	0.8511	0.3701

1972	0.447	0.4348	0.388	0.3623	0.3416	0.2101

1973	0.4228	0.4112	0.3768	0.3021	0.2658	0.1196

1974	0.8088	0.7866	0.7146	0.6053	0.5305	0.193

1975	2.528	2.479	2.325	2.084	1.839	0.652

1976	1.156	1.131	1.059	0.8501	0.7304	0.3659

1977	0.9473	0.9214	0.8269	0.6913	0.6339	0.293

1978	0.9582	0.9324	0.8721	0.7037	0.6113	0.2588

1979	1.645	1.601	1.438	1.378	1.297	0.5601

1980	0.4391	0.4293	0.391	0.3205	0.2787	0.2001

1981	0.6493	0.6316	0.5728	0.4647	0.4044	0.1697

1982	1.549	1.518	1.381	1.106	1.112	0.4815

1983	0.984	0.9624	0.8962	0.7762	0.6899	0.3516

1984	1.007	0.9853	0.8994	0.7376	0.6846	0.3016

1985	1.861	1.812	1.634	1.322	1.136	0.4277

1986	0.7098	0.6905	0.6166	0.5777	0.5274	0.2891

1987	0.5322	0.5204	0.4858	0.3991	0.3434	0.1995

1988	0.877	0.8583	0.7756	0.6856	0.6275	0.273

1989	0.6712	0.6532	0.5846	0.5091	0.4635	0.2199

1990	0.7854	0.7637	0.701	0.576	0.4966	0.2047

Sorted results

Prob.			Peak	96 hr	21 Day	60 Day	90 Day	Yearly

0.032258064516129	2.528	2.479	2.325	2.084	1.839	0.652

0.0645161290322581	1.861	1.812	1.634	1.378	1.297	0.5601

0.0967741935483871	1.742	1.694	1.512	1.322	1.136	0.4815

0.129032258064516	1.647	1.604	1.438	1.2	1.112	0.4277

0.161290322580645	1.645	1.601	1.438	1.13	1.021	0.3959

0.193548387096774	1.549	1.518	1.381	1.106	0.9739	0.3793

0.225806451612903	1.469	1.446	1.324	1.083	0.9331	0.3701

0.258064516129032	1.442	1.403	1.251	0.9863	0.8511	0.3659

0.290322580645161	1.156	1.131	1.059	0.8501	0.7416	0.3572

0.32258064516129	1.007	0.9853	0.8994	0.7881	0.7304	0.3516

0.354838709677419	0.991	0.9679	0.8962	0.7762	0.6899	0.3319

0.387096774193548	0.9896	0.9637	0.888	0.7376	0.6846	0.3016

0.419354838709677	0.984	0.9624	0.8777	0.7251	0.6339	0.2977

0.451612903225806	0.9582	0.9324	0.8721	0.7037	0.6337	0.293

0.483870967741936	0.9473	0.9214	0.8269	0.6913	0.6275	0.2891

0.516129032258065	0.877	0.8583	0.7756	0.6856	0.6149	0.2743

0.548387096774194	0.8212	0.7988	0.744	0.6615	0.6113	0.273

0.580645161290323	0.8088	0.7866	0.7146	0.6053	0.5394	0.2588

0.612903225806452	0.7854	0.7637	0.701	0.5944	0.5305	0.2199

0.645161290322581	0.7098	0.6905	0.6482	0.5777	0.5274	0.2101

0.67741935483871	0.7086	0.6894	0.6166	0.576	0.4966	0.2073

0.709677419354839	0.6712	0.6532	0.5846	0.5091	0.4635	0.2073

0.741935483870968	0.6536	0.6358	0.5728	0.4736	0.4439	0.2047

0.774193548387097	0.6493	0.6316	0.5677	0.4647	0.413	0.2001

0.806451612903226	0.6374	0.6227	0.5635	0.458	0.4044	0.1995

0.838709677419355	0.5322	0.5204	0.4858	0.3991	0.3434	0.193

0.870967741935484	0.4843	0.4715	0.4283	0.3623	0.3416	0.1921

0.903225806451613	0.447	0.4348	0.391	0.3291	0.2914	0.1697

0.935483870967742	0.4391	0.4293	0.388	0.3205	0.2787	0.1668

0.967741935483871	0.4228	0.4112	0.3768	0.3021	0.2658	0.1196

0.1			1.7325	1.685	1.5046	1.3098	1.1336	0.47612

				Average of yearly averages:	0.29836

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: MSSoyIRJA1

Metfile:	w03940.dvf

PRZM scenario:	MSsoybeanSTD.txt

EXAMS environment file:	ir298.exv

Chemical Name:	Imidacloprid

Description	Variable Name	Value	Units	Comments

Molecular weight	mwt	255.6633	g/mol

Henry's Law Const.	henry	4.0e-12	atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure	vapr	1.5e-9	torr

Solubility	sol	580	mg/L

Kd	Kd		mg/L

Koc	Koc	178	mg/L

Photolysis half-life	kdp	39	days	Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism	kbacw	1040	days	Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism	kbacs	81	days	Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism	asm	520	days	Halfife

Hydrolysis:	pH 7	0	days	Half-life

Method:	CAM	2	integer	See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth:	DEPI	0.0	cm

Application Rate:	TAPP	.0025	kg/ha

Application Efficiency:	APPEFF	0.99	fraction

Spray Drift	DRFT	0.064	fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date	Date	05-07	dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 2	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 3	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 4	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 5	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 6	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 7	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 8	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 9	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 10	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 11	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 12	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 13	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 14	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 15	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 16	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 17	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 18	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 19	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 20	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 21	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 22	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 23	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 24	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 25	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Record 17:	FILTRA

	IPSCND	1

	UPTKF

Record 18:	PLVKRT

	PLDKRT

	FEXTRC	0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run	IR	IR

Flag for runoff calc.	RUNOFF	total	none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)

stored as MSSoyIRJA2.out

Chemical: Imidacloprid

PRZM environment: MSsoybeanSTD.txt	modified Wedday, 23 August 2006 at
10:35:02

EXAMS environment: ir298.exv	modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 14:34:12

Metfile: w03940.dvf	modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 08:05:46

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year	Peak	96 hr	21 Day	60 Day	90 Day	Yearly

1961	0.7187	0.6992	0.653	0.5977	0.5422	0.2106

1962	0.6631	0.6451	0.5759	0.4647	0.4501	0.2121

1963	0.5004	0.4871	0.4425	0.3283	0.2913	0.1687

1964	1.004	0.9787	0.889	0.8038	0.756	0.3371

1965	1.816	1.766	1.576	1.251	1.064	0.3931

1966	1.332	1.308	1.202	0.9915	0.8581	0.3773

1967	1.021	0.9926	0.9154	0.7483	0.6546	0.2745

1968	0.6319	0.6201	0.5641	0.4758	0.4161	0.1954

1969	1.563	1.525	1.37	1.077	0.9307	0.3469

1970	0.8707	0.8468	0.7934	0.7109	0.6517	0.3099

1971	1.475	1.435	1.28	1.008	0.8705	0.3741

1972	0.4483	0.436	0.3891	0.3645	0.3411	0.2125

1973	0.4314	0.4195	0.3846	0.3085	0.2702	0.1213

1974	0.8293	0.8065	0.7327	0.6201	0.5436	0.1973

1975	2.348	2.293	2.16	1.938	1.719	0.619

1976	1.146	1.121	1.05	0.8427	0.7239	0.3542

1977	0.9648	0.9384	0.8422	0.7066	0.6331	0.2934

1978	0.9762	0.95	0.8882	0.7167	0.6226	0.2601

1979	1.613	1.57	1.411	1.346	1.27	0.5517

1980	0.4507	0.4406	0.4012	0.3287	0.2857	0.205

1981	0.668	0.6497	0.5894	0.4786	0.4168	0.174

1982	1.651	1.617	1.472	1.178	1.179	0.5063

1983	1.008	0.9827	0.915	0.7929	0.7046	0.3639

1984	1.016	0.9912	0.905	0.7432	0.6924	0.3034

1985	1.761	1.718	1.552	1.264	1.09	0.4133

1986	0.7212	0.7016	0.6263	0.5929	0.5333	0.287

1987	0.5396	0.5304	0.4958	0.4081	0.3512	0.2052

1988	0.8991	0.8769	0.7947	0.707	0.6496	0.2806

1989	0.684	0.6657	0.5957	0.5181	0.472	0.2242

1990	0.8074	0.7851	0.7205	0.5922	0.5106	0.2094

Sorted results

Prob.			Peak	96 hr	21 Day	60 Day	90 Day	Yearly

0.032258064516129	2.348	2.293	2.16	1.938	1.719	0.619

0.0645161290322581	1.816	1.766	1.576	1.346	1.27	0.5517

0.0967741935483871	1.761	1.718	1.552	1.264	1.179	0.5063

0.129032258064516	1.651	1.617	1.472	1.251	1.09	0.4133

0.161290322580645	1.613	1.57	1.411	1.178	1.064	0.3931

0.193548387096774	1.563	1.525	1.37	1.077	0.9307	0.3773

0.225806451612903	1.475	1.435	1.28	1.008	0.8705	0.3741

0.258064516129032	1.332	1.308	1.202	0.9915	0.8581	0.3639

0.290322580645161	1.146	1.121	1.05	0.8427	0.756	0.3542

0.32258064516129	1.021	0.9926	0.9154	0.8038	0.7239	0.3469

0.354838709677419	1.016	0.9912	0.915	0.7929	0.7046	0.3371

0.387096774193548	1.008	0.9827	0.905	0.7483	0.6924	0.3099

0.419354838709677	1.004	0.9787	0.889	0.7432	0.6546	0.3034

0.451612903225806	0.9762	0.95	0.8882	0.7167	0.6517	0.2934

0.483870967741936	0.9648	0.9384	0.8422	0.7109	0.6496	0.287

0.516129032258065	0.8991	0.8769	0.7947	0.707	0.6331	0.2806

0.548387096774194	0.8707	0.8468	0.7934	0.7066	0.6226	0.2745

0.580645161290323	0.8293	0.8065	0.7327	0.6201	0.5436	0.2601

0.612903225806452	0.8074	0.7851	0.7205	0.5977	0.5422	0.2242

0.645161290322581	0.7212	0.7016	0.653	0.5929	0.5333	0.2125

0.67741935483871	0.7187	0.6992	0.6263	0.5922	0.5106	0.2121

0.709677419354839	0.684	0.6657	0.5957	0.5181	0.472	0.2106

0.741935483870968	0.668	0.6497	0.5894	0.4786	0.4501	0.2094

0.774193548387097	0.6631	0.6451	0.5759	0.4758	0.4168	0.2052

0.806451612903226	0.6319	0.6201	0.5641	0.4647	0.4161	0.205

0.838709677419355	0.5396	0.5304	0.4958	0.4081	0.3512	0.1973

0.870967741935484	0.5004	0.4871	0.4425	0.3645	0.3411	0.1954

0.903225806451613	0.4507	0.4406	0.4012	0.3287	0.2913	0.174

0.935483870967742	0.4483	0.436	0.3891	0.3283	0.2857	0.1687

0.967741935483871	0.4314	0.4195	0.3846	0.3085	0.2702	0.1213

0.1			1.75	1.7079	1.544	1.2627	1.1701	0.497

				Average of yearly averages:	0.29938

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: MSSoyIRJA2

Metfile:	w03940.dvf

PRZM scenario:	MSsoybeanSTD.txt

EXAMS environment file:	ir298.exv

Chemical Name:	Imidacloprid

Description	Variable Name	Value	Units	Comments

Molecular weight	mwt	255.6633	g/mol

Henry's Law Const.	henry	4.0e-12	atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure	vapr	1.5e-9	torr

Solubility	sol	580	mg/L

Kd	Kd		mg/L

Koc	Koc	178	mg/L

Photolysis half-life	kdp	39	days	Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism	kbacw	1040	days	Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism	kbacs	81	days	Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism	asm	520	days	Halfife

Hydrolysis:	pH 7	0	days	Half-life

Method:	CAM	2	integer	See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth:	DEPI	0.0	cm

Application Rate:	TAPP	.0025	kg/ha

Application Efficiency:	APPEFF	0.99	fraction

Spray Drift	DRFT	0.064	fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date	Date	06-07	dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 2	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 3	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 4	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 5	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 6	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 7	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 8	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 9	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 10	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 11	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 12	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 13	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 14	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 15	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 16	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 17	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 18	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 19	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 20	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 21	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 22	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 23	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 24	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 25	interval	2	days	Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Record 17:	FILTRA

	IPSCND	1

	UPTKF

Record 18:	PLVKRT

	PLDKRT

	FEXTRC	0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run	IR	IR

Flag for runoff calc.	RUNOFF	total	none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)

 Oliviera, R. S., W. C. Koskinen, N. R. Werdin, and P. Y. Yen. 2000.
Sorption of imidacloprid and its metabolites on tropical soils. J.
Environ. Sci. Health. B35:39-49.

Cox, L., W.C. Koskinen, and P.Y. Yen. 1997.  Sorption-desorption of
imidacloprid and its metabolites in soils.  J. Agric. Food Chem.
45:1468-1472.

 PAGE  39


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36468-36470]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13413]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0355]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation for Marine Events; James River,
Midlothian, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will establish a special local regulation
during the VBC Sprints Regatta event on the James River. The event
consists of a series of crew rowing and sculling races to be held on
the waters of the James River, near Robious Landing Park in Midlothian,
Virginia. This regulated area will restrict vessel traffic and is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters
during the event.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 a.m. through 6 p.m. on June 18,
2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0355 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Barbara Wilk, Waterways Management Division Chief,
Sector Hampton Roads, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) (B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because information about the Regatta on June
18, 2016 not received in sufficient time to permit publication of an
NPRM.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Due to the need for
immediate action, the restriction on vessel traffic is necessary to
protect life, property and the environment; therefore, a 30-day notice
is impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the
regulated area's intended objectives of protecting persons and vessels,
and enhancing public and maritime safety.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this special local regulation under
authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Coast Guard is establishing a
temporary special local regulation on specified waters of the James
River near Robious Landing Park in Midlothian, Virginia. This rule is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the regulated area during the VBC Sprints
Regatta.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Captain of the Port Hampton Roads is establishing special local
regulation on the specified waters of the James River bound by the
following coordinates: 37[deg]33'35.193'' N. 077[deg]38'51.6156'' W.;
thence to 37[deg]33'33.7608'' N./077[deg]38'51.1044'' W.; thence to
37[deg]33'33.75'' N./077[deg]38'8.88'' W.; thence to
37[deg]33'36.0174'' N./077[deg]38'8.8008'' W. (NAD 1983), in the
vicinity of Robious Landing Park in Midlothian, VA. This regulated area
still allows for navigation on the waterway. This regulated area will
be enforced from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on June 18, 2016. Except for
participants and vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his
Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the
regulated area.

    The Captain of the Port will utilize various methods, including
those listed in 33 CFR 165.7, provide notice to the affected segments
of the public of the regulated area and restrictions. This includes
publication in the Local Notice to Mariners Broadcast and Marine
Information Broadcasts.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the regulated area. Vessel
traffic will be able to safely transit around this regulated area which
will impact a small designated area of the James River in Midlothian,
VA for less than one day and in an area where vessel traffic is
normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated area and the
rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of
the instruction. This rule involves implementation of regulations
within 33 CFR part 100 that apply to organized marine events on the
navigable waters of the United States that may have potential for
negative impact on the safety or other interest of waterway users and
shore side activities in the event area. The category of water
activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat
parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, and sail
board racing.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  100.35T05-0355 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T05-0355  James River, Midlothian, VA.

    (a) Definitions: For the purposes of this section, Captain of the
Port means the Commander, Sector Hampton Roads. Representative means
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
Participants mean individuals and vessels involved in the rowing and
sculling races of the VBC Sprints Regatta.
    (b) Location. The regulated area is established for the waters for
the James River near the Robious Landing Park within the areas bounded
by coordinates 37[deg]33'35.193'' N./077[deg]38'51.6156'' W.; thence to
37[deg]33'33.7608'' N./077[deg]38'51.1044'' W.; thence to
37[deg]33'33.75'' N./077[deg]38'8.88'' W.; thence to
37[deg]33'36.0174'' N./077[deg]38'8.8008'' W. (NAD 1983) in Midlothian,
VA.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons are required to comply with the
general regulations governing special local regulations in Sec.  100.35
of this part.
    (2) With the exception of participants, entry into or remaining in
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Hampton Roads or his designated representatives.
    (3) All vessels underway within this regulated area at the time it
is implemented are to depart the area immediately, unless they are
participants.
    (4) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his representative
can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) The Coast Guard and designated security vessels enforcing the
regulated area can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13
(165.65Mhz) and channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
    (6) This section does not apply to participants and vessels that
are engaged in the following operations:
    (i) Enforcing laws;
    (ii) Servicing aids to navigation; and
    (iii) Emergency response vessels.
    (7) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of the regulated area by Federal, State, and local
agencies.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8:30
a.m. to 6 p.m. on June 18, 2016.

    Dated: May 17, 2016.
Christopher S. Keane,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2016-13413 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 48 (Monday, March 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 14332]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05265]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0179]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0128

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0128,
Prospect Questionnaire, Chat Now Questionnaire, and the Officer Program
Application; without change.
    Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the
public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting
comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 14, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2021-0179] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), ATTN: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2021-0179], and
must be received by May 14, 2021.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Prospect Questionnaire, Chat Now Questionnaire, and the
Officer Program Application.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0128.
    Summary: This collection contains the recruiting website
gocoastguard.com Prospect Questionnaire (CGRC-1130), Chat Now
Questionnaire (CGRC-1132), and the Officer Program Application (CGRC-
1131) that are used to screen active duty, reserve, enlisted, and
officer applicants.
    Need: The information is needed to initiate the recruiting and
commissioning of active duty, reserve, enlisted, and officer members.
14 U.S.C. 2701 authorizes the United States Coast Guard to recruit
personnel for military service. The information requested on the
gocoastguard.com website is collected in accordance with Section 503 of
Title 10 U.S.C. and may be used to identify and process individuals
interested in applying for enlistment or commission into the United
States Coast Guard or Coast Guard Reserve.
    Forms: Online Application plus hard copy of the Prospect
Questionnaire (CGRC-1130), and/or the Officer Program Application
(CGRC-1131) if a prospect does not use gocoastguard.com, but contacts a
recruiter directly.
    Respondents: Approximately 50,000 applicants apply annually to
initiate the screening process.
    Frequency: Applicants may apply more than once, by initially
completing the Chat Now Questionnaire (CGRC-1132) to answer questions
on eligibility and may apply for both enlisted and officer programs
through the Prospect Questionnaire (CGRC-1130) and/or Officer Program
Application (CGRC-1131).
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 97,686 hours a
year.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: March 9, 2021.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2021-05265 Filed 3-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P