# Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the

Registration Review of Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl

Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl

CAS 71283

- 80

- 2 PC Code 12 9092



### 21 April 2014

Prepared b

y Scott Glaberman

, Ph.D., Biologist Chuck Peck, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED)

Environmental Risk Branch IV 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P Washington, DC 20460 

### Reviewed by Thomas Steeger

, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor

Jim Carleton

, Ph.D., Senior Scientist

Sarah Winfield

, Acting Branch Chief- Page 2 of 116

- 

# Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3

2. Problem Formul ation

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 7

2.1. Nature of Regulatory Action

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 7

2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7

2.2.1. Nature of the Chemical Stressor

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 7

2.2.2. Overview of Pesticide Usage

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 9 2.3. Receptors

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 9

2.3.1. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 9

2.3.2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 9

2.4. Assessment Endpoints

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 10 2.5. Conceptual Model

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 2.5.1. Risk Hypotheses

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 11 2.5.2. Conceptual Diagram

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 11 2.6. Analysis Plan

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 13 2.6.1. Measures of Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 13

2.6.2. Measures of Effect

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 15 2.6.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects

................................ ................................ ............................. 15 3. Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 17

3.1 Use Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 17

3.2. Exposure Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 18

3.2.1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

................................ ................................ . 18

3.2.2. Measures of Aquatic Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 22

3.2.3. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 28

3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 32

3.3.1. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 33

3.3.2. Terrestrial Effects Characterization

................................ ................................ .............................. 41

3.3.3. Review of Incident Data

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 47

4. Risk Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 48

4.1. Risk Estimation

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 48 4.1.1. Aquatic Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 48

4.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 60

4.2. Risk Description

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 65

4.2.1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 65

4.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 67

4.3. Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 71

5. Listed Sp ecies of Concern

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 72

5.1. Action Area

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 73

5.2. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk

................................ ................................ ................................ . 73

5.3. Listed Species Occurrence Associated with FPE Uses

................................ ................................ ........ 75

6. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 77

7. References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 77

7.1. Submitted Product Chemistry and Environmental Fate Studies

................................ ....................... 80

7.2. Submitted Ecotoxicity Studies

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 81 Appendix A. Chemical Names and Structures of FPE and it s Degradates

................................ ......................... 89 Appendix B. PRZM/EXAMS Sample Input/Output Data

................................ ................................ .................... 90 Appendix C. Example T

- REX Input and Output for FPE (based on upper bound Kenaga EECs for use on ornamentals)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 107 Appendix D. Example TERRPLANT (v. 1.2.2) Input and Output for FPE

................................ ...................... 109 Appendix E. STIR Results for FPE

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 110 Appendix F. SIP Results for FPE

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 111 Appendix G. PFAM Modeling for Rice Applications of FPE

................................ ................................ ............. 112 Appendix H. ECOSAR Quantitative Structure

- Activity Relationship (QSAR) Toxicity Predictions for FPE

and Transformation Products.

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 116- Page 3 of 116

-



### 1

. Executive Summary

The preliminary risk assessment (PRA) examines the potential ecological risks associated with labeled uses of the herbicide fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl (FPE), based on the best available scientific and commercial information on the use, environmental fate and transport, and effects of FPE on non

target organisms.

This assessment was conducted for FPE, which is the R

- enantiomer (or d

- isomer) of the racemate fenoxaprop

- ethyl (PC Code 128701). In the early 1990s

, the registrant for fenoxprop

- ethyl amended the registration, enriching the formulations to contain more FPE

, as it was considered the

herb icidally

- active isomer. As of 2002, all end

- use products were registered for FPE and the racemate is no longer registered by EPA. Most registrant

- submitted toxicity studies used in this assessment were performed with FPE ( i.e. , d

- isomer enriched); howeve r, in several cases where data gaps exist for FPE, toxicity data were bridged from fenoxaprop

- ethyl ( i.e. , mixture of R

- and

S

- enantiomers) for use in risk assessment. This bridging strategy is considered appropriate, since fenoxaprop

- ethyl also contains t he R

- enantiomer.

From the submitted fate studies, the degradation pattern of fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl was well

established: de

- esterification of fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl to the fenoxaprop

- p acid, with subsequent degradation to 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)phenol, chlorobenzoxazolone, and eventually to

CO 2



### . This de

- esterification process was dependent on both abiotic and microbial ly

- mediated hydrolysis. In evaluating potential risks to terrestrial species, exposure and risk estimates were developed for the combine d residues of FPE and its three degradates fenoxaprop

- p acid, 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)phenol, and chlorobenzoxazolone , since sufficient toxicity information on the transformation products was not available to eliminate them from potential concern

. T his was accomplished by including both parent and degradates in the dissipation half

- life used to

estimate residues on terrestrial food items

. Conversely, a vailable a quatic effects data indicate that FPE transformation products are less toxic to aquatic p lants and animals than the parent

. Therefore, aquatic exposure modeling was conducted for the parent, FPE, alone.

For aquatic organisms, the screening

- level assessment with preliminary refinements concludes that the use of FPE in accordance with current and proposed labels results in potential acute risks of concern for federally threatened and endangered (listed) fre shwater vertebrates (fish and aquatic

phase amphibians) inhabiting rice paddies when paddy water is drained down to 1 inch ; the

likelihood of such a scenario is considered low. Additional screening

- level risks of concern to aquatic organisms for the label ed use on rice were alleviated by refinements in the modeling of residue concentrations in rice paddy water and in water released from paddies. Although s everal chronic toxicity studies with freshwater invertebrates indicate that formulations containing F PE may be two orders of magnitude more toxic than FPE technical grade active ingredient (TGAI), the components of a formulation are assumed to have different fate and transport properties from the active ingredient ( e.g. , mobility, affinity to soil versus water, degradation kinetics)

. Consequently

, aquatic organisms are not expected to be chronically exposed to the formulation, and therefore, the scenario is not assessed in this analysis.

For terrestrial organisms, no acute or chronic risks of concern are identified for birds

, as well as terrestrial phase amphibians or reptiles

, for which birds serve as surrogates. For mammals, t he- Page 4 of 116

-



### chronic risk level of concern ( LOC ) is not exceeded for the grass grown from seed us e for any size

class or dietary item based on estimated dietary or dose

- based concentrations. For the barley, conservation reserve, cotton, rice, and soybean uses, the chronic risk LOC is exceeded for dose

based estimates of small and/or medium sized mammals feeding on short grass. For the ornamentals and rights

- of

- way uses, the chronic risk LOC is exceeded for dose

- based estimates of multiple size classes and dietary items. This assessment also indicates that all labeled uses of FPE pose potential risks of concern to listed and non

- listed monocotyledonous (monocot) terrestrial plants, which is supported by a series of incidents reported for grain crops treated with FPE. These results also indicate that large spray drift buffer distances (85 to >1,000 feet) may be needed to

protect n on

- target monocot plants from effects from spray drift.- Page 5 of 116

-

Table 1.1. Risk Assessment Summary for Non

- Target Aquatic Organisms
Aquatic Invertebrates Aquatic Vertebrates Aquatic Plants

Sediment Organisms Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Freshwater E stuarine/

Marine Freshwater E stuarine/

Marine Freshwater E stuarine/

Marine Freshwater E stuarine/

Marine Vascular Nonvascular

RQs Not calculated 5 <0.01

- 0.03 0.01

- 0.76 <0.01 <0.01

- 0.08 <0.01

- 0.18 Not

calculated 1 ≤0.01 Not calculated 1 Listed Species : <0.01

- 0.03 Listed

Species : 0.02

- 3.09

Non

- Listed Species :
Not

calculated 1 Non

- Listed

Species : <0.01

- 0.19

Non

- listed Species

LOC N/A 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Listed Species LOC N/A 0.05 0.05 1.0 1.0 0.05 0.05 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Risks of

Concern (Uses) Not

expect ed Not

expected Not

expected (after refinements) Not

expected Not

expected Not

e xpected (after refinements) 4 Not

e xpected None

e xpected Not

e xpected Not

e xpected Not e xpected

(after refinements)

Uncertainties Typical sediment

organism data not available; benthic

exposure expected to be

orders of magnitude below available aquatic toxicity endpoints FE data

used 2 ; FPE

EUP more

toxic than

TGAI. EUP 5x to

100x more

toxic than

TGAI on

chronic

basis No chronic

estuarine/

marine data
available; ACR

used for

characterization

Refinements

Used PFAM rice paddy concentrations used 3

ACR = Acute

- to

- chronic ratio ; FW = Freshwater; E/M = Estuarine/Marine; N/A = Not Applicable ; EUP = end

- use product

1 RQs not calculated since only a non

- definitive endpoint exists.

2 Fenoxaprop

- ethyl toxicity data used because FPE toxicity endpoint was either unavailable or non

- definitive.

3 If screening

- level EECs exceed LOCs, the Pesticide Flooded Application Model (P FAM, version 1.05, September 2013) was used to refine rice use

concentrations

. 4 Non

- listed species LOC is exceeded only when paddy water is drained to 1 inch.

5 No data on sediment dwelling inverte brates available for FPE or FE.- Page 6 of 116

-

Table 1.2. Risk Assessment Summary for Non

- Target Terrestrial Organisms

Birds Mammals Terrestrial Plants Insect Pollinators Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Monocots Dicots

RQs <0.01

- 0.08 <0.01

- 0.24 ≤0.02 0.01

- 2.42 Listed Species : Not calculated 1

Non

- Listed Species : 2.49

- 13.8 Listed Species : Not calculated 1

Non

- Listed Species : <0.01

- 0.37 N ot calculated 1

Non

- listed Species

LOC 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A

Listed Species LOC 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.4

Risks of

Concern (Uses) Not

expected Not

expected Not

expected All uses except grass

grown for seed

Except for uses on ornamentals and rights

of

- way, LOC exceeded only for mammals feeding on short grass LOCs exceeded for all labeled

uses; supported by incidents.

Buffers distances of 85 to 1000 + feet may be needed to pr otect

non

- target monocot s 2 Not expected Practically non

- toxic to young adult honey bees ; risks of concern not expected based on

TGAI data

Uncertainties Passerine

toxicity data

not available Definitive NOAEC not available from seedling emergence and vegetative vigor tests for

monocots Definitive NOAEC and EC 25 not available from seedling emergence study EUP more toxic than TGAI on acute contact basis

N/A = Not Applicable

1 RQs not calculated since only a non

- definitive endpoint exists.

2 AgDRIFT used to estimate how far off

- site spray drift exposure might occur at a level known to cause adverse effects in terrestrial plant toxicity studies.- Page 7 of 116

-



### 2 . Problem Formulation

The purpose of problem formulation is to provide the foundation for the environmental fate and ecological risk assessment being conducted for the representative labeled uses of fenoxaprop

- p

ethyl (FPE) , which are summarized in the most recent Label Use Information System (LUIS) report compiled by the Biological and Eco nomic Analysis Division (BEAD) ( September 2012 ) and the agreed upon label rate modification s provided by the registrants ( Bayer CropScience , 2012 and Syngenta Crop Protection , 2012 ) . The problem formulation sets the objectives for the risk

assessment and provides a plan for analyzing the data and characterizing the risk (USEPA 1998). As part of the Registration Review process, a detailed Problem Formulation (DP Barcode

D3 38163 ) for this risk assessment was published to the docket [Docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 20 07

- 0437] in August 2007 . The following section summarizes the key points of that document and discusses any differences between the analysis outlined there and the analysis conducted in this

risk assessment.

2.1

. Nature of Regulatory Action

The risk assessment is conducted as part of the Agency’s Registration Review process for pesticide active ingredients. The Registration Review process was established under the Food Quality

Protection Act (FQPA 1996 ).

2.2

. Stressor Source and Distributio n

2.2. 1. Nature of the Chemical Stressor

FPE is a selective aryloxyphenoxypropionate herbicide used to control grass

- like weeds after emergence. Aryloxyphenoxypropionate herbicides are systemic, i.e ., taken up by the plant and

distributed in the phloe m vascular tissue , and work by inhibiting acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase, which effectively inhibits lipid synthesis in target plants (Martin, 2000).

FPE is the R

- enantiomer (or d

- isomer) of the racemate fenoxaprop

- ethyl (PC Code 128701). In the early 1 990s

, the registrant for fenoxprop

- ethyl amended the registration, enriching the

formulations to contain more FPE

, as i t wa s considered the herbicidally

- active isomer

. As of 2002,

all end

- use products were registered for FPE and the racemate is no longer registered by EPA. Older studies (prior to and during the 1990s) submitted to the Agency contain ed enriched i someric mixtures of 85:15 d:l, 89:11 d:l , or 97:3 d:l. More recently submitted studies (2000s), however, contain enriched mixtures at ratios grea ter than 98:2 d:l. C urrently registered products contain FPE at the 97:3 d:l mixture. The older studies submitted to the Agency and existing labels loosely

refer to these enriched mixtures as FPE, regardless of the purity.

The chemical profile of FPE ( R

- enantiomer

, d

- isomer

, of fenoxaprop

- ethyl ) is provided in Table

2. 1 . Chemical names and structures of FPE and its degradates of concern , as they are formulated

in standards used in submitted environmental fate s tudies, are provided in Table 2. 1 and Appe ndix

A

. From the submitted fate studies, the degradation pattern of fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl was well

established: de

- esterification of fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl to the fenoxaprop

- p acid, with subsequent degradation to 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)phenol, chlorobenzo xazolone, and eventually to- Page 8 of 116

-



### CO 2



### . This de

- esterification process was dependent on both abiotic and microbial ly

- mediated hydrolysis ( i.e. , aerobic soil and aquatic metabolism)

. A quatic toxicity data ( Table s 3. 9

- 3.11 ) for the degradates fenoxaprop

- p acid and chlorobenzoxazolone indicate that they are much less toxic to aquatic plants and animals than the parent FPE. Additionally, the structure of 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)phenol) indicate s that it is an intermediate b etween fenoxaprop

- p acid and

chlorobenzoxazolone

. As toxicity data indicate that fenoxaprop

- p acid and chlorobenzoxazolone are much less toxic than the parent FPE

, EFED assumed that 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)phenol) was also less toxic than FPE. Give n th i s information , the evaluation of risks to aquatic species was limited to exposure from FPE. However, te rrestrial toxicity data for

the degradates of concern were not available for this assessment. As such, i n evaluating potential

risks to terrestria l species, estimates of exposure and risk were developed for the combined

residues of FPE and its three degradates fenoxaprop

- p acid, 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)phenol, and chlorobenzoxazolone. This was accomplished by including both parent and degrada te residue s in the dissipation half

- life used to estimate residues on terrestrial

food items.

Table 2. 1 . Chemical Profile of FPE and Its Residues of Conncern

. 

### Common name Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl

IUPAC name (R)

- 2[4

- [(6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyl)oxy]

- phenoxy]

- propanoic acid

CAS name (R)

- 2

- [4

- [(6

- chloro

- 1,3

- benzoxazolyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoate ethyl

Structure

Pesticide type Herbicide

CAS number 71283

- 80

- 2 Empirical formula C 18 

### H 16 

### ClNO 5 

### Molecular mass 361.78 g/mol

Common Name Fenoxaprop

- p acid

IUPAC name ((D+)

- 2

- [4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenoxy] propanoate



### Structure

Common Name Chlorobenzoxazolone

IUPAC name 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol



### Structure

Common Name 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)phenol

IUPAC name 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)phenol- Page 9 of 116

-



### Structure

2.2.2

. Overview of Pesticide Usage

FPE is an active ingredient in several formulated products registered for post

- emergent control of

grass

- like weeds ( e.g. , barnyardgrass, crabgrass, Italian ryegrass, etc. ) in a variety of crops and

non

- crop areas. Products include Fusion ®



### , Foxfire ®



### , Panther ®



### , Whip 360 ®



### , Puma 1EC ®



### , Ricestar ®



### , Puma ® 

### Ultra

, Wolverine TM 

### , Acclaim Extra ®



### , and Crabgrass Killer

. C urrently reg istered products

contain FPE at the 97:3 d:l mixture. FPE is currently registered for use on barley, cotton, rice, soybeans, and wheat, and is registered for non

- agricultural use on conservation reserves, ornamentals, rights

- of

- way, and turf. It is also being proposed for use on grass grown for seed. FPE products are flowable and are applied by ground or aerial methods; applications by chemigation are prohibited. Application rates vary considerably by use pattern. Multiple applications are allowed by m ost labels

, with an annual maximum rate of up to 0.188 lbs a.i./A /yr

for agricultural uses and an annual maximum application rate of 0.531 lbs a.i./A /yr for non

agricultural uses. Specific use rates are discussed in Section 3.1

.

A number of the currently registered FPE products also contain other active ingredients ( e.g. , fluazifop

- P

- butyl, dicamba acid, pinoxaden, pyrasulfotole, etc. ). This evaluation is limited to exposure to FPE residues of concern (FPE, fenoxaprop

- p acid, chlorobenzoxazolone, and 4

- ( 6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol and non

- extracted residues, as discussed in Section 3.2.1.5 )

, and does not include estimated concentrations of other active ingredient residues.

2.3 . Receptors

2.3.1

. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects

The recep tor is the biological entity that is exposed to the stressor (USEPA 199 8 ). Consistent with the process described in the Overview Document (USEPA 2004), this risk assessment uses a surrogate species approach in its evaluation of FPE

. T oxic ity data generated from surrogate test species, which are intended to be representative of broad taxonomic groups, are used to extrapolate potential effects on a variety of species (receptors) included under these taxonomic groupings.

A cute and chronic toxicity data from studies submitted by pesticide registrants along with the available open literature are used to evaluate potential direct effects of FPE to aquatic and terrestrial receptors. The open literature studies are located through E PA’s database ECOTOX ( http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/ ), which provides a source for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife.

2.3. 2. Ecosystems Potentially at Ri sk

The ecosystems at risk are often extensive in scope ; therefore , it may not be possible to identify specific ecosystems at the screening level. I n general terms, terrestrial ecosystems potentially at- Page 10 of 116

-



### risk could include the treated site and areas immed iately adjacent to the treated site that may

receive drift

, runoff

, erosion, or discharged ground water . Th ese areas could include the treatment
site itself

, other cultivated fields, fencerows and hedgerows, meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian habitats

, and other uncultivated areas.

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk i nclude water bodies adjacent to or down stream from treated

area s, and can include lentic systems, i.e.

, ponds, lakes and impound ments ( reservoirs )

, and lotic

systems ( streams and rivers )

. Aquatic ecosystems supplied by groundwater, including cave ecosystems and areas supplied by seeps and springs, may be at risk from compound s that leach

into the subsurface

. For uses in coastal areas, aquatic habitat at poten tial risk includes marine and

estuarine ecosystems. In evaluating aquatic exposure w ithin water bod ies, EFED considers the water column, sediment , and pore water as compartments of concern.

2.4

. Assessment Endpoints

Assessment endpoints represent the actual environmental value that is to be protected, defined by an ecological entity (species, community, or other entity) and its attr ibute or characteristics (USEPA 1998 ). For FPE , the ecological entities include the following: birds , amphibians, repti les, mammals, freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, terrestrial plants, insects, and aquatic plants and algae. The attributes assessed for each of these entities may include growth, survival, and reproduction. (Se e T able 2. 3 in Section 2 .6.2 , the Analysi s Plan, for further discussion).

The assessment endpoints are intended to reflect population sustainability and community structure within ecosystems and hence relate back to ecosystems at risk. If risks are expected for given species/taxa based on the screening

- level assessment, then risks might be expected to translate to higher levels of biological organization.

2.5 . Conceptual Model

For a pesticide to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in biologically significant concentrations. An exposure pathway is the means by which a pesticide moves in the

environment from a source to an e cological receptor. For an ecological pathway to be complete, it must have a source, a release mechanism, an environmental transport medium, a point of exposure for ecological receptors, and a feasible route of exposure. The conceptual model is intended to provide a written description and visual representation of the predicted relationships

between FPE

, potential routes of exposure, and the predicted effects for the assessment endpoint.

The conceptual model consists of two major components: the risk hypotheses and a conceptual diagram (USEPA 1998).

The conceptual model used to depict the potential ecological risk associated with the proposed and existing uses of FPE relies on previous assessments and the Agency’s current un derstanding of the environmental fate and ecological effects of the chemical

. Consistent with the intended use of

FPE as an herbicide, p otential risk to non

- target terrestrial and aquatic plants is expected

. Effects on plants, which represent the primary producers in an ecosystem, may result in s econdary effects

on consumers. The model assumes that FPE is capable of affecting terrestrial vertebrates and- Page 11 of 116

-



### aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates

, provided that environmental concentrations are sufficiently

ele vated as a result of proposed and existing uses ( Figure 2

. 1 ).

Based on the Preliminary Problem Formulation (USEPA 2007 a ) , acute and chronic risks at the highest label rate of FPE are expected for non

- listed and listed aquatic animals. Risks are als o expected for non

- listed and listed birds and mammals due to chronic dietary or dose

- based exposures to FPE. Risks are expected as well for listed and non

- listed species of monocots inhabiting dry and semi

- aquatic areas based on exposures of FPE at the m aximum application rate. Due to the potential risk from direct effects to the listed and non

- listed groups of organisms described above, listed species in all taxa may potentially be affected indirectly due to alterations in their habitat ( e.g. , food sourc es, shelter, and areas to reproduce) if exposure to FPE occurs.

2.5. 1. Risk Hypotheses

For FPE , the following ecological risk hypothesis is employed for the ecological risk assessment:

Given the proposed and existing uses of FPE and its environmental fate properties, there

is possible acute and chronic exposure to non

- target aquatic and terrest rial organisms.
When used in accordance with the label, FPE may result in adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of non

- target aquatic and terrestrial plants and

animals.

2.5.2 . Conceptual Diagram

The potential exposure pathways and effects of the proposed and existing uses of FPE are depicted

in Figure 2

. 1 . Solid arrows depict the most likely routes of exposure and effects; dashed lines depict potential routes of exposure that are not considered likely for FPE

.

Application methods for propose d and existing uses of FPE involve ground and aerial applications

. Ecological receptors that may be exposed to FPE following such applications include terrestrial

and semi

- aquatic wildlife ( i.e. , mammals, birds, terrestrial

- phase amphibians, terrestrial

i nvertebrates, and reptiles) and plants. In addition, aquatic receptors ( e.g ., freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, aquatic

- phase amphibians, and plants) may be exposed as

a result of movement of FPE via spray drift and runoff f rom the s ite of application. The conceptual framework for assessment of potential ecological risk associated with FPE is depicted in Figure

2

. 1 ; potential endp oints, stressors, and ecological effects are identified based on this model.

For terrestrial organisms, the primary route of exposure assessed at the screening level is the dietary route

, via consumption of food items such as plant leaves or insects that have FPE residues as a result of spraying. The assessment considers exposure of non

- target terrestrial invertebrates through oral ingestion of residues and through contact, e.g. , as a result of direct deposition or spray drift. Direct contact and root uptake are the major routes of exposure considered for terrestrial and wetland plants.

Based on FPE ’s vapor pressure ( 1.4 x 10

- 8 

### torr)

, FPE is not expected to readily volatilize, so t h is

risk a ssessment does not take into account potential atmospheric transport in estimating- Page 12 of 116

-



### environmental concentrations

. T he Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR) (see Section 2.6.2 )

, which compares inhalation exposure estimates to available avian and mammalian toxicity data, also indicates that inhalation to vapor and spray drift are not of concern , so t his assessment does not evaluate potential atmospheric transport in estimating environmental concentrations. Additionally, the Screening Imbibition Pr ogram (SIP) indicates that drinking water exposure is not a potential pathway of concern for wildlife ; therefore, the current assessment does not evaluate potential risk to wildlife through drinking water exposure. Similarly, t his assessment does not

acco unt for possible ingestion of FPE residues by terrestrial animals via contaminated grit or preening activities

, and does not evaluate potential uptake through dermal absorption.

For aquatic assessments, t he major routes of exposure for aquatic animal species are considered to

be through the respiratory surface (gills) or the integument. Organisms in habitats supplied primarily by groundwater discharge ( e.g. , seeps, springs) may receive a different level o f exposure than organisms in surface rivers, streams, lakes, and impoundments. Similar to terrestrial organisms, exposure of aquatic organisms to FPE may also occur through ingestion of residues in

sediment and forage. FPE is hydroph ob ic, with an octanol

- water partition coefficient (K
ow 

### ) of
38,000 ( MRID 44659601 )

. However, bioconcentration factor ( BCF ) data for bluegill sunfish ( MRID 41567707 ), as well as the rapid bio degradation of FPE in aerobic aquatic environments (< 1 day) to fenoxaprop

- p acid (an ionic compound which is not expected to bioaccumulate), indicate

that FPE residues , including its degradates, should not bioconcentrate in fish

.

Figure 2

. 1 . Conceptual Model Depicting Potential Risks to Non

- target Species From the Use of FPE

. Solid arrows depict the most likely routes of exposure and effects; dashed lines depict potential routes of exposure that are not considered likely

. Stressor

Source/ Transport Pathways Direct Deposition Runoff

Erosion Leaching

(Infiltration/

Percolation

Source/ Exposure

Media Terrestrial Plants

Terrestrial Invertebrates Terrestrial Plants
Soil Receiving

Water Body/
Sediment Groundwater

Tested Exposure

Route Ingestion Direct Contact Root Uptake Gill or Integument Uptake

Receptors

Attribute Changes Terrestrial

Vertebrates Terrestrial Plants

Individual Animals: Reduced survival and/or reproduction Aquatic Invertebrates Aquatic Vertebrates

Individual Plants: Seedling emergence Vegetative vigor Individual Animals:

Reduced survival and/or reproduction Plant Population: Reduced population growth Aquatic Plants Uptake/ Adsorption Spray Drift Volatilization Atmospheric Transport FPE and degradates of concern

Direct Contact

Terrestrial

Invertebrates- Page 13 of 116

-



### 2.6 . Analysis Plan

2.6.1 . Measures of Exposure

Measures of Aquatic Exposure

M easures of exposure to aquatic animals and plants are pesticide concentrations in surface water

and benthic sediment pore water simulated by the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v3.12 .2

, May 12, 200 6a ) and Exposure Analysis Modeling System ( EXAMS v2.98.04.06, Apr. 2005)

, coupled with the input shell pe5 ( August 2007 )

, t o generate estimated environmental

conc entrations (EECs) of FPE that may occur from use on crops , typically at maximum label use

rates. The EECs used in risk assessment are simulated 1

- in

- 10 year return frequency “ peaks ” (acute assessments) and mean conce ntration s o ver a specified duration (chronic assessments) generated at the modeled site, which is selected to represent a location expected to be more contamination

- vulnerable than most locations where the crop is grown

. Groundwater

concentration s of FPE were simulated using PRZM

- GW (Pesticide Root Zone Model for Groundwater, version 1.0, August 31, 2012) and SCI

- GROW (Screening Concentration in

Groundwater , version 2.3, July 30, 2003 ) , incorporating an analogously conservative exposure paradigm

. For ric e use, the Tier I R ice M odel (version 1.0, May, 2007) was used to generate screening

- level EECs in water within or released from a rice paddy. As screening

- level EECs exceed aquatic criteria, the Pesticide Flooded Application Model (PFAM

, version 1.05 , Se ptember

201 3 ) was used to refine concentrations associated with rice use

.

2.6.1.2. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure

Terrestrial wildlife are potentially exposed to FPE via consumption of residues on food items from spray applications on agricultural and non

- agricultural uses

. For spray applications, the T

- REX

model ( T errestrial R esidue EX posure model; v. 1. 5. 1 ; June 6 , 20 13 b ) is used to predict dietary

exposure to FPE residues on foliar surfaces and insects using the Kenaga nomogram as modified by Fletcher (Hoerger and Kenaga 1972

, Fletcher et al. 1994). In this assessment, a f oliar dissipation half

- life of 5.6 days was used for terrestrial modeling purposes

, instead of the default

35

- day half

- life, as suitable foliar dissipation data s pecific to FPE were available ( MRIDs 493288

- 01 through 493288

- 04 )

. Estimated exposures of terrestrial insects to FPE are qualitatively

evaluated

.

The TERRPLANT ( v

. 1.2.2 ; December 26, 2006) model is used to derive EECs relevant to

terrestrial and wetland plants for the proposed new use s of FPE

. The model assumes that default fractions of the intended application will be transported to an adjacent field through runoff and spray drift. Measures of exposure to terrestrial plants are expressed as a f raction of the mass of

the FPE applied to a treated field

.

To characterize potential non

- target plant exposure from spray drift alone, Tier 1 modules in AgDRIFT (v. 2.1.1, December 2011) were used to estimate how far off

- site spray drift exposure might occur at a level known to cause adverse effects in terrestrial plant toxicity studies. Labe ls

for FPE have varying specif ications with regard to droplet size distributions. Some indicate that- Page 14 of 116

-



### the product should be applied using nozzles and pressures that generate a Medium spray droplet size category. Other label s are more specific, indicating the nozzles should provide 2 00

- 350

micron (Reg. No. 264

- 666) or 150

- 300 micron (Reg. No. 264

- 647) size droplets

. Other products do not specify the drop let size distribution. For aerial applications, EFED use d the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE, formerly ASAE) Fine

- to

- Medium droplet size category in its modeling

. This size category is EFED’s default distribution when labels do not specify application parameters. The volume median diameter (Dv 50 

### ) for the Fine

- to

Medium drop size distribution is 255 microns, which falls within the requirements specified on certain labels as discussed above. For ground applications, EFED used the ASA B E Very Fine

- to

Fine droplet size category. Again , this drop let size category is EFED’s default distribution when

labels do not specify the application parameters for ground applications. The Dv 50 

### for the Very

Fine

- to

- Fine drop let size distribution is 175 microns, which falls within the requirements spe cified

on certain labels as discussed above.

The Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR v.1.0, November 19, 2010) was used to calculate

an upper

- bound estimate of wildlife inhalation exposure using FPE’s vapor pressure and molecular weight for vapor p hase exposure as well as the maximum application rate and method of application for spray drift. STIR incorporates results from several toxicity studies including acute oral and inhalation rat toxicity endpoints obtained from the “six

- pack” of core studie s, which is a series of six guideline studies that are submitted to the Registration Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs for technical and formulated products of a pesticide (LD 50 

### = 2, 090 mg /kg

bw /day, MRID 001 30010 ; and inh a lation LC 50 

### > 0.511 mg/L, MRID 00130040 , respectively) as well as the most sensitive acute oral avian toxicity endpoint ( partridge LD 50 

### =2,000 mg /kg

- bw

, MRID 00130330 ). Based on the results of the STIR model ( Appendix E ), exposure through inhalation of spray drift or the va por phase of FPE i s not determined to be a potential pathway of concern for either avian or mammalian species on an acute exposure basis.

The analysis of the inhalation route in STIR does not consider that aggregation with other exposure pathways such a s dietary, dermal, or drinking water may contribute to a total exposure that has a potential for effects to non

- target animals. However, the Agency does consider the relative importance of other routes of exposure in situations where data indicate that pe sticide exposures through other routes may be potentially significant contributors to wildlife risk (USEPA 2004). The risk characterization section ( Section 4.3 ), discusses the impact of consideration of other routes of exposure that have been identified a s potentially important and the degree of certainty associated with screening

- level risk assessment conclusions. Detailed information about STIR v.1.0, as well as the tool, can be found on EPA’s website ( http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_pg.htm#terrestrial ).

The Screening Imbibition Program (SIP v.1.0, released June 15, 2010) was used to calculate an

upper

- bound estimate of wildlife drinking water exposure using FPE’s solubility ( i.e

., 0.7 mg/L at
20 o 

### C , MRID 44676401), and compared to the most sensitive acute and chronic avian and mammalian toxicity endpoints (see Table 3. 15 and 3. 16 , respectively). Drinking water exposure

alone was determined not to be a potential pathway of concern for birds or mammals on either an

acute or chronic exposure bas is . For a sample of the output generated by SIP v.1.0, please see Appendix F

.- Page 15 of 116

-



### 2 .6.2 . Measures of Effect

Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of registrant

- submitted guideline studies which were conducted with a limited number of surrogate test species ( Table 2.2 ) . The test species are not intended to be representative of the most sensitive species but rather were sel ected based on their ability to thrive under laboratory conditions. Toxicity testing reported in this risk assessment utilizes surrogate species to represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+) species in the

U.S. In additio n, t he ECOTOX database (EPA 20 09c ) was searched in January 2013 to provide more ecological effects data for FPE . N o additional data were available that indicated greater

sensitiv ity than those embodied in the registrant

- submitted study endpoints ; however, some information on toxicity of degradates to aquatic organisms was available for effects

characterization.

The acute measures of effect used in this screening

- level assessment are the LD 50 

### (Lethal Dose),

LC 50 

### (Lethal Concentration)

, EC 50 

### (Effe cts Concentration) , and IC 50 

### (Inhibition Concentration)

. These are measures of acute toxicity which result in 50% of the respective effect in tested organisms. The endpoints for chronic measures of exposure are the NOAEC (No Observed

Adverse Effects Conc entration) and the NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effects Level). Toxicity studies were submitted for freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, aquatic and terrestrial plants, birds, mammals

, and honey bees. The endpoints us ed

for risk characterization were derived from studies which underwent review and were classified as “acceptable” (conducted under guideline conditions and considered to be scientifically valid) or “supplemental” (conditions deviated from guidelines but th e results are considered to be scientifically valid).

2.6.3 . Integration of Exposure and Effects

The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated in order to evaluate the risks of adverse ecological effects on non

- target species. For the risk assessment of FPE , the risk quotient (RQ) method is used to compare estimated exposure and measured toxi city values. The RQ method involves dividing estimated en vironmental concentrations (EEC ) by acute and chronic toxicity values. The resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency’s L evels of C oncern (LOC ) (USEPA 2004) ( Table 2.3 ). The LOCs are used to in dicate when applications of FPE , as directed on the label, have the potential to cause adverse e ffects to non

- target organisms.

Table 2.3. Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metrics and Levels of Concern (LOC) Per Risk Class.

R isk C lass R isk D escription RQ LOC

Aquatic Animals (fish and invertebrates)

Acute Potential for effects to non

- listed animals from acute

exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 1 0.5

Acute

Restricted Use Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures

Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification Peak EEC/LC 50 1 0.1

Acute Listed Species Listed species may be potentially affected by acute

exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 1 0.05

Chronic Potential for effects to non

- listed and listed animals from chronic exposures 60

- day EEC/NOAEC (fish) 1- Page 16 of 116

-

R isk C lass R isk D escription RQ LOC

21

- day EEC/NOAEC (invertebrates)

Aquatic Plants

Non

- Listed Potential for effects to non

- listed plants from exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 1 1

Listed Potential for effects to listed plants from exposures Peak EEC/NOAEC 1

Terrestrial Animals (mammals and birds) 2

Acute Potential for effects to non

- listed animals from acute

exposures EEC/LC 50 (Dietary) 0.5 EEC/LD 50 (Dose)

Acute

Restricted Use Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures

Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification EEC/LC 50 (Dietary) 0.2 EEC/LD 50 (Dose)

Acute Listed Species Listed species may be potentially affected by acute

exposures EEC/LC 50 (Dietary) 0.1 EEC/LD 50 (Dose)

Chronic Potential for effects to non

- listed and listed animals from chronic exposures EEC/NOAEC 1

Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants

Non

- Listed Potential for effects to non

- target, non

- listed plants from

exposures EEC/ EC 25 1

Listed Plant Potential for effects to non

- target, listed plants from

exposures EEC/ NOAEC 1 EEC/ EC 05

1 LC 50 or EC 50

. 2 EEC b ased on upper bound Kenag a nomogram values for foliar exposure.



### The Agency uses the probit dose

- response relationship as a tool for providing additional information on the potential for acute direct effects to individual s from listed species and aquatic animals that may indirectly affect the listed species of concern (USEPA 2004). As part of this evaluation, the acute RQ for listed species is presented in terms of the chance of an individual event ( i.e. , mortality or immobiliz ation) should exposure at the EEC actually occur for a species with sensitivity to FPE on par with the acute toxicity endpoint selected for RQ calculation. To

conduct this evaluation , the Agency uses the slope of the dose

- response relationship available f rom the toxicity study used to establish the acute toxicity measures of effect for each taxonomic group that is relevant to this assessment. The individual effects probability associated with the acute RQ is based on the mean estimate of the slope and an assumption of a probit dose

- response relationship. In addition to a single effects probability estimate based on the mean, upper and lower estimates of the effects probability are also provided to account for variance in the slope, if

available. If no do se

- response information is available to estimate a slope for this analysis, a default slope assumption of 4.5 is used, with lower and upper bounds of 2 to 9 (USEPA 2004).

Individual effect probabilities are calculated based on a Microsoft ® 

### Excel spreadsh eet tool IECV1.1 (Individual Effect Chance Model Version 1.1) developed by the U.S. EPA, OPP, Environmental Fate and Effects Division (June 22, 2004). The model allows for such calculations by entering the mean slope estimate (and the confidence bounds of that estimate) as the slope parameter in the spreadsheet. The desired threshold for the probability of an individual effect is entered as the listed species LOC or based on the calculated acute RQ, if available.- Page 17 of 116

-



### 3 . Analysis

3.1 Use Characterization

FPE is an active ingredient in several formulated products registered for post

- emergent control of

grass

- like weeds ( e.g. , barnyardgrass, crabgrass, Italian ryegrass, etc. ) in a variety of crops and

non

- crop areas. FPE is the R

- enantiome r (or d

- isomer) of the racemate fenoxaprop

- ethyl (PC Code 128701). In the early 1990s

, the registrant for fenoxprop

- ethyl amended the registration, enriching

the formulations to contain more FPE

, as it wa s considered the herbicidally

- active isomer. As of 2002, all end

- use products were registered for FPE and the racemate is no longer registered by

EPA. Products include Fusion ® 

### (Reg. No. 100

- 1059)

, Foxfire ® 

### (Reg. No. 100

- 1429)

, Panther ®


### (Reg. No. 228

- 716)

, Whip 360 ® 

### (Reg. No. 264

- 647)

, Puma 1EC ® 

### (Reg. No. 264

- 666)

, Ricestar ®


### (Reg. No. 264

- 682), Puma ® 

### Ultra (Reg. No. 264

- 1073)

, Wolverine TM 

### (Reg. No. 264

- 1075)

, Acclaim Extra ® 

### (Reg. No. 432

- 950)

, and Crabgrass Killer (Reg. No. 7 2155

- 74 )

. FPE is currently registered for use on barley, cotton, rice, soybeans, and wheat, and is registered for non

- agricultural use on conservation reserves, ornamentals, rights

- of

- way, and turf. It is also being proposed for use on grass grown for seed. FPE products are flowable and are applied by ground or aerial methods; applic ations by chemigation are prohibited. Application rates vary considerably by use pattern. Multiple applications are allowed by most labels

, with an annual maximum rate of up to

0.188 lbs a.i./A /yr for agricultural uses and an annual maximum application r ate of 0.531 lbs

a.i./A /yr for non

- agricultural uses. Maximum use pattern in formation is presented in Table 3

. 1

. Ground and a erial application w ere selected for post

- emergent weed use as th ese method s are allowed under the current labels

.

According to t he Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) provided by the Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) in 20 12 , the majority of FPE used between 2003 and 2010

in the United States was on wheat ( 3 00,000 lbs a

. i

. /yr), followed by barley (40,000), soybeans (2 0,000), and rice ( 1 0,000). No other use pattern exceeded 5 00 lbs a.i./ yr . The SLUA reports that

a maximum of 25% of wheat c rop acre s, 30 % of the barley crop acres
, and 10% of the rice crop

acres were treated with FPE ; all other crop acres we re treated at 2.5% or less

. T hese data do not

include non

- agricultural uses.

Table 3. 1

. FPE maximum application rates 1

.

Use Max

Application Rate per Application (lbs a.i./A) Max # of

Applications

Per Season Min

A pplication

Retreatment

Interval (days) Max

Application Rate per

Season 2
(lbs a.i./A) Max # of

App s Per

Year Max

Application Rate per

Year 3
(lbs a.i./A) Barley 0.083 1 NA 0.083 2 0.188

Conservation

Reserve 0.1 2 14 0.128 3 0.188

Cotton 0.105 1 NA 0.105 1 0.105

Ornamental 0.173 NA 14 NA 4 0.531

Rice 4 0.071

0.108 2

2 14

14 0.142

0.142 3

3 0.188

Right

- of

- Way 0.173 NA 14 NA 4 0.531

Soybeans 0.1 05

0.1 1

2 NA

14 0.105

0.128 1

3 0.105

0.188

Turf 0. 173 NA 14 NA 4 0.531- Page 18 of 116

-

Use Max

Application Rate per Application (lbs a.i./A) Max # of

Applications

Per Season Min

A pplication

Retreatment

Interval (days) Max

Application Rate per

Season 2
(lbs a.i./A) Max # of

App s Per

Year Max

Application Rate per

Year 3
(lbs a.i./A) Grass grown for

seed 0.083 NA NA 0.083 1 0.083

Wheat 0.083 1 NA 0.083 2 0.188

N A = not applicable

. App= application

1 EFED assumed one growing season per calendar year for each agricultural crop.

2 Where the maximum single application rate is not evenly divisible by the maximum application rate per season, the additional applications were reduced to meet the maximum application rate per season requirement.

3 Where the maximum annual application rate is higher than the maximum application rate per season, the additional application was made using the differenc e between the maximum annual application rate and the maxim um application rate per season.

4 Labels for rice use specify that the products should not be appl ied to fields where catfish and crayfish are commercially cultured

. Environmental hazard statements indicate that the products are toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates and that the products should not be appl ied directly to water or to areas where surface water is present

or to intertidal areas below the mean high water mark except as indicated in the directions for use on rice.



### 3.2

. Exposure Characterization

3.2. 1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

The chemical and environmental fate characteristics of the parent compound FPE and the FPE residues of concern (see Section 3.2.1.5 ) are listed in Table 3.2 and are discussed in greater detail in the following sections. Half

- lives for total toxic residues (TTR) in the aerobic soil, aerobic aquatic, and anaerobic aquatic studies in Table 3.2 include residues for FPE, fe noxaprop

- p acid, chlorobenzoxazolone, 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol )

.

Table 3. 2

. Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of FPE residues

. Chemical/Fate Parameter Value Source (MRID)

Chemical name (D+)

- ethyl

- 2

- [4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)phenoxy]propanoate 44676401

Molecular mass 361.8 g/mol 44676401

Vapor pressure (20  C) 1.4 x 10

- 8 torr Acc e s sion #

412

- 03

- 0113

Water solubility (pH 5.8; 20  C) 0.7 mg/L 44676401

Octanol

- water partition coefficient (K OW ) 38,000 44659601

Hydrolysis half

- life (d) (pH 5, 25  C) FPE TTR

4 7123201 1 19.6 Stable

Hydrolysis half

- life (d) (pH 7, 25  C) FPE TTR

24.6 Stable

Hydrolysis half

- life (d) (pH 9, 25  C) FPE TTR

0.7 Stable

Aqueous photolysis half

- life (d) (pH 7) FPE TTR 48098502 0.95 1.22- Page 19 of 116

- Chemical/Fate Parameter Value Source (MRID)

Aerobic soil metabolism half

- life (d) 2 FPE TTR Soil 4

48757101 &

48868703 1.63 10 Sandy loam (1.4%)

0.31 8.7 Sandy loam (0.48%)

0.26 17.7 Loamy sand (0.46%)

0.07 12.8 Silt loam (1.9%)

A erobic aquatic metabolism half

- life (d) FPE TTR Sediment 4

0.15

0.31 59.3

126 Sand (0.8%)

Clay (2.2%) 47123208

0.75

0.15 20.8

12.8 Sand (0.14%)

Silt loam (3.97%) 45081602

0.09

0.11 16.6

24.6 Silty clay loam (0.7

- 18%)

Silt loam (4.1%) 48868701

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism half

- lif e (d) 0.22 43.4 Loam (5.95%) 45081601

1.85

2.40 101

143 Silty clay loam (0.7%)

Silt loam (4.3%) 48868702

Total residues Freundlich soil

- water distribution coefficient (K F , L/kg ) 3 ; Total residues Freundlich organic carbon partitioning coefficient (K FOC , L/kg

oc ) 3 K F K FOC Soil 4

4291500 1 4.1 1,767 Clay (0.2%)

6.6 807 Silty clay loam (0.8%)

9.8 383 Sandy loam (2.6%)

5.9 223 Clay loam (2.7%)

Terrestr ial field dissipation half

- life (d) No acceptable data

Aquatic field dissipation half

- life (d) FPE TTR 43066404 <1 2.54

Fish Bioconcentration Factor 129 (edible) 1021 (non

- edible) 510 (whole fish) 41567707

1 MRID 44659602, considered provisional in PF, determined to be unacceptable.

2 MRID 43400602, considered provisional in PF, determined to be unacceptable. Two newly submitted studies (MRIDs 48757101 and 48757102) were determined to be acceptable.

3 The Freundlich exponent that describes curvilinearity (1/n) was 1.00 in all cases. The data were insufficient to
estimate a K F and K FOC for FPE alone, as only one concentration was analyzed.

4 % indicates percent of organic carbon in soil or sediment.



### 3.2.1.1

. Transport and Mobility

FPE is partially soluble in water, with a limit of 0.7 mg/L at 20°C and pH 5.8 ( MRID 44676401). The compound is not expected to volatilize significantly d ue to its low vapor pressure ( 1.4 x 10

- 8



### to rr at 20°C; Acc. # 412

- 03

- 0113).

FPE residues are considered moderately mobile. A batch equilibrium study was conducted using radiolabeled FPE, generating Freundlich soil

- water partitioning coefficients (K F 

### ) for the combined radioactive residues that ranged from 4.10 to 9.77 mL/g (K FOC 

### ranging from 223 to 1,767 mL/g
oc 

### , MRID 42915001). The Freundlich exponent that describes curvi linearity (1/n) was 1.00 in all

cases

. Given FPE’s rapid degradation to fenoxaprop

- p acid and the short equilibration times used- Page 20 of 116

-



### in the study (6

- 24 hours), it is expected that the mobility is representative of fenoxaprop

- p acid. Mobility of total residue s was not well explained by affinity to organic matter, as the coefficient of variation (CV) across four soils for K FOC 

### (87%) was greater than that for K F 

### (36%). The data

were insufficient to estimate a K F 

### and K FOC 

### for FPE alone, as mobility for FPE was o nly assessed

at one concentration.

Given this information, as well as information derived from the soil and aquatic metabolism studies (Section 3.2.1.2), FPE , when present in an aquatic system, is expected to remain in the water column, while the metaboli te residues (fenoxaprop

- p acid and chlorobenzoxazolone) are expected to form primarily within the water column, and then to diffuse into the sediments

.

3.2.1.2

. Degradation

Overall, FPE degrades very quickly, with half

- lives on the order of one to two da ys, relative to its metabolites fenoxaprop

- p acid

, chlorobenzoxazolone , and 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol

. H alf

- lives for fenoxaprop

- p acid rang ed from 3.4 to 18 days in aerobic soil, up to 16 days in aerobic aquatic systems, and up to 200 days in anaerobic aquatic systems

. Half

- life estimates

for the other two metabolites ( chlorobenzoxazolone , and 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol )

could not be estimated

, as the studies typically were ended before these began to decline.

FPE is hydrolyzed mo derately rapidly in acidic conditions (t 1⁄2 

### = 19.6 d at pH 5) and neutral conditions (t 1⁄2 

### = 24.6 d at pH 7), and quickly in alkaline conditions (t 1⁄2 

### = 0.7 d at pH 9; MRID 47123201). Two major degradates were identified: fenoxaprop

- p acid (AE F088406) and

chlo robenzoxazolone (AE F054014). Fenoxaprop

- p acid was the primary degradate at up to 32% of applied radioactivity in the hydrolysis study at pH 7 (30 days after treatment (DAT)) and 96% of applied radioactivity in the hydrolysis study at pH 9 (6 DAT; MRID 4 7123201). Both FPE and fenoxaprop

- p acid may hydrolyze to chlorobenzoxazolone, which was observed in the hydrolysis study at up to 64% of the applied at pH 5 (30 DAT), 23% of the applied at pH 7 (30 DAT), and 20% of the applied at pH 9 (30 DAT). When eva luating FPE residues ( F PE

, fenaxaprop

- p acid

, and chlorobenzoxazolone ) , the combined residues were stable to hydrolysis at all pHs. Parent FPE also degrades quickly via aqueous photolysis, with an estimated half

- life of 0.95 day at pH 7 and

40oN latitude (MRID 48098502) and corrected for dark controls

. Fenoxaprop

- p acid and 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol ( AE F040356 ) were identified as minor degradates in the aqueous photolysis study , reaching maxim a of 2.4% (3 hours after treatment (HAT)) and 6.2% (16 HAT) of the applied radioactivity, respectively. While chlorobenzoxazolone was not identified as a degradate in the aqueous photolysis study , it was not clear from the study whether the analytical method was capable of detecting this compound

.

FPE w as quickly biodegraded in aerobic soils (t 1⁄2 

### ≤1.63 d; MRIDs 48757101 and 48868703), in aerobic aquatic systems (t 1⁄2 

### <1 d; MRIDs 471233208, 45081602, and 48868701), and in anaerobic aquatic systems (t 1⁄2 

### ≤2.4 d; MRIDs 45081601 and 48868702). Fenoxaprop

- p acid was the major degradate identified in these studies, reaching maxima of 88% of the applied radioactivity at 1 DAT in the aerobic soil studies and 96% of the applied (1 DAT) in the aerobic aquatic metabolism studies. Fenoxaprop

- p acid was also the major de gradate in the anaerobic aquatic metabolism study, but reached a maximum much more slowly: 88% at 7 DAT. 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol was a major degradate in the aerobic and anaerobic aquatic studies,- Page 21 of 116

-



### reaching maxima of 13.8% (28 DAT) and 15% (3 0 DAT), respectively. Chlorobenzoxazolone was not identified as a major degradate in any of the soil or aquatic metabolism studies , reaching

a maximum of 9% of the applied radioactivity (MRIDs 48757101 and 48868701)

.

It should be noted that all of the bi odegradation studies had high levels of non

- extracted residues (NER, 18

- 69 % in all studies, except one anaerobic aquatic trial that had NER around 7%). All of the studies indicate a rapid breakdown of FPE to fenoxaprop

- p acid. Based on results of

chloro phenyl

- radiolabeled studies, the degradation of fenoxaprop

- p acid appears to coincide with an increase in NER, indicating that most of the radiolabeled degradation products are binding to the soil. Based on the phenoxy

- radiolabeled studies, the degradatio n of fenoxaprop

- p acid seems

to coincide with an increase in the sum of NER and CO 2 

### amounts . C hlorobenzoxazolone was the predominant residue detected in the harsh acid extracts conducted on the NER, suggesting that the NER could be composed of any of the precursor compounds (e.g., fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl, fenoxaprop

- p acid, or 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol) or chlorobenzoxazolone.

To evaluate methods of extracting FPE residues from soil and sediment, a study (Appendix 3, MRID 48868703) was conducted usi ng a number of different extraction techniques on FPE aged in soil 7 and 14 days. The study concluded that an acetonitrile/water/1% acetic acid extraction followed by microwave extraction with toluene provided the best results. However, of all of the

met hods evaluated, none of the tested methods achieved NER levels below 30%. As a result, it would seem that high levels of NER in microbially

- med iated studies are unavoidable.

3.2.1.3

. Field Studies

An aquatic field dissipation study was conducted with the FPE end

- use product Whip ® 

### (HOE 46360 75 EW; MRID 43066404). Whip ® 

### (7.7% a.i) was broadcast at 0.41 lbs a.i./A onto subplots of clay l oam soil in a drained rice paddy in California with rice seedlings grown to the 1

- to 4

- leaf stage. At 4 DAT, the pad dy was flooded with 6 inches of water , with the flood waters maintained through 60 DAT. Soil samples (0

- 12 inch depth) were collected through 60 DAT. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for residues of FPE was 10 ppb (10 μg/kg); samples containing ≥50 ppb of FPE residues were analyzed for the i ndividual compounds fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl, fenoxaprop

- p acid,

and chloro benzoxazolone . FPE residues (FPE, fenoxaprop

- p acid, and chlorobenzoxazolone) dissipated in the drained soil (0

- 3 inch depth) with a half

- life of 2.5 4 days , indicating that more than half of the FPE residues were degraded prior to flooding the field . This dissipation rate is

within a factor of 3 of the submitted aerobic soil metabolism stud y half

- lives . FPE residues were

detected at a maximum concent ration of 350 μg/kg (15% of the applied concentration; 0

- 3 inch depth, 0.04 DAT) and at a maximum depth of 6 inches in the soil . FPE residues were not detected

above the LOQ (0.01 μg/L) in flood water. FPE was detected at a maximum concentration of 60 μg/kg (0

- 3 inch depth; 1

- 2 DAT); fenoxaprop

- p acid was detected at a maximum concentration of 270 μg/kg (0

- 3 inch depth; 0.04 DAT); chlorobenzoxazolone was detected at a maximu m concentration of 70 μg/kg (0

- 3 inch depth; 4 DAT). Maximum depths of detection for FPE parent, fenoxaprop

- p acid, and chlorobenzoxazolone were not reported. While this study provides information on the dissipation of FPE residues when applied to soil p re

- flooded, the study does not address the fate of FPE residues during post

- flooded applications.- Page 22 of 116

- 

### 3.2.1. 4

. Bioaccumulation in Fish

FPE is hydrophobic, with a log K ow 

### of 4.58 ( K ow 

### = 38,000

, MRID 44659601). The bioconcentration factor (BCF) observed in blu egill sunfish fish viscera (1021x) and in edible fish portions (129x) and whole fish portions (510x; MRID 41567707) are in agreement with the BCF estimated using the Persistent Bioaccumulation Toxicity (PBT) profiler ( http://www.pbtprofiler.net/ ) at 490X. Depuration of FPE residues was rapid; >90% of the accumulated [ 14 

### C] residues were eliminated from the fish tissues by day 1 of the depuration period. Given FPE’s relatively short half

- life in aerobic aquatic en vironments (< 1 day) and that once FPE is degraded to fenoxaprop

- p acid it should not bioaccumulate ( e.g. , because it is an ionic compound), FPE residues are not expected to bioaccumulate.

3.2.1.5

. Residues of Concern

FPE and its major degradates containing the 6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazol moiety (fenoxaprop

- p acid, chlorobenzoxazolone, and 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol) are considered by the Health Effects Division ( HED ) to be residues of concern for human dietary ris k assessment ( USEPA

2013 ). Aquatic toxicity data ( Tables 3.9

- 3.11 ) for the degradates fenoxaprop

- p acid and chlorobenzoxazolone indicate that they are much less toxic to aquatic fish and invertebrates than the parent FPE. Additionally, the structure of 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)phenol) indicates that it is an intermediate between fenoxaprop

- p acid and chlorobenzoxazolone. As toxicity data indicate that fenoxaprop

- p acid and chlorobenzoxazolone are much less toxic to aquatic plants and

animals than th e parent FPE, EFED assumed that 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)phenol) was also less toxic than FPE. Given this information, the evaluation of risks to aquatic species was limited to exposure from FPE. However, terrestrial toxicity data for the degradates of concern were not available for this assessment. As such, in evaluating potential risks to terrestrial species, estimates of exposure and risk were developed for the combined residues of FPE and its three degradates fenoxaprop

- p acid, 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- ben zoxazolyloxy)phenol, and chlorobenzoxazolone. This was accomplished by including both parent and degradate residue s in the dissipation half

- life used to

estimate residues on terrestrial food items.

3.2.2

. Measures of Aquatic Exposure

3.2.2. 1. Aquatic Exp osure Modeling

The EECs f

or FPE in surface water were generated based on maximum use rates ( Table 3. 1 )

. Simulations were conducted using the PRZM and EXAMS models coupled with the input shell pe5.pl (August, 2007) . The PRZM model simulates pesticide movement via runoff and erosion,

and transformation that occurs in the soil. The EXAMS model simulates pesticide concentrations

in an adjacent pond

, resulting from PRZM

- generated runoff and spray drift. T he PRZM/EXAM S

scenarios assume a standard 1

- hectare, 2

- meter depth pond (static water body) in to which a 10

- hectare field drains (USEPA 2009 b ). A list of PRZM/EXAMS input files and sample input and output are included in Appendix B.

Groundwater EECs for FPE were derived using the PRZM

- GW model (Pesticide Root Zone Model for Groundwater, version 1.0, August 31, 2012), with the GW

- GUI (Graphical User Interface,- Page 23 of 116

-



### version 1.0, August 31, 2012). PRZM

- GW is a one

- dimensional leaching model that simul ates concentrations of pesticides in vulnerable groundwater. The model accounts for pesticide fate in the crop root zone by simulating vertical pesticide transport and degradation through the soil profile after a pesticide is applied to an agric ultural field. PRZM

- GW permits the assessment of multiple years of pesticide application (up to 100 years) on a single site. Six standard scenarios, each representing a different region known to be vulnerable to groundwater contamination, are

available f

or use with PRZM

- GW for risk assessment purposes. In PRZM

- GW simulations, each

of these standard scenarios was used. PRZM

- GW output represents pesticide concentrations in vulnerable groundwater located directly beneath an agricultural field, following many years of pesticide application.

Groundwater EECs were also derived using SCI

- GROW

, a regression

- based model used as a screening tool. SCI

- GROW was developed by fitting a linear model to groundwater concentrations with the Relative Index of Leaching P otential (RILP) as the independent variable. Groundwater

concentrations are taken from 90

- day average high concentrations from Pro spective Groundw ater studies; the RILP is a function of a pesticide’s aerobic soil metabolism and soil

- water partition

coeffic ient (K
o c 

### ). The output of SCI

- GROW represents concentrations that might be expected in shallow, unconfined aquifers under sandy soils

. These aquifers represent groundwater that is most vulnerable to pesticide contamination

, and which may also serve as a n irrigation wat er source.

The EFED Tier I Rice Model (v1.0, May 8, 2007) was used to estimate aquatic exposures for direct water applications that represent high exposure sites for rice use. Each of these sites represents a shallow impoundment with a 10 cm water depth. When a pesticide is applied to the water, the model assumes instantaneous partitioning between the water and sediment phases according to the partition coefficient of the chemical ( USEPA 2007 b ). The formula of the Tier I Rice Model v1.0

i s as follows:

EECs for 21

- day and 60

- day averaging periods w ere derived by applying the 90 percent upper

confidence limit on the mean aerobic aquatic degradation half

- life ( 0.41 days) to calculate the

acute concentration

, and then allowing th at concentration to decrease via degrad ation at the same

rate over the relevant period of time ( i.e.

, either 21 or 60 days)

, before calculating the mean concentration for th e entire time period.- Page 24 of 116

-



### If rice EECs exceed aquatic criteria, the Pesticide Flooded Ap plication Model (PFAM) is used for

refinements. PFAM (version 1.05 , September 201 3 ) simulates two linked compartments: a water column and a sediment zone (benthos). Each compartment is completely mixed and at internal equilibrium with respect to sorption of the chemical. Pesticide moves between the compartments

via a time

- limited, first

- order mass

- transfer process. The model accounts for hydrolysis, photolysis, and metabolism in water, sediment, and soil (when no water is present), sorption, and

volatil ization. Water, sediment, and pesticide may flow out of the flooded field. Changes in water body conditions (temperature, water levels, wind speed, etc .) and resulting changes in degradation rates occur on a daily time step. Pesticide application and fl ooding sequences are mapped onto

the time series in 1

- year cycles for the length of a simulation.

3.2.2. 2

. Selection of Crop Scenarios

The scenarios listed in Table 3.4 are those currently approved for Tier II surface water modeling which most closely represent the current and proposed uses for FPE

.

3.2.2. 3

. Aquatic Modeling Inputs

For aquatic exposure, modeling was conducted for parent FPE only

. H alf

- lives used for modeling are presented in Table 3. 2

.

Application parameters were chosen based on the likely method of application at the maximum application rate as indicated in the label instructions. Chemical property and model input values ( Table 3.3 ) were chosen according to the c urrent Input Parameter Guidance ( USEPA 200 9 e ). Based on EFED guidance, aerial spray of liquid formulations is expected to have 95% efficiency and ground spray is expected to have 99% efficiency. Using AgDRIFT, s pray drift fractions were 0.125 for aerial applications (Fine

- to

- Medium drop let size) and 0.06 for ground applications (Very

Fine

- to

- Fine droplet size distribution, high boom application, 90 th 

### percentile). As FPE products

are applied as a foliar application after the crop and weeds ha ve emerged, a chemical application method (CAM) of 2 ( i.e. , chemical applied to crop foliage based on linear extrapolation of the crop canopy development) was used in modeling. The soil incorporation depth for all applications was set to 0 cm and the IPSCND parameter was set to 1, which means that any pesticide remaining on the foliage after harvest is assumed to be transferred directly to the soil surface at harvest. Appendix B contains example model output files.

Based on the existing and proposed uses for FPE , a variety of locations and PRZM/EXAMS scenarios were run to simulate national use of the pesticide. Scenarios modeled with PRZM and

EXAMS are indicated in Table 3. 4 , including application dates and the rationale for the fir st application date selection. For applications of FPE to barley/wheat

, the label specifies that FPE can only be applied to barley/wheat once during crop season, so the second application date was modeled using the first da y after the harvest date specified in the PRZM scenario. For applications

of FPE to conser vation reserves and soybeans ( multiple applications ), the label specifies that FPE can only be applied to conservation reserves and soybeans twice during crop season, so the third application date was modeled using the first da y after the harvest date spec ified in the PRZM

scenario

.

Table 3. 3

. Environmental Fate Data Used for Aquatic Exposure Inputs in FPE Ecological Exposure- Page 25 of 116

-

Assessment

.

Input Parameter Value Source/comment

Molecular weight (g/mol) 361.8

Vapor pressure (torr @ 25 oC) 1.4E

- 08 Acc. # 412

- 03

- 0113

Solubility in water (mg/L @ 20oC) 0.7 MRID 44676401

Henry’s Law Constant (atm

m 3 /mol) 9.52E

- 9 Calculated from vapor pressure and solubility

where HENRY = (VAPR/760)/(SOL/MWT),

Hydrolysis half

- life (t 1⁄2 in days) pH 7: 24.6 MRID 47123201

Aqueous Photolysis half

- life (t 1⁄2 in days) 0.95 MRID 48098502

Aerobic Soil metabolism half

- life (t 1⁄2 in days) 1.2 MRIDs 48757101 and 48868703. Represents the 90 percent upper confidence limit on the

mean of 4 aerobic soil metabolism half

- life

values. 1

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism

half

- life (t 1⁄2 in days) 2.7 MRIDs 45081601 and 48868702. Represents the 90 percent upper confidence limit on the mean of 3 anaerobic aquatic metabolism half

life values. 1

Aerobic Aquatic metabolism

half

- life (t 1⁄2 in days) 0.41 MRIDs 47123208, 45081602 and 48868701. Represents the 90 percent upper confidence limit on the mean of 6 aerobic aquatic

metabolism half

- life values. 1

Soil partition coefficient K d (mL/g) 6.6 MRID 42915001. Average of four K d values

for TTR. Coefficient of variance for K d data indicate more appropriate than K

oc . 1

1 EFED input parameter guidance is located at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm

Table 3. 4

. Aquatic Exposure Inputs in FPE Ecological Exposure Assessment (PRZM/EXAMS).

Use Application

method PE5 Scenario App Dates Comments

Barley / Wheat Aerial CAWheatRLF_V2

NDwheatSTD

ORwheatOP 1

TXwheatOP 1 1/8, 6/16
5/23, 8/6
7/2, 9/8
6/18, 10/23 Apply between 2

- leaf

stage to pre

- boot stage Emergence to 60 days

before harvest Application set to 7 days after emergence

Conservation Reserve 2 Aerial CAalfalfa_WirrigOP

ILalfalfaNMC

MNalfalfaOP

NCalfalfaOP

PAalfalfaOP

TXalfalfaOP 3/21, 4/4, 12/31

3/21, 4/4, 8/30
3/21, 4/4, 8/30
3/21, 4/4, 8/30
3/21, 4/4, 11/1
3/21, 4/4, 8/2 Conservation r eserve s

are often seeded with clover, alfalfa, tall
fescue, bromegrass, and ryegrass

Used same start date

as turf

Cotton Aerial CAcotton_WirrigSTD

MScottonSTD

NCcottonSTD

STXcottonNMC

TXcottonOP 5/8

5/8

6/8

3/23

4/23 Do not apply after boll

set. Application set to 7 days after emergence- Page 26 of 116

- Use Application

method PE5 Scenario App Dates Comments

Ornamental Ground CAnurserySTD FLnurserySTD MInurserySTD MInurserySTD_V2 NJnurserySTD NurseryBSS_V2 ORnurserySTD TNnurserySTD 3/21, 4/4, 4/18, 5/2 Used same start date

as turf

Rice Aerial Tier 1 Rice Model NA 4

- leaf stage to late tillering

Right

- of

- Way Ground CArightofwayRLF_V2 RightOfWayBSS 3/21, 4/4, 4/18, 5/2

3/21, 4/4, 4/18, 5/2 Used same start date

as turf

Soybeans , single app Soybeans, multiple apps Aerial MSsoybeanSTD 4/23 4/23, 5/7, 10/11 Apply prior to

soybean bloom Application set to 7 days after emergence

Turf Ground CATurfRLF

FLturfSTD

PAturfSTD 3/21, 4/4, 4/18, 5/2

3/21, 4/4, 4/18, 5/2
3/21, 4/4, 4/18, 5/2 Spring

Grass grown for seed Ground CATurfRLF

FLturfSTD

PAturfSTD 3/21

3/21

3/21 Spring

1 Winter wheat scenarios, so harvest is in summer. First app date was done at 0.105 lb/A, with second app date at 0.083 lb/A.

2 As FPE can only be applied twice per season to conservation reserves (see Table 3.1), the third application date is the first date after harvest of

the alfalfa from the scenario.



### In estimating groundwater concentrations using SCI

- GROW, a K
oc 

### of 595 L/k g oc 

### (m edian K oc 

### value of four values , per EFED Input Parameter Guidance) was used and an aerobic soil half

- life

of 0.29 days (med ian value per EFED Input Parameter Guidance) was used. For PRZM

- GW, the Kd, aerobic soil half

- life , and hydrolysis half

- life used in the P RZM/EXAMS runs ( Table 3.3 )

w ere used

, per EFED Input Parameter Guidance

. Model runs in PRZM

- GW were conducted using the highest single application rate for ornamentals, rights

- of

- way, and turf of 0.173 lbs a.i./A

, applied 3 times during the year at a retreatment interval of 14 days, with a fourth application of

0.012 lbs a.i./A

. The highest annual application rate for ornamentals, rights

- of

- way, and turf of

0. 531 lbs a.i./A /yr was used in SCI

- GROW.

3.2.2.4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations in Surface

W ater

The EECs listed in Table 3. 5 reflect daily 1

- in

- 10 year return frequency (i.e., “peak” ) surface water concentrations based on maximum application rates for label uses of FPE

.- Page 27 of 116

-



### In some cases, formulated FPE is more toxic than the t echnical grade active ingredient to aquatic organisms on both acute and chronic exposure bases . As such, peak exposure estimates from spray

drift alone ( i.e. , by setting the application efficiency in the respective PRZM/EXAMS runs to 0) were developed to characterize the potential for acute risk to aquatic organisms from formulated product ( Table 3. 5 )

. Chron ic exposure values resulting from spray drift of the formulation were

not calculated. As t he components of a formulation are assumed to have different fate and transport properties ( e.g. , mobility, affinity to soil versus water, degradation kinetics)

, it is not possible to assess the impact of these differences on the concentration of the formulated product

as a function of time

. As such

, only the peak concentration for the formulated product can truly

be estimated.

Table 3. 5

. FPE screening

- level E E Cs based on FPE use.

Crop Scenario 1

- in

- 10

- year Peak (μg/L) Peak (μg/L)

Spray Drift Only 1 1

- in

- 10

- year

21

- day

average (μg/L) 1

- in

- 10

- year

60

- day

average (μg/L)

Barley /

Wheat CAWheatRLF_V2 0.74 0.74 0.06 0.02

NDwheatSTD 0.82 0.74 0.04 0.02

ORwheatOP 2 0.74 0.82 0.04 0.01

TXwheatOP 2 0.81 0.74 0.04 0.01

Conservation

Reserve CAalfalfa_WirrigOP 0.70 0.7 0.07 0.02

ILalfalfaNMC 0.70 0.7 0.11 0.04

MNalfalfaOP 0.70 0.7 0.12 0.04

NCalfalfaOP 0.80 0.7 0.09 0.03

PAalfalfaOP 0.86 0.7 0.11 0.04

TXalfalfaOP 0.70 0.7 0.07 0.02

Cotton CAcotton_WirrigSTD 0.74 0.74 0.04 0.01

MScottonSTD 0.78 0.74 0.04 0.01

NCcottonSTD 0.75 0.74 0.04 0.01

STXcottonNMC 0.74 0.74 0.04 0.01

TXcottonOP 0.74 0.74 0.04 0.01

Ornamental CAnurserySTD 1.21 1.21 0.15 0.08

FLnurserySTD 1.78 1.21 0.15 0.07

MInurserySTD_V2 1.47 1.22 0.33 0.17

NJnurserySTD 1.51 1.21 0.27 0.14

NurseryBSS_V2 1.73 1.21 0.16 0.09

ORnurserySTD 1.22 1.21 0.22 0.12

TNnurserySTD 1.92 1.21 0.19 0.10

Rice Tier 1 Rice Model 2 83 NA 0.91 0.32

Right

- of

Way CArightofwayRLF_V2 1.26 1.21 0.19 0.10

RightOfWayBSS 1.96 1.21 0.16 0.09

Soybeans MSsoybeanSTD 0.78 0.74 0.04 0.01

Turf CATurfRLF 1.22 1.21 0.23 0.12- Page 28 of 116

-

Crop Scenario 1

- in

- 10

- year Peak (μg/L) Peak (μg/L)

Spray Drift Only 1 1

- in

- 10

- year

21

- day

average (μg/L) 1

- in

- 10

- year

60

- day

average (μg/L)

FLturfSTD 1.88 1.21 0.15 0.07

PAturfSTD 1.28 1.22 0.24 0.12

Grass grown

for seed CATurfRLF 0.58 0.58 0.06 0.02

FLturfSTD 0.58 0.58 0.04 0.01

PAturfSTD 0.60 0.58 0.07 0.03

1 Surface water EECs from spray drift only were calculated to better characterize potential risk to aquatic organisms from exposu re to the end

- use product (EP). The use of these values is discussed further in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2 ).

2 The maximum rate per season is 0.142 lbs a.i./A , while the maximum annual rate is 0.188 lbs a.i./A

. As the paddy

water is discharged prior to the third treatment, the third treatment is not included in the estimation of the EECs

.



### 3.2.2.5. Monitoring Data

Monito ring data are not available for fenoxaprop

- ethyl, FPE or its degradates. EFED conducted a search of the USGS National Water Quality Asses sment (NAWQA) Program database ( http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/nawqa_queries/index.jsp ), the CDPR surface water and sediment database ( http://cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/surfcont.htm ), and the USEPA STORET (STOrage and RETrieval) database ( http://www.epa.gov/STORET/ ). The NAWQA and CDPR databases did not list FPE or its degradates as sampled constituents. STORET listed fenoxaprop

p

- ethyl as a constituent, but there were no records of monitoring samples from 1990 to the present (2013)

.

3.2.2. 6

. Estimated Ground w ater Concentrations

PRZM

- GW groundwater concentration estimates were greater than corresponding estimates generated using SCI

- GROW, so they were used in this assessment. For groundwater used as irrigation water, the concentration of FPE estimated using PRZM

- GW for application to ornamentals, ri ghts

- of

- way, and turf (the highest application rates) is 1.97x10

- 10 

### μg/L. The concentration for application to ornamentals, rights

- of

- way, and turf e stimated using SCI

- GROW

is 1.8 x10

- 5 

### μg/L. All these estimates represent concentrations that might occur i n shallow, unconfined aquifers under sandy soils ( expected to be most vulnerable to pesticide contamination ), and are thus highly conservative.

3.2.3. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure

3.2.3.1

. Ingestion of Foliar Residues by Birds and Mammals

Terrestrial wildlife exposure estimates are typically calculated for bird s and mammals,

e mphasizing a dietary exposure route for uptake of pesticide active ingredients. Avian exposures are considered surrogates for exposures to terrestrial

- phase amphibian s and reptiles. For exposure to terrestrial organisms, such as birds and mammals, pesticide residues on food items are estimated, based on the assumption that organisms are exposed to pesticide residues in a given exposure use- Page 29 of 116

-



### pattern . For FPE

, applicati on methods for the registered uses include broadcast, banded, and directed spray of liquid formulations for all crops.

T

- REX (v

. 1. 5 .1 ) is used to calculate dietary and dose

- based EECs of FPE residues on food items

for mammals and birds via proposed spray applications of the labeled uses . Input values for deriving EECs in T

- REX are located in Table 3. 6 . Upper

- bound Kenaga nomogram values are

used to derive EECs for FPE exposures to terrestrial mammals and birds ( Table 3. 7 ) , based on a 1

- year time period. Consideration is given to different types of feeding strategies for mammals, including herbivores, insectivores and granivores. D ose

- based exposures are estimated for three weight classes of birds (20 g , 100 g , and 1000 g) and for thre e weight classes of mammals (15 g
, 35 g , and 1000 g).

Table 3. 6

. Input Parameters for Deriving Terrestrial EECs for FPE Labeled Use s ( T

- REX )

.

Proposed Use Application Rate (lbs a.i./A) Minimum

Rea pplication Interval (days) 1 Number of

Applications Foliar Dissipation

Half

- Life (days)

Barley, wheat 0.083, 0.105 159 2

5.6 2 Conservation reserve 0.1, 0.028, 0.06 14, 271 3

Cotton 0.105 NA 1

Grass grown for seed 0.083 NA 1

Ornamental, right

- of

- way, turf 0.173, 0.173,
0.173, 0.012 14 4

Rice, Scenario 1 0.071, 0.071, 0.046 14 3

Rice, Scenario 2 0.108, 0.034, 0.046 14 3

Soybean, Scenario 1 0.105 NA 1

Soybean, Scenario 2 0.1, 0.028, 0.06 14, 157 3

1 TREX v 1.5.1 allows for the input of applications with varying retreatment intervals. Where multiple values are entered, the second interval represents an application that occurs outside the growing season, but still presents the potential for exposure.

2 Developed from residues dissipation studies (MRIDs 493288

- 01 through 493288

- 04 , DP Barcode 418908 )

.



### Differences in exposures between ground and aerial applications are not assessed with the current

model. Therefore, terrestrial risk conclusions for the registered and proposed uses apply to both ground and aerial exposures resulting from application of FPE

. Uncertainties in the terrestrial EECs are primarily associated with a lack of data on pesticide spray interception and subsequent dissipation from foliar surfaces. Foliar dissip ation data from MRIDs 493288

- 01 through 493288

- 04 ( DP Barcode 418908) were reviewed and a dissipation half

- live of 5.6 days was used for terrestrial modeling purposes

. It should be noted that this dissipation half

- life value includes degradate residues an d therefore EECs derived in the T

- REX model are considered as a TTR approach. An example of output from the T

- REX model is provided in Appendix C

.- Page 30 of 116

-

Table 3. 7

. T

- REX Calculated EECs as Food Residues for Terrestrial Animals from FPE Labeled Uses

.

Food Type Dietary

Based (ppm) (mammals and birds) Dose Based (mg/kg

- bw) (birds) Dose Based (mg/kg

- bw) (mammals)

All Size

Classes Small

(20 g) Medium

(100 g) Large

(1000 g) Small

(15 g) Medium

(35 g) Large

(1000 g) Barley, wheat

Herbivores/Insectivores Short grass 25.20 28.70 16.37 7.33 24.03 16.61 3.85 Tall grass 11.55 13.15 7.50 3.36 11.01 7.61 1.76 Broadleaf plants 14.18 16.14 9.21 4.12 13.51 9.34 2.17 Fruits/pods/ seeds 1.58 1.79 1.02 0.46 1.50 1.04 0.24 Arthropods 9.87 11.24 6.41 2.87 9.41 6.50 1.51

Granivores

Seeds N/A 0.40 0.23 0.10 0.33 0.23 0.05

Conservation Reserve

Herbivores/Insectivores Short grass 24.00 27.33 15.59 6.98 22.88 15.81 3.67 Tall grass 11.00 12.53 7.14 3.20 10.49 7.25 1.68 Broadleaf plants 13.50 15.38 8.77 3.93 12.87 8.90 2.06 Fruits/pods/ seeds 1.50 1.71 0.97 0.44 1.43 0.99 0.23 Arthropods 9.40 10.71 6.10 2.73 8.96 6.19 1.44

Granivores

Seeds N/A 0.38 0.22 0.10 0.32 0.22 0.05

Cotton

Herbivores/Insectivores Short grass 25.20 28.70 16.37 7.33 24.03 16.61 3.85 Tall grass 11.55 13.15 7.50 3.36 11.01 7.61 1.76 Broadleaf plants 14.18 16.14 9.21 4.12 13.51 9.34 2.17 Fruits/pods/ seeds 1.58 1.79 1.02 0.46 1.50 1.04 0.24 Arthropods 9.87 11.24 6.41 2.87 9.41 6.50 1.51

Granivores

Seeds N/A 0.40 0.23 0.10 0.33 0.23 0.05 Grass grown for seed

Herbivores/Insectivores Short grass 19.92 22.69 12.94 5.79 18.99 13.13 3.04 Tall grass 9.13 10.40 5.93 2.65 8.70 6.02 1.39 Broadleaf plants 11.21 12.76 7.28 3.26 10.68 7.38 1.71 Fruits/pods/ seeds 1.25 1.42 0.81 0.36 1.19 0.82 0.19 Arthropods 7.80 8.89 5.07 2.27 7.44 5.14 1.19

Granivores

Seeds N/A 0.32 0.18 0.08 0.26 0.18 0.04 Ornamental, right

- of

- way, turf

Herbivores/Insectivores Short grass 50.16 57.12 32.57 14.58 47.82 33.05 7.66 Tall grass 22.99 26.18 14.93 6.68 21.92 15.15 3.51 Broadleaf plants 28.21 32.13 18.32 8.20 26.90 18.59 4.31 Fruits/pods/ seeds 3.13 3.57 2.04 0.91 2.99 2.07 0.48 Arthropods 19.64 22.37 12.76 5.71 18.73 12.94 3.00

Granivores

Seeds N/A 0.79 0.45 0.20 0.66 0.46 0.11- Page 31 of 116

- Food Type Dietary

Based (ppm) (mammals and birds) Dose Based (mg/kg

- bw) (birds) Dose Based (mg/kg

- bw) (mammals)

All Size

Classes Small

(20 g) Medium

(100 g) Large

(1000 g) Small

(15 g) Medium

(35 g) Large

(1000 g)

Rice , Scenario 1

Herbivores/Insectivores Short grass 20.05 22.84 13.02 5.83 19.12 13.21 3.06 Tall grass 9.19 10.47 5.97 2.67 8.76 6.06 1.40 Broadleaf plants 11.28 12.85 7.33 3.28 10.75 7.43 1.72 Fruits/pods/ seeds 1.25 1.43 0.81 0.36 1.19 0.83 0.19 Arthropods 7.85 8.94 5.10 2.28 7.49 5.18 1.20

Granivores

Seeds N/A 0.32 0.18 0.08 0.27 0.18 0.04 Rice, Scenario 2

Herbivores/Insectivores Short grass 25.92 29.52 16.83 7.54 24.71 17.08 3.96 Tall grass 11.88 13.53 7.72 3.45 11.33 7.83 1.82 Broadleaf plants 14.58 16.61 9.47 4.24 13.90 9.61 2.23 Fruits/pods/ seeds 1.62 1.85 1.05 0.47 1.54 1.07 0.25 Arthropods 10.15 11.56 6.59 2.95 9.68 6.69 1.55

Granivores

Seeds N/A 0.41 0.23 0.10 0.41 0.23 0.10 Soybean

, Scenario 1

Herbivores/Insectivores Short grass 25.20 28.70 16.37 7.33 24.03 16.61 3.85 Tall grass 11.55 13.15 7.50 3.36 11.01 7.61 1.76 Broadleaf plants 14.18 16.14 9.21 4.12 13.51 9.34 2.17 Fruits/pods/ seeds 1.58 1.79 1.02 0.46 1.50 1.04 0.24 Arthropods 9.87 11.24 6.41 2.87 9.41 6.50 1.51

Granivores

Seeds N/A 0.40 0.23 0.10 0.33 0.23 0.05 Soybean, Scenario 2

Herbivores/Insectivores Short grass 24.00 27.33 15.59 6.98 22.88 15.81 3.67 Tall grass 11.00 12.53 7.14 3.20 10.49 7.25 1.68 Broadleaf plants 13.50 15.38 8.77 3.93 12.87 8.90 2.06 Fruits/pods/ seeds 1.50 1.71 0.97 0.44 1.43 0.99 0.23 Arthropods 9.40 10.71 6.10 2.73 8.96 6.19 1.44

Granivores

Seeds N/A 0.38 0.22 0.10 0.32 0.22 0.05



### 3.2.3. 2

. Runoff and Spray Drift to Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic

Plants

Exposure of non

- target terrestrial and semi

- aquatic (wetland) plant species is estimated using

OPP’s TERRPLANT (v. 1.2.2) model. Loading via spray drift to dry, non

- target, adjacent areas

is assumed to occur from one a cre of treated land to one acre of the non

- target area. Runoff is also expected to be a source of pesticide loading to non

- target areas. TERRPLANT calculates EECs as a function of application rate, solubility, and default assumptions regarding spray drift. The- Page 32 of 116

-



### spray drift assumptions are the same as those used in the aquatic modeling: 6 % of the application

rate (mass per acre) for ground spray appl ications and 12.5 % for aerial spr ay applications (USEPA 2006b). The EECs for terrestrial and semi

- aquatic plants for a single application of FPE at the maximum labeled rates for representative uses are presented in Table 3. 8 (see example output in Appendi x E ).

Table 3. 8

. EECs for Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants Near FPE Use Areas.

Crop Single Max.

Application

Rate (lbs a.i./A) EECs (lbs a.i./A)

Semi

- Aquatic Areas (Total) Spray Drift Dry Areas (Total)

Ground

spray Aerial

spray Ground

spray 1 Aerial

spray Ground

spray 1 Aerial

spray

Barley, wheat, cotton, soybean 0.105 0.017 0.02 4 0.006 0.013 0.007 0.014

Conservation

reserve 0.1 0.016 0.02 3 0.006 0.01 3 0.007 0.01 4

Grass grown for

seed 0.083 0.013 N/A 0.005 N/A 0.006 N/A

Ornamental, right

of

- way, turf 0.173 0.028 N/A 0.010 N/A 0.012 N/A

Rice 0.108 0.017 0.024 0.006 0.014 0.008 0.015



### 3.3

. Ecological Effects Characterization

The ecological effects characterization for FPE is based upon registrant

- submitted toxicity data for

the TGAI

, transformation products

, a nd specified formulations. The ecotoxicity data for FPE and its associated product s have been reviewed previously in a Preliminary Problem Formulation for Registration Review (USEPA 2007). In addition , many aquatic and terrestrial organism toxicity

studies with TGAI, transformation products, or formulated FPE were submitted after the Preliminary Problem Formulation and are included in this assessment

. The most sensitive endpoints used for risk assessme nt are summarized briefly in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2

. Ecotoxicity data submitted for FPE degradates on aquatic organisms indicate that these degradates are generally equally or less toxic than parent FPE.

Fenoxaprop

- ethyl (PC Code: 128701) is a chemical with a similar structure to FPE that was used in previous EFED risk assessments and in the preliminary problem formulation for the purpose of bridging toxicity information for FPE in cases where data gaps exist

. Since many new aquatic and terrestrial org anism toxicity studies were recently submitted for FPE, toxicity data for fen oxaprop

ethyl is only bridged with FPE in this assessment to fill the few remaining data gaps (freshwater invertebrates [acute]; estuarine/marine mollusks [acute]; mammals [chroni c]

. For purposes of comparison , all available toxicity data for fenoxaprop

- ethyl are still presented in this assessment

, even if they are not used for risk estimation

. The use of fenoxaprop

- ethyl toxicity data to represent FPE is considered appropriate s ince FPE is the R

- enantiomer enrichment of fenoxaprop

- ethyl,

which contains a combination of both R

- and S

- enantiomers. There is some uncertainty in this- Page 33 of 116

-



### bridging strategy since the influence of the S

- enantiomer on toxicity of fenoxaprop

- ethyl is

unknown.

The results of a 2013 review of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) are described

in Section 3.3.3 (USEPA 2013) . A search of the ECOTOX database in January 2013 yielded no new data from suitable studies with more sensitive toxicity endpoin ts than th os e obtained from registrant

- submitted gu ideline studies described below; however, some information on toxicity of degradates to aquatic organisms were available for effects characterization.

3.3.1. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment

3.3.1.1. Toxicity to Aquatic Vertebrates

A summary of data on toxicity to aquatic vertebrates for technical grade FPE

, formulated products

, and FPE transformation products is presen ted in Table 3. 9

.

On an acute exposure basis, FPE is highly toxic to freshwater fish, with LC 50 

### values ranging from

0.46 to 0.58 mg a.i./L across tested species ( not including data from fenoxaprop

- ethyl). Only a single estuarine/marine fish acute study was provided for fenoxaprop

- ethyl on the sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatu s ; MRID 00163779) , which resulted in an LC 50 

### >1 mg a.i./L suggesting that the toxicity of the compound may be limited by its solubility

.

In a recently submitted 33

- day early life

- stage study (MRID 48417901 ) with the fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) , fertili zed eggs were exposed to total mean

- measured concentrations of fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and fenoxaprop

- p acid degradate (total residues) of 0.0 16, 0.0 2 7

, 0.0 44, 0.0 71,

and 0. 11 m g a.i./L under flow

- through conditions. Mean hatching success/embryo survival ranged between 71.4 and 80.4%, and showed no sig nificant difference at any test level compared to the

control. Post

- hatch (juvenile) survival was significantly (p<0.05) lower at the two highest treatment concentrations ( 90 and 18.3% mean survival at 0.0 71 and 0. 11 m g a.i./L ), as compared to the control, resulting in a study NOAEC of 0.0 44 m g a.i./L

. There was a statistically significant (p<0.05) decrease in length and dry weights in comparison to the control at the hig hest test level

of 0. 11 m g a.i./L

, but due to the observed high mortality in this test level (81.7 %) these results

were excluded from the NO A EC/LO A EC determination

. No significant decrease in standard length or dry weight was evident at any other test level when compared to the control.

No chronic estuarine/marine fish toxicity data are available for either FPE or fenoxaprop

- ethyl. In order to derive a chronic estuarine/marine fish toxicity endpoint for risk assessment, an acute

- to

chronic ratio (ACR) based upon data from the fathead min now was applied to the sheepshead

minnow acute to xicity endpoint ( ACR [fathead minnow] = 0.50 [acute]/0.044 [chronic] = 11.4; 1 mg a.i./ L [sheepshead minnow acute]/11.4 [fathead minnow ACR] = 0.088 mg a.i./L [ sheepshea d minnow chronic toxicity value])

. It should be noted that the sheepshead minnow acute toxicity value is a “greater than value,” and therefore the ACR

- derived chronic value is considered a conservative toxicity estimate to be used for risk characterization purposes only, and not for

calculati ng RQs.- Page 34 of 116

-



### Degradates or formulations do not appear to be substantially (more than an order of magnitude) more toxic to freshwater fish as compared to FPE TGAI on an acute exposure basis. Moreover, the degradate s fenoxaprop

- p acid (AE F088406 ) and chlorobe nzoxazolone (AE F054014) appear to be several orders of magnitude less toxic to fish on an acute exposure basis.

Table 3. 9

. Summary of Available Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Aquatic Vertebrates Exposed to FPE, Degradates , and Formulations

Species (Common Name) Study Type

(Measure of Effect) Test Substance

(% a.i.) End point

(Test Duration) Toxicity Value

[95% CI]

m g a

. i

. /L (Acute Toxicity Category) MRID

( Study

Classification )

Freshwater Vertebrates Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow trout) Acute

(Survival) FPE

(95.6%) L C 50

(96 hours) 0.46 *

(highly toxic) 42009604

(Acceptable)

Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow trout) Acute

(Survival) FPE

(95.6%) L C 50

(96 hours) 0.58

(highly toxic) 42009605

(Acceptable)

Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow trout) Acute

(Survival) Formulation:

FPE + HOE

107892 (safener) (12.5%) L C 50

(96 hours) 0.45

(highly toxic) 47333428

(Supplemental)

Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow trout) Acute

(Survival) Degradate:

Fenoxaprop

- p acid
[ AE F088406 ] (93.8%) L C 50

(96 hours) >68.8

(slightly toxic) 47333413

(Acceptable)

Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow trout) Acute

(Survival) Degradate:

Chlorobenzoxaz

olone [AE F054014] (99.7%) L C 50

(96 hours) >10

(slightly toxic) 44801503

(Supplemental) 1

Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow trout) Acute

(Survival) Degradate:

AE F096918 (>99%) L C 50

(96 hours) 318

[227

- 445] (practically non

toxic) 47333418

(Supplemental)

Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow trout) Sub

- chronic

(Parental survival) Degradate:

Fenoxaprop

- p acid
[ AE F088406 ] (97.4%) NOAEC

LOAEC (28 day) 1.8

3.1 47333414

(Supplemental)

Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow trout) Sub

- chronic

(No effects observed) Degradate:

AE F096918 (>99%) NOAEC

LOAEC (28 day) 31

>31 47333419

(Supplemental)

Salmo trutta (Brown trout) Acute

(Survival) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (96%) L C 50

(96 hours) 0.48

[0.45

- 0.52] (highly toxic) 47333418

(Supplemental)

Lepomis

macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish) Acute

(Survival) FPE

(95.6%) L C 50

(96 hours) 0.58

(highly toxic) 42009603

(Acceptable)- Page 35 of 116

- Species (Common Name) Study Type

(Measure of Effect) Test Substance

(% a.i.) End point

(Test Duration) Toxicity Value

[95% CI]

m g a

. i

. /L (Acute Toxicity Category) MRID

( Study

Classification )

Lepomis

macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish) Acute

(Survival) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (95.8%) L C 50

(96 hours) 0.31

[0.26

- 0.35] (highly toxic) 00130337

(Acceptable)

Lepomis

macrochirus (Bluegill sunfish) Acute

(Survival) Formulation:

FPE + HOE

107892 (safener) (12.5%) L C 50

(96 hours) 0.28

[0.23

- 0.33] 47333431

(Supplemental)

Lepomis gibbosus ( Pumpkinseed sunfish) Acute

(Survival) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (96%) L C 50

(96 hours) 0.36

[0.32

- 0.41] (highly toxic) 00130338

(Acceptable)

Pimephales promelas (Fathead minnow) Acute

(Survival) FPE

(94.5%) L C 50

(96 hours) 0.50

[0.42

- 0.61] (highly toxic) 48492501

(Acceptable)

Pimephales promelas (Fathead minnow) Chronic, early

life

- stage (Post

- hatch survival) FPE

(94.5%) NOAEC

LOAEC (33 days) 0.044 *

0.071 48417901

(Acceptable)

Estuarine/Marine Vertebrates
Cyprinodon variegatus (Sheepshead minnow) Acute

(Survival) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (96.5%) L C 50

(96 hours) >1

(moderately toxic) 00163779

(Supplemental)

Cyprinodon variegatus (Sheepshead minnow) Chronic, early

life

- stage (ACR) N/A NOAEC 0.088 ACR

- derived toxicity value

*Represents the most s ensitive toxicity endpoint to be used in RQ calculations

1 Classification is based on preliminary study review which will be finalized before completion of the final risk

assessment.



### 3.3.1.2. Toxicity to Aquatic Inver tebrates

A summary of data on the toxicity of FPE , formulations, and transformation products to aquatic

invertebrates is provid ed in Table 3. 10

.

On an acute exposure basis, the toxicity of FPE to freshwater invertebrates is non

- definitive , with

a EC 50 

### value of >1.1 mg a.i./L ( not including data from fenoxaprop

- ethyl ), and highly toxic to

estuarine/marine invertebrate s with EC 50 

### /LC 50 

### values ranging 0. 11 mg a.i./L ( not including data from fenoxaprop

- ethyl). Since the acute toxicity endpoint for Daphnia magna exposed to FPE is

non

- definitive (EC 50 

### >1.1 mg a.i./L), the daphnid endpoint for fenoxaprop

- ethyl (EC 50 

### = 3.18 mg a.i./L) will be used for RQ calculations in this assessment , while the endpoint for FPE will be used

in risk characterization

.

Freshwa ter invertebrate ( D. magna ) toxicity endpoints for FPE and two degradates (fenoxaprop

- p acid [ AE F088406 ] and AE F096918 ) are all non

- definitive ( i.e. , greater than the highest concentration tested), although much higher concentrations were tested on the degradates relative- Page 36 of 116

-



### to FPE due to FPE ’s lower solubility

. 1 

### Consequently , there is no evidence suggesting that either of these degradates are more toxi c than FPE on an acute exposure basis. AE F054014 ( chlorobenzoxazolone ) was found to be moderately toxic to D. magna (EC 50 

### =6.6 mg a.i./L), but the toxicity of this degradate cannot be compared to the parent since FPE was only tested up to 1 mg a.i./L. A single acute toxicity test conducted with a formulation ( FPE + HOE 107892 ) on D.

magna suggests that this formulation , which also contains the plant safener HOE 107892

, is at

least two

- fold more toxic to freshwater invertebrates than FPE technical.

In a 21

- day chronic life cycle study (MRID 47332706) with D

. magna
, individuals were exposed

to nominal concentrations of FPE of 0.0 1, 0.032, 0.1, 0.32, and 1.0 mg/L (not adjusted for purity)

under static renewal conditions

. Time

- weighted

- average (TWA) co ncentrations were 0.0072, 0.068, and 0.76 mg/L for the nominal 0.01 , 0 .1 , and 1.0 mg/L levels, respectively. The 21

- day NOAEC, based on an adverse effect on reproduction (number of dead larvae per surviving adult) at the highest treatment level, was estim ated to be 0. 23 mg/L ( estimated using average TWA

recoveries of 72% of nominal for the lowest, middle, and highest concentrations )

. Cumulative

immobilization of D aphnia ranged from 2.5 to 12.5% for all control and treatment levels, with no statistically significant differences observed. At the highest concentration of 0.76 mg/L (TWA), the average number of dead larvae per surviving adult was 3.35, which was statistically different compared to the negative and solvent control groups

. No statistically

- sig nificant differences from

controls were observed regarding the total number of larvae per surviving adult at any treatment

level. The study did not measure adult growth (length) endpoints, which are required for this test.

L ife cycle studies of D. magna performed with FPE formulations showed five to 100 times greater sensitivity (NOAEC range: 0.0023

- 0.042 mg a.i./L ) a s compared to a TGAI study with FPE (NOAEC = 0.23 mg a.i./L )

. The higher toxicity exhibited by the formulations does not appea r to be driven by the co

- formulated active ingredient mefenpyr

- diethyl (PC Code 811800; a plant safener) since thre e studies with FPE combined w ith mefenpyr

- diethyl resulted in lower toxicity ( i.e

., less sensitive) as compared to a formulation (HOE 046360 OH EW07 A209 ) with FPE alone ( Table 3. 10 )

. In addition, a n acute study with Daphnia conducted with mefenpyr

- diethyl TGAI ( MRID 43972208 ; EC 50 

### =52 mg a.i./L) does not provide evidence that the safener is m o re toxic to freshwater invertebrates as compared to FPE ( Daphnia EC 50 

### > 1.1 mg a.i./L). Therefore, the increased toxicity of the formulation is likely a result of inert ingredients included in the

formulation.

In a 28

- day chronic life cycle study (MRID 44786802) with mysid shrimp ( Americamysis bahia )

, ind ividuals were exposed to mean

- measured concentrations of FPE of 0.011, 0.033, 0.077, 0.15, and 0.33 mg a.i

. / L. Sublethal effects including some initial lethargy and erratic swimming were observed in mysids at the 0.15 mg a.i. /L concentration on days 4, 5, and 6 of the study

. A 10% reduction in dry weight at the 0.033 mg a.i./L test level was the most sensitive endpoint, resulting in a NOAEC of 0.011 mg a.i./L. Significant effects (p<0.05) in number of young per female, mean total length, and mean wet w eight were observed at the next highest concentration (0.077 mg a.i./L).

1 Solubility of fenoxaprop

- p [AE F088406] and AE F096918 are 270 and 190 ,000 mg/L, respectively.- Page 37 of 116

-

Table 3. 10

. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Aquatic Invertebrates Exposed to FPE, Degradates , and Formulations

.

Species (Common Name) Stu dy Type

(Measure of Effect) Test Substance

(% a.i.) End point

(Test Duration) Toxicity Value

[95% CI]

m g a

. i

. /L (Acute Toxicity Category) MRID

( Study

Classification )

Freshwater Invertebrates

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Acute

(Immobility) FPE

(88.1%) E C 50

(48 hours) >1.1

(moderately toxic) 44664002

(Supplemental)

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Acute

(Immobility) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (96%) EC 50

(48 hours) 3.18*

[1.79

- 7.36] (moderately toxic) 00130342

(Acceptable)

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Acute

(Immobility) Formulation:

FPE + HOE

107892 (safener) (12.5%) EC 50

(48 hours) 0.52

[0.42

- 0.65] 47333429

(Supplemental)

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Acute

(Immobility) Degradate:

Fenoxaprop

- p acid
[ AE F088406 ] (95.6%) EC 50

(48 hours) >32

(slightly toxic) 47333415

(Acceptable)

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Acute

(Immobility) Degradate:

Fenoxaprop

- p acid
[ AE F088406 ] EC 50

(48 hours) 14.2

(slightly toxic) ECOTOX Ref#

158031 (Supplemental)

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Acute

(Immobility) Degradate:

Chlorobenzoxaz

olone [AE F054014] (99.7%) EC 50

(48 hours) 6.6

( moderately toxic) 44801505

(Supplemental ) 1

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Acute

(Immobility) Degradate:

Chlorobenzoxaz

olone [AE F054014] EC 50

(48 hours) 8.2

( moderately toxic) ECOTOX Ref#

158031 (Supplemental)

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Acute

(Immobility) Degradate:

AE F096918 (>99%) EC 50

(48 hours) >185.6

(practically non

toxic) 47333420

(Acceptable)

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Chronic, life

cycle (number of living offspring per surviving adult) FPE

(89.5%) NOAEC

LOAEC (21 day) 0.23*

0.76 47332706

(Supplemental)

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Chronic, life

cycle (offspring production) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (97%) NOAEC

LOAEC (21 day) 0.56

1.0 47332705

(Supplemental)- Page 38 of 116

- Species (Common Name) Stu dy Type

(Measure of Effect) Test Substance

(% a.i.) End point

(Test Duration) Toxicity Value

[95% CI]

m g a

. i

. /L (Acute Toxicity Category) MRID

( Study

Classification )

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Chronic, life

cycle (age at first brood release) Formulation:

AE F046360

– 24 EW14 A717 (7.28% FPE;

7.60% mefenpyr

diethyl) NOAEC

LOAEC (21 day) 0.042

0.088 47332701

(Supplemental)

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Chronic, life

cycle (number of living per female) Formulation:

Puma ® SB 69

- 75 EW (6.81%
FPE;

7.18% mefenpyr

d i ethyl ) NOAEC

LOAEC (21 day) 0.0081

0.016 47332702

(Supplemental)

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Chronic, life

cycle (number of living offspring per surviving adult) Formulation:

HOE 046360 24

EW14 A703 (7.0% FPE;

7.2% mefenpyr

d i ethyl ) NOAEC

LOAEC (21 day) 0.0074

0.013 47332703

(Supplemental)

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Chronic, life

cycle (number of living offspring per surviving adult) Formulation:

HOE 046360

OH EW07

A209 (7.2% FPE) NOAEC

LOAEC (21 day) 0.0023

0.0072 47332704

(Supplemental)

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Chronic, life

cycle (number of dead offspring produced) Degradate:

Fenoxaprop

- p acid
[ AE F088406 ] (97.4%) NOAEC

LOAEC (21 day) 0.34

1.0 47332416

(Acceptable)

Daphnia magna (Water flea) Chronic, life

cycle (length) Degradate:

AE F096918 (>99%) NOAEC

LOAEC (21 day) <0.31

0.31 47332421

(Supplemental)

Procambarus

simulans (Crayfish) Acute

(Survival) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (96.5%) L C 50

(96 hours) 1.1

[0.74

- 1.5] (moderately toxic) 00154343

(Supplemental)

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates
Americamysis

bahia (Mysid shrimp) Acute

(Survival) FPE

(89.5%) L C 50

(96 hours) 0.11*

(highly toxic) 42009607

(Acceptable)

Americamysis

bahia (Mysid shrimp) Acute

(Survival) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (96.5%) L C 50

(96 hours) 0.098

[0.068

- 0.15] (very highly toxic) 00163777

(Acceptable)- Page 39 of 116

- Species (Common Name) Stu dy Type

(Measure of Effect) Test Substance

(% a.i.) End point

(Test Duration) Toxicity Value

[95% CI]

m g a

. i

. /L (Acute Toxicity Category) MRID

( Study

Classification )

Americamysis

bahia (Mysid shrimp) Acute

(Survival) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (96.8%) L C 50

(96 hours) 0.11

(highly toxic) 42009608

(Acceptable)

Americamysis

bahia (Mysid shrimp) Chronic, life

cycle (dry weight) FPE

(88.1%) NOAEC

LOAEC (28 days) 0.011*

0.033 44786802

(Acceptable)

Crassostrea virginica (Eastern oyster) Acute

(Immobility) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (96.5%) EC 50

(48 hours) 0.25

[0.11

- 0.35] (highly toxic) 00163775

(Supplemental)

Mercenaria

mercenaria (Quahog clam) Acute

(Immobility) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (96.5%) EC 50

(48 hours) 0.20

[0.068

- 0.15] (highly toxic) 40404702

(Acceptable)

* Represents the most sensitive toxicity endpoint to be used in RQ calculations

1 Classification is based on preliminary study review which will be finalized before completion of the final risk

assessment.



### 3.3.1. 3

. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants

A summary of the toxicity profile for FPE , formulations, and transformation products for aquatic plants are located in Table 3.1 1

.

In 14

- day toxicity s tudy with vascular aquatic plant duckweed

, Lemna gibba (MRID 48566202) exposed to FPE , no adverse effects on frond number were observed up to the highest concentration tested ( 3 mg a.i. /L )

. In a 7

- day test with a formulation (Puma ® 

### 120) containing FPE and the active ingredient mefenpyr

- diethyl (MRID 47333425 )

, lower EC 50 

### and NOAEC values (higher toxicity)

were estimated as compared to the 14

- day test with FPE alone.

Aquatic toxicity tests with nonvascular algae and cyanobacteria species exposed to FPE resulted

in EC 50 

### and NOAEC values ranging from 0.43 to 2.5 and 0.027 to 1.5 mg a.i./L, respectively. In tests with the freshwater diatom, N. pelliculosa (MRID 48566202 )

, and the cyanobacterium

, Anabaena flos

- aquae (MRID 48566202 ), no effects on cell density, growth rate, or biomass were observed up to the highest concentrations tested. Definitive NOAEC values were not obtained for marine diatoms and cyanobacteria, indicating uncertainty in the effects of FPE to these aquatic nonvascular plants

. Toxicity tests with FPE degradates (MRIDs 47333417 and 47333422) suggest that fenoxaprop

- p acid, AE F054014, AE F096918 do not appear to be as toxic to green algae as compared to FPE. Conversely, a tes t with a formulation containing FPE and HOE 107892 (MRID 47333427) resulted in an EC 50 

### that was approximately four times lower (more sensitive) than technical grade FPE for green algae , while the NOAEC for the formulation study was more than

two

- fold higher than the TGAI study.- Page 40 of 116

-

Table 3. 11

. Summary of Toxicity Data for Vascular and Nonvascular Aquatic Plants Exposed to FPE

.
Species (Common Name) Measure of

Effect Test Substance

(% a.i.) End point

(Te st Duration) Toxicity Value

[95% CI]

m g a

. i

. /L MRID

( Study

Classification )

Lemna g ibba (Duckweed) % Inhibition FPE (88.1%) E C 50

(14 days) >3 44664003 (Supplemental) NOAEC (14 days) 3 *

Lemna g ibba (Duckweed) % Inhibition Formulation:

Puma ® 120 (78% FPE; co

formulated with mefenpyr

d i ethyl ) E C 50

(7 days) 1.7

[1.4

- 2.0]

47333425

(Supplemental) NOAEC (7 days) 0.094

Raphidocelis subcapitata (Green algae) % Inhibition FPE (97.4%) E C 50

(120 hours) 0.43 * 42009609 (Supplemental) NOAEC (120 hours) 0.027 *

Raphidocelis subcapitata (Green algae) % Inhibition Fenoxaprop

ethyl (96.8%) E C 50

(120 hours) 0.65 42009610 (Acceptable) NOAEC (120 hours) 0.10

Raphidocelis subcapitata (Green algae) % Inhibition Degradate: Fenoxaprop

- p (95.6%) E C 50

(120 hours) 44

[41

- 47] 47333417

( Supplemental ) NOAEC (120 hours) 18

Raphidocelis subcapitata (Green algae) % Inhibition Degradate:

Chlorobenzoxaz

olone [AE F054014] (99.7%) E C 50

(96 hours) 7.5 44801501 (Supplemental) 1

Raphidocelis subcapitata (Green algae) % Inhibition Degradate:

AE F096918 (>99%) E C 50

(72 hours) 14

[6.3

- 31] 47333422

(Supplemental) NOAEC (72 hours) 30

Raphidocelis subcapitata (Green algae) % Inhibition Formulation:

FPE + HOE

107892 (12.5%) E C 50

(120 hours) 0.1 47333427 (Supplemental) NOAEC (120 hours) 0.063

Navicula pelliculosa (Freshwater Diatom) % Inhibition FPE (97.5%) E C 50

(96 hours) >0.48 48566201 (Acceptable) NOAEC (96 hours) 0.48

Navicula pelliculosa (Freshwater Diatom) % Inhibition FPE (88.1%) E C 50

(96 hours) 2.5 44768105 (Supplemental) NOAEC (96 hours) 1.54

Skeletonema

costatum (Marine diatom) % Inhibition FPE (88.1%) E C 50

(96 hours) >1.8 44768104 (Supplemental) NOAEC (96 hours) <0.21

Anabaena flos

- % Inhibition FPE (88.1%) E C 50

(96 hours) >0.73 44768103- Page 41 of 116

- Species (Common Name) Measure of

Effect Test Substance

(% a.i.) End point

(Te st Duration) Toxicity Value

[95% CI]

m g a

. i

. /L MRID

( Study

Classification )

aquae ( Cyanobacteria ) NOAEC (96 hours) <0.73 (Supplemental)

Anabaena flos

aquae
( Cyanobacteria ) % Inhibition FPE (97.5%) E C 50

(96 hours) >0.61 48566202 (Acceptable) NOAEC (96 hours) 0.61

*Represents the most sensitive toxicity endpoint to be used in RQ calculations

1 Classification is based on preliminary study review which will be finalized before completion of the final risk

assessment.



### 3.3.1.4

. Degradate Toxicity Predictions using QSAR

Toxicity data summarized in Sections 3.3.1.1 to 3.3.1.3 indicate that transformation products of FPE, particular ly fenoxaprop

- p , may be less toxic to a range of aquatic organisms as compared to the parent compound. In a n attempt to further compare toxicit y of FPE and its transformation products, acute and chronic data were generated using quantitative structure

- activity relationships (QSAR) derived in the program ECOSAR (version 1.11 ). ECOSAR is only used to explore relative toxicity among chemicals and is not used to derive endpoint values for estimating risk. Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix H

. N one of the transformation products were placed in the same specific chemical class as the parent ( i.e. , esters). Therefore, the results of th is analysis are only marginally useful for risk assessment

. However, based on the baseline toxicity category ( i.e. , neutral organics), all transformation products appear to be less toxic than the parent by at least a multiple of three. Since, this compar ison is not based on a specific class or mode of action type, the evidence for lower toxicity of transformation products as compared to FPE is

considered weak based on QSAR

. However, empirical toxicity data for aquatic organisms indicates that degradates are less toxic than the parent.

3. 3.2

. Terrestrial Effects Characterization

3.3.2.1. Toxicity to Animals

A summary of the toxicity data for birds, mammals, and honeybees ( Apis mellifera ) is provided in

Table 3.12

.

On an acute oral exposure basis, FPE is slightly toxic to partridge ( Purdix purdix ; MRID

47333404 ) and practically non

- toxic to mallard ducks ( Anas platyrhynchos ; MRID 47333402 ),

bobwhit e quail ( Colinus virginianus ; MRID 47333403 )

, and Japanese quail ( Coturnix coturnix japonica ; MRID 47333401 ). C linical signs of toxicity observed in these studies included reduced spontaneous activity, ruffled feat hers, standing on hocks, diarrhea, rapid, shallow breathing, closed palpebral fissures, reduced sound production, lateral position, uncoordinated or staggering gait, and/or gasping but in many cases, these effects subsided before the end of the test observation period

. On a subacute dietary exposure basis, FPE is practically non

- toxic to all species tested (MRIDs 47333405, 47333406, 47333407)

.- Page 42 of 116

-



### In a 21

- week r eproductive toxicity study (MRID 47333408), Northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianu s ) were exposed to FPE mean

- measured concentrations of 192, 404, and 760 mg a

. i

. /kg diet, respectively. Overall food consumption (Weeks 1

- 21) averaged 35.9, 35 .4, 34.6, and 33.9 g/day for the control, 192, 404, and 760 mg a

. i

. /kg diet levels, respectively , and there was a slight but statistically significant (p<0.05) decrease in food consumption at the 760 mg a.i./kg

- diet level as compared to the compared to the control

. In addition, at the 760 mg a

. i

. /kg

- diet level, there was a statistically significant decrease in the number of eggs laid/hen (10%, relative to control), and correspondingly, statistically significant (p< 0.05) decreases in the number of eggs set (11%, relative to control), viable embryos (12%, relative to control), live embryos (11%, relative to control), and hatchling survival (14%, relative to control). No other statistically significant

differences wer e observed on any adult or offspring parameter s during the study. The subsequent NOAEC is considered to be 404 mg a

. i

. /kg diet, equivalent to an intake of approximately 30.8 mg

a

. i ./kg

- bw/day.

FPE is classified as practically non

- toxic to mammals on an ac ute oral exposure basis. There are

no relevant multi

- generation toxicity studies in mammals for FPE. Chronic exposures to fenoxaprop

- ethyl during a two

- generation reproduction study in rats (MRID 00159920 ) did not show effects to survival, growth, or rep roduction at any of the concentrations tested, resulting in a NOAEL of 9 mg/kg/day (180 mg/kg

- diet)

, i.e ., the highest dietary concentration tested . In a two year feeding study in dogs (MRID 00151566), reduced body weight (10

- 13%) and reduced body weight g ain (46

- 51%) relative to controls at test termination resulted in NOAEL and LOAEL

values of 0.375 an d 1.875 mg/kg/day, respectively

.

In acute oral and acute contact toxicity tests, young adult honey bees were exposed to FPE technical (MRID 47333402). No mortalities or sublethal effects were observed in either study.

The LD 50 

### was >192 μg a.i./bee , the highest exposure level tested ; therefore, FPE technical is classified as practically non

- toxic to young adult honey bees on an acute contact exposure basis. A formulation containing both FPE and mefenpyr

- diethyl active ingredients result ed in higher toxicity on an acute contact exposure basis when corrected for the percentage of FPE in the formulation ( LD 50 

### was 58 μg FPE /bee ) , but is still considered to be practically non

- toxic to honeybees based on the current classification system where an LD 50 

### >11 μg a.i./bee is classified as practically non

- toxic

.

Table 3. 12

. Summary of Toxicity Data for Terres trial Animals Exposed to FPE

.

Species (Common Name) Study Type

(Measure of Effect) Test Substance

(% a.i.) End point

(Test Duration) Toxicity Value

[95% CI] (Acute Toxicity Category) MRID

( Study

Classification )

Birds

Anas platyrhynchos (Mallard duck) Acute Oral

(Mortality) FPE

(95.6%) LD 50

(14 days) >2000 mg

a.i./kg

- bw (practically non

toxic) 47333402

(Acceptable)

Anas platyrhynchos (Mallard duck) Subacute

Dietary (Mortality) FPE

(95.6%) LC 50

(8 days) >4630 mg

a.i./kg

- diet (practically non

toxic) 47333407

(Acceptable)- Page 43 of 116

- Species (Common Name) Study Type

(Measure of Effect) Test Substance

(% a.i.) End point

(Test Duration) Toxicity Value

[95% CI] (Acute Toxicity Category) MRID

( Study

Classification )

Anas platyrhynchos (Mallard duck) Subacute

Dietary (Mortality) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (96.6%) LC 50 >5620 mg a.i./kg

- diet (practically non

toxic) 00130333

(Acceptable)

Anas platyrhynchos (Mallard duck) Reproduction

(Hatching) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (95.5%) NOAEC

LOAEC 30 mg a.i./kg

diet 180 mg a.i./kg

diet 00155304

(Acceptable)

Colinus virginianus (Bobwhite quail) Acute Oral

(Mortality) FPE

(95.6%) LD 50

(14 days) >2000 mg

a.i./kg

- bw (practically non

toxic) 47333403

(Acceptable)

Colinus virginianus (Bobwhite quail) Acute Oral

(Mortality) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (96.6%) LD 50 >2510 mg a.i./kg

- bw (practically non

toxic) 00130330

(Acceptable)

Colinus virginianus (Bobwhite quail) Subacute

Dietary (Mortality) FPE

(95.6%) LC 50

(11 days) >4220 mg

a.i./kg

- diet (practically non

toxic) 47333406

(Acceptable)

Colinus virginianus (Bobwhite quail) Subacute

Dietary (Mortality) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (96.6%) LC 50 >5620 mg a.i./kg

- diet (practically non

toxic) 00130334

(Acceptable)

Colinus virginianus (Bobwhite quail) Reproduction

( parental food consumption, eggs laid, eggs
set, viable embryos, live embryos, and hatchling

survival ) FPE

(95.1%) NOAEC

LOAEC (21 weeks) 404 mg a.i./kg

diet* 760 mg a.i./kg

diet 47333408

(Acceptable)

Colinus virginianus (Bobwhite quail) Reproduction

(Hatching) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (95.5%) NOAEC

LOAEC 180 mg a.i./kg

diet >180 mg a.i./kg

diet 00155305

(Acceptable)

Coturnix coturnix japonica (Japanese quail) Acute Oral

(Mortality) FPE

(95.9%) LD 50

(14 days) >2000 mg

a.i./kg

- bw (practically non

toxic) 47333401

(Acceptable)

Coturnix coturnix japonica (Japanese quail) Acute Oral

(Mortality) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (TGAI) LD 50 >5000 mg a.i./kg

- bw (practically non

toxic) 00130331/

00130332 (Supplemental)

Coturnix coturnix japonica (Japanese quail) Subacute

Dietary (Mortality) FPE

(95.6%) LC 50

(8 days) >5106 mg

a.i./kg

- diet (practically non

toxic) 47333405

(Acceptable)- Page 44 of 116

- Species (Common Name) Study Type

(Measure of Effect) Test Substance

(% a.i.) End point

(Test Duration) Toxicity Value

[95% CI] (Acute Toxicity Category) MRID

( Study

Classification )

Purdix purdix (Partridge) Acute Oral

(Mortality) FPE

(95.9%) LD 50

(14 days) 2000 mg a.i./kg

bw* 1
(slightly toxic) 47333404

(Acceptable)

Mammals 2

Rattus norvegicus (laboratory rat) Acute Oral

(Mortality) FPE

(95%) LD 50 3040 mg/kg

- bw (males ) 2090 mg/kg

- bw* (females ) (practically non

toxic) 42009612

42009613

Rattus norvegicus (laboratory rat) Acute Oral

(Mortality) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (Technical) LD 50 2357 mg/kg

- bw (males) 2500 mg/kg

- bw (females) (practically non

toxic) 00130010/

00130011

Rattus norvegicus (laboratory rat) Reproduction Fenoxaprop

ethyl (97.2%) NOAE L

LOAE L 180 mg/kg

- diet*

(9 mg/kg/day)

>180 mg/kg

- diet (>9 mg/kg/day) 00159920

Honeybees Apis mellifera (Honeybees) Acute Oral

(Mortality) FPE

(96.2%) LC 50

(48 hours) >191.4 μg

a.i./bee 47333411

(Acceptable)

Apis mellifera (Honeybees) Acute Contact

(Mortality) FPE

(96.2%) LD 50

(48 hours) >192.4 μg

a.i./bee* (practically non

toxic) 47333411

(Acceptable)

Apis mellifera (Honeybees) Acute Contact

(Mortality) Fenoxaprop

ethyl (TGAI) LD 50

(48 hours) >100 μg a.i./bee

(practically non

toxic) 00130641

(Acceptable)

Apis mellifera (Honeybees) Acute Contact

(Mortality) Formulation:

Hoe 046360 24

EC15 A203 ( 12.5% FPE;

3.37%

m efenpyr

diethyl ) LD 50

(48 hours) 58 μg a.i./bee

(practically non

toxic) 47333430

(Supplemental)

* Most sensitive endpoint; will be used in RQ calculations

1 LD 50 is approximately equivalent to the highest dose tested

2 Mammalian toxicity endpoints for FPE /fenoxaprop

- ethyl provided and reviewed by EPA / OCSPP/ OPP Health

Effects Division



### 3.3.2.4. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants

Terrestrial plant toxicity studies are required for pesticides that have terrestrial use patterns or may move off of the application site via drift or volatilization

. A summary of the toxicity data for terrestrial plants is provided in Table 3.13

. NOAEL and I C 25 

### (concentration that causes an effect in 25% of the population for the monitored endpoint) values are established for markers of seedling emergence and vegetative vigor.- Page 45 of 116

-



### S eedling emergence ( MRIDs 41276904, 47333423 ) and vegetative vigor ( MRIDs 41276907

, 4 7333424 ) tests with formulations containing FPE have been submitted ( Table 3.1 3 )

. Studies

submitted after the Preliminary Pr oblem Formulation for Registration Review for FPE are summarized below.

In a seedling emergence study (MRID 47333423) , t he effect s of Puma ® 

### 120 Super (formulation containing FPE , 120 g/ L

, and the mefenpyr

- diethyl , 33 g/L ) on monocot s (Canada bluejoint marsh reed, Calamagrostis canadensis ; corn , Zea mays ; Northern wheatgrass, gropyron dasystachyum ; onion, Allium cepa ) and dicot s (alfa lfa, Medicago sativa ; carrot, Daucus carata ; cucumber,

Cucumis sativa ; lettuce, Lactuca sativa ; soybean, Glycine max ; and tomato, Lycopersicon

esculentum ) were studied at nominal concentrations of 0.001 , 0.005, 0.010, 0.020, 0.040, and 0.081

l bs a.i./A for corn, while a ll other species were tested at the single application rate (limit test) of

0.081 lbs a.i./A

. Shoot dry weight/plant was significantly inhibited in cucumber and tomato. Shoot length was significantly inhibited in bluejoint marsh reed. The p ercent inhibition in seedling emergence in the treated species as compared to the control ranged from

- 16.7% (bluejoint) to 7.0% (onion). The most sensitive monocot in the single application rate test, based on a 20.8% inhibition in shoot length, was blue joint marsh reed. The most sensitive dicot in the single application rate test , based on a 16.9% inhibition in sho ot dry weight/plant, was tomato ; since the exposure resulted in <25% inhibition, higher tier testing of multiple exposure levels was not

requ ired

. In the multiple application rate test with corn, root length was the most sensitive endpoint

with NOAEC and EC 25 

### /IC 25 

### values of 0.005 and 0.011 lbs a.i./A , respectively. Shoot dry weight/plant and shoot length were significantly (p<0.05) inhibited in corn. Corn also exhibited inhibitions in root length and root dry weight.

In a vegetative vigor study (MRID 47333424), the effects of Puma ® 

### 120 Super (formulation containing fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl, 120 g/L, and the mefenpyr

- diethyl, 33 g/L) on monocots (Canada bluejoint marsh reed, Calamagrostis canadensis ; corn , Zea mays ; Northern wheatgrass, gropyron dasystachyum ; onion, Allium cepa ) and dicots (alfalfa, Medicago sativa ; carrot, Daucus carata ; cucumber, Cucumis sativa ; lettuce, Lactuca sativa ; soybean, Glycine max ; and tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum ) were studied at varying nominal application rates. Corn seedlings were treated with nominal application rates of 0.0000095, 0.000039, 0.00016, 0. 00063, 0.0025, 0.010

and 0.020 l bs a.i./A

. Bluejo int marsh reed and carrot seedlings were treated with nominal application rates of 0.0013, 0.0025, 0.0051, 0.010, 0.020, 0.041 and 0.081 l bs a.i./A

. Lettuce seedlings were treated with nominal application rates of 0.0051, 0.010, 0.020, 0.041 and 0.081 l bs

a.i./A

. Onion, Northern wheatgrass, soybean, cucumber, tomato and alfalfa were treated at a single application rate of 0.081 l bs a.i./A

. T he dry weight per plant and plant height of Northern wheatgrass, onion, alfalfa, cucumber, lettuce, soybean and tom ato were not affected, i.e.

, NOAEC equal ed the highest treatment ratio. Shoot and root dry weights per plant were significantly (p<0.05) affected (inhibitions >25%) for carrot, corn and bluejoint marsh reed. Shoot length and root length were significantly (p<0.05) inhibited (inhibitions >25%) for corn and bluejoint only. Corn was the only species to exhibit reductions in percent survival. No monocot or dicot species exhibited significant sensitivity in the si ngle application rate test

. The most sensitive monocot in

the multiple application rate test was corn, based on root dry weigh t per plant, with NOAEC and

EC 25 

### values of 0.0025 and 0.0073 l bs a.i./A , respectively. The most sensitive dicot in the Tier II

t est was carrot, based on reductions in root dry weig ht per plant, with NOAEC and EC 25 

### values of- Page 46 of 116

-



### 0.041 and 0.058 l bs a.i./A , respectively. With the exception of corn, no species exhibited significant dose

- dependent phytotoxic effects

. Observed effects inc luded chlororsis, necrosis, leaf curl and wilting.

Table 3. 13

. Summary of Tier I and Tier II Toxicity of FPE to Non

- target Terrestrial Plants.

Crop Test

Substance Type of

Study Species I C 25

(lb s a.i./A) NOAE C

or IC 05 (lb s a.i./A) Endpoint Affected MRID

Seedling Emergence

Monocots (Tier 1)

Formulation:

HOE

046360 ( FPE D

isomer

7.2% ) Corn

, Oat

,

Onion

, Ryegrass < 0.1 NA Root length (all species); plant height (corn, ryegrass); plant dry weight (ryegrass, onion) 41276904

(Acceptable)

Dicots (Tier 1) Cabbage

, Lettuce

, Carrot,

Tomato

, Cucumber

, Soybean > 0.1 NA NA

Monocots (Tier 2) Corn 0.002 * < 0.0006 1 Root length

41276905 (Acceptable) Oat 0.0096 < 0.0006 Root length

Onion NA > 0.0960 NA Ryegrass 0. 0578 < 0.0240 Plant height

Monocots (Tier 1) Puma ® 120

Super (120 g/ L
FPE; 33 g/L Mefenpyr

diethyl ) Northern

Wheatgrass,

Onion >0.081 0.081 NA

47333423 (Acceptable) Canada bluejoint

marsh reed >0.081 <0.081 Shoot length

Dicots (Tier 1) Alfalfa,
Carrot,
Lettuce, Soybean, >0.081 1 0.081 NA

Cucumber,

Tomato >0.081 <0.081 1 Shoot dry weight

Monocots (Tier 2) Corn 0.011 0.005 Root length

Vegetative Vigor

Monocots (Tier 1)

Formulation:

HOE

046360 (FPE D

isomer 7.2%) Corn

, Oat

,

Onion

, Ryegrass < 0.1 NA Plant Height, Plant dry weight

41276904

(Acceptable) Dicots (Tier 1) Cabbage

, Lettuce

, Carrot,

Tomato

, Cucumber

, Soybean > 0.1 NA NA

Monocots (Tier 2) Corn 0.0025 * < 0.0006 1 Plant height 41276907 (Acceptable) Oat 0. 0779 NA Plant dry weight Ryegrass 0.0817 < 0.0480 Plant height

Monocots (Tier 1) Puma ® 120

Super Northern

Wheatgrass, > 0.081 0.081 NA 47333424 (Acceptable)- Page 47 of 116

- (120 g/ L
FPE; 33 g/L Mefenpyr

diethyl ) Onion

Dicots (Tier 1) Alfalfa,
Cucumber,
Tomato, Soybean > 0.081 0.081 NA

Monocots (Tier 2) Canada bluejoint

marsh reed 0.024 0.010 Shoot dry weight/plant; root length

Corn 0.0073 0.0025 Root dry weight/plant

Dicots (Tier 2) Lettuce > 0.081 0.081 NA

Carrot 0.058 * 0.041 * Root dry weight/plant * Most sensitive endpoint used for risk estimation ( i.e. , RQ calculations)

1 Non

- definitive endpoint used to characterize risk to terrestrial plants in risk discussion ( i.e. , not used for RQ calculations)



### 3.3.3. Review of Incident Data

The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS)

, which is maintained by the Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, was searched to determine if ecological incidents have been reported for

FPE

. Based on a search of EIIS conducted in November 2013

, the Agency has received 11 3 reports
of adverse field eff

ects to non

- target plants that have been linked to the use of FPE. All of these incidents involved damage to a grain crop (barley, corn, lentil, rice, or wheat). The Agency

considered the cause to be uncertain in 75 cases because more than one herbicide was applied to the crop. In the remaining 3 8 cases, the Agency considers FPE to be the probable cause. Most of the incidents were reports of crop damage that occurred following application of the herbicide directly to the crop, although four incidents oc curred from carryover effects of applications made to another crop in a previous growing season. None of the incidents involved damage to crops or other plants outside the treatment site.

The Agency has received one report linking FPE to adverse field effects to wild animals. In 1998, approximately 200 fish died in a pond in White County, Illinois following application of FPE, along with two other herbicides (fluazifop

- p

- butyl and fomesafen sodium), on a nearby soybean field. Because FPE is highly to xic to fish on an acute exposure basis and was applied in close proximity to the pond, the Agency believes that exposure to this herbicide was a probable cause or contributing factor to the fish mortality.

The Agency has received two report s of adverse fi eld effects to non

- target animals or plants that have been attributed to the use of fenoxaprop

- ethyl. In 2009, approximately 320 bee hives resulted in mortalities in Box Elder, UT following the application of fenoxaprop

- ethyl (application method

was not s pecified). In 2011, approximately 400 acres of wheat were damaged in Sargent, ND after being treated with fenoxaprop

- ethyl. The Agency also has no incident report from pesticide registrants concerning fenoxaprop

- ethyl contamination of ground or surface w ater.

The American Bird Conservancy Avian Incident Monitoring System was searched in November 2013 and returned no records of incidents associated with FPE or fenoxaprop

- ethyl 2



### .

2 http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/toxins/aims/aims/index.cfm- Page 48 of 116

-



### Based on a search of the U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Incident Data System (IDS), which compiles aggregate incidents, there were a total of 63 incidents involving fenoxaprop

- p

ethyl between 1998 and 2013, of which 63 were associated with minor plant damage, two were associated with minor impacts to wildlife, and one incid ent was listed as “other.” There was a single incident in IDS for fenoxaprop

- ethyl associate with minor plant damage.

A lack of reported incidents does not necessarily mean that such incidents have not occurred. In addition, incident reports for non

- targ et plants and animals typically provide information on acute mortality events only. Reports for other adverse effects, such as reduced growth or impaired reproduction, are rarely received.

4

. Risk Characterization

4.1. Risk Estimation

This screening

- l evel ass essment of the labeled uses of FPE relies on the deterministic RQ method to provide a metric of potential risks. The RQ provides a comparison of exposure estimates to toxicity endpoints ( i.e. , the estimated exposure concentrations are divided by a cute and chronic toxicity values , respectively ). The resulting unitless RQ values are compared to the Agency’s

LOCs. The LOCs , when exceeded, are used by the Agency to indicate when the use of a pesticide, as directed by the label, has the potential to c ause adverse effects to nontarget organisms. For endangered species, LOC exce e dances require an additional in

- depth evaluation of the potential

co

- occurrence of listed species and areas in which new use crops are grown to characterize risks.

In all cases , RQs that exceed the risk to non

- listed species LOC also exceed the listed species LOC.

4.1.1. Aquatic Organisms

Tables 4. 1 to 4. 4 present RQ values calculated for aquatic organisms exposed to FPE residues in surface water based on toxicity data for the TGAI, while Table 4.5 presents RQ values for aquatic organisms exposed to spray drift only based on toxicity data for FPE formulations. Individual effect probabilities and their significance in risk assessment are described in Section 2.6.3

.- Page 49 of 116

-

Table 4. 1 . Acute and Chronic RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Vertebrates from FPE TGAI.

Crop Scenario App Rate (lbs/A) 1

- in

- 10

-

year 1

- day

average 1
(μg/L) Freshwater Vertebrates

LC 50 = 460 μg a.i./L (slope =

NA) 1

- in

- 10

- year

60

- day average (μg/L) Freshwater

Vertebrates

NOAEC =

44 μg a.i./L

RQs Probability of Acute

Effect 2
(1 in ...) RQs

Barley / Wheat CAWheatRLF_V2

0.083, 0.105 0.74 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.02 <0.01

NDwheatSTD 0.82 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.02 <0.01

ORwheatOP 3 0.74 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.01 <0.01

TXwheatOP 3 0.81 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.01 <0.01

Conservation

Reserve CAalfalfa_WirrigOP

0.1, 0.028,

0.06 0.70 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.02 <0.01

ILalfalfaNMC 0.70 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.04 <0.01

MNalfalfaOP 0.70 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.04 <0.01

NCalfalfaOP 0.80 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.03 <0.01

PAalfalfaOP 0.86 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.04 <0.01

TXalfalfaOP 0.70 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.02 <0.01

Cotton CAcotton_WirrigSTD

0.105 0.74 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.01 <0.01

MScottonSTD 0.78 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.01 <0.01

NCcottonSTD 0.75 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.01 <0.01

STXcottonNMC 0.74 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.01 <0.01

TXcottonOP 0.74 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.01 <0.01

Ornamental CAnurserySTD

0.173, 0.173,
0.173, 0.012 1.21 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.08 < 0.01

FLnurserySTD 1.78 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.07 <0.01

MInurserySTD_V2 1.47 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.17 <0.01

NJnurserySTD 1.51 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.14 <0.01

NurseryBSS_V2 1.73 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.09 <0.01

ORnurserySTD 1.22 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.12 <0.01

TNnurserySTD 1.92 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.10 <0.01

Rice Tier 1 Rice Model 4 0.071, 0.071 83.35 0.18 2,000 0.32 0.01- Page 50 of 116

- Crop Scenario App Rate (lbs/A) 1

- in

- 10

-

year 1

- day

average 1
(μg/L) Freshwater Vertebrates

LC 50 = 460 μg a.i./L (slope =

NA) 1

- in

- 10

- year

60

- day average (μg/L) Freshwater

Vertebrates

NOAEC =

44 μg a.i./L

RQs Probability of Acute

Effect 2
(1 in ...) RQs

Right

- of

- Way CArightofwayRLF_V2 0.173, 0.173,
0.173, 0.012 1.26 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.10 <0.01

RightOfWayBSS 1.96 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.09 <0.01

Soybeans MSsoybeanSTD 0.1, 0.028,

0.06 0.78 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.01 <0.01

Turf CATurfRLF 0.173, 0.173,
0.173, 0.012 0.58 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.02 <0.01

FLturfSTD 0.58 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.01 <0.01

PAturfSTD 0.60 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.03 <0.01

Grass grown for

seed CATurfRLF

0.083 1.22 <0.01 > 9x10 18 0.12 <0.01

FLturfSTD 1.88 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.07 <0.01

PAturfSTD 1.28 <0.01 >9x10 18 0.12 <0.01

Abbreviations: App. Application.

A bold cell indicates that the RQ meets or exceeds the LOC for acute ( LOC = 0.05 ) risk or chronic (LOC=1) to listed species.

1 Values for all scenarios except rice represent 1

- in

- 10 year return frequency daily concentrations. Value for rice scenario represents an actual maximum
concentration, since the Tier 1 rice model does not address inter

- annual variability.

2 Probability of individual mortality based on actual screening level RQ value for TTR

. A default conc entration

- response slope value of 4.5 is used to generate the probability value because slope values were not calculable from the available test data (USE PA 2004).

3 Winter wheat scenarios, so harvest is in summer. First app date was done at 0.105 lb/A, with second app date at 0.083 lb/A.

4 The maximum rate per season is 0.142 lbs a.i./A , while the maximum annual rate is 0.188 lbs a.i./A

. As the paddy water is discharged prior to the third

treatment, the third treatment is not included in the estimation of the EECs

.

Table 4. 2

. Acute and Chronic RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Invertebrates from FPE TGAI.

Crop Sce nario App Rate (lbs/A) 1

- in

- 10

-

year 1

- day

average 1
(μg/L) Freshwater Inv ertebrates

E C 50 = 3180 μg a.i./L (slope =

1.4) 1

- in

- 10

- year 21

- day

average (μg/L) Freshwater

Invertebrates

NOAEC = 230 μg a.i./L

RQs Probability of Acute

Effect 2
(1 in ...) RQs

Barley / Wheat CAWheatRLF_V2 0.083, 0.105 0.74 <0.01 > 400 0.06 0.01 ( <0.01 )- Page 51 of 116

- Crop Sce nario App Rate (lbs/A) 1

- in

- 10

-

year 1

- day

average 1
(μg/L) Freshwater Inv ertebrates

E C 50 = 3180 μg a.i./L (slope =

1.4) 1

- in

- 10

- year 21

- day

average (μg/L) Freshwater

Invertebrates

NOAEC = 230 μg a.i./L

RQs Probability of Acute

Effect 2
(1 in ...) RQs

NDwheatSTD 0.82 <0.01 >400 0.04 <0.01

ORwheatOP 3 0.74 <0.01 >400 0.04 <0.01

TXwheatOP 3 0.81 <0.01 >400 0.04 <0.01

Conservation

Reserve CAalfalfa_WirrigOP

0.1, 0.028,

0.06 0.70 <0.01 >400 0.07 <0.01

ILalfalfaNMC 0.70 <0.01 >400 0.11 <0.01

MNalfalfaOP 0.70 <0.01 >400 0.12 <0.01

NCalfalfaOP 0.80 <0.01 >400 0.09 <0.01

PAalfalfaOP 0.86 <0.01 >400 0.11 <0.01

TXalfalfaOP 0.70 <0.01 >400 0.07 <0.01

Cotton CAcotton_WirrigSTD

0.105 0.74 <0.01 >400 0.04 <0.01

MScottonSTD 0.78 <0.01 >400 0.04 <0.01

NCcottonSTD 0.75 <0.01 >400 0.04 <0.01

STXcottonNMC 0.74 <0.01 >400 0.04 <0.01

TXcottonOP 0.74 <0.01 >400 0.04 <0.01

Ornamental CAnurserySTD

0.173, 0.173,
0.173, 0.012 1.21 <0.01 >400 0.15 <0.01

FLnurserySTD 1.78 <0.01 >400 0.15 <0.01

MInurserySTD_V2 1.47 <0.01 >400 0.33 <0.01

NJnurserySTD 1.51 <0.01 >400 0.27 <0.01

NurseryBSS_V2 1.73 <0.01 >400 0.16 <0.01

ORnurserySTD 1.22 <0.01 >400 0.22 <0.01

TNnurserySTD 1.92 <0.01 >400 0.19 <0.01

Rice Tier 1 Rice Model 4 0.071, 0.071 83.35 0.03 6.1 0.91 <0.01

Right

- of

- Way CArightofwayRLF_V2 0.173, 0.173,
0.173, 0.012 1.26 <0.01 >400 0.19 <0.01

RightOfWayBSS 1.96 <0.01 >400 0.16 <0.01- Page 52 of 116

- Crop Sce nario App Rate (lbs/A) 1

- in

- 10

-

year 1

- day

average 1
(μg/L) Freshwater Inv ertebrates

E C 50 = 3180 μg a.i./L (slope =

1.4) 1

- in

- 10

- year 21

- day

average (μg/L) Freshwater

Invertebrates

NOAEC = 230 μg a.i./L

RQs Probability of Acute

Effect 2
(1 in ...) RQs

Soybeans MSsoybeanSTD 0.1, 0.028,

0.06 0.78 <0.01 >400 0.04 <0.01

Turf CATurfRLF 0.173, 0.173,
0.173, 0.012 0.58 <0.01 >400 0.06 <0.01

FLturfSTD 0.58 <0.01 >400 0.04 <0.01

PAturfSTD 0.60 <0.01 >400 0.07 <0.01

Grass grown for

seed CATurfRLF

0.083 1.22 <0.01 >400 0.23 <0.01

FLturfSTD 1.88 <0.01 >400 0.15 <0.01

PAturfSTD 1.28 <0.01 >400 0.24 <0.01

Abbreviations: App. Application.

1 Values for all scenarios except rice represent 1

- in

- 10 year return frequency daily average concentrations. Value for rice scenario represents an actual peak
concentration, since the Tier 1 rice model does not account for inter

- annual variability.

2 Probability of individual mortality based on ac tual screening level RQ value

. Based on an empirical slope of 1.4.

3 Wi nter wheat scenarios, so harvest is in summer. First app date was done at 0.105 lb/A, with second app date at 0.083 lb/A.

4 The maximum rate per season is 0.142 lbs a.i./A , while the maximum annual rate is 0.188 lbs a.i./A . As the paddy water is discharged prior to the third
treatment, the third treatment is not included in the estimation of the EECs.

Table 4. 3 . Acute and Chronic RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates from FPE TGAI.

Crop Scenario App Rate (lbs/A) 1

- in

- 10

-

year 1

- day

average 1
(μg/L) Est/Mar

Invertebrates

LC 50 = 110 μg a.i./L (slope = 5) 1

- in

- 10

- year 21

- day average (μg/L) Est/Mar

Invertebrates

NOAEC = 11 μg a.i./L

RQs Probability of Acute

Effect 2
(1 in ...) RQs

Barley / Wheat CAWheatRLF_V2

0.083, 0.105 0.74 0.01 1x10 23 0.06 0.01

NDwheatSTD 0.82 0.01 1x10 23 0.04 <0.01

ORwheatOP 3 0.74 0.01 1x10 23 0.04 <0.01

TXwheatOP 3 0.81 0.01 1x10 23 0.04 <0.01- Page 53 of 116

-

Crop Scenario App Rate (lbs/A) 1

- in

- 10

-

year 1

- day

average 1
(μg/L) Est/Mar

Invertebrates

LC 50 = 110 μg a.i./L (slope = 5) 1

- in

- 10

- year 21

- day average (μg/L) Est/Mar

Invertebrates

NOAEC = 11 μg a.i./L

RQs Probability of Acute

Effect 2
(1 in ...) RQs

Conservation

Reserve CAalfalfa_WirrigOP

0.1, 0.028,

0.06 0.70 0.01 1x10 23 0.07 0.01

ILalfalfaNMC 0.70 0.01 1x10 23 0.11 0.01

MNalfalfaOP 0.70 0.01 1x10 23 0.12 0.01

NCalfalfaOP 0.80 0.01 1x10 23 0.09 0.01

PAalfalfaOP 0.86 0.01 1x10 23 0.11 0.01

TXalfalfaOP 0.70 0.01 1x10 23 0.07 0.01

Cotton CAcotton_WirrigSTD

0.105 0.74 0.01 1x10 23 0.04 <0.01

MScottonSTD 0.78 0.01 1x10 23 0.04 <0.01

NCcottonSTD 0.75 0.01 1x10 23 0.04 <0.01

STXcottonNMC 0.74 0.01 1x10 23 0.04 <0.01

TXcottonOP 0.74 0.01 1x10 23 0.04 <0.01

Ornamental CAnurserySTD

0.173, 0.173,
0.173, 0.012 1.21 0.01 1x10 23 0.15 0.01

FLnurserySTD 1.78 0.02 1x10 17 0.15 0.01

MInurserySTD_V2 1.47 0.01 1x10 23 0.33 0.03

NJnurserySTD 1.51 0.01 1x10 23 0.27 0.02

NurseryBSS_V2 1.73 0.02 1x10 17 0.16 0.01

ORnurserySTD 1.22 0.01 1x10 23 0.22 0.02

TNnurserySTD 1.92 0.02 1x10 17 0.19 0.02

Rice Tier 1 Rice Model 4 0.071, 0.071 83.35 0.76 3. 6 0.91 0.08

Right

- of

- Way CArightofwayRLF_V2 0.173, 0.173,
0.173, 0.012 1.26 0.01 1x10 23 0.19 0.02

RightOfWayBSS 1.96 0.02 1x10 17 0.16 0.01

Soybeans MSsoybeanSTD 0.1, 0.028,

0.06 0.78 0.01 1x10 23 0.04 <0.01

Turf CATurfRLF 0.173, 0.173,
0.173, 0.012 0.58 0.01 1x10 23 0.06 0.01

FLturfSTD 0.58 0.01 1x10 23 0.04 <0.01- Page 54 of 116

-

Crop Scenario App Rate (lbs/A) 1

- in

- 10

-

year 1

- day

average 1
(μg/L) Est/Mar

Invertebrates

LC 50 = 110 μg a.i./L (slope = 5) 1

- in

- 10

- year 21

- day average (μg/L) Est/Mar

Invertebrates

NOAEC = 11 μg a.i./L

RQs Probability of Acute

Effect 2
(1 in ...) RQs

PAturfSTD 0.60 0.01 1x10 23 0.07 0.01

Grass grown for

seed CATurfRLF

0.083 1.22 0.01 1x10 23 0.23 0.02

FLturfSTD 1.88 0.02 1x10 17 0.15 0.01

PAturfSTD 1.28 0.01 1x10 23 0.24 0.02

Abbreviations: App. Application. Est/Mar

– Estuarine/Marine

A bold cell indicates that the RQ meets or exceeds the LOC for acute ( LOC = 0.05 ) risk or chronic (LOC=1) to listed species.

1 Values for all scenarios except rice represent 1

- in

- 10 year return frequency daily average concentrations. Value for rice scenario represents an actual peak concentration, since the Tier 1 rice model does not account for inter

- annual variability.

2 Probab ility of individual mortality based on actual screening level RQ value. Based on an empirical slope of 5.

3 Winter wheat scenarios, so harvest is in summer. First app date was done at 0.105 lb/A, with second app date at 0.083 lb/A.

4 The maximum rate per season is 0.142 lbs a.i./A , while the maximum annual rate is 0.188 lbs a.i./A

. As the paddy water is discharged prior to the third

treatment, the third treatment is not included in the estimation of the EECs

.

Table 4. 4

. RQ Values for Direct Effects to Aquatic Vascular and Nonvascular Plants from FPE TGAI.

Crop Scenario App Rate (lbs/A) 1

- in

- 10 year

1

- day

average 1
(μg a.i./L ) Aquatic

Vascular

Plants

NOAE C = 3,000 μg a.i./L Aquatic Nonvascular Plants

I C 50 = 430 μg a.i./L

NOAE C = 27 μg a.i./L

Listed RQs Listed RQs Non

- listed RQs

Barley / Wheat CAWheatRLF_V2

0.083, 0.105 0.74 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

NDwheatSTD 0.82 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

ORwheatOP 2 0.74 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

TXwheatOP 2 0.81 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

Conservation Reserve CAalfalfa_WirrigOP

0.1, 0.028, 0.06 0.70 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

ILalfalfaNMC 0.70 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

MNalfalfaOP 0.70 <0.01 0.03 <0.01- Page 55 of 116

- Crop Scenario App Rate (lbs/A) 1

- in

- 10 year

1

- day

average 1
(μg a.i./L ) Aquatic

Vascular

Plants

NOAE C = 3,000 μg a.i./L Aquatic Nonvascular Plants

I C 50 = 430 μg a.i./L

NOAE C = 27 μg a.i./L

Listed RQs Listed RQs Non

- listed RQs

NCalfalfaOP 0.80 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

PAalfalfaOP 0.86 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

TXalfalfaOP 0.70 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

Cotton CAcotton_WirrigSTD

0.105 0.74 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

MScottonSTD 0.78 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

NCcottonSTD 0.75 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

STXcottonNMC 0.74 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

TXcottonOP 0.74 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

Ornamental CAnurserySTD

0.173, 0.173, 0.173,

0.012 1.21 <0.01 0.04 <0.01

FLnurserySTD 1.78 <0.01 0.07 <0.01

MInurserySTD_V2 1.47 <0.01 0.05 <0.01

NJnurserySTD 1.51 <0.01 0.06 <0.01

NurseryBSS_V2 1.73 <0.01 0.06 <0.01

ORnurserySTD 1.22 <0.01 0.05 <0.01

TNnurserySTD 1.92 <0.01 0.07 <0.01

Rice Tier 1 Rice Model 3 0.071, 0.071 83.35 0.03 3.09 0.19

Right

- of

- Way CArightofwayRLF_V2 0.173, 0.173, 0.173,

0.012 1.26 <0.01 0.05 <0.01

RightOfWayBSS 1.96 <0.01 0.07 <0.01

Soybeans MSsoybeanSTD 0.1, 0.028, 0.06 0.78 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

Turf CATurfRLF 0.173, 0.173, 0.173,

0.012 0.58 <0.01 0.02 <0.01

FLturfSTD 0.58 <0.01 0.02 <0.01

PAturfSTD 0.60 <0.01 0.02 <0.01

Grass grown for seed CATurfRLF 0.083 1.22 <0.01 0.05 <0.01

FLturfSTD 1.88 <0.01 0.07 <0.01- Page 56 of 116

- Crop Scenario App Rate (lbs/A) 1

- in

- 10 year

1

- day

average 1
(μg a.i./L ) Aquatic

Vascular

Plants

NOAE C = 3,000 μg a.i./L Aquatic Nonvascular Plants

I C 50 = 430 μg a.i./L

NOAE C = 27 μg a.i./L

Listed RQs Listed RQs Non

- listed RQs

PAturfSTD 1.28 <0.01 0.05 <0.01

Abbreviations: App. Application

A bold cell indicate s that the RQ meets or exceeds the LOC for non

- listed or listed plants (LOC = 1)

. 1 Values for all scenarios except rice represent 1

- in

- 10 year return frequency daily average concentrations. Value for rice scenario represents an actual peak
concentration, since the Tier 1 rice model does not account for inter

- annual variability.

2 Winter wheat scenarios, so harvest is in summer. First app date was done at 0.105 lb/A, with seco nd app date at 0.083 lb/A.

3 The maximum rate per season is 0.142 lbs a.i./A , while the maximum annual rate is 0.188 lbs a.i./A

. As the paddy water is discharged prior to the third

treatment, the third treatment is not included in the estimation of the EECs

.

Table 4. 5

. FPE RQs for Formulations Resulting from Spray Drift Only Exposures

Crop Scenario Peak (μg/L) Spray Drift Only 1 Freshwater

Vertebrates

LC 50 = 28 0

μg a.i./L ( L.

macrochirus ; FPE+HOE 107892) Freshwater

Inv ertebrates

LC 50 = 520 μg a.i./L ( D.

magna ; FPE+HOE 107892) Aquatic Vascular Plants

I C 50 = 1,700 μg a.i./L

NOAEC = 94 μg a.i./L ( L. gibba ; PUMA ® 120) Aquatic

Vascular

Plants

I C 50 = 100 μg a.i./L ( R. subcapitata ; FPE+HOE 107892)

Non

- listed RQs Listed RQs Non

- listed RQs

Barley /

Wheat CAWheatRLF_V2 0.74 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

NDwheatSTD 0.74 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

ORwheatOP 2 0.82 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

TXwheatOP 2 0.74 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Conservation

Reserve CAalfalfa_WirrigOP 0.7 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

ILalfalfaNMC 0.7 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

MNalfalfaOP 0.7 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

NCalfalfaOP 0.7 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01- Page 57 of 116

-

Crop Scenario Peak (μg/L) Spray Drift Only 1 Freshwater

Vertebrates

LC 50 = 28 0

μg a.i./L ( L.

macrochirus ; FPE+HOE 107892) Freshwater

Inv ertebrates

LC 50 = 520 μg a.i./L ( D.

magna ; FPE+HOE 107892) Aquatic Vascular Plants

I C 50 = 1,700 μg a.i./L

NOAEC = 94 μg a.i./L ( L. gibba ; PUMA ® 120) Aquatic

Vascular

Plants

I C 50 = 100 μg a.i./L ( R. subcapitata ; FPE+HOE 107892)

Non

- listed RQs Listed RQs Non

- listed RQs

PAalfalfaOP 0.7 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

TXalfalfaOP 0.7 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Cotton CAcotton_WirrigSTD 0.74 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

MScottonSTD 0.74 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

NCcottonSTD 0.74 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

STXcottonNMC 0.74 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

TXcottonOP 0.74 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Ornamental CAnurserySTD 1.21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

FLnurserySTD 1.21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

MInurserySTD_V2 1.22 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

NJnurserySTD 1.21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 < 0.01

NurseryBSS_V2 1.21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

ORnurserySTD 1.21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

TNnurserySTD 1.21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Rice Tier 1 Rice Model NA NA NA NA NA NA

Right

- of

Way CArightofwayRLF_V2 1.21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 < 0.01 <0.01

RightOfWayBSS 1.21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Soybeans MSsoybeanSTD 0.74 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Turf CATurfRLF 0.58 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

FLturfSTD 0.58 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PAturfSTD 0.58 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 < 0.01 <0.01- Page 58 of 116

-

Crop Scenario Peak (μg/L) Spray Drift Only 1 Freshwater

Vertebrates

LC 50 = 28 0

μg a.i./L ( L.

macrochirus ; FPE+HOE 107892) Freshwater

Inv ertebrates

LC 50 = 520 μg a.i./L ( D.

magna ; FPE+HOE 107892) Aquatic Vascular Plants

I C 50 = 1,700 μg a.i./L

NOAEC = 94 μg a.i./L ( L. gibba ; PUMA ® 120) Aquatic

Vascular

Plants

I C 50 = 100 μg a.i./L ( R. subcapitata ; FPE+HOE 107892)

Non

- listed RQs Listed RQs Non

- listed RQs

Grass grown

for seed CATurfRLF 1.21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

FLturfSTD 1.21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PAturfSTD 1.22 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1 Surface water EECs from spray drift only were calculated to better characterize potential risk to aquatic organisms from exposure to the end

- use product (EP). The use of these values is discussed further in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2 ).- Page 59 of 116

- 

### 4.1.1.1. Freshwater Fish , Amphibians, and Invertebrates

Based on acute toxicity data for rainbow trout exposed to TGAI (L C 50 

### = 460 μg a.i./L), RQ values

for acute risk to freshwater fish exceed the level of concern (LOCs) for listed species (LOC =0.05)

for labeled uses on rice ( Table 4.2 )

. Based on chronic tox icity endpoint for fathead minnows exposed to TGAI ( NOAEC = 44 μg a.i./L)

, the chronic risk to freshwater fish LOC (LOC = 1.0 ) was not exceeded for any labeled use ( Table 4.2 )

.

Based on acute toxi city data for Daphnia exposed to the fenoxaprop

- ethyl (L C 50 

### = 3,180 μg a.i./L), RQ values for acute risk to freshwater invertebrates do not exceed LOCs for listed (LOC = 0.05)

or non

- listed (LOC = 0.5 ) species for any labeled use of FPE ( Table 4.3 )

. Based on chronic toxicity endpoint for Daphnia exposed to TGAI (L C 50 

### = 230 μg a.i./L), RQ values for chronic risk

to freshwater invertebrates do not exceed the LOC (LOC = 1.0 ) for any of the uses evaluated ( Table

4.3 )

.

Based on acute toxicity data for ava ilable FPE formulations tested on bluegill sunfish (L C 50 

### = 280 μg a.i./L) and D

. mag n a (E C 50 

### = 520 μg a.i./L)

, RQ values for acute risk t o freshwater vertebrates and invertebrates exposed to spray drift are all below 0.01 and do not exceed the LOCs for listed (LOC =0.05) or non

- listed (LOC =0.5) species for any existing or proposed use s ( Table 4.5 ).

4.1.1.2. Estuarine/Marine Vertebrates and Invertebrates

RQ values for acute risk to estuarine/marine fish are not calculated because only a non

- definitiv e acute toxicity endpoint was available for the TGAI (sheepshead minnow LC 50 

### > 1 ,000 μg a.i./L)

. RQ values for chronic risk to estuarine/marine fish are also not presented because no chronic toxicity data were submitted for this group . Further characterization of risk to estuarine/marine fish is presented in Section 4.2

.

B ased on an acute toxicity endpoint for mysid shrimp exposed to TGAI (EC 50 

### = 110 μg a.i. /L) , RQ

values exceed the acute risk LOC for listed species (LOC = 0.0 5) and non

- listed species (LOC =0.5) of estuarine/marine invertebrates for the labeled use on rice ( Table 4.4 )

. Based on chronic toxicity data for mysid shrimp exposed to the TGAI ( NOAEC = 11 μg a.i./L) , RQ values for

chronic risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates do not exceed the LOC (LOC = 1.0 ) for any of the

uses evaluated

.

4.1.1.3. Aquatic Plants

RQ values for labeled uses of FPE a re based upon 96

- hour phytotoxicity endpoints for green alga ( R. subcapitata ; IC 50 

### = 430 μg a.i. /L, NOAEC =27 μg a.i. /L ) and duckweed ( L. gibba; IC 50 

### >3,000

μg a.i. /L, NOAEC = 3000 μg a.i. /L) , respectively, exposed to TGAI. The RQs a re below the LOC (LOC = 1) for risk to listed vascular and non

- listed nonvascular species of aquatic plants for labeled

uses

. For rice , the RQ (RQ =3.09) exceeds the LOC for risk to listed nonvascular aquatic plants.- Page 60 of 116

-



### RQ values are not calculated for non

- listed species of vascular aquatic plants because the IC 50 

### value is non

- definitive ( i.e. , a n IC 50 

### was not established within the ra nge of concentrat ions tested).

Based on acute toxicity data for available FPE formulations tested on the vascular plant duckweed (E C 50 

### = 1,700 μg a.i./L ; NOAEC =94 μg a.i./L) and the nonvascular green algae (E C 50 

### = 100 μg a.i./L)

, RQ values resulting from exposure to spray drift do not exceed the LOCs for risk to listed

and non

- listed aquatic vascular plants and non

- listed aquatic nonvascular plants (LOC=1) ( Table

4.5 ). R isk to listed species RQs for FPE formulations were not calculated for green algae since the NOAEC resulting from exposure to FPE TGAI is lower than the NOAEC resulting from exposure

to the tested formulation.

4.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms

4.1.2.1. Birds and Mammals

Acute dose

- based RQ values for b irds based on toxicity data for the partridge (L D 50 

### = 2,000 mg a.i./kg

- bw ) range from <0.01 to 0.08 across label ed uses of FPE and do not exceed the acute risk

to listed and non

- listed species LOCs of 0.1 and 0.5, respectively. RQ values are not calculated for

acute risk to birds on a dietary exposure basis because the available acute toxicity endpoint s for bobwhite quail and mallard duck are non

- definitive ( bobwhite quail LC 50 

### >4,220 mg a.i./kg

- diet ; mallard LC 50 

### >4,63 0 mg a.i./kg

- diet). The potential for risk to birds (and therefore to terrestrial

phase amphibians and reptiles) is further discussed in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2 ).

Chronic RQ values for birds based upon a NOAEC of 404 mg a.i./kg

- diet for the bobwhite quail

r ange from <0.01 to 0.24 across label uses of FPE and therefore do not exceed the chronic risk LOC (LOC = 1) for birds.

Throughout this screening

- level assessment, conclusions for birds are assumed to apply to

terrestrial

- phase amphibians and reptiles.

A cute dose

- based RQs for mammals based on toxicity data for the rat (LD 50 

### = 2,090 mg a.i./kg

bw) are ≤ 0.01 for all existing and proposed uses of FPE and do not exceed the acute risk to listed (LOC = 0.1) or non

- listed (LOC = 0.5) species LOCs

. Chronic RQ values for mammals are presented in Table 4. 6

. Based on the rat chronic NOAEL of 9 mg/kg

- bw/day ( 180 mg/kg

- diet ) from exposure to fenoxaprop

- ethyl , the chronic risk LOC (LOC = 1) is not exceeded for the grass grown from seed use for any size class of m ammals or dietary item based on estimated dietary or

dose

- based concentrations

. For the barley, conservation reserve, cotton, rice, and soybean uses,

the chronic risk LOC is exceeded for dose

- based estimates of small and /or medium sized mammals feeding on short grass. For the ornamentals and rights

- of

- way uses, the chronic risk LOC is

exceeded for dose

- based estimates of multiple size classes and dietary items. The potential for risk to mammals is further discussed in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2 ).- Page 61 of 116

-

Table 4. 6

. Chronic RQ Values for Mammals of Different Size and Feeding Classes.

Crop Food Type Dietary Based RQs Dose Based RQs (mammals)

All Size Classes Small

(15 g) Medium

(35 g) Large

(1000 g)

Barley, wheat Short grass 0.14 1.21 1.04 0.56 Tall grass 0.06 0.56 0.48 0.25 Broadleaf plants 0.08 0.68 0.58 0.31 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.03 Arthropods 0.05 0.48 0.41 0.22

Seeds N/A 0.02 0.01 0.01

Conservation Reserve Short grass 0.13 1.16 0.99 0.53

Tall grass 0.06 0.53 0.45 0.24 Broadleaf plants 0.08 0.65 0.56 0.30 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.03 Arthropods 0.05 0.45 0.39 0.21

Seeds N/A 0.02 0.01 0.01

Cotton Short grass 0.14 1.21 1.04 0.56

Tall grass 0.06 0.56 0.48 0.25 Broadleaf plants 0.08 0.68 0.58 0.31 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.03 Arthropods 0.05 0.48 0.41 0.22

Seeds N/A 0.02 0.01 0.01

Grass grown for seed Short grass 0.11 0.96 0.82 0.44 Tall grass 0.05 0.44 0.38 0.20 Broadleaf plants 0.06 0.54 0.46 0.25 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 Arthropods 0.04 0.38 0.32 0.17

Seeds N/A 0.01 0.01 0.01

Ornamental, right

- of

way, turf Short grass 0.28 2.42 2.07 1.11

Tall grass 0.13 1.11 0.95 0.51 Broadleaf plants 0.16 1.36 1.16 0.62 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.02 0.15 0.13 0.07 Arthropods 0.11 0.95 0.81 0.43

Seeds N/A 0.03 0.03 0.02

Rice, Scenario 1 Short grass 0.11 0.97 0.83 0.44 Tall grass 0.05 0.44 0.38 0.20 Broadleaf plants 0.06 0.54 0.46 0.25 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 Arthropods 0.04 0.38 0.32 0.17

Seeds N/A 0.01 0.01 0.01

Rice, Scenario 2 Short grass 0.14 1.25 1.07 0.57 Tall grass 0.07 0.57 0.49 0.26 Broadleaf plants 0.08 0.70 0.60 0.32 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 0.08 0.07 0.04 Arthropods 0.06 0.49 0.42 0.22

Seeds N/A 0.02 0.01 0.01

Soybean, Scenario 1 Short grass 0.14 1.21 1.04 0.56 Tall grass 0.06 0.56 0.48 0.25 Broadleaf plants 0.08 0.68 0.58 0.31 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.03 Arthropods 0.05 0.48 0.41 0.22

Seeds N/A 0.02 0.01 0.01- Page 62 of 116

- Crop Food Type Dietary Based RQs Dose Based RQs (mammals)

All Size Classes Small

(15 g) Medium

(35 g) Large

(1000 g)

Soybean, Scenario 2 Short grass 0.13 1.16 0.99 0.53 Tall grass 0.06 0.53 0.45 0.24 Broadleaf plants 0.08 0.65 0.56 0.30 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.03 Arthropods 0.05 0.45 0.39 0.21

Seeds N/A 0.02 0.01 0.01

Bold = Chronic risk LOC=1 exceeded.



### 4.1.2.2. Insect Pollinators

Based on the available data for young adult honey bees

, both FPE TGAI and formulated FPE (HOE 046360 24 EC15 A203; 12% FPE, 3.37% mefenpyr

- diethyl) are classified as practically non

- toxic

to no n

- target insect pollinators on an acute contact exposure basis. The formulation 48

- hour acute contact endpoint was much lower for the formulation (LD 50 

### =58 μg a.i./bee) as compared to TGAI (LD 50 

### >192.4 μg a.i./bee). The results of the TGAI acute oral and contact studies show no signific ant mortality to young adult (foraging) bees at any treatme nt level. Since the acute contact toxicity study for honeybees exposed to FPE TGAI was non

- definitive ( i.e. , LD 50 

### greater than highest concentration tested), RQs are not calculat ed

. The risk to i nsect pollinators is discussed in greater detail in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2 ).

4.1.2.3. Terrestrial Plants

RQ values for terrestrial plants are calculated using the most sensitive endpoints for monocot and dicot species in vegetative vigor and seedling emergence tests with FPE typical end

- use product ( TEP ) ( Table 4.7 )

. For all label uses of FPE, RQ values for monocot plants exposed to runoff and

drift exceed the non

- listed species LOC (LOC =1). Conversely, RQ values for non

- listed dicot plants exposed to spray drift range from <0.01 to 0.37 across the label ed uses of FPE evaluated

and do not exceed the risk to non

- listed species LOC (LOC =1).

RQ values are not calculated for listed monocot or dicot species exposed to runoff or drift because

a definitive NOAEC was not available from the submitted seedling emergence tests with TEP

. In addition, RQ values are no t calculated for non

- listed dicots due to runoff because a definitive EC 25



### was not available from the submitted seedling emergence tests with TEP ( i.e. , no dicot species/endpoints were inhibited by 25% or more at the application rates used)

. The potential for

risk to listed and non

- listed species of terrestrial and semi

- aquatic plants from exposure to

formulated FPE is discussed in greater detail in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2 ).

For purposes of comparison, RQs were also derived using TERRPLANT def ault ground and aerial spray drift assumptions of 1 and 5%, respectively ( Table 4.7 ), in addition to using the more

realistic PRZM

- EXAMS spray drift values. Results are similar using the different spray drift

values exce pt that non

- listed LOC for monocots is not exceeded for spray drift from ground spray using the default TERRPLANT drift values.- Page 63 of 116

-

Table 4. 7

. Non

- listed RQs for Monocots Inhabiting Dry and Semi

- Aquatic Areas Exposed to FPE via Runoff

and Drift.

Use Application

R ate (lbs a.i./A) Application

M ethod Drift

Value (%) Spray drift

RQ Dry area

RQ Semi

- aquatic

area RQ

Barley , wheat

, cotton , soybean 0.105 Ground

Aerial 6 (1)

12.5 (5) 3.15 (0.53)

6.56 (2.63) 3.68 (1.05)

7.09 (3.15) 8.40 (5.78)

11. 8 (7.88)

Conservation

Reserve 0.10 Ground

Aerial 6 (1)

12.5 (5) 3.00 (0.05)

6.25 (2.50) 3.50 (1.00)

6.75 (3.00) 8.00 (5.50)

11.3 (7.50)

Ornamental , right

of

- way, turf 0.173 Ground 6 (1) 5.19 (0.87) 6.06 (1.73) 13.8 (9.52)

Rice 0.108 Ground

Aerial 6 (1)

12.5 (5) 3.24 (0.54)

6.75 (2.70) 3.78 (1.08)

7.29 (3.24) 8.64 (5.94)

12.2 (8.10) Grass grown for

seed 0.083 Ground 6 (1) 2.49 (0.42) 2.91 (0.83) 6.64 (4.57)

N/A = not applicable

Bolded RQ values exceed the level of concern for risk to plants (LOC = 1).

1 RQ values are not calculated for listed species because the NOAEC values from the seedling emergence study

were non

- definitive, and the data were not suitable to calculate EC 05 values. The potential for risk to listed species in dry and semi

- aquatic areas is discussed furt her in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2 ).



### 4.1.3 Refinements

Aquatic EECs from Rice Use

Screening

- level EECs for rice use, estimated with the Tier I R ice M odel, resulted in RQ values

that exceed the acute risk LOC for freshwater aqua tic vertebrates and estuarine/marine invertebrates. In an effort to refine these estimates, rice applications were evaluated using the Pesticide Flooded Application Model ( PFAM

, version 1.05, September 2013 ). The model simulates two linked compartments: a water column a nd a sediment zone (benthos). Each compartment is completely mixed and at internal equilibrium with respect to sorption of the chemical (USEPA, 2004). Pesticide moves between the compartments via a time

- limited, first

order mass

- transfer process. The mo del accounts for hydrolysis, photolysis, and metabolism in water, sediment, and soil (when no water is present), as well as sorption and volatilization. Water, sediment, and pesticide may flow out of the flooded field. Changes in water body conditions (t emperature, water levels, wind speed, etc .) and resulting changes in degradation rates occur on a daily time step. Pesticide application and flooding sequences are mapped onto the time series in

1

- year cycles for the length of a simulation (30 years)

.

Detailed information on the PFAM inputs used to model rice applications for FPE is provided in Appendix G . According to FPE labels, applications should occur at the 4

- leaf stage to late tillering stage. According to the 2012 Arkansas Rice Quick Facts, pretillering (1 st 

### leaf to 4 th 

### leaf stage) occurs approximately 15

- 25 days after planting, while tillering can occur 24 to 42 days after planting. Based on this information, the first FPE application was scheduled to occur 28 days after planting and the se cond application was scheduled to occur 14 days later (42 days after planting). Flood waters were released 60 days after the second FPE application to permit the estimation of

21

- day and 60

- day aquatic EECs in the paddy water. As the label allows for three applications of FPE, but only two applications during the growing season, t he third FPE application was scheduled to occur 7 days after harvest. For post

- flood applications, FPE labels specify that the “water level

should cover no more than 25% of the an nual grass weed foliage. The flood may be increased to a- Page 64 of 116

-



### normal depth ( i.e. , the paddy depth prior to FPE application) 2 to 3 days after application.” Based on this information, fill levels were decreased to 1 inch (0.0254 m) the day prior to an applicati on and were increased to 4 inches (0.1016 m) 2 days after application.

Results of the refined modeling are provided in Table 4. 8 . The 1

- in

- 10

- year 1

- day average release

concentrations and paddy concen trations are used to assess acute and chronic impacts to freshwater vertebrates that may dwell in rice paddies. Based on concentrations of FPE in release water from rice paddies, acute RQs for freshwater vertebrates are all below 0.01 and therefore do not exceed

the acute risk to listed species LOC (LOC = 0. 05). Acute RQs for freshwater vertebrates based on FPE concentrations in paddy water drawn down to a depth of 1 inch ( e.g. , to achieve a water level

such that no more than 25% of the annual grass weed foliage is covered) range from 0. 19 to 0. 34

and exceed the risk to listed species LOC (LOC = 0. 0 5). Acute RQs for freshwater vertebrates based on FPE concentrations in paddy water at ≥4 inches a re below 0.01 and do not exceed the

LOC for risk to listed (LOC = 0.05) or non

- listed (LOC = 0.5) species

. T herefore, refinement of acute rice paddy concentrations of FPE using PFAM alleviates potential concern for freshwater

vertebrates for all rice scenarios except in cases where listed species occupy rice paddies drained down to a depth of 1 inch.

The 1

- in

- 1 0

- year 1

- day average release concentration is also used to assess impacts to

estuarine/marine invertebrates and aquatic plants in water bodies receiving discharges from rice paddies. Based on these concentrations, refined acute RQs for estuarine/marine in vertebrates are below 0.01 and do not exceed the acute risk LOC s for listed (LOC = 0.05) or non

- listed (LOC = 0.5) species , as was the case in the screening

- level analysis for estuarine/marine invertebrates. For aquatic plants, listed species RQs calculat ed using the refined rice exposure values no longer

exceed the listed species LOC (LOC=1) for aquatic plants.

Table 4. 8

. Refined Aquatic Exposure Modeling Results for Rice Use.

Scenario State 1

- in

- 10

- year

1

- day average

concentration (μg/L) 1

- in

- 10

- year 1

- day average

concentration 1 1

- in

- 10

- year 1

- day average

concentration 2

Max (μg/L) 21

- day

(μg/L) 60

- day

(μg/L) Max

(μg/L) 21

- day

(μg/L) 60

- day

(μg/L)

Tier 1 Rice Model

-- -- -- -- 83 0.91 0.32

1 (0.71,
0.71, 0.046) AR 0.0010 96 10.1 3.5 0.86 0.08 0.03

CA 0.0017 105 11.4 4.0 1.12 0.11 0.04

LA 0.0005 86 8.8 3.1 0.47 0.05 0.02

MS 0.0004 86 8.7 3.0 0.45 0.04 0.02

TX 0.0006 89 9.2 3.2 0.55 0.05 0.02

2 (0.108,
0.034, 0.046) AR 0.0015 147 10.7 3.7 1.32 0.09 0.03

CA 0.0026 156 11.6 4.1 1.64 0.13 0.04

LA 0.0008 132 9.2 3.2 0.70 0.05 0.02

MS 0.0007 131 9.0 3.2 0.69 0.05 0.02

TX 0.0010 135 9.5 3.3 0.83 0.06 0.02

1 Includes concentrations in 1inch paddy water during draw down. Max generally oc curs after 2 nd application in 1

inch of water.

2 Values obtained only from concentra tions where the paddy depth ≥ 4 inches

.- Page 65 of 116

-



### 4.2. Risk Description

4.2.1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms

RQ calculations for aquatic organisms in this assessment only reflect surface water exposures. Although groundwater EECs were estimated in this assessment, they are much lower than

estimate d surface water concentrations and therefore not expected to signif icantly impact the risk conclusions for aquatic organisms exposed to FPE.

4.2. 1. 1. Freshwater Vertebrates and Invertebrates

Based on screening level exposure estimates generated by PRZM/EXAMS and the Tier I Rice model, only the acute risk to listed species LOC (LOC = 0.05) was exceeded for freshwater

vertebrates

. Refinement of acute rice paddy concentrations of FPE using PFAM indicated that there is only a potential concern for listed freshwater vertebrates inhabiting rice paddy water drawn

down to 1 inch , should such organisms exist

.

Based on available information, FPE transformation products appear to be less toxic to freshwater vertebrates than the parent on an acute exposure basis

. Therefore the inclusion of degradates residues in exposure estimates is not supported. F ormulations also do not appear to be substantially (more than an order of magnitude ) more toxic to freshw ater vertebrates than the parent on an acute exposure basis

.

RQ values for acute risk to freshwater invertebrates were based on toxicity data from fenoxaprop

ethyl since the available acute toxicity endpoint for FPE is non

- definitive ( D

. magna EC 50 

### >1,058

μg a.i. /L ). The inability to determine a definitive endpoint for FPE on freshwater invertebrates is

a result of solubility limitations ( FPE water s olubility: 0.7 mg/L). LOCs for a cute risk to listed

and non

- listed freshwater invertebrates were not exceeded for any labeled use s of FPE

. I f peak surface water EECs from the assessed uses ( Table 3.5 ) a re compared to the non

- definitive acute toxicity endpoint for Daphnia exposed to FP E TGAI

, no Agency LOCs would be exceeded

. Therefore , the pot ential for acute risk to freshwater invertebrates from exposure to technical grade

FPE for labeled uses is considered to be low.

Life cycle studies of D. magna performed with FPE formulations showed five to 100 times greater sensitivity (NOAEC range: 0.0023

- 0.042 mg a.i./L) as compared to a TGAI study with FPE (NOAEC = 0.23 mg a.i./L). The higher toxicity exhibited by the formulations does not appear to

be driv en by the co

- formulated active ingredient mefenpyr

- diethyl (PC Code 811800; plant safener) since three studies with FPE combined with mefenpyr

- diethyl resulted in lower toxicity ( i.e ., less sensitive) as compared to a formulation (HOE 046360 OH EW07 A209 ) with FPE alone ( Table 3.10 ). In addition, an acute study with Daphnia conducted with mefenpyr

- diethyl TGAI (MRID 43972208; EC 50 

### =52 mg a.i./L) does not provide evidence that the plant safener is more toxic to freshwater invertebrates as compared to FPE ( Da phnia EC 50 

### >1.1 mg a.i./L). Currently, only acute toxicity data for formulations are used by EFED to estimate effects to aquatic organisms resulting from spray drift. Chronic exposure s and potential risk resulting from spray drift of the

formulati on are generally not considered, since components of a formulation are assumed to have different fate and transport properties than the active ingredient ( e.g. , mobility, affinity to soil- Page 66 of 116

-



### versu s water, degradation kinetics). Consequently, it is not possible to a ssess the impact of these differences on the concentration of the formulated product as a function of time. Therefore,

a lthough formulations containing FPE appear to be substantially more toxic than FPE TGAI, this is not applied in a risk context in this assessment

. Therefore, c hronic exposure s to formulation s could theoretically result in concern, but based on the current use patte rn and available fate

information for F PE , prolonged exposures to aquatic organisms are not anticipated.

4.2.1.2

. Estuarine /Marine Fish and Invertebrates

RQ va l ues for estuarine/marine fish a re not presented in the Risk Estimation because the available

acute toxicity endpoint is non

- definitive (sheepshead minnow LC 50 

### > 1 ,000 μg a.i ./L) and no chronic toxicity data have been su bmitted. To characterize the potential for acute risk to

estuarine/marine fish associated with the labeled uses of FPE , peak surface water EECs a re compared to the non

- definitive acute toxicity endpoint for sheepshead minnow . EECs for all uses are less t han the acute risk LOC for listed species except for applications to rice (RQ =0.08)

. 

### Given that the estimated release water concentrations from PFAM are several orders of magnitude below

the Tier I Rice model EECs , the likelihood of acute mortality in li sted or non

- listed estuarine/marine fish from exposure to technical grade FPE is expected to be low.

In the absence of chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine fish

, the freshwater fish ACR ( 11.4

, fathead minnow ) and the acute toxicity data for sheepshead minnow (>1.0 mg/L ) were used to

estimate a chronic NO A EC value of 88 μ g a.i. /L. A comparison of the 60

- day EECs to this chronic endpoint indicates that the chronic risk LOC is not exceeded for any labeled used of FPE

.

RQ values for estuarine/marine invertebrates exposed to the TGAI are below the LOCs for acute
risk to listed ( LOC = 0.05) and non

- listed ( LOC = 0.5) species for all labeled uses except for rice

. When concentrations of FPE released from rice paddies into th e estuarine/marine environment are refined using PFAM, Agency LOCs are no longer exceeded

. Therefore, based on these refinements, the likelihood of acute mortality to listed or non

- listed estuarine/marine invertebrates from exposure to technical grade FPE for labeled uses is considered low.

No chronic risks of concern for estuarine/marine invertebrates were identified for any labeled use

.

4.2.1.3

. Sediment Dwelling Aquatic Invertebrates

The sensitivity of benthic freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates to FPE has previously been raised as an uncertainty because ecotoxicity data typically used by EFED to evaluate effects

to sediment

- dwelling organisms ( e.g. , non

- biting midges, amphipods) have not been submitted.

This was co nsidered an important uncertainty in a 2011 data gap clarification memo submitted by

EFED (US EPA 2011) given the potential for FPE to partition to sediments with a log K
ow 

### greater
than 3 and a K FOC 

### greater than 100 L/kg
oc 

### . In addition, FPE is moderately to very highly toxic to aquatic animals on an acute exposure basis. However, FPE degrades rapidly in the aquatic

environment and , based on the soil and aquatic metabolism studies, the metabolite residues (fenoxaprop

- p acid and chlorobenz oxazolone) are expected to form primarily within the water column, and then to diffuse into the sediments

. Peak pore water EECs for FPE are several orders of magnitude lower than the most sensitive water column animal tested with FPE on an acute- Page 67 of 116

-



### exposure basis ( i.e. , mysid shrimp; LC 50 

### = 0.11 mg a.i./L), as well as benthic invertebrate acute toxicity data from crayfish exposed to FE ( Procambarus simulans LC 50 

### = 1.1 mg a.i./L). Therefore, risks of concern are not expected for sediment

- dwelling organisms ex posed to FPE. In addition, s ince degradates appear to be less toxic than the parent to aquatic organisms in general, the potential for adverse effects to sediment

- dwelling organi sms from FPE is considered low.

4.2.1.3

. Aquatic Plants

The RQs for labeled uses of FPE are below the LOC (LOC =1) for risk to l isted vascular and non

listed nonvascular species of aquatic plants

. Only the rice use exceeded the LOC for risk to listed, nonvascular aquatic plants (RQ = 3.09). However, when concentratio ns of FPE released from rice paddies into the aquatic environment are refined using PFAM, the risk to listed species LOC (LOC=1) is no longer exceeded for rice

. To characterize the potential for risk to non

- listed vascular plants associated with the label ed uses of FPE, peak surface water EECs are compared to

the non

- definitive toxicity endpoint for duckweed (IC 50 

### >3,000 μg a.i./ L). EECs for all uses are

less than LOC for risk to non

- listed species

. Therefore, the likelihood of adverse effects on aquatic plants from exposure to FPE is expected to be low

.

4.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms

4.2.2.1. Birds

Acute and chronic risks to birds based on acute oral and chronic dietary toxicity data, respectively,

are low for all labeled uses of FPE. On a sub

- acute dietary exposure basis, b ecause no mortality

was observed at the highest treatment levels tested , RQ values for sub

- acute exposure s were not
calculated in the Risk Estimation section of this asses sment. For the labeled uses of FPE , t he

maximum dietary

- bas ed EEC of 97 mg/kg

- diet (short grass) is approximately 2 % of the treatment levels where no mortality and/or sublethal effects were observed in the sub

- acute dietary avian study (LC 50 

### > 4220 mg/kg diet)

. For birds, an acute EEC that exceeds 10% of the effects threshold exceeds the Agency’s LOC for acute risk to listed species. Therefore, the potential for risk to

listed and non

- listed species of birds is expected to be low

. Passerine species may be more

sensitive to FPE exposure than the bobwhite quail and mallard duck; in the absence of ecotoxicity data for passerine birds, risk to these species cannot be precluded ; however, there are also no available data to indicate that risks to this group are likely

.

4.2.2.2. Mammals

D ose

- based RQ values did not exceed the acute risk to listed species LOC (LOC =0.1) or non

listed species ( LOC =0.5 ) for any size mammals. Therefore, the labeled use s of FPE are not expected to result in acute risk to listed or non

- listed mammals.

Chronic dietary and dose

- based RQ value s based on rat two

- generation study data from FE indicate a potential for risks of concern to mammals associated with at least one size class or dietary item for all labeled uses except for grass grow n for seed , for which the chronic LOC was not exceeded for any size class or dietary item

. E xposure and risk are expected to be greatest for mammals that consume short grass. For each of the label ed uses, t o achieve both dietary

- and dose

- based RQs- Page 68 of 116

-



### that do not exceed the chronic LOC for any of the given categories of mammals, the application would need to be limited to a single application rate of approximately 0.0 85 lbs a.i./A.

Additional characterization of the potential for mammalian chronic risk was performed by inputting average use rates for several labeled u ses of FPE as reported by BEAD (barley and spring wheat: 0.061 lbs a.i./A; winter wheat: 0

. 059 lbs a.i./A; cotton: 0.035 lbs a.i./A; rice: 0.09 lbs a.i./A; soybean: 0.033 lbs a.i./A). Based on average application rates and upper

- bound exposure values, only the use on rice exceed ed the chronic risk LOC (LOC=1) for small mammals feeding on short grass (RQ=1.04)

. It should be noted that average use rates were not available for ornamental or rights

- of

- way uses.

There is uncertainty surrounding chronic risk of FPE to mammals since chronic toxicity data were bridged from FE, which is indicated as being more toxic to mammals than FPE in Section 4.1 of

the HED human health risk assessment for FPE ( US EPA 2014 ). There is additional uncertainty

in the chronic mammal risk estimation since the standard rat two

- generation toxicity endpoint used to calculate RQs in this assessment (NOAEL = 9 mg/kg/day) is approximately 20 times higher (less sensiti ve) than available data from a two

- year feeding study in dogs (NOAEL = 0.375 mg/kg/day) in which reduced body weight (10

- 13%) and reduced body weight gain (46

- 51%) were observed at the LOAEL (1.875 mg/kg/day) relative to controls. However, given that FE i s generally more toxic to mammals than FPE, and given that available rat two

- generation data are typically used to calculate RQs in EFED risk assessments (US EPA, 2004), the endpoint reported for dogs was not considered appropriate for calculating RQs and is likely to be overly conservative for estimating risk for FPE. In addition, it should be noted that the rat two

- generation NOAEL for FE is based on the highest concentration tested in the study (9 mg/kg/day) since no significant

adverse effects were obs erved, indicating that this endpoint is also potentially conservative since

no LOAEL was established.

4.2.2.3. Insect Pollinators

Based on the available data for young adult honey bees

, both FPE TGAI and formulated FPE ( HOE
046360 24 EC15 A203; 12% FPE, 3.37% mefenpyr

- diethyl ) are classified as practically non

- toxic

to no n

- target terrestrial invertebrates on an acute contact exposure basis. However, the 48

- hour acute contact endpoint was much lower ( i.e. , more toxic) for the formulation (LD 50 

### =58 μg a.i./bee) as compared to TGAI (LD 50 

### >192.4 μg a.i./bee). The results of the TGAI acute oral and contact studies show no significant mortality to youn g adult (foraging) bees at any treatme nt level. Since the acute contact toxicity study for honeyb ees exposed to FPE TGAI was non

- definitive ( i.e. , LD 50 

### greater than highest concentration tested), RQs were not calculated for terrestrial invertebrates. However, it should be noted that estimated exposure to arthropods across labeled uses of FPE range fro m 7.8 to 38 mg a.i./kg

- arthropod , which is several orders of magnitude lower than the highest concentration tested in the acute contact honeybee study (192.4 μg a.i./bee converted to 1,500 mg/kg

- bee based on an estimated weight of 0.128 g/bee)

.

The only k nown incident involving terrestrial invertebrates potentially related to FPE occurred in 2009, in which mortalities were observed in approximately 320 bee hives in Box Elder, UT following application of fenoxaprop

- ethyl (application method was not specifie d). Based on the

available information

, it is difficult to reconcile the occurrence of this incident with the acute- Page 69 of 116

-



### toxicity profile of FPE. The incident did not occur with FPE but rather with fenoxaprop

- ethyl

which is a racemate of FPE. There is some i ndication that formulation contents may increase toxicity of FPE to honeybees, so it is possible that the incident could be linked to formulation components or surfactants that could incapacitate bees. Overall, there are not multiple lines of

evidence indicating risk to terrestrial invertebrates for label ed uses of FPE. However, t here is uncertainty regarding the toxicity of FPE to honey bee larvae since no data on this developmental

state of honey bees were available at the time of this review.

4.2.2. 4. Terrestrial Plants

Due to the lack of a definitive NOAEC for monocots from available seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies

, and th e lack of definitive EC 25 

### and NOAEC values for dicots from available seedling emergence studies

, RQ values could not be calculated for listed monocot or
dicot species due to runoff or drift as well as non

- listed dicot species due to runoff. If RQs were calculated using non

- definitive endpoint values listed in Table 3.13 , listed species RQs for

monocots and dicots w ould range from 8.3 to 46 and <0.1 to 0.34 , respectively, across label ed uses of FPE 3

. 

### In addition, RQs for non

- listed dicots exposed to runoff would range from <0.1 to 0.34

across label uses of FPE and would not exceed LOCs

. 3



### Based on the available terrestrial plant toxicity data

, including non

- def initive endpoints, there is

evidence that all label uses of FPE pose r isks of concern for listed and non

- listed monocots. This is supported by a number of incidents reported on grain crops treated with FPE. Conversely, risk s of concern to listed and non

- listed dicot plants are not indic ated for any label uses of FPE.

Howeve r, it should be noted that there is some uncertainty surrounding risks to listed dicots since the NOAEC from the available vegetative vigor study is non

- definitive (<0.081 lbs a.i./A) and

could potentially be much lower (more toxic). In addition, there ar e also some uncertainties in potential effects to non

- listed dicots (and in some cases monocots) since EC 25 

### values for most dicot species ( and some monocots) were only tested up to an application rate of 0.081 lbs a. i./A, which

is lower than the maximum label use rate of 0.173 lbs a.i./A for several uses.

The AgDRIFT model was used to estimate how far downwind from the treatment site spray drift exposure might occur at levels known to inhibit plant growth . The screening

- level analysis was

based on the most sensitive monocot and dicot plant species tested. The results suggest that spray

drift from aerial and ground spray applications for various labeled uses of FPE may result in potential effects on non

- target dicot plants within 0 to 13 feet of the tre atment area

. By contrast

, for monocots (given their greater sensitivity to FPE) , effects across labeled uses of FPE are expected at much greater distances from the treatment area, ranging from 85 to 548 feet for ground applications and 305 to >1,000 feet f or aerial applications. The actual effects area may be larger

because the submitted data on both monocots and dicots d o not establish a lower bound of effects (NOAEL) for some species of plants . The contribution of runoff may further extend the potential

effects area for non

- target plants. The spray drift analysis for terrestrial plants for FPE is presented

in ( Table 3.14 )

.

3 RQ calculations based on ground and aerial spray drift fractions of 6 and 12.5%, which are considered more environmentally relevant.- Page 70 of 116

-



### Labels for FPE have varying specif ications with regards to droplet size distributions. Some

indicate that the product should be applied using nozzles and pressures that generate a “ Medium ” spray droplet size category. Other labels are more specific, indicating that nozzles should provide

200

- 350 micron (Reg. No. 264

- 666) or 150

- 300 micron (Reg. No. 264

- 647) s ize droplets. Other products do not specify the drop size distribution. For aerial applications, EFED used the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE, formerly ASAE) Fine

- to

Medium droplet size category in its modeling

. This dro p let size category is EFED’s default assumption when labels do not specify application parameters. The volume median diameter (Dv 50 

### ) for the Fine

- to

- Medium drop let size distribution is 255 microns, which falls within the requirements specified on certain labels as discussed above. For ground applications, EFED used

the ASA B E Very Fine

- to

- Fine droplet size category. Again, this drop let size category is EFED’s

default

, employed in modeling when labels do not specify application parameters for ground applic ations. The Dv 50 

### for the Very Fine

- to

- Fine drop let size distribution is 175 microns, which

falls within the requirements specified on certain labels as discussed above. For uses of FPE,

smaller buffers would be need ed to protect non

- target organisms if the labels specified a coarser drop let size distribution.

Table 4.11 . Possible 1 Effects Distance for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Exposed to FPE through Spray Drift

Only Based on the Most Sensitive Crop Species in Submitted Toxicity Studies.

Crop Single

Max. App.

Rate (lbs

a.i./A ) AgDRIFT

Scenario Distance from Treatment Site (feet)

Monocots

corn IC 25 = 0.0025 lbs

a.i./A Monocots

Corn

NOAEL

<0.0006 lbs

a.i./A Dicots

Carrot

IC 25 = 0.058 lbs

a.i./A Dicots

Carrot

NOAEL =

0.041 lbs

a.i./A

Barley/wheat 1 0.105 Aerial spray Ground spray 384

105 > 1,000

378 0

7 6

6

Conservation

reserve 0.1 Aerial spray Ground spray 364

102 > 1,000

361 0

3 7

6

Cotton, soybeans 0.105 Aerial spray Ground spray 384

105 > 1,000

378 0

7 6

6
Ornamental, right

- of

- way, turf 0.173 Ground spray 171 548 10 13

Rice 0.108 Aerial spray Ground spray 394

108 > 1,000

384 0

7 7

6 Grass grown for

seed 0.083 Aerial spray Ground spray 305

85 > 1,000

312 0

3 0

4

1 While the application rate during the growing season is 0.083 lbs a.i./A , 0.105 lbs a.i./A can be applied after the growing season.



### If FPE were applied via aerial and ground spray using a Medium

- to

- Coarse droplet size category,

the buffer zones would be reduced as follows- Page 71 of 116

-

Table 4.12 . Possible 1 Effects Distance for Nontarget Terrestrial Monocot Plants Exposed to FPE through

Spray Drift Only Based on Medium

- Coarse Droplet Size

.

Crop Single

Max. App.

Rate (lbs

a.i./A ) AgDRIFT

Scenario Distance from Treatment Site (feet)

Monocots

corn IC 25 = 0.0025 lbs a.i./A Monocots

Corn

NOAEL

<0.0006 lbs a.i./A

Barley/wheat 1 0.105 Aerial spray Ground spray 207

23 886

131

Conservation

reserve 0.1 Aerial spray Ground spray 197

23 817

121

Cotton, soybeans 0.105 Aerial spray Ground spray 207

23 886

131
Ornamental, right

- of

- way, turf 0.173 Ground spray 40 236

Rice 0.108 Aerial spray Ground spray 210

23 928

135 Grass grown for

seed 0.083 Aerial spray Ground spray 171

20 620

98



### 4.3. Conclusions

For aquatic organisms, the screening

- level assessment with preliminary refinements concludes that the use of FPE in accordance with current and proposed labels results in potential acute r isks of

concern for listed freshwater vertebrates (fish and aquatic

- phase amphibians) inhabiting rice paddies when paddy water is drained down to 1 inc h; the likelihood of such a scenario is considered

low. Additional screening

- level risks of concern to aquatic organisms for the labeled use on rice were alleviated by refinements in the modeling of residue concentrations in rice paddy water and

in water released from paddies. Although s everal chronic toxicity studies with freshwater invertebrates indicate that formulations containing FPE may be two orders of magnitude more

toxic than FPE technical grade active ingredient (TGAI), the components of a formu lation are

assumed to have different fate and transport properties from the active ingredient ( e.g. , mobility, affinity to soil versus water, degradation kinetics) . Consequently

, aquatic organisms are not expected to be chronically exposed to the formulati on, and therefore, the scenario is not assessed in this analysis.

For terrestrial organisms, no acute or chronic risks of concern are identified for birds, as well as terrestrial phase amphibians or reptiles, for which birds serve as surrogates. For mamm als, the chronic risk level of concern (LOC) is not exceeded for the grass grown from seed use for any size class or dietary item based on estimated dietary or dose

- based concentrations. For the barley, conservation reserve, cotton, rice, and soybean uses , the chronic risk LOC is exceeded for dose

based estimates of small and/or medium sized mammals feeding on short grass. For the ornamentals and rights

- of

- way uses, the chronic risk LOC is exceeded for dose

- based estimates of multiple size classes and die tary items. This assessment also indicates that all labeled uses of FPE pose potential risks of concern to listed and non

- listed monocotyledonous (monocot) terrestrial plants, which is supported by a series of incidents reported for grain crops treated wi th FPE. These results also indicate that large spray drift buffer distances (85 to >1,000 feet) may be needed to

protect non

- target monocot plants from effects from spray drift. It is possible that specifying a- Page 72 of 116

-



### coarser droplet size on the label would help decrease the distance necessary for the efficacy of

such buffers.

4.4 Uncertainties

FPE is the R

- enantiomer (or d

- isomer) of the racemate fenoxaprop

- ethyl. Because the chirality is maintained during the degradation to fenoxaprop

- p acid, fenoxaprop

- p acid is also an enantiomer. Further degradation to 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)phenol) and chlorobenzoxazolone results in the loss of chirality. While enantiomers of chiral substances tend to have the same physicochemical properties, their biochemical activities, unlike abiotic transformations, can be quite different because of enantiomer selectivity of biochemical processes (Muller & Kohler, 2004). Enantio mer

- specific chemical analysis in fate studies show low enantio mer

- selective degradation (S:R < 0 .02) occurred for FPE, but that some enantio mer

- selective degradation (S:R 0.09 to 0.27) occurred for fenoxaprop

- p acid. The higher S:R ratios in selected fate studies may indicate preferential degradation of the S enantiomer of fenoxaprop

- p acid or enant iomerization of the R enantiomer of fenoxaprop

- p acid to the S enantiomer fenoxaprop

- p acid. There is uncertainty in the exact process leading to the higher enantiomeric S:R ratios of fenoxaprop

- p acid.

There is some uncertainty surrounding risks to listed dicotyledonous plants since the NOAEC from the available vegetative vigor study is non

- definitive (<0.081 lbs a.i./A) and could potentially be much lower (more toxic).

5. Listed Species of Concern

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S. C. Section 1536(a)(2), requires all federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine and anadromous listed species, and/ or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( US FWS) for listed wildlife and freshwater organi sms, if they are proposing an "action" that may affect listed species or their designated critical habitat. Each federal agency is required under the Act to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continue d existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species means "to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or ind irectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species" (50 C.F.R. § 402.02).

To facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (subsection (a)(2)), the Office of Pesticide Programs has established procedures to evaluate whether a proposed registration action may directly or indirectly appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distributi on of any listed species (USEPA 2004). After the Agency’s screening

- level risk assessment is conducted, if any of the Agency’s listed species LOCs are exceeded for either di rect or indirect effects, an analysis is conducted to determine if any listed or candidate species may co

- occur in the area of the proposed pesticide use or areas downstream or downwind that could be

contaminated from drift or runoff/erosion. Given the ex isting national registrations and broad range of registered uses for FPE, the Agency has determined that listed species may be present in- Page 73 of 116

-



### the action area. If listed or candidate species may be present in the action area, further biological

assessment is u ndertaken. The extent to which listed species may be at risk is considered, which then determines the need for the development of a more comprehensive consultation package, as required by the Endangered Species Act. The federal action addressed herein is the registration

review of existing uses for FPE.

5.1. Action Area

For listed species assessment purposes, the action area is considered to be the area affected directly or indirectly by FPE use and not merely the immediate area where FPE is applied. A t the initial screening

- level, the risk assessment considers broadly described taxonomic groups and conservatively estimates exposure for organisms that are co

- located with the pesticide treatment area. This means that terrestrial plants and wildlife are assumed to be located on or adjacent to the treated site and aquatic organisms are assumed to be located in a surface water body adjacent to

the treated site , except in the case of direct application to potential aquatic habitat ( e.g ., rice paddies )

.

5. 2

. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk

If the assumptions associated with the screening

- level action area result in RQs that are below the listed species LOCs, a "no effect" determination conclusion is made with respect to listed species

in th e relevant taxa, and no further refinement of the action area is necessary. Furthermore, RQs below the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group indicate no concern for indirect effects on listed species that depend upon the taxonomic group for which the RQ wa s calculated. However, in situations where the screening assumptions lead to RQs in excess of the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group, a potential for a "may affect" conclusion exists and may be associated with direct effects on listed species belonging to that taxonomic group or may extend to indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon that taxonomic group as a resource. In such cases, additional information on the biology of listed species, the locations of these species,

and the l ocations of use sites are considered to determine the extent to which screening assumptions regarding an action area apply to a particular listed organism. These subsequent refinement steps will consider how this information would impact the action area f or a particular listed organism and potentially include areas of exposure that are downwind and downstream of the pesticide use site.

Assessment endpoints, exposure pathways, the conceptual model s addressing FPE uses, and the associated exposure and effec ts analyses conducted for the FPE screening

- level risk assessment

are in Sections 2 to 3

. The assessment endpoints used in the screening

- level risk assessment include those defined operationally as reduced survival and reproductive impairment for both

aqu atic and terrestrial animal species and survival, reproduction, and growth of aquatic and terrestrial plant species from both direct acute and chronic exposures. These assessment endpoints address the standard set forth in the Endangered Species Act requi ring federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species. Risk estimat es (RQs), integrating exposure and effects, are calculated for broad based taxonomic groups in the screening

- level risk assessment presented in Section 4

.- Page 74 of 116

-



### Data on exposure and effects collected under laboratory and sometimes field conditions are

evaluated in the screening

- level risk assessment for non

- listed and listed species. Both acute and

chronic risk to listed species LOCs are considered to identify potential effects (or absence thereof) to listed species. This section identi fies potential direct effect concerns, by taxa, that are triggered by exceeding risk to listed species LOCs in the screening

- level risk assessment ( Table 5 .1 ). Where applicable, a n evaluation of the probability of individual effects for exposures that may occur at
the established risk to listed species LOC for each tax on is presented in Section 4

. Table 5 .1 further identifies taxa for which the potential risk to individual listed species is uncertain due to data gaps or limitations in study design . These uncertainties may be reduced or resolved by additional data, but physiological constraints in achieving higher dose levels than the standard limit dose should be considered when determining the need for further acute toxicity testing.

Table 5. 1

. Potential Effects to Federally

- Listed Taxa Associated with Direct or Indirect Effects from the

Labeled Uses of FPE

.

Listed Taxon Direct

Effects Uses of Concern for

Direct Effects Indirect Effects to

Listed Taxon through Direc t

Effects on ... Uses of Concern

for Indirect Effects

Terrestrial and semi

aquatic plants

-
monocots Yes All uses 6 Mammals C All uses (except grass grown for seed)

Terrestrial and semi

aquatic plants

- dicots No None Plants 2 , Mammals C All uses

Terrestrial invertebrates No None Plants 1,2 All uses

Birds No None Plants 1,2 All uses

Terrestrial

- phase amphibians No None Plants 1,2 All uses

Reptiles No None Plants 1,2 All uses

Mammals Yes C All uses (except grass grown for seed) 5 Plants 1,2 All uses

Aquatic plants No None Plants 1,2 All uses

Freshwater fish No 7 None Plants 1,2 All uses

Aquatic

- phase amphibians 5 No None Plants 1,2 All uses- Page 75 of 116

-

Listed Taxon Direct

Effects Uses of Concern for

Direct Effects Indirect Effects to

Listed Taxon through Direc t

Effects on ... Uses of Concern

for Indirect Effects

Freshwater

invertebrates No None Plants 1,2 All uses

Marine/estuarine fish 5 No None Plants 1,2 All uses

Marine/estuarine

invertebrates No None Plants 1,2 All uses

C Chronic risk.

1 T errestrial and semi

- aquatic dicot plants

. 2 T errestrial and semi

- aquatic monocot plants

. 3 B irds serve as a surrogate for terrestrial

- phase amphibians and reptiles.

4 Freshwater fish serve as a surrogate for aquatic

- phase amphibians.

5 For the barley, conservation reserve, cotton, rice, and soybean uses, the chronic risk LOC is exceeded for dose

based estimates of small and/or medium sized mammals feeding on short grass . For the ornamentals and rights

of

- way uses, the chronic risk LOC is exceeded for dose

- based estimates of multiple size classes and dietary

items.

6 This assessment also indicates that all labeled uses of FPE pose potential risks of concern to listed monocotyledonous (monocot) plants, which is supported by a series of incidents reported for grain crops treated

with FPE

7 Although risks of concern were identified for listed aquatic vertebrates inhabiting 1 inch of rice paddy water,

such a scenario is co nsidered un likely and therefore there are no expectations of direct effects to aquatic

vertebrates from the labeled rice use.



### 5. 3

. Listed Species Occurrence Asso ciated with FPE Uses

This screening

- level risk assessment for FPE assumes that the pesticide may be applied nationwide, including throughout U.S. territories and possessions. Therefore, no federally listed species are excluded from the screening

- level analyses, unless otherwise indicated ( e.g. , if only

listed due to s imilarity of a p pearan ce to another listed species). Based on this screening

- level assessment, there are potential risks from direct effects to listed mammals, freshwater fish, estuarine/marine invertebrates, and to monocot plants from the use of FPE on some of its regis tered use sites. Listed species of all plant and animal taxa may also be affected through indirect effects because of the potential direct effects on listed and non

- listed species. Potential direct effects on

listed mammals from the use of FPE may be ass ociated with modification of P rimary C onstituent

E lements (PCEs) of designated critical habitats, where such designations have been made.
However, a t this current stage of the Registration Review process, it is premature to make effects

determinations for listed species until further scientific analysis and refinements are conducted

, based on recommendations received from the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) April 2013 report, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18344 . The NAS report outlines recommendations on specific scientific and technical issues related to the development of pesticide risk assessments that are compliant with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The EPA along with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries- Page 76 of 116

-



### Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services) , and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), released a summary of their implementation plan for assessing risks of pesticides to listed species ahead of the stakeholder workshop held on November 15, 2013. This plan was developed in response to the NA S’ recommendations, including a common approach to risk assessment as a way of addressing scientific differences between EPA and the Services. During the workshop, the agencies received feedback from the public on the interim scientific approaches that we re developed as part of the initial implementation of the NAS recommendations. These approaches will be jointly implemented and vetted as part of a phased iterative process. Once fully vetted, EPA will further refine the listed species effects determinat ion portion of this risk assessment.

To make effects determinations for individual listed species, useful refinements may include, but are not limited to, analyses of: 1) more detailed, species

- specific ecological and biological data; 2)

more detailed and accurate information on FPE use patte rns; and 3) sub

- county level spatial proximity data for the co

- occurrence of potential effects areas and listed species and any designated critical habitat. Examples of such refinements are described below.

EFED is currently developing tools that are exp ected to further refine the assessment and are designed to support effects determinations for individual listed species and their designated critical habitats (where applicable). Scientific information obtained from the Services , and other reliable

source s is being collated by EFED to address all currently listed species. Th is information is be ing stored in an Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) P esticide R egistration I nformation S yste M (PRISM) listed species knowledgebase. The listed species knowledgebas e consist s of an information repository that houses biological and behavioral information relevant to individual species ( e.g. , habitat, diet, and life history, including specific temporal and spatial associations) and a document repository that contains s upporting documents ( e.g ., USFWS recovery plans) and electronic information ( e.g ., GIS data files). For terrestrial taxa, biological information relevant

to the assessment ( e.g ., diet and body weight) will be used to parameterize exposure estimates using a method consistent with currently used methods in the T

- REX and T

- HERPS models.

Refinements will also include more detailed analyses of the registered uses and specific use patterns that result in either “Likely to Adversely Affect” (LAA) or “Not Likel y to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) determinations for federally listed species. The analyses may include more information on where, when, and how FPE is used on all use sites

. Actual usage data (when available) and national land

- cover datasets that indicate p otential use sites [ e.g ., N ational L and

C over D ataset (NLCD), C rop land D ata L ayer (CDL)] may be used to support a more refined analysis of where FPE is reasonably expected to be used. Similarly, refinements on the timing of applications and a more in

- depth exploration of agronomic practices for FPE may be included as part of the refinement.

The refinements based on individual species data; additional, detailed usage information, when available; and recommendat ions from the NRC report are expected to help to more accurately identify potential areas of effect and to better inform effects and habitat determinations for listed species and any designated critical habitats.- Page 7 7 of 116

-



### 6

. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

As required by FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA reviews numerous studies to assess potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectively, these studies include acute, subchronic and chronic toxicity, including assessments of carcinogenicity, neurotoxici ty, developmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. These studies include endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influence, including effects on endocrine target organ histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual maturati on, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies that assess growth, developmental and reproductive effects in different taxonomic groups.

As part of its most recent registration decision for FPE

, EPA reviewed these data and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), FPE is subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar t o an effect produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” The EDSP employs a two

- tiered approach to making the statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 scre ening assays to identify the potential of a chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to interact with E, A, or T ho rmonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 testing is designed to identify any

adverse endocrine

- related effects caused by the subs tance, and establish a dose

- response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect.

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call

- ins for th e first group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. A second list of chemicals identified for EDSP screening was published on June 14, 2013 4 

### and includes some pesticides scheduled for registration review and chemicals found in water

. Neither of these lists should be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors.

FPE is on List 2. List 2 represents the next set of chemicals for which EPA intends to issue test

orders/data call

- ins in the near future. “ For further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the lists of chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website. 5



### 7

. R eferences

American Bird Conservancy (ABC). 2007. Avian Incident Monitoring System. Available online at http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/pesticides/aims/aims/simple.cfm.

4 See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2009

- 0477

- 0074 for the final second list of

chemicals.

5 http://www.epa.gov/endo/- Page 78 of 116

-



### Bayer CropScience. 2012. Letter from George Sabbagh, Ph.D., Registration Product Manager, Bayer CropScience t o Molly Clayton, USEPA. Subject: Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl (FPE)

– Registration No.

264

- 653 and RR

- 129092

- 28665: Commitment to Revising Labels f o r Products containing FPE. November 30, 2012.

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA

food

- chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13 (9):1383

- 1391.

Hoerger, F., and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide resi dues on plants: Correlation of representative data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston and F. Korte, eds., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology, Georg Thieme Publ, Stuttgart, W est Germany, pp. 9

- 28.

Muller, T. A., & Kohler, H. P. (2004). Chirality of pollutants

-- effects on metabolism and fate. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, Vol.64, No.3, pp.300

- 316

Kashuba, R., Spatz, D. 2006 Memorandum to Steven Bradbury, Subject: Standard Soil Mobility

Classification Guidance

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 2012. Letter from Tamara Murphy, NAFTA Regulatory Product Manager to Molly Clayton, USEPA. Subject: Label Us e Pattern Amendments

- Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl FoxFire Herbicide (EPA Reg. No. 100

- 1429) and Fusion Herbi cide (EPA Reg. No. 100

- 1059). November
30, 2012.

Urban, D.J., and N. Cook. 1986. Ecological Risk Assessment . EPA 540/9

– 85

- 001. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014. Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl. Registration Review Preliminary Risk Assessment and Proposed New Use on G rass Grown for Seed. (D403928 and D411289) Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

-- 2013 a . Data on Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and Its Environmental Transformation Products in Support of the ROCKS. DP Barcode 411291. September 25, 2013.

-- 2013b. T

- REX Version 1.5 (Terrestrial Residue EXposure model). June 6, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/

-- 201 2 . BEAD. 2012. Screening Level Usage Analysis for Fenoxaprop and Fen oxaprop

- p

- ethyl, July 27,

2012.

-- 2012. PRZM

- GW: Guidance for Using PRZM

- GW in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments (10/15/ 2012)

-- 2011 AgDRIFT User’s Guide, December 29, 2011

-- 2010 STIR Version 1.0 (Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk) http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/

-- 2010 Version 1.0 (Screening Imbibition Program) http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/mod els/terrestrial/- Page 79 of 116

-



### -- 2009a. Pesticides; Data Requirements for Conventional Chemicals, Technical Amendments, and Data Requirements for Biochemical and Microbial Pesticides; Final Rule. FR 72(207):60933

- 60988.

-- 2009 b . Water models. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/

.

-- 2009 c . ECOTOXicology Database, v. 4.0. Accessed on 16 November 2009. Available online at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

.

-- 2009d. Ecological Incident I nformation System, v. 2.1 . Accessed on 13 October 2009

. Description

online at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm

.

-- 2009e. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides, Version 2.1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environm ental Fate and Effects Division, October 22, 2009. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm

-- 2009f. The FIFRA Scientific Adviso ry Panel. 2009. Minutes for the SAP Meeting on selected issues associated with risk assessment process for pesticides with persistent, bio

- accumulative and toxic

characteristics. October 28

- 31, 2008. Arlington, VA. (Document No. 2009

- 01 dated Jan 29,

200 9). http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2008/102808_mtg.htm

-- 2008. Science Advisory Panel (SAP): Selected Issues Associated with the Risk Assessment Process for

Pesticides w ith Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Characteristics. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C.

-- 2007a. Registration Review

– Preliminary Problem Formulation for the Ecological Risk Assessment of Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl. July 12, 2007

-- 2007 b . Guidance for Tier I Estimation of Aqueous Pesticide Concentrations in Rice Paddies (5/8/2007)

-- 2006 a . PRZM User’s Manual. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/gwater/przm3/index.html

-- 2006b, TERRPLANT v. 1.2.2 User’s Guide. Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Washington, D.C. Dece mber 26, 2006.

-- 2005. EXAMS User’s Manual. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/swater/exams/index.html

-- 2004

. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Endangered and Threatened Species Effects Determinations. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/consultation/ecorisk

- overview.pdf

.

-- 2003. SCIGROW: User ’ s Manual. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/#scigrow

-- 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R

- 95/002F. Published in 63 FR 26846; May 14, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. April, 1998.- Page 80 of 116

-



### -- 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R

- 13/187a. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.

Willis, G.H. and L.L. McDowell. 1987. Pesticide persistence on foliage. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 100: 23

- 73.



### 7 .1

. Submitted Product Chemistry and Environmental Fate Studies

Acc. # 412

- 03

- 0113. Moraski, R. 1983. EAB Review of 8340

– EUP

– T. HED memorandum, Nov. 3,

1983. HED Records Center Series 361 Science Reviews

– File R038903. 52 p.

MRID 41567707 Wink, O., Fischer, R. (1987) HOE 046360

- 14C Flow

- through Bioaccumulation and Metabolism Study with Bluegill Subfish (Lepomis macrochirus): Lab Project Number : CM010/87 & Lm27/a. Report No. A37432. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 84p.

MRID 42915001 Reynolds, J. (1993) Adsorption and Desorption of (Carbon 14)

- Fenoxaprop

- p

- Ethyl in Four Soils: Replacement Report: Lab Project Number: XBL 91063: RPT0099. Unpublished study prepared by XenoBiotic Labs, Inc. 144 p.

MRID 43066404 Carringer, R.; O'Grodnick, J. (1993) Aquatic Dissipation of HOE 46360 75EW (Whip 360 Herbicide) (Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl) Applied to Rice in California: Final Report: Lab Proje ct Number: 91

- 0028: 91

- 0016

HOE AASI: 91

- 0016. Unpublished study prepared by American Agricultural Services, Inc. and EN

- CAS Analytical Labs. 300 p.

MRID 44659601 Schollmeier, M.; Eyrich, U.; Uhl, A. (1992) HOE 0463060, (Fenoxaprop

- p

- Ethyl); Determinati on of the

Partition Coefficient n

- Octanol/Water (HOE 046360 00 ZB98 0001): Lab Project Number: CP92/131: A49082. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 22 p.

MRID 44676401 Schwab, W. (1993) HOE 046360

- (carbon

- 14), Photodegradation of Fenoxaprop

- p

- eth yl in Surface Water, Sterile Buffer and Distilled Water: Lab Project Number: A51353: CP91/035. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 151 p.

MRID 45081601 Volkel, W. (2000) (carbon

- 14)

- AE F046360/(carbon

- 14)

- AE F033171: Degradation and Metabolism in an Anaerobic Aquatic System: Lab Project Number: 725040: C007381. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Ltd. 114 p.

MRID 45081602 Tarara, G. (2000) (U

- (carbon

- 14)

- Chlorophenyl)AE F046360: Degradation in Two Sediment/Water

Systems at 20(degrees )C Under Aerobic Conditions: Lab Project Number: CB98/113: C007688. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH. 167 p.

MRID 47123201 Van Der Gaauw, A. (2002) (Carbon 14)

- Fenozaprop

- Ethyl: Hydrolysis at Five Different pH Values: AE

F046360. Project Number: 815670, C/028353. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Ltd. 71 p.- Page 81 of 116

-



### MRID 47123208 Fitzmaurice, M. (2004) [Carbon 14]

- Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl: Degradation and Retention in Two Water/Sediment Systems. Project Number: C046009, MEFPX011, CX/04/045. Unpublished study prepared by Battelle AgriFood, Ltd. 123 p.

MRID 48098502 Fitzmaurice, M. (2008) [Carbon 14]

- Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl: Aqueous Photolysis in Sterile Buffer Solution at pH 7. Project Number: CX/05/031, M/344639/01/1, MEF/06/335. Unpublished study prepared by Battelle Agrifood, Ltd. 132 p.

MRID 48757101 Shepherd, J. (2012) [Chlorophenyl

- UL

- (Carbon 14)]Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl: Aerobic Soil Metabolism in Four US Soils. Project Number: MEFPL006, MEFPL006/1, M/424708/02/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 171p.

MRID 48868703 Shepherd, J.; Ripperger, R. (2012) (Phenoxy

- UL

- Carbon 14) Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl: Aerobic Soil Metabolism in Four U.S. Soils: Amended Report. Project Number: MEFPL009, M/424988/02/1. Unpublished study prep ared by Bayer CropScience. 181p.

MRID 48868701 Xu, T. (2012) (Phenoxy

- UL

- Carbon 14) and (Chlorophenyl

- UL

- Carbon 14) Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl: Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism in Two Sediment/Water Systems. Project Number: MEFPL007, M/431724/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience and Agvise Laboratories, Inc. 168p.

MRID 48868702 Ripperger, R. (2012) (Chlorophenyl

- UL

- Carbon 14) and (Phenoxy

- UL

- Carbon 14) Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl: Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism in Two Water/Sediment/Systems. Project Number: MEFPL007, M/431724/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 171p.



### 7.2

. Submitted Ecotoxicity Studies

MRID 43972209 Ebert, E.; Leist, K. (1991) (Inert Ingredient): Testing for Acute Oral Toxicity in the Male and Female Mallard Duck (Anas p latyrhynchos): Lab Project Number: A45650: 90.0992. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 32 p.

MRID 44739126 Ebert, E. (1998) (Inert Ingredient) Code: CR 21492/03: Bobwhite Quail Acute Oral Toxicity Study: Lab Project Number: 96.076 6: A59889: T/020/96. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Marion Roussel. 29 p. {OPPTS 850.2100}

MRID 44739127 Ebert, E. (1998) (Inert Ingredient) Code: CR 21492/03: Mallard Duck Acute Oral Toxicity Study: Lab Project Number: 96.0767: A59890: T/020/96. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Marion Roussel. 29 p. {OPPTS 850.2100}- Page 82 of 116

-



### MRID 47333401 Ebert, E.; Leist, K. (1986) Testing for Acute Oral Toxicity in the Male and Female Japanese Quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica): HOE 046360. Project Number: 85/0792, A36978, 87/1323. Unpublished study prepared by Pharmakologishes Inst. der Rh einischen Friedrich

- Wilhelms

- .24 p.

MRID 47333402 Ebert, E.; Leist, K. (1986) Testing for Acute Oral Toxicity in the Male and Female Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos): H OE 046360. Project Number: 85/0790, A36428, 86/0168. Unpublished study prepared by Pharmakologishes Inst. der Rheinischen Friedrich

- Wilhelms

- . 24 p.

MRID 47333403 Ebert, E.; Leist, K. (1986) Testing for Acute Oral Toxicity in the Male and Female Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginianus). Project Number: 85/0791, 86/0169, A36429. Unpublished study prepared by Pharmakologishes Inst. der Rheinischen Friedrich

- Wilhelms

- . 24 p.

MRID 47333404 Ebert, E.; Leist, K. (1986) Testing for Acute Oral Toxicity in the Male and Female Partridge (Perdix perdix): HOE 046360. Project Number: 85/0793, 86/0261, A36679. Unpublished study prepared by Pharmakologishes Inst. der Rheinischen Friedrich

- Wilhelms

- . 22 p.

MRID 43972210 Ebert, E. (1992) (Inert ingredient): 8

- Day Dietary L C50 Test in the Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos): Lab Project Number: 92.0449: BE0083: A49551. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 44 p.

MRID 44739128 Ebert, E. (1998) (Inert Ingredients) Mallard Duck LC50 Study: Lab Project Number : 96.0783: A59887: T/021/97. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Marion Roussel. 32 p. {OPPTS 850.2200}

MRID 447 39129 Ebert, E. (1998) (Inert Ingredients) Bobwhite Quail LC50 Study: Lab Project Number: 96.0782: A67552: 97.0729. Unpublished study prepar ed by Hoechst Marion Roussel. 31 p. {OPPTS 850.2200}

MRID 47333405 Ebert, E.; Leist, K. (1986) 8

- Day Dietary LC50 Test in the Japanese Quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica): HOE 046360. Project Number: 85/0796, 86/0401, A36733. Unpublished study prepared b y Pharmakologishes Inst. der Rheinischen Friedrich

- Wilhelms

- . 26 p.

MRID 47333406 Ebert, E.; Roberts, N.; Phillips, C. (1986) The Dietary Toxicity (LC50) of HOE 046360

- Substance Technical (Code 046360 OH ZC96 0002) to the Bobwhite Quail. Project Number: A34917, HST/297/86976. Unpublished study prepared by Pharmakologishes Inst. der Rheinischen Friedrich

Wilhelms

- and Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 21 p.

MRID 47333407 Ebert, E.; Leist, K. (1986) 8

- Day Dietary LC50 Test in the Mallard Duck (Anas platyrh ynchos): HOE 046360. Project Number: A36430, 86/0579, 85/0794. Unpublished study prepared by Pharmakologishes

Inst. der Rheinischen Friedrich

- Wilhelms

- . 26 p.

MRID 47333408- Page 83 of 116

-



### Schnurstein, A. (2002) Bobwhite Quail Dietary Reproduction Study: Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl. Project Number: C027500, PT01/0109, NG/28022. Unpublished study prepared by Aventis Pharma Deutschland Gmbh. 154 p.

MRID 43972207 Heusel, R. (1991) (Inert Ingredient): Effect to Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow Trout) in a Static

- Acute

Tox icity Test (Method OECD): Lab Project Number: CE91/050: A47038. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 32 p.

MRID 44739130 Stachura, B.; Ruff, D. (1997) (Inert Ingredients): The 96 Hour Acute Toxicity to the Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, in a Flow Through System: Lab Project Number: 505CA: A57757: CA97T505. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Company. 52 p. {OPPTS 850.1075}

MRID 44739131 Stachura, B.; Ruff, D. (1997) (Inert Ingredient) 98.0% w/w Code: AE F122006 00 1C99 00 02: The 96 Hour Acute Toxicity to the Bluegill Sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus, in a Flow Through System: Lab Project Number: CA98W504: A67510: C/085/97. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Company. 56 p. {OPPTS_850.1075}

MRID 44801502 Stachura, B.; Ruff, D. (1999) Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl Technical: 88.1% w/w: Code: AE F046360 00 1C97 0002: The 96 Hour Chronic Toxicity to the Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus, in a Flow

- Through System: Lab Project Number: BM98W521: C002415. Unpublished stu dy prepared by AgrEvo Research Center. 53 p.

MRID 44801503 Stachura, B.; Ruff, D. (1999) AE F054014 Technical: 99.7% w/w: Code: AE F054014 00 1C99 0004: The 96 Hour Acute Toxicity to the Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, in a Static Renewal System:

L ab Project Number: BM98W522: C002416. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo Research Center. 41 p.

MRID 44801504 Stachura, B.; Ruff, D. (1999) Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl Technical: 88.1% w/w: Code: AE F046360 00 1C97 0002: The 96 Hour Acute Toxicity to the Rain bow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, in a Flow

- Through System: Lab Project Number: BM98W520: C002145. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo Research Center. 52 p.

MRID 47333413 Heusel, R. (1996) Acute Toxicity to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Fenoxaprop

- P. Project Number: CE96/122, A57595. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 35 p.

MRID 47333418 Schafers, C. (2004) Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Acute Toxicity Test (OECD 203), Semi

static Exposure: AE F06918: Final Report. Pro ject Number: BAY/021/4/12. Unpublished study prepared by Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology. 27 p.

MRID 47333428 Heusel, R. (1996) Feoxaprop

- P

- ethyl + (Inert Ingredient): Effect to Oncorhynchus myskiss (Rainbow Trout) in a 96 Hours Static Acute Toxicity Test. Project Number: CE95/042, A56435. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 38 p.- Page 84 of 116

-



### MRID 47333431 Heusel, R. (1996) Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl + (Inert Ingredient) Emulsifiable Concentrate 120 + 33g/L: Acute

Toxicit y to Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Project Number: CE95/043, A56692. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 38 p.

MRID 48492501 Bomke, C. (2011) Acute Toxicity of Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl to Fish (Pimephales promelas) Under Flow

Th rough Conditions. Project Number: EBFPL012, E/280/3970/9, M/407842/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 75 p.

MRID 43972208 Heusel, R. (1991) (Inert Ingredient): Effect to Daphnia magna (Waterflea) in a Static

- Acute Toxicity Test (Metho d OECD): Lab Project Number: CE91/048: A46758. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 23 p. Relates to letter L0000216.

MRID 44664002 Stachura, B.; Ruff, D. (1998) Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl Technical 88.1% w/w: Code: AE F046360 00 1C97

0002: The 48 Hour Acute Toxicity to Daphnia magna, in a Static Renewal System: Lab Project Number: BMM98W514: A67511: AZ 06135. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Company. 48 p.

MRID 447 39132 Stachura, B.; Ruff, D. (1997) (Inert Ingredients): The 96 Hour Acute Toxicity to Daphnia magna in a Flow Through System: Lab Project Number: 506CA: A57758: CA97T506. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Company. 44 p. {OPPTS 850.1010}

MRID 44801505 Young, B.; Ruff, D. (1999) AE F054014 Technical: 99.7% w/w: Cod e: AE F054014 00 1C99 0004: The 48 Hour Acute Toxicity to the Water Flea, Daphnia magna, in a Static Renewal System: Lab Project Number: BM98W524: C002434. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo Research Center. 44 p.

MRID 47333415 Heusel, R. (1993) Fenoxaprop

- P: Effect to Daphnia magna (Waterflea) in a Static

- Acute Toxicity Test (Method OECD). Project Number: CE92/002, A50393. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 34 p.

MRID 47333420 Schaefers, C. (2004) Daphnia magna, Acute Immo bilization Test (OECD 202): Final Report. Project Number: BAY/021/4/20, C043957. Unpublished study prepared by Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology. 25 p.

MRID 47333429 Heusel, R. (1996) Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl + (Inert Ingredient): Effect to Daphnia magna (Waterflea) in a 48 h Static Acute Toxicity Test. Project Number: CE95/041, A56436. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 41 p.

MRID 41276902 Burgess, D. (1989) Acute Toxicity of HOE

- 046360 to Mysidopsis bahia: Lab Project Number: 37525. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 214 p.- Page 85 of 116

-



### MRID 44786801

S tachura, B.; Ruff, D. (1999) Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl Technical: Effects on Early Life Stages of Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss: Lab Project Number: BM98 W513: C002144. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo Research Center. 168 p.

MRID 44786802 Boeri, R.; Magazu, J.; Ward, T. (1999) Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl Technical: The 28 Day Chronic Toxicity to the Mysid, Mysidopsis bahia in a Flow Through System: Lab Proje ct Number: C002140: 1656

- AG: BM98W519. Unpublished study prepared by T.R. Wilbury Laboratories, Inc. 85 p.

MRID 48417901 Bomke, C. (2011) Early

- Life Stage Toxicity of Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl (Techn.) to Fish (Pimephales promelas). Project Number: EBFPL009, E/ 284/3971/4, M/403248/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 102 p.

MRID 47332701 Bruns, E. (2006) Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl & Mefenpyr

- Diethyl; Oil in Water Emulsion; 69+75 g/l Daphnia magna Chronic Toxicity Test, Dosed at Two Life Stages in an Uncovered Static Laboratory Test System. Project Number: E3213021/2, EBFPX008, AEF04636024EW14A717. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Ag, Institute of Product Info. & Residue Anal. 94 p.

MRID 47332702 Schaefers, C. (2002) Daphnia magna, Reproduction T est, Dosed at Two Life Stages Part B: Reproduction Test Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl + Mefenpyr

- diethyl; Oil in Water Emulsion, 69 + 75 g/L. Project Number: C027503, AEF04636024EW14A716, ACS/004/4/21. Unpublished study prepared by Fraunhofer Institute

for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology. 85 p.

MRID 47332703 Heusel, R. (1994) Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl

- Oil in Water Emulsion 69 g/L Code: Hoe 046360 24 EW14 A703 Effect to Daphnia magna (Waterflea) in a 21

- day Reproduction Test (Method OECD). Project Number: A53038, CE 94/006. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Schering Agrevo Gmbh. 157 p.

MRID 47332704 Fischer, R. (1989) The Effect of Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl

- Oil in Water Emulsion (Identification Code: Hoe 046360 OH EW07 A209 to Daphnia magna (Waterflea) in a 21

- Day Re production Test (Method OECD). Project Number: 89/CEO43, A41741. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 112 p.

MRID 47332705 Fischer, R. (1989) The Effect of Fenoxaprop

- ethyl

- Substance, Technical (Identitication Code: Hoe

033171 OH ZD98 0001) to Daphnia magna (Waterflea) in a 21

- Day Reproduction Test (Method OECD) . Project Number: CE89/042/3, A41480, CE89J042. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 110 p.

MRID 47332706 Fischer, R. (1989) The Effect of Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl

- Substance, Technical (Identification Code: Hoe 046360 OH ZC97 0002) to Daphnia magna (Waterflea) in a 21

- Day Reproduction Test (Method OECD). Project Number: CE033/89, A41697, CE89/033. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 1 13 p.

MRID 47333416- Page 86 of 116

-



### Ebeling, M.; Nguyen, D.; Gosch, H. (2002) Fenoxaprop

- P: Daphnia magna Chronic Toxicity and Reproduction Test Under Semi

- static Conditions. Project Number: CE02/057, C026337. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Cropscience Gmbh. 63 p.

MRID 47333421 Schaefers, C. (2004) Daphnia magna, Reproduction test (OECD 211) Semi

- static Exposure: AE F096918: Final Report. Project Number: C045676, BAY/021/4/21. Unpublished study prepared by Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Eco logy. 42 p.

MRID 47333414 Sowig, P.; Gosch, H. (2003) Effects on Juvenile Growth of Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow Trout) in a 28 Days Flow

- Through Study: Fenoxaprop

- P; Substance, Technical. Project Number: CE02/058, C027516. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Cropscience Gmbh. 47 p. . NOT A FIFRA Guideline

MRID 47333419 Schaefers, C. (2004) Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Juvenile Growth Test (OECD 215), Flow Trough Conditions: Final Repor. Project Number: BAY/021/4/63, C045675. Unpublished study prepared by Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology. 41 p. NOT A FIFRA Guideline

MRID 48417901 Bomke, C. (2011) Early

- Life Stage Toxicity of Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl (Techn.) to Fish (Pimephales promelas). Project Number: EBFPL009, E/2 84/3971/4, M/403248/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 102 p.

MRID 47333412 Meyer, B.; Young, B. (1999) Bioaccumulation and Metabolism of (carbon

- 14)

- Chlorophenyl AE F046360 in Bluegill Sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus, in a Flow

- Through System. Project Number: A500/CE0026, BM98E517, C002136. Unpublished study prepared by Agrevo USA Co. 118 p.

MRID 41276904 Chetram, R. (1989) Tier 1: Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence: Nontarget Phytotoxicity Study: HOE

046360: Lab Project Number: LR88 /110B. Unpublished study prepared by Pan

- Agricultural Laboratories, Inc. 155 p.

MRID 41276906 Chetram, R. (1989) Tier 1: Vegetative Vigor Nontarget Phytotoxicity Study: HOE

- 046360: Lab Project Number: LR88/110A. Unpublished study prepared by Pan

- Agricultural Laboratories, Inc. 124 p.

MRID 47333423 Roshon, R. (2001) Ecotoxicological Evaluation of Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl+(Inert Ingredient) Emulsifiable Concentrate (120 + 30 g/L) (PUMA 120 Speed), Terrestrial Plant Seedling Emergence: Final Report. Project Number: 1230, SO497, B003326. Unpublished study prepared by ESG International, Inc. 305 p.

MRID 47333424 Roshon, R. (2001) Ecotoxicological Evaluation of Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl + (Inert Ingredient) Emulsifiable Concentration (120+33 g/L) (PUMA 120 SUPER), Terrestrial Plant Vegetative Vigour: Final Report. Project Number: B003327, S0497, 1230. Unpublishe d study prepared by ESG International, Inc. 551 p.

MRID 41276907 Chetram, R. (1989) Tier 2: Vegetative Vigor Nontarget Phytotoxicity Study: HOE

- 046360: Lab Project Number: LR89/14A. Unpublished study prepared by Pan

- Agricultural Laboratories, Inc. 13 p.- Page 87 of 116

-



### MRID 41276903 Fischer, R. (1989) The Effect of HOE

- 046360

- Oil in Water Emulsion (Identification Code: HOE

046360 OH EW07 A209) to Selenastrum capricornutum (Green Alga) in an Algal Assay Bottle Test (Method EPA): Lab Project Number: SC5. Unpublished s tudy prepared by Hoechst AG 29 p.

MRID 41276905 Chetram, R. (1989) Tier 2: Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence Nontarget Phytotoxicity Study: HOE

046360: Lab Project Number: LR89/14B. Unpublished study prepared by Pan

- Agricultural Laboratories,

Inc. 134 p.

MRID 44739133 Christ, M.; Ruff, D. (1998) (Inert Ingredient) Effect to Pseudokircheriella Subcapitata (Green Alga) in a Growth Inhibition Test: Lab Project Number: CA97W508: A57881: T/010/97. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA Company. 53 p. {OPPTS 870.5400}

MRID 44768103 Christ, M.; Ruff, D. (1999) Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl Technical 88.1% w/w: Effect to Anabaena flos

- aquae (Blue

- Green Alga) in a Growth Inhibition Test: Lab Project Number: BM98W518: C000918: BM518. Unpublished study prepared by A grEvo Research Center. 60 p.

MRID 44768104 Young, B.; Ruff, D. (1999) Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl Technical 88.1% w/w: Effect to Skeletonema costatum (Marine Diatom) in a Growth Inhibition Test: Lab Project Number: BM98W516: C000916: BM/01/97. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo Research Center. 53 p.

MRID 44801501 Christ, M.; Ruff, D. (1999) AE F054014 Technical: 99.7% w/w: Code: AE F054014 00 1C99 0004: Effect to Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (Green Alga) in a Growth Inhibition Test: Lab Project Number: BM98W523: C002718. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo Rese arch Center. 105 p.

MRID 44664003 Christ, M.; Ruff, D. (1997) Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl Technical 88.1% w/w: Code: AE F046360 00 1C97 0002: The Toxicity to Duckweed (Lemna gibba), in a Static Renewal System: Lab Project Number: BM9W502: A57845: AZ 07051. Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo USA C ompany. 56 p.

MRID 44768105 Sowig, P.; Weller, O.; Gosch, H. (1999) Algal Growth InhibitionNavicula pelliculosa: Fenoxaprop

- P

ethyl Substance, Technical: Lab Project Number: CE98/107: C001890: CE98/107

- 2. npublished study prepared by Hoechst Schering Agr Evo GmbH. 41 p.

MRID 47333425 Roshon, R. (2001) Ecotoxicological Evaluation of Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl+ (Inert Ingredient) Emulsifiable Concentrate (120 + 33 g/L) (PUMA 120 SUPER), Aquatic Plant (Lemna Gibba) Toxicity: Final Report. Project Number: S0497, B00 3328, 1230. Unpublished study prepared by ESG International, Inc.. 150 p.

MRID 47333417 Heusel, R. (1993) Fenoxaprop

- P: Effect to Selenastrum capricornutum (Green alga) in an Algal Assay Bottle Test (Method EPA). Project Number: CE92/003, A50170. Unpublis hed study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 70 p.

MRID 47333422- Page 88 of 116

-



### Ebert, E. (2004) Alga, (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata), Growth Inhibition Test (OECD 201), Static Exposure: AE F096918: Final Report. Project Number: BAY/021/4/30, C043958. Unpublishe d study prepared by Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology. 50 p.

MRID 47333426 Dorgerloh, M. (2005) Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (formerly named Selenastrum capricornutum)

- Growth Inhibition Test with Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl & (Ine rt Ingredient) Emulsifiable concentrate 120 +33 g/L. Project Number: M/253287/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Cropscience Gmbh. 74 p.

MRID 47333427 Heusel, R. (1996) Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl + (Inert Ingredient) Effect to the Green Alga Selenastrum

c apricornutum in a 120 Hours Growth Inhibition Test. Project Number: CE95/045, A56200. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 47 p.

MRID 48566201 Banman, C.; Howerton, J.; Lam, C. (2011) Toxicity of Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl Technical to Fres hwater Diatom Navicula pelliculos. Project Number: EBFPL011, M/411456/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 65p.

MRID 47333411 Winkler, J. (2000) Toxicity to the HoneyBee Apis mellifera L. (laboratory):(Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl). Project

Number : 99/1048/100, 46360/00/1D96/0001. Unpublished study prepared by: Biochem Agrar, Labor fuer Biologische und Chemische Analytik and Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 20 p.

MRID 47333430 Waltersdorfer, A. (1996) Contact Toxicity (LD50) to Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.). Project Number: CW/95/078. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 15 p.

MRID 47333432 Waltersdorfer, A. (1996) Oral Toxicity (LD 50) to Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.). Project Number: CW/95/079. Unpublished study prepare d by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 14 p.

MRID 47333410 Memmert, U. (2000) Effects of Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl, Substance Technical; Code AE F046360 on the Development of Sediment

- Dwelling Larvae of Chironomus riparius in a Water

- Sediment System. Project

Number: 732194, C006993. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 66 p.- Page 89 of 116

-



### Appendix A . Chemical Names and Structures of FPE and its Degradates

Chemical Structure Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl
(+)

- ethyl 2

- [4

- [(6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoate



### AE F046360

Fenoxaprop

- p ((D+)

- 2

- [4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenoxy] propanoate



### AE F088406

Chlorobenzoxazolone

4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol



### AE F054014

4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy )phenol

AE F040356- Page 90 of 116

-



### Appendix B . PRZM/EXAMS Sample Input/Output Data

Barley/Wheat

stored as fpe_tx_wheat.out Chemical: fpe

PRZM environment: TXwheatOP.txt modified Thuday, 14 June 2007 at 11:24:44

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Wedday, 15 November 2006 at 13:47:26

Metfile: w13958.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:06:24 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.747 0.3024 0.05769 0.02019 0.01346 0.004765

1962 0 .7374 0.126 0.0241 0.008434 0.005623 0.002672

1963 0.8113 0.1304 0.02488 0.008708 0.005805 0.00266

1964 0.7374 0.1702 0.0356 0.01246 0.008308 0.00338

1965 0.7374 0.1413 0.02746 0.009639 0.006426 0.002954

1966 0.7374 0.1313 0.0252 0.008819 0.005879 0.002836

1967 0.7374 0.1346 0.02633 0.009223 0.006148 0.002792

1968 0.7374 0.128 0.02478 0.008675 0.005783 0.002762

1969 0.7374 0.1321 0.02537 0.008949 0.005966 0.002853

1970 0.7374 0.1754 0.03397 0.01189 0.007927 0.003331

1971 0.7374 0.1306 0.02522 0.008828 0.005 886 0.002785

1972 0.7374 0.124 0.02377 0.008328 0.005552 0.002694

1973 0.7374 0.1318 0.02532 0.008863 0.005909 0.002838

1974 0.7374 0.136 0.02621 0.009175 0.006117 0.002872

1975 0.7374 0.1611 0.03139 0.01099 0.007328 0.003229

1976 0.7374 0.166 0.03325 0.01 164 0.00776 0.003312

1977 0.7374 0.1211 0.02322 0.008127 0.005418 0.002668

1978 0.7374 0.1291 0.02544 0.008904 0.005936 0.002772

1979 0.7374 0.1256 0.02394 0.008379 0.005586 0.002711

1980 0.7374 0.1322 0.02537 0.009133 0.006089 0.002743

1981 0.7374 0.124 0.02364 0.008274 0.005516 0.002686

1982 0.7374 0.1241 0.02386 0.008368 0.005579 0.002708

1983 0.7374 0.129 0.02469 0.00864 0.00576 0.002752

1984 0.7374 0.1275 0.02443 0.008562 0.005708 0.002698

1985 0.7374 0.1236 0.02728 0.009547 0.006365 0.002911

1986 0.818 0.1869 0.03591 0.01257 0.008383 0.003401

1987 0.7635 0.1298 0.02504 0.008763 0.005842 0.002863

1988 0.7374 0.1238 0.02364 0.008273 0.005515 0.002667

1989 0.7374 0.1218 0.02332 0.008167 0.005445 0.002679

1990 0.7374 0.1279 0.02451 0.00858 0.00572 0.00 263

Sorted results

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

0.032258064516129 1.747 0.3024 0.05769 0.02019 0.01346 0.004765

0.0645161290322581 0.818 0.1869 0.03591 0.01257 0.008383 0.003401

0.0967741935483871 0.8113 0.1754 0.0356 0.01246 0.008308 0.00 338

0.129032258064516 0.7635 0.1702 0.03397 0.01189 0.007927 0.003331

0.161290322580645 0.7374 0.166 0.03325 0.01164 0.00776 0.003312

0.193548387096774 0.7374 0.1611 0.03139 0.01099 0.007328 0.003229

0.225806451612903 0.7374 0.1413 0.02746 0.009639 0.00642 6 0.002954

0.258064516129032 0.7374 0.136 0.02728 0.009547 0.006365 0.002911

0.290322580645161 0.7374 0.1346 0.02633 0.009223 0.006148 0.002872

0.32258064516129 0.7374 0.1322 0.02621 0.009175 0.006117 0.002863- Page 91 of 116

-

0.354838709677419 0.7374 0.1321 0.02544 0.0091 33 0.006089 0.002853

0.387096774193548 0.7374 0.1318 0.02537 0.008949 0.005966 0.002838

0.419354838709677 0.7374 0.1313 0.02537 0.008904 0.005936 0.002836

0.451612903225806 0.7374 0.1306 0.02532 0.008863 0.005909 0.002792

0.483870967741936 0.7374 0.1304 0.02522 0.008828 0.005886 0.002785

0.516129032258065 0.7374 0.1298 0.0252 0.008819 0.005879 0.002772

0.548387096774194 0.7374 0.1291 0.02504 0.008763 0.005842 0.002762

0.580645161290323 0.7374 0.129 0.02488 0.008708 0.005805 0.002752

0.612903225806452 0.73 74 0.128 0.02478 0.008675 0.005783 0.002743

0.645161290322581 0.7374 0.1279 0.02469 0.00864 0.00576 0.002711

0.67741935483871 0.7374 0.1275 0.02451 0.00858 0.00572 0.002708

0.709677419354839 0.7374 0.126 0.02443 0.008562 0.005708 0.002698

0.741935483870968 0.7374 0.1256 0.0241 0.008434 0.005623 0.002694

0.774193548387097 0.7374 0.1241 0.02394 0.008379 0.005586 0.002686

0.806451612903226 0.7374 0.124 0.02386 0.008368 0.005579 0.002679

0.838709677419355 0.7374 0.124 0.02377 0.008328 0.005552 0.002672

0.870967 741935484 0.7374 0.1238 0.02364 0.008274 0.005516 0.002668

0.903225806451613 0.7374 0.1236 0.02364 0.008273 0.005515 0.002667

0.935483870967742 0.7374 0.1218 0.02332 0.008167 0.005445 0.00266

0.967741935483871 0.7374 0.1211 0.02322 0.008127 0.005418 0.0026 3

0.1 0.80652 0.17488 0.035437 0.012403 0.0082699 0.0033751 Average of yearly averages: 0.0029208

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: fpe_tx_wheat

Metfile: w13958.dvf

PRZM scenario: TXwheatOP.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 361.8 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

Kd Kd 6.6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L Photolysis half

- life kdp 0.95 days Half

- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0.41 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 2.7 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1.2 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 24.6 days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 intege r See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.118 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.125 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 18

- 06 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm Interval 1 interval 127 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 1 apprate 0.093 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT- Page 92 of 116

- PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none , monthly or total(average of entire run)

Conservation Reserve stored as fpe_tx_conserve.out Chemical: fpe

PRZM environment: TXalfalfaOP.txt modified Thuday, 14 June 2007 at 11:23:54 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Wedday, 15 November 2006 at 13:47:26

Metfile: w13958.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:06:24 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.6999 0.1813 0.04377 0.01538 0.01055 0.003357

1962 0.6999 0.2151 0.05536 0.01958 0.01307 0.0039

1963 0.6999 0.1769 0.06735 0.02357 0.01572 0.004552

1964 0.6999 0.1981 0.04669 0.01692 0.0114 0.0035

1965 0.6999 0.2443 0.05764 0.02081 0.01387 0.004147

1966 0.6999 0.2037 0.0483 0.01853 0.01235 0.004236

1967 0.6999 0.1665 0.03902 0.01488 0.009924 0.003192

1968 0.6999 0.2183 0.0518 0.01863 0.01242 0.003778

1969 0.6999 0.2673 0.06359 0.02454 0.01636 0.004745

1970 0.6999 0.228 0.05387 0.02044 0.01363 0.004062

1971 0.6999 0.1914 0.04574 0.0168 0.01122 0.004314

1972 0.6999 0.1698 0.04006 0.01671 0.01114 0.003505

1973 0.6999 0.1881 0.0472 0.01688 0.01126 0.003525

1974 0.6999 0.1802 0.04383 0.0157 0.01047 0.003508

1975 0.6999 0.2022 0.04829 0.02274 0.01516 0.004498

1976 0.6999 0.192 0.05216 0.01862 0.01241 0.00378

1977 0.6999 0.193 0.0475 0.01889 0.0126 0.003794

19 78 0.6999 0.2115 0.05414 0.01993 0.01329 0.003989

1979 0.7806 0.2258 0.05309 0.01876 0.01253 0.003838

1980 0.6999 0.1912 0.06881 0.02445 0.0163 0.004706

1981 0.6999 0.204 0.04763 0.01705 0.01148 0.003533

1982 0.6999 0.1813 0.04391 0.01681 0.0112 0.003445

1983 0.6999 0.2941 0.07161 0.02591 0.01729 0.004991

1984 0.6999 0.1838 0.04341 0.01529 0.01023 0.00321

1985 0.6999 0.178 0.04247 0.01518 0.01013 0.003178

1986 0.6999 0.181 0.04276 0.01834 0.01222 0.003729

1987 0.6999 0.2111 0.05005 0.01758 0.0119 0.003634

1988 0.6999 0.1975 0.04738 0.01679 0.01123 0.00345

1989 0.713 0.2029 0.04948 0.01772 0.01181 0.003644

1990 0.6999 0.1928 0.0458 0.01747 0.01164 0.003572

Sorted results

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

0.032258064516129 0.7806 0.2941 0.07161 0. 02591 0.01729 0.004991

0.0645161290322581 0.713 0.2673 0.06881 0.02454 0.01636 0.004745

0.0967741935483871 0.6999 0.2443 0.06735 0.02445 0.0163 0.004706

0.129032258064516 0.6999 0.228 0.06359 0.02357 0.01572 0.004552

0.161290322580645 0.6999 0.2258 0.05764 0.02274 0.01516 0.004498

0.193548387096774 0.6999 0.2183 0.05536 0.02081 0.01387 0.004314

0.225806451612903 0.6999 0.2151 0.05414 0.02044 0.01363 0.004236

0.258064516129032 0.6999 0.2115 0.05387 0.01993 0.01329 0.004147

0.290322580645161 0.6999 0.2111 0.0 5309 0.01958 0.01307 0.004062- Page 93 of 116

-

0.32258064516129 0.6999 0.204 0.05216 0.01889 0.0126 0.003989

0.354838709677419 0.6999 0.2037 0.0518 0.01876 0.01253 0.0039

0.387096774193548 0.6999 0.2029 0.05005 0.01863 0.01242 0.003838

0.419354838709677 0.6999 0.2022 0.049 48 0.01862 0.01241 0.003794

0.451612903225806 0.6999 0.1981 0.0483 0.01853 0.01235 0.00378

0.483870967741936 0.6999 0.1975 0.04829 0.01834 0.01222 0.003778

0.516129032258065 0.6999 0.193 0.04763 0.01772 0.0119 0.003729

0.548387096774194 0.6999 0.1928 0.0475 0.01758 0.01181 0.003644

0.580645161290323 0.6999 0.192 0.04738 0.01747 0.01164 0.003634

0.612903225806452 0.6999 0.1914 0.0472 0.01705 0.01148 0.003572

0.645161290322581 0.6999 0.1912 0.04669 0.01692 0.0114 0.003533

0.67741935483871 0.6999 0.1881 0.0458 0.01688 0.01126 0.003525

0.709677419354839 0.6999 0.1838 0.04574 0.01681 0.01123 0.003508

0.741935483870968 0.6999 0.1813 0.04391 0.0168 0.01122 0.003505

0.774193548387097 0.6999 0.1813 0.04383 0.01679 0.0112 0.0035

0.806451612903226 0.6999 0.181 0. 04377 0.01671 0.01114 0.00345

0.838709677419355 0.6999 0.1802 0.04341 0.0157 0.01055 0.003445

0.870967741935484 0.6999 0.178 0.04276 0.01538 0.01047 0.003357

0.903225806451613 0.6999 0.1769 0.04247 0.01529 0.01023 0.00321

0.935483870967742 0.6999 0.1698 0. 04006 0.01518 0.01013 0.003192

0.967741935483871 0.6999 0.1665 0.03902 0.01488 0.009924 0.003178

0.1 0.6999 0.24267 0.066974 0.024362 0.016242 0.0046906 Average of yearly averages: 0.00384373333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Dat a used for this run: Output File: fpe_tx_conserve

Metfile: w13958.dvf

PRZM scenario: TXalfalfaOP.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 361.8 g/mol Henry's Law Const. h enry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

Kd Kd 6.6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L Photolysis half

- life kdp 0.95 days Half

- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0.41 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 2.7 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1.2 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 24.6 days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.112 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.125 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 21

- 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 1 apprate 0.031 kg/ha

Interval 2 interval 120 days Set to 0 or d elete line for single app. app. rate 2 apprate 0.067 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA- Page 94 of 116

- IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

Cotton stored as fpe_nc_cotton.out Chemical: fpe

PRZM environment: NCcottonSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:58:38 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Wedday, 15 November 2006 at 13:47:26

Metfile: w13722.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:05:50 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.7374 0.1487 0.02863 0.01002 0.006682 0.001648

1962 0.7374 0.1466 0.03249 0.01137 0.007582 0.00187

1963 0.7374 0.147 0.02809 0.009875 0.006583 0.001623

1964 0.73 74 0.138 0.0272 0.009532 0.006355 0.001563

1965 0.7374 0.2291 0.0483 0.01691 0.01127 0.002779

1966 0.7374 0.1457 0.02943 0.01031 0.006873 0.001695

1967 0.7374 0.1514 0.03489 0.01222 0.008146 0.002009

1968 0.7374 0.1456 0.02863 0.0101 0.006732 0.001655

1969 0.7374 0.1921 0.03691 0.01292 0.008615 0.002124

1970 0.7374 0.1486 0.02839 0.01019 0.006792 0.001675

1971 0.7374 0.1401 0.02674 0.009495 0.00633 0.001561

1972 0.7374 0.1576 0.03323 0.01164 0.00776 0.001908

1973 0.7374 0.1429 0.02851 0.009987 0.006658 0.00 1642

1974 0.7374 0.1533 0.02954 0.01034 0.006896 0.001701

1975 0.7374 0.1441 0.02752 0.00972 0.00648 0.001598

1976 0.7374 0.1426 0.02726 0.009542 0.006362 0.001566

1977 0.7374 0.1475 0.02817 0.009904 0.006609 0.00163

1978 1.142 0.215 0.04135 0.01448 0.0096 55 0.002381

1979 0.7374 0.1578 0.0311 0.01095 0.007298 0.0018

1980 0.7374 0.1374 0.02986 0.01046 0.006973 0.001715

1981 0.7374 0.1277 0.02434 0.009082 0.006055 0.001493

1982 0.7468 0.2318 0.04521 0.01583 0.01055 0.002602

1983 0.9141 0.1845 0.03536 0.01238 0.008252 0.002035

1984 0.7374 0.1381 0.02656 0.009342 0.006228 0.001531

1985 0.7374 0.142 0.02796 0.009809 0.006539 0.001612

1986 0.7374 0.1301 0.02495 0.008852 0.005901 0.001455

1987 0.7374 0.135 0.02634 0.009219 0.006147 0.001516

1988 0.7374 0.1556 0.029 81 0.01044 0.006959 0.001711

1989 0.7374 0.1388 0.0267 0.009347 0.006231 0.001536

1990 0.7374 0.1376 0.02625 0.009204 0.006136 0.001513

Sorted results

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

0.032258064516129 1.142 0.2318 0.0483 0.01691 0.01127 0.002779

0.0645161290322581 0.9141 0.2291 0.04521 0.01583 0.01055 0.002602

0.0967741935483871 0.7468 0.215 0.04135 0.01448 0.009655 0.002381

0.129032258064516 0.7374 0.1921 0.03691 0.01292 0.008615 0.002124

0.161290322580645 0.7374 0.1845 0.03536 0.01238 0 .008252 0.002035

0.193548387096774 0.7374 0.1578 0.03489 0.01222 0.008146 0.002009- Page 95 of 116

-

0.225806451612903 0.7374 0.1576 0.03323 0.01164 0.00776 0.001908

0.258064516129032 0.7374 0.1556 0.03249 0.01137 0.007582 0.00187

0.290322580645161 0.7374 0.1533 0.0311 0.01 095 0.007298 0.0018

0.32258064516129 0.7374 0.1514 0.02986 0.01046 0.006973 0.001715

0.354838709677419 0.7374 0.1487 0.02981 0.01044 0.006959 0.001711

0.387096774193548 0.7374 0.1486 0.02954 0.01034 0.006896 0.001701

0.419354838709677 0.7374 0.1475 0.02943 0.01031 0.006873 0.001695

0.451612903225806 0.7374 0.147 0.02863 0.01019 0.006792 0.001675

0.483870967741936 0.7374 0.1466 0.02863 0.0101 0.006732 0.001655

0.516129032258065 0.7374 0.1457 0.02851 0.01002 0.006682 0.001648

0.548387096774194 0.7374 0.1456 0 .02839 0.009987 0.006658 0.001642

0.580645161290323 0.7374 0.1441 0.02817 0.009904 0.006609 0.00163

0.612903225806452 0.7374 0.1429 0.02809 0.009875 0.006583 0.001623

0.645161290322581 0.7374 0.1426 0.02796 0.009809 0.006539 0.001612

0.67741935483871 0.7374 0.142 0.02752 0.00972 0.00648 0.001598

0.709677419354839 0.7374 0.1401 0.02726 0.009542 0.006362 0.001566

0.741935483870968 0.7374 0.1388 0.0272 0.009532 0.006355 0.001563

0.774193548387097 0.7374 0.1381 0.02674 0.009495 0.00633 0.001561

0.806451612 903226 0.7374 0.138 0.0267 0.009347 0.006231 0.001536

0.838709677419355 0.7374 0.1376 0.02656 0.009342 0.006228 0.001531

0.870967741935484 0.7374 0.1374 0.02634 0.009219 0.006147 0.001516

0.903225806451613 0.7374 0.135 0.02625 0.009204 0.006136 0.001513

0. 935483870967742 0.7374 0.1301 0.02495 0.009082 0.006055 0.001493

0.967741935483871 0.7374 0.1277 0.02434 0.008852 0.005901 0.001455

0.1 0.74586 0.21271 0.040906 0.014324 0.009551 0.0023553 Average of yearly averages: 0.00177156666666667

Inputs gener ated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: fpe_nc_cotton

Metfile: w13722.dvf

PRZM scenario: NCcottonSTD.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mw t 361.8 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

Kd Kd 6.6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L Photolysis half

- life kdp 0.95 days Half

- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0.41 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 2.7 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1.2 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 24.6 days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.118 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPE FF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.125 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 08

- 06 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1- Page 96 of 116

- UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

Ornamental

stored as fpe_fl_ornamental.out Chemical: fpe PRZM environment: FLnurserySTD_V2.txt modified Tueday, 27 May 2008 at

11:22:34 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Wedday, 15 November 2006 at

13:47:26

Metfile: w12839.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:04:28 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.895 0.3707 0.1167 0.05837 0.03892 0.009596

1962 1.213 0.2765 0 .1016 0.05403 0.03602 0.008882

1963 1.213 0.2433 0.09321 0.05235 0.0349 0.008606

1964 1.26 0.2344 0.08942 0.04829 0.0322 0.007917

1965 1.243 0.2417 0.09539 0.05032 0.03355 0.008273

1966 1.256 0.2784 0.1208 0.06107 0.04073 0.01004

1967 1.212 0.2492 0.09992 0.05235 0.0349 0.008606

1968 1.212 0.2832 0.09929 0.05239 0.03493 0.008588

1969 1.3 0.2899 0.1049 0.05687 0.03791 0.009348

1970 1.469 0.2539 0.09791 0.05071 0.03382 0.008338

1971 1.265 0.2557 0.09474 0.05057 0.03372 0.008314

1972 1.255 0.2556 0.09806 0.052 28 0.03486 0.008571

1973 1.225 0.2333 0.09224 0.05125 0.03417 0.008425

1974 1.215 0.2333 0.09084 0.04856 0.03238 0.007983

1975 1.213 0.2435 0.09064 0.04776 0.03184 0.00785

1976 1.27 0.304 0.1185 0.05899 0.03933 0.009671

1977 1.213 0.2366 0.09082 0.05598 0. 03732 0.009202

1978 1.264 0.2727 0.1004 0.05465 0.03644 0.008984

1979 1.624 0.3064 0.1049 0.07085 0.04723 0.01165

1980 1.902 0.5118 0.1989 0.08784 0.05856 0.0144

1981 1.335 0.2678 0.09555 0.05129 0.03419 0.008431

1982 1.276 0.2348 0.1214 0.06506 0.04337 0. 01069

1983 1.212 0.2903 0.1079 0.05623 0.03748 0.009243

1984 1.739 0.584 0.1625 0.07972 0.05315 0.01307

1985 1.287 0.2565 0.09881 0.05241 0.03494 0.008615

1986 1.221 0.2762 0.1243 0.06212 0.04141 0.01021

1987 1.284 0.2761 0.1049 0.05593 0.03729 0.009194

1988 1.272 0.2704 0.09732 0.05213 0.03476 0.008547

1989 1.213 0.2468 0.09147 0.0487 0.03246 0.008005

1990 1.786 0.337 0.1561 0.07283 0.04855 0.01197

Sorted results

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

0.032258064516129 1.902 0.584 0.1989 0.08784 0 .05856 0.0144

0.0645161290322581 1.895 0.5118 0.1625 0.07972 0.05315 0.01307

0.0967741935483871 1.786 0.3707 0.1561 0.07283 0.04855 0.01197

0.129032258064516 1.739 0.337 0.1243 0.07085 0.04723 0.01165

0.161290322580645 1.624 0.3064 0.1214 0.06506 0.04337 0 .01069- Page 97 of 116

-

0.193548387096774 1.469 0.304 0.1208 0.06212 0.04141 0.01021

0.225806451612903 1.335 0.2903 0.1185 0.06107 0.04073 0.01004

0.258064516129032 1.3 0.2899 0.1167 0.05899 0.03933 0.009671

0.290322580645161 1.287 0.2832 0.1079 0.05837 0.03892 0.009596

0. 32258064516129 1.284 0.2784 0.1049 0.05687 0.03791 0.009348

0.354838709677419 1.276 0.2765 0.1049 0.05623 0.03748 0.009243

0.387096774193548 1.272 0.2762 0.1049 0.05598 0.03732 0.009202

0.419354838709677 1.27 0.2761 0.1016 0.05593 0.03729 0.009194

0.451612 903225806 1.265 0.2727 0.1004 0.05465 0.03644 0.008984

0.483870967741936 1.264 0.2704 0.09992 0.05403 0.03602 0.008882

0.516129032258065 1.26 0.2678 0.09929 0.05241 0.03494 0.008615

0.548387096774194 1.256 0.2565 0.09881 0.05239 0.03493 0.008606

0.580645161290323 1.255 0.2557 0.09806 0.05235 0.0349 0.008606

0.612903225806452 1.243 0.2556 0.09791 0.05235 0.0349 0.008588

0.645161290322581 1.225 0.2539 0.09732 0.05228 0.03486 0.008571

0.67741935483871 1.221 0.2492 0.09555 0.05213 0.03476 0.008547

0.7 09677419354839 1.215 0.2468 0.09539 0.05129 0.03419 0.008431

0.741935483870968 1.213 0.2435 0.09474 0.05125 0.03417 0.008425

0.774193548387097 1.213 0.2433 0.09321 0.05071 0.03382 0.008338

0.806451612903226 1.213 0.2417 0.09224 0.05057 0.03372 0.008314

0.8 38709677419355 1.213 0.2366 0.09147 0.05032 0.03355 0.008273

0.870967741935484 1.213 0.2348 0.09084 0.0487 0.03246 0.008005

0.903225806451613 1.212 0.2344 0.09082 0.04856 0.03238 0.007983

0.935483870967742 1.212 0.2333 0.09064 0.04829 0.0322 0.007917

0.967 741935483871 1.212 0.2333 0.08942 0.04776 0.03184 0.00785

0.1 1.7813 0.36733 0.15292 0.072632 0.048418 0.011938
Average of yearly averages:

0.00937396666666667

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: fpe_fl_ ornamental

Metfile: w12839.dvf

PRZM scenario: FLnurserySTD_V2.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 361.8 g/mol
Henry's Law Const. henry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

Kd Kd 6.6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L
Photolysis half

- life kdp 0.95 days Half

- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0.41 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 2.7 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1.2 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 24.6 days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.194 kg/ha
Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.125 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 21

- 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm
Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.- Page 98 of 116

-

app. rate 1 apprate 0.194 kg/ha

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

app. rate 2 apprate 0.194 kg/ha

Interval 3 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.
app. rate 3 apprate 0.013 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5
Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond
Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)

Right

- of

- way stored as fpe_bss_row.out Chemical: fpe PRZM environment: RightOfWayBSS.txt modified Tueday, 28 March 2006 at

15:53:28 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Wedday, 15 November 2006 at

13:47:26

Metfile: w13958.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:06:24 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.212 0.314 0.1151 0.0611 0.04237 0.01045

1962 1.753 0.4148 0.1534 0.07771 0.05233 0.0129

19 63 2.173 0.6639 0.1868 0.08292 0.05567 0.01373

1964 1.212 0.3432 0.1169 0.0633 0.04291 0.01055

1965 1.212 0.4232 0.1373 0.07396 0.04931 0.01216

1966 1.245 0.3528 0.1263 0.07577 0.05053 0.01246

1967 1.212 0.2895 0.1092 0.05922 0.03976 0.009806

1968 1.212 0. 3781 0.1284 0.06996 0.04664 0.01147

1969 1.213 0.4794 0.1517 0.08353 0.05569 0.01373

1970 1.34 0.399 0.1318 0.07821 0.05216 0.01286

1971 1.227 0.3315 0.1176 0.06351 0.04267 0.01068

1972 1.212 0.294 0.1027 0.06303 0.04202 0.01033

1973 1.235 0.3329 0.1306 0. 06974 0.04673 0.01152

1974 1.212 0.3185 0.1151 0.06436 0.04291 0.01058

1975 1.979 0.4668 0.1469 0.0945 0.06308 0.01555

1976 4.801 1.121 0.2999 0.1293 0.08623 0.0212

1977 1.231 0.3816 0.1511 0.0774 0.05169 0.01275

1978 1.212 0.3663 0.1361 0.07834 0.05227 0.01289

1979 1.49 0.4428 0.1418 0.07462 0.05165 0.01274

1980 1.212 0.3313 0.1433 0.0799 0.05327 0.0131

1981 1.212 0.3533 0.117 0.06121 0.04134 0.01019

1982 1.212 0.3223 0.1536 0.07791 0.05194 0.01281

1983 1.212 0.5055 0.1655 0.09161 0.06128 0.01511

1984 1. 212 0.321 0.1109 0.05769 0.03877 0.009539

1985 1.212 0.3083 0.1101 0.05855 0.03922 0.009673

1986 1.212 0.3135 0.1091 0.07248 0.04832 0.01191

1987 1.212 0.3656 0.1249 0.06443 0.04409 0.01087

1988 1.212 0.342 0.1216 0.06491 0.04378 0.01077

1989 1.301 0.3929 0.129 0.07356 0.04904 0.01209

1990 1.212 0.334 0.117 0.07474 0.04983 0.01229- Page 99 of 116

-

Sorted results

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

0.032258064516129 4.801 1.121 0.2999 0.1293 0.08623 0.0212

0.0645161290322581 2.173 0.6639 0.1868 0.0945 0.06308 0.015 55

0.0967741935483871 1.979 0.5055 0.1655 0.09161 0.06128 0.01511

0.129032258064516 1.753 0.4794 0.1536 0.08353 0.05569 0.01373

0.161290322580645 1.49 0.4668 0.1534 0.08292 0.05567 0.01373

0.193548387096774 1.34 0.4428 0.1517 0.0799 0.05327 0.0131

0.225806451612903 1.301 0.4232 0.1511 0.07834 0.05233 0.0129

0.258064516129032 1.245 0.4148 0.1469 0.07821 0.05227 0.01289

0.290322580645161 1.235 0.399 0.1433 0.07791 0.05216 0.01286

0.32258064516129 1.231 0.3929 0.1418 0.07771 0.05194 0.01281

0.354838709 677419 1.227 0.3816 0.1373 0.0774 0.05169 0.01275

0.387096774193548 1.213 0.3781 0.1361 0.07577 0.05165 0.01274

0.419354838709677 1.212 0.3663 0.1318 0.07474 0.05053 0.01246

0.451612903225806 1.212 0.3656 0.1306 0.07462 0.04983 0.01229

0.483870967741936 1. 212 0.3533 0.129 0.07396 0.04931 0.01216

0.516129032258065 1.212 0.3528 0.1284 0.07356 0.04904 0.01209

0.548387096774194 1.212 0.3432 0.1263 0.07248 0.04832 0.01191

0.580645161290323 1.212 0.342 0.1249 0.06996 0.04673 0.01152

0.612903225806452 1.212 0.334 0.1216 0.06974 0.04664 0.01147

0.645161290322581 1.212 0.3329 0.1176 0.06491 0.04409 0.01087

0.67741935483871 1.212 0.3315 0.117 0.06443 0.04378 0.01077

0.709677419354839 1.212 0.3313 0.117 0.06436 0.04291 0.01068

0.741935483870968 1.212 0.3223 0.1169 0.06 351 0.04291 0.01058

0.774193548387097 1.212 0.321 0.1151 0.0633 0.04267 0.01055

0.806451612903226 1.212 0.3185 0.1151 0.06303 0.04237 0.01045

0.838709677419355 1.212 0.314 0.1109 0.06121 0.04202 0.01033

0.870967741935484 1.212 0.3135 0.1101 0.0611 0.04134 0.01019

0.903225806451613 1.212 0.3083 0.1092 0.05922 0.03976 0.009806

0.935483870967742 1.212 0.294 0.1091 0.05855 0.03922 0.009673

0.967741935483871 1.212 0.2895 0.1027 0.05769 0.03877 0.009539

0.1 1.9564 0.50289 0.16431 0.090802 0.060721 0.014972
Average of yearly averages: 0.0122236

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: fpe_bss_row

Metfile: w13958.dvf

PRZM scenario: RightOfWayBSS.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 361.8 g/mol
Henry's Law Const. henry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

Kd Kd 6.6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L
Photolysis half

- life kdp 0.95 days Half

- life Aerobic Aq uatic Metabolism kbacw 0.41 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 2.7 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1.2 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 24.6 days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual- Page 100 of 116

-

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.194 kg/ha
Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.125 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 21

- 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm
Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for s ingle app.
app. rate 1 apprate 0.194 kg/ha

Interval 2 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 2 apprate 0.194 kg/ha

Interval 3 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 3 apprate 0.013 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5
Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond
Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)

Soybean stored as fpe_ms_soy2.out Chemical: fpe

PRZM environment: MSsoybeanSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:58:06 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Wedday, 15 November 2006 at

13:47:26

Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:05:46 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 6 0 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.6999 0.1917 0.04772 0.01671 0.01114 0.00394

1962 0.6999 0.1838 0.04353 0.01525 0.01016 0.003559

1963 0.6999 0.1594 0.03785 0.01333 0.008894 0.003174

1964 0.6999 0.2037 0.04766 0.01671 0.01114 0.00401

1965 0.6999 0.1601 0.03798 0. 0133 0.008866 0.003462

1966 0.6999 0.1866 0.04488 0.01607 0.01071 0.00398

1967 0.6999 0.1541 0.03977 0.01401 0.009342 0.003627

1968 0.6999 0.1691 0.0424 0.01485 0.009899 0.003559

1969 0.6999 0.1725 0.04092 0.01433 0.009552 0.003479

1970 0.6999 0.1989 0.03924 0.01373 0.009155 0.004436

1971 0.6999 0.1853 0.0485 0.017 0.01133 0.003811

1972 0.6999 0.1667 0.0414 0.0145 0.009666 0.003449

1973 0.6999 0.195 0.0501 0.01754 0.0117 0.003948

1974 0.6999 0.1796 0.04211 0.01476 0.009842 0.003667

1975 0.6999 0.1825 0 .04391 0.01542 0.01028 0.003935

1976 0.6999 0.177 0.04835 0.01701 0.01134 0.004182

1977 0.6999 0.1648 0.03864 0.01362 0.009087 0.003501

1978 0.6999 0.1742 0.04844 0.01696 0.01131 0.004039

1979 0.7705 0.1954 0.04741 0.01662 0.01108 0.003924

1980 0.6999 0.24 72 0.05713 0.02018 0.01346 0.004614

1981 0.6999 0.1475 0.03624 0.01286 0.008571 0.003262

1982 0.6999 0.1808 0.04233 0.01493 0.009951 0.003625

1983 0.7 0.1976 0.04644 0.01723 0.01149 0.003971

1984 0.6999 0.1805 0.04327 0.01516 0.01011 0.003468

1985 0.748 0. 1822 0.04263 0.01493 0.009955 0.003532

1986 0.6999 0.1765 0.04155 0.01472 0.009816 0.004069- Page 101 of 116

-

1987 0.6999 0.1867 0.04546 0.01592 0.01061 0.003988

1988 1.213 0.3029 0.06618 0.02316 0.01546 0.005106

1989 0.6999 0.1818 0.04427 0.01572 0.01048 0.003808

1990 0.69 99 0.1812 0.04653 0.01632 0.01088 0.003915

Sorted results

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

0.032258064516129 1.213 0.3029 0.06618 0.02316 0.01546 0.005106

0.0645161290322581 0.7705 0.2472 0.05713 0.02018 0.01346 0.004614

0.0967741935483871 0.748 0.2037 0.0501 0.01754 0.0117 0.004436

0.129032258064516 0.7 0.1989 0.0485 0.01723 0.01149 0.004182

0.161290322580645 0.6999 0.1976 0.04844 0.01701 0.01134 0.004069

0.193548387096774 0.6999 0.1954 0.04835 0.017 0.01133 0.004039

0.225806451612903 0.699 9 0.195 0.04772 0.01696 0.01131 0.00401

0.258064516129032 0.6999 0.1917 0.04766 0.01671 0.01114 0.003988

0.290322580645161 0.6999 0.1867 0.04741 0.01671 0.01114 0.00398

0.32258064516129 0.6999 0.1866 0.04653 0.01662 0.01108 0.003971

0.354838709677419 0.699 9 0.1853 0.04644 0.01632 0.01088 0.003948

0.387096774193548 0.6999 0.1838 0.04546 0.01607 0.01071 0.00394

0.419354838709677 0.6999 0.1825 0.04488 0.01592 0.01061 0.003935

0.451612903225806 0.6999 0.1822 0.04427 0.01572 0.01048 0.003924

0.483870967741936 0. 6999 0.1818 0.04391 0.01542 0.01028 0.003915

0.516129032258065 0.6999 0.1812 0.04353 0.01525 0.01016 0.003811

0.548387096774194 0.6999 0.1808 0.04327 0.01516 0.01011 0.003808

0.580645161290323 0.6999 0.1805 0.04263 0.01493 0.009955 0.003667

0.6129032258064 52 0.6999 0.1796 0.0424 0.01493 0.009951 0.003627

0.645161290322581 0.6999 0.177 0.04233 0.01485 0.009899 0.003625

0.67741935483871 0.6999 0.1765 0.04211 0.01476 0.009842 0.003559

0.709677419354839 0.6999 0.1742 0.04155 0.01472 0.009816 0.003559

0.74193548 3870968 0.6999 0.1725 0.0414 0.0145 0.009666 0.003532

0.774193548387097 0.6999 0.1691 0.04092 0.01433 0.009552 0.003501

0.806451612903226 0.6999 0.1667 0.03977 0.01401 0.009342 0.003479

0.838709677419355 0.6999 0.1648 0.03924 0.01373 0.009155 0.003468

0.87 0967741935484 0.6999 0.1601 0.03864 0.01362 0.009087 0.003462

0.903225806451613 0.6999 0.1594 0.03798 0.01333 0.008894 0.003449

0.935483870967742 0.6999 0.1541 0.03785 0.0133 0.008866 0.003262

0.967741935483871 0.6999 0.1475 0.03624 0.01286 0.008571 0.003174

0.1 0.7432 0.20322 0.04994 0.017509 0.011679 0.0044106
Average of yearly averages:

0.00383466666666667

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: fpe_ms_soy2

Metfile: w03940.dvf

PRZM scenario: MSsoybea nSTD.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 361.8 g/mol
Henry's Law Const. henry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

Kd Kd 6. 6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L- Page 102 of 116

-

Photolysis half

- life kdp 0.95 days Half

- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0.41 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 2.7 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1.2 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 24.6 days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.112 kg/ha
Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.125 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 23

- 04 dd/mm or dd /mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm
Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.
app. rate 1 apprate 0.031 kg/ha

Interval 2 interval 157 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.
app. rate 2 apprate 0.067 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

U PTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5
Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond
Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)

Turf stored as fpe_ca_turf.out Chemical: fpe

PRZM environment: CATurfRLF.txt modified Tueday, 20 February 2007 at

13:03:48 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Wedday, 15 November 2006 at

13:47:26

Metfile: w23234.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:04:22 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.213 0.4206 0.1622 0.08795 0.05864 0.01446

1962 1.213 0.4682 0.1771 0.09221 0.06147 0.01516

1963 1.215 0.4664 0.2322 0.1139 0.07594 0.01872

1964 1.212 0.4402 0.1743 0.09274 0.06183 0.0152

1965 1.213 0.4352 0.1846 0.09747 0.06498 0.01602

1966 1.212 0.4422 0.1669 0.08714 0.05809 0.01432

1967 1.225 0.6814 0.2632 0.1276 0.08505 0.02097

1968 1.212 0.4132 0.1657 0.0891 0.0594 0.01461

1969 1.212 0.4563 0.1808 0.09515 0.06344 0.01564

1970 1.215 0.4206 0.1698 0.0886 0.05907 0.01457

1971 1.212 0.4359 0.1776 0.09508 0.06339 0.01563

1972 1.213 0.4092 0.163 0.08762 0.05841 0.01436

1973 1.222 0.4442 0.1694 0.08848 0.05899 0.01454

1974 1.217 0.4259 0.1755 0.09225 0.0615 0.01516

1975 2.538 0.9275 0.2917 0.1375 0.09169 0.02261

1976 1.213 0.4524 0.1798 0.09544 0.06363 0.0156 5

1977 1.212 0.4474 0.1733 0.09145 0.06097 0.01503

1978 1.218 0.4151 0.1676 0.08977 0.05985 0.01476

1979 1.213 0.4153 0.177 0.09203 0.06135 0.01513

1980 1.215 0.4265 0.1662 0.08813 0.05876 0.01445

1981 1.212 0.4216 0.1645 0.08728 0.05819 0.01435- Page 103 of 116

-

1982 1.221 0.4461 0.2193 0.1161 0.07743 0.01909

1983 1.213 0.4453 0.1734 0.09168 0.06112 0.01507

1984 1.212 0.3971 0.1587 0.08403 0.05602 0.01378

1985 1.216 0.4516 0.1933 0.0959 0.06393 0.01576

1986 1.212 0.3995 0.1597 0.08463 0.05642 0.01391

1987 1.212 0.4037 0.154 7 0.08206 0.0547 0.01349

1988 1.214 0.5573 0.1868 0.09496 0.0633 0.01557

1989 1.212 0.4046 0.1501 0.07848 0.05232 0.0129

1990 1.212 0.4299 0.1616 0.08441 0.05628 0.01388

Sorted results

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

0.032258064516129 2.538 0.9275 0.2917 0.1375 0.09169 0.02261

0.0645161290322581 1.225 0.6814 0.2632 0.1276 0.08505 0.02097

0.0967741935483871 1.222 0.5573 0.2322 0.1161 0.07743 0.01909

0.129032258064516 1.221 0.4682 0.2193 0.1139 0.07594 0.01872

0.161290322580645 1.218 0.4664 0.1 933 0.09747 0.06498 0.01602

0.193548387096774 1.217 0.4563 0.1868 0.0959 0.06393 0.01576

0.225806451612903 1.216 0.4524 0.1846 0.09544 0.06363 0.01565

0.258064516129032 1.215 0.4516 0.1808 0.09515 0.06344 0.01564

0.290322580645161 1.215 0.4474 0.1798 0.095 08 0.06339 0.01563

0.32258064516129 1.215 0.4461 0.1776 0.09496 0.0633 0.01557

0.354838709677419 1.214 0.4453 0.1771 0.09274 0.06183 0.0152

0.387096774193548 1.213 0.4442 0.177 0.09225 0.0615 0.01516

0.419354838709677 1.213 0.4422 0.1755 0.09221 0.06147 0. 01516

0.451612903225806 1.213 0.4402 0.1743 0.09203 0.06135 0.01513

0.483870967741936 1.213 0.4359 0.1734 0.09168 0.06112 0.01507

0.516129032258065 1.213 0.4352 0.1733 0.09145 0.06097 0.01503

0.548387096774194 1.213 0.4299 0.1698 0.08977 0.05985 0.01476

0. 580645161290323 1.213 0.4265 0.1694 0.0891 0.0594 0.01461

0.612903225806452 1.212 0.4259 0.1676 0.0886 0.05907 0.01457

0.645161290322581 1.212 0.4216 0.1669 0.08848 0.05899 0.01454

0.67741935483871 1.212 0.4206 0.1662 0.08813 0.05876 0.01446

0.709677419354839 1.212 0.4206 0.1657 0.08795 0.05864 0.01445

0.741935483870968 1.212 0.4153 0.1645 0.08762 0.05841 0.01436

0.774193548387097 1.212 0.4151 0.163 0.08728 0.05819 0.01435

0.806451612903226 1.212 0.4132 0.1622 0.08714 0.05809 0.01432

0.8387096 77419355 1.212 0.4092 0.1616 0.08463 0.05642 0.01391

0.870967741935484 1.212 0.4046 0.1597 0.08441 0.05628 0.01388

0.903225806451613 1.212 0.4037 0.1587 0.08403 0.05602 0.01378

0.935483870967742 1.212 0.3995 0.1547 0.08206 0.0547 0.01349

0.967741935483871 1.212 0.3971 0.1501 0.07848 0.05232 0.0129

0.1 1.2219 0.54839 0.23091 0.11588 0.077281 0.019053
Average of yearly averages: 0.015493

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: fpe_ca_turf

Metfile: w23234.dvf

PR ZM scenario: CATurfRLF.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 361.8 g/mol
Henry's Law Const. henry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol- Page 104 of 116

-

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

Kd Kd 6.6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L
Photolysis half

- life kdp 0.95 days Half

- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0.41 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 2.7 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1.2 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 24.6 da ys Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.194 kg/ha
Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.125 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 21

- 0 3 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm
Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.
app. rate 1 apprate 0.194 kg/ha

Interval 2 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 2 apprate 0.194 kg/ha

Interval 3 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 3 apprate 0.013 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5
Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond
Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(avera ge of
entire run)

Grass grown for seed stored as fpe_ca_grass.out Chemical: fpe

PRZM environment: CATurfRLF.txt modified Tueday, 20 February 2007 at

13:03:48 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Wedday, 15 November 2006 at

13:47:26

Metfile: w23234.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:04:22 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.5811 0.2016 0.04084 0.0143 0.009535 0.002351

1962 0.5811 0.2244 0.04654 0.01629 0.01086 0.002678

1963 0.5811 0.2102 0.06571 0.02 301 0.01534 0.003782

1964 0.5811 0.211 0.04324 0.01513 0.01009 0.002481

1965 0.5811 0.2086 0.04327 0.01517 0.01011 0.002494

1966 0.5811 0.212 0.04352 0.01523 0.01016 0.002504

1967 0.5811 0.2079 0.05772 0.02025 0.0135 0.003329

1968 0.5811 0.1981 0.03999 0.0 14 0.009331 0.002294

1969 0.5811 0.2081 0.04315 0.01511 0.01007 0.002484

1970 0.5811 0.1871 0.03731 0.01306 0.008707 0.002147

1971 0.5811 0.2089 0.04351 0.01523 0.01015 0.002504

1972 0.5813 0.1961 0.03949 0.01382 0.009216 0.002266

1973 0.5811 0.2129 0.0438 2 0.01534 0.01023 0.002522

1974 0.5811 0.2042 0.04492 0.01572 0.01048 0.002585

1975 1.217 0.4446 0.09142 0.032 0.02133 0.00526- Page 105 of 116

-

1976 0.5811 0.2169 0.04485 0.0157 0.01047 0.002574

1977 0.5811 0.2145 0.04417 0.01546 0.01031 0.002542

1978 0.5811 0.1821 0.0363 0.01274 0.008493 0.002094

1979 0.5811 0.1991 0.04669 0.01634 0.01089 0.002686

1980 0.5811 0.2044 0.04153 0.01454 0.009692 0.002383

1981 0.5811 0.2021 0.04105 0.01437 0.009579 0.002362

1982 0.5811 0.2138 0.05186 0.01816 0.0121 0.002985

1983 0.5811 0.2135 0. 04337 0.01518 0.01012 0.002495

1984 0.5811 0.1836 0.03656 0.0128 0.008531 0.002098

1985 0.5811 0.2165 0.05674 0.01986 0.01324 0.003265

1986 0.5811 0.1841 0.03675 0.01287 0.008578 0.002115

1987 0.5811 0.1935 0.03886 0.0136 0.009068 0.002236

1988 0.5811 0.18 93 0.03791 0.01332 0.00888 0.002184

1989 0.5811 0.194 0.03895 0.01364 0.009091 0.002242

1990 0.5811 0.2061 0.04198 0.0147 0.009797 0.002416

Sorted results

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

0.032258064516129 1.217 0.4446 0.09142 0.032 0.02133 0. 00526

0.0645161290322581 0.5813 0.2244 0.06571 0.02301 0.01534 0.003782

0.0967741935483871 0.5811 0.2169 0.05772 0.02025 0.0135 0.003329

0.129032258064516 0.5811 0.2165 0.05674 0.01986 0.01324 0.003265

0.161290322580645 0.5811 0.2145 0.05186 0.01816 0.0121 0.002985

0.193548387096774 0.5811 0.2138 0.04669 0.01634 0.01089 0.002686

0.225806451612903 0.5811 0.2135 0.04654 0.01629 0.01086 0.002678

0.258064516129032 0.5811 0.2129 0.04492 0.01572 0.01048 0.002585

0.290322580645161 0.5811 0.212 0.04485 0.0157 0.010 47 0.002574

0.32258064516129 0.5811 0.211 0.04417 0.01546 0.01031 0.002542

0.354838709677419 0.5811 0.2102 0.04382 0.01534 0.01023 0.002522

0.387096774193548 0.5811 0.2089 0.04352 0.01523 0.01016 0.002504

0.419354838709677 0.5811 0.2086 0.04351 0.01523 0.01015 0.002504

0.451612903225806 0.5811 0.2081 0.04337 0.01518 0.01012 0.002495

0.483870967741936 0.5811 0.2079 0.04327 0.01517 0.01011 0.002494

0.516129032258065 0.5811 0.2061 0.04324 0.01513 0.01009 0.002484

0.548387096774194 0.5811 0.2044 0.04315 0.01 511 0.01007 0.002481

0.580645161290323 0.5811 0.2042 0.04198 0.0147 0.009797 0.002416

0.612903225806452 0.5811 0.2021 0.04153 0.01454 0.009692 0.002383

0.645161290322581 0.5811 0.2016 0.04105 0.01437 0.009579 0.002362

0.67741935483871 0.5811 0.1991 0.04084 0.0143 0.009535 0.002351

0.709677419354839 0.5811 0.1981 0.03999 0.014 0.009331 0.002294

0.741935483870968 0.5811 0.1961 0.03949 0.01382 0.009216 0.002266

0.774193548387097 0.5811 0.194 0.03895 0.01364 0.009091 0.002242

0.806451612903226 0.5811 0.1935 0.0 3886 0.0136 0.009068 0.002236

0.838709677419355 0.5811 0.1893 0.03791 0.01332 0.00888 0.002184

0.870967741935484 0.5811 0.1871 0.03731 0.01306 0.008707 0.002147

0.903225806451613 0.5811 0.1841 0.03675 0.01287 0.008578 0.002115

0.935483870967742 0.5811 0.18 36 0.03656 0.0128 0.008531 0.002098

0.967741935483871 0.5811 0.1821 0.0363 0.01274 0.008493 0.002094

0.1 0.5811 0.21686 0.057622 0.020211 0.013474 0.0033226
Average of yearly averages:

0.00261193333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: fpe_ca_grass- Page 106 of 116

-

Metfile: w23234.dvf

PRZM scenario: CATurfRLF.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 361.8 g/mol
Henry's Law Const. henry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

Kd Kd 6.6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L
Photolysis half

- life kdp 0.95 days Half

- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0.41 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 2.7 days Ha lfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1.2 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 24.6 days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.093 kg/ha
Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0. 125 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 21

- 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm
Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5
Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond
Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)- Page 107 of 116

-



### Appendix C . Example T

- REX Input and Output for FPE (based on upper bound Kenaga EECs for use on ornamentals)- Page 108 of 116

-- Page 109 of 116

-



### Appendix D . Example TERRPLANT (v. 1.2.2) Input and Output for FPE- Page 110 of 116

-



### Appendix E

. STIR Results for FPE- Page 111 of 116

-



### Appendix F

. SIP Results for FPE- Page 112 of 116

-



### Appendix G. PFAM Modeling for Rice Applications of FPE

Tables G

- 1 and G

- 2 provide background information on rice practices in the United States.

Table G

- 1 . Typical planting and h arvesting d ates *

State Planting Harvesting

Arkansas April 14

– May 1 Sep 9

– Oct 10

California May 1

- 25 Sep 15

– Nov 1

Louisiana March 28

– May 1 Aug 4

– Sep 15 Mississippi April 18

– May 16 Sep 5

– Oct 6

Texas March 23

– April 26 Aug 7

– Sep 4 * Data from USDA (2010)

Table G

- 2. Crop

- specific dates used for PFAM m odeling (Crop tab)

State Planting 1 Emergence Date 2 Release Date 3 Harvesting 1

AR April 22 May 2 September 3 September 24

CA May 13 May 23 September 17 October 8

LA April 14 April 24 August 4 August 25

MS May 2 May 12 August 30 September 20

T X April 9 April 19 July 31 August 21

1 Midpo int of dates provided in Table 1

. 2 Assumed to occur 10 days after planting.

3 Assumed to occur 21 days before harvesting.



### According to FPE labels, applications should occur at the 4

- leaf stage to late tillering stage. According to the 2012 Arkansas Rice Quick Facts, pretillering (1 st 

### leaf to 4 th 

### leaf stage) occurs approximately 15

- 25 days after planting, while tillering can occur 24 to 42 days after planting. Based on this information, the first application is scheduled to occur 28 days after planting and the second application is scheduled to occur 14 days later (42 days after planting). Flood waters are released 60 days after the second application to allow for estimation of 21

- day and 60

- day

average water co ncentrations for aquatic EECs. The third application is scheduled to occur 7 days after harvest. Based on this information, the dates depicted in Table G

- 3 were used for modeling purposes.

Table G

- 3. Site

- specific input dates used for PFAM modeling (Appl ications and Floods tabs), based in agronomic practices and labels

Scenario State App 1 App 2 Flood (Event 1) Release

(Event 2) App 3

0.071 lbs/A, 0.071 lbs/A (14 days after App 1) 0.046 lbs/A (7 days after harvest) AR 5/20 6/3 4/23 8/2 10/1

CA 6/10 6/24 5/12 8/23 10/15

LA 5/12 5/26 4/13 7/25 9/1

MS 5/30 6/13 5/3 8/12 9/27

TX 5/7 5/21 4/10 7/20 8/28

0.108 lbs/A, 0.034 lbs/A (14 days after App 1) 0.046 lbs/A (7 days after harvest) AR 5/20 6/3 4/23 8/2 10/1

CA 6/10 6/24 5/12 8/23 10/15

LA 5/12 5/26 4/13 7/25 9/1

Ms 5/30 6/13 5/3 8/12 9/27

TX 5/7 5/21 4/10 7/20 8/28

1. Release modeled 60 days after 2 nd application. AR

- dry seed. CA

– wa t er seed . LA

– water seed, MS

– dry
seed, TX

– dry seed- Page 113 of 116

-



### For post

- flood applications, FPE labels specify that the “water level should cover no more than 25% of the annual grass weed foliage. The flood may be increased to a normal depth 2 to 3 days after application.” As such, fill levels were decreased to 1 inc h (0.0254 m) the day prior to an application and were increased to 4 inches (0.1016 m) 2 days after application. Table G

- 4 provides additional information used in the PFAM modeling.

Table G

- 4. PFAM 1.05 inputs specific to FPE modeling runs

Input Parameter Value Source Comment

Chemical Tab

Water Column Half

- life (days) at 20°C 0.41 MRIDs 47123208,

45081602 and

48868701 Represents the 90 th percent upper

- bound

confidence lim i t on the mean of 6 aerobic aquatic metabolism half

- life values. 1

Benthic Compartment

Half

- Life (days) at 20°C 2.7 MRID s 45081601

and 48868702 Represents the 90 th percent upper

- bound

confidence limit on the mean of 3 an aerobic aquatic metabolism half

- life values

. 1

Unflooded Soil Half

- life (days) at 20°C 1.2 MRIDs 4 8757101

and 48868703 Represents the 90 th percent upper

- bound

confidence limit on the mean of 4 aerobic soil

metabolism half

- life values

. 1
Aqueous Near Surface

Half

- life (days) at 40°

Latitude 0.95 MRID 48098502

Hydrolysis Half

- life (days) 1x10 8 MRID 47123201 No evidence of degradation.

Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (mL/g

oc ) (K

oc ) 165 MRID 42915001 Coefficient of variance for K d data indicate more appropriate than K

oc . Average of four K d values for TTR is 6.6 mL/g

. Using the F

oc value of 0.04 (Physical tab ), a K

oc value of 165 mL/g

oc was used.

Molecular Weight (g/mol) 361.8

--- ---

Vapor Pressure (torr) 1.4E

- 08 Acc. # 412

- 03

- 0113

---

Solubility (mg/L) 0.7 MRID 44676401

Heat of Henry (J/mol) 4 5727

--- Estimated using HENRYWIN program in

EPISuite
Henry Reference Temperature ( o C) 20

Applications Tab Number of Applications 3 Application dates See Table B

- 3 Mass applied See Table B

- 3

Slow release 0

Floods Tab

Number of Flood Events 6

--- First event is flooding, second event is release

of flood waters.

Date for Event 1 See Table B

- 3- Page 114 of 116

-

Input Parameter Value Source Comment

Event

Number Days

after Fill Level

(m) Weir Level (m) Min

Level (m) Turn

Over (1/day)

1 0 0.1016 0.1270 0.1016 0 Flood field

2 26/28 0.0254 0.0454 0.0254 0 Date of App1 minus 1 (26 for AR, MS, TX, 28

for CA, LA)

3 29/31 0.1016 0.1270 0.1016 0 Date of App1 plus 2 (29 for AR, MS, TX, 31 for CA, LA)

4 40/42 0.0254 0.0454 0.0254 Date of App2 minus 1 (40 for AR, MS, TX, 42 for CA, LA)

5 43/45 0.1016 0.1270 0.1016 0 Date of App2 plus 2 (43 for AR, MS, TX, 45 for CA, LA)

6 101/103 0 0 0 0 Release 60 days after App 2 (101 for AR, MS, TX, 103 for CA, LA) Crop Tab

Zero Height Reference AR: 05/02

CA: 05/23

LA: 04/24

MS: 05/12

TX: 04/19 --- Emergence date, assumed to occur 10 days after planting. See Table 8 for dates.

Days from Zero Height to Full Height AR: 124

CA: 118

LA: 102

MS: 111

TX: 103 --- Number of days from emergence to maturation. Maturation expected to occur 21 days prior to harvesting. See Table 8 for dates.

Days from Zero Height to

Removal AR: 145

CA: 139

LA: 123

MS: 132

TX: 124 --- Number of days from emergence to harvest.

See Table 8 for dates.

Maximum Fractional Areal Coverage 1.0

--- Conservative assumption

Physical Tab

Weather file AR (w13963)

LA (w13970)

CA (w23232)

MS (w03940)

TX (w13958) --- Meteorological data available in PE5 installation. Stations correspond to Little Rock, AR (w13963), Baton Rouge, LA (w13970), Sacramento, CA (w23232), Jackson, MS (w03940), and Austin, TX (w13958)

Latitude 40 Default

Area of Application (m 2 ) 4 345,600

--- 20% of the watershed drainage acreage (1,728,000 m 2 ), based on draft HUC

- 8 PCA for

rice Weir leakage (m/d) 0 Default Benthic leakage (m/d) 0 Default

Mass transfer coefficient (m/s) 1.0e

- 08 Default

Reference depth (m) 0.1270 Set to same depth as weir height, per PFAM guidance. Benthic depth (m) 0.05 Default Benthic porosity 0.50 Default Dry bulk density (g/cm 3 ) 1.35 Default

Foc water column on SS 0.04 Default- Page 115 of 116

-

Input Parameter Value Source Comment

Foc benthic 0.01 Default SS (mg/L) 30 Default

Water column DOC (mg/L) 5.0 Default

Chlorophyll CHL (mg/L) 0.005 Default

Dfac 1.19 Default
Q10 2 Default

1 EFED input parameter guidance is located at: : http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm

2 4

- inch paddy h eight assumed

.- Page 116 of 116

-



### Appendix H

. ECOSAR Quantitative Structure

- Activity Relationship (QSAR) Toxicity

Predictions for FPE and Transformation Products

.

In order to compare potential toxicity of FPE transformation products to the parent compound, estimated toxicity data for FPE and transformation products were generated using quantitative

structure

- activity relationships (QSAR) derived in the program ECOSAR (version 1.11 ). ECOSAR is only used to explore relative toxicity among chemicals and is no t used to derive endpoint values for estimating risk. ECOSAR estimates were compared to all available measured toxicity information for the parent and transformation products

. These data are summarized in

Table H

- 1

. QSAR estimates for the parent compound w ere generally within an order of magnitude of empirical endpoints regardless of whether these estimates were based on a specific chemical class ( i.e. , esters) or baseline toxicity ( i.e. , neutral organics). None of the transformation products were placed in the same specific chemical class as the parent ( i.e. , esters) making a relative toxicity comparison difficult. However, based on the baseline toxicity category ( i.e. , neutral organics), all transformation products appear to be less toxic than the parent b y at least a multiple of three. Since, this comparison is not based on a specific class or mode of action type, the evidence for lower toxicity of transformation products as compared to FPE is considered weak.

Table H

- 1 . QSAR

- Based Toxicity Estimates for FPE and Transformation Products

Compound (compounds class used by ECOSAR) Estimated Toxicity Endpoint (mg/L)

96

- hr

FW Fish

LC 50 48

- hr

Daphnid

LC 50 96

- hr

Mysid

LC 50 96

- hr EC 50

Green Algae FW Fish

Chronic

Value Daphnid

Chronic

Value Mysid

Chronic

Value

ECOSAR TOXICITY PREDICTIONS Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl (Parent) Empirical ( Measured ) 0.46

- 0.58 >1.1 0.11 0.43 0.044 0.23 0.011

Esters 0.92 * 1.4 * 0.27 0.37 0.037 0.41 0.048

Neutral Organic SAR 0.67 0.50 NA 1.1* 0.09 0.10 NA Fenoxaprop

- p acid ( AE F088406) Empirical ( Measured ) >68.8 14.2

- >32 NA 44 1.8 0.34 NA

Neutral Organics

Acid † 31 21 6.7 36 3.8 3.6 0.3

Chlorobenzoxazolone (AE F054014) Empirical ( Measured ) >10 8.2 NA 7.5 NA NA NA

Carbamate Esters, Phenyl 5.8 0.029 NA 4.6 0.79 0.042 NA

Neutral Organic SAR 325 177 NA 113 30 16 NA

4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)phenol (AE F040356 ) Empirical ( Measured ) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Phenols 1.5 1.1 NA 4.2 0.21 0.21 NA Neutral Organic SAR 3.9 2.6 NA 4.1 0.47 0.43 NA NA = Empirical data or QSAR estimates are not available for specified group of organisms * Predicted endpoint value exceeds estimated solubility limit for compound

† ECOSAR multiplies acid forms of compounds by a factor of 10