Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND

POLLUTION PREVENTION

PC Code: 129092

DP Barcode: D422666

Date: November 3, 2014

MEMORANDUM

Subject: EFED Response to Comments on the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment 

for the Registration Review of Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl

To: Miguel Zavala, Team Leader

Michael Goodis, Branch Chief

Risk Management and Implementation Branch 3

Pesticide Reevaluation Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

From: Chuck Peck, Environmental Engineer

Scott Glaberman, Ph.D., Biologist

Environmental Risk Branch 4

Office of Pesticide Programs

Reviewed By: Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor

Jim Carleton, Ph.D., Senior Fate Scientist

Environmental Risk Branch 4

Through: Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Acting Branch Chief

Environmental Risk Branch 4

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has reviewed the document entitled “Bayer 

CropScience Comments to Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment and Drinking Water

Assessment for the Registration Review of Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl.” Responses by EFED to individual 

comments are provided below, including proposed modifications to the draft Registration Review risk 

assessment for fenoxaprop-p-ethyl (PC Code: 129092).

BCS Comment (p. 4): Non-definitive endpoints due to toxicity values greater than tested concentrations, 

especially at test concentrations well above Estimated Environmental Exposures (EECs), can be used for 

risk quotient calculation and characterization. The appropriate qualifiers can be included to explain the 

uncertainty. Not utilizing the “non-definitive” endpoints when toxicity values are significantly greater 

exposure than gives the perception of a risk (and uncertainty) when in fact the risk is minimal and 

uncertainty is only in one direction.

EFED Response: EFED typically does not calculate risk quotient (RQ) values based on nondefinitive endpoints since precise RQs cannot be derived where the specific toxicity of a chemical 
Page 2 of 11

to a group of organisms is not known. However, in cases where the toxicity values are greater 

than the highest concentration tested and where exposure is estimated to be much lower than this 

concentration, the executive summary and risk characterization sections clearly indicate that that 

the likelihood of adverse effects from exposure (i.e., risk) is considered low for the particular 

group of organisms. For example, for potential risk to estuarine/marine fish, the Preliminary Risk 

Assessment (PRA) indicates the following:

RQ values for estuarine/marine fish are not presented in the Risk Estimation because the 

available acute toxicity endpoint is non-definitive (sheepshead minnow LC50 >1,000 μg a.i./L) 

and no chronic toxicity data have been submitted. To characterize the potential for acute risk to 

estuarine/marine fish associated with the labeled uses of FPE, peak surface water EECs are 

compared to the non-definitive acute toxicity endpoint for sheepshead minnow. EECs for all uses 

are less than 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 listed or nonlisted estuarine/marine fish from exposure to technical grade FPE is expected to be low. 

This paragraph indicates that estimated exposure concentrations are lower than the “greater than” 

acute toxicity endpoint for the surrogate test species and therefore the likelihood of acute 

mortality in listed or non-listed estuarine/marine fish from exposure to FPE is expected to be low. 

In addition, Table 1.1 of the PRA also indicates that risks of concern to this group of organisms 

are not expected. A similar comparison is made for non-listed aquatic vascular plants and insect 

pollinators. Therefore, EFED believes that the executive summary and risk characterization 

sections adequately communicate the low potential for risks of concern in cases where estimated 

exposure concentrations are expected to be substantially lower than available non-definitive 

toxicity endpoints.

BCS Comment (p. 6):

 As noted by both EPA and BCS, only one application per season can occur for wheat and barley. 

However, given the agronomic requirements of these crops, only one application will occur in 

any calendar year. The presentation of the information in the format as provided in all 3 tables 

seems to indicate multiple applications for wheat and barley in any year, and misrepresents the 

label.

 For the aquatic exposure estimates (and given the above statement) it is not appropriate to model 

2 applications to wheat and barley. A more appropriate approach would be to model different 

crops if the goal is to estimate annual loading from a single field.

 If a second application were to occur in a calendar year and on the same field it would be to a 

different crop. It appears that EPA assumes that wheat or barley could be followed by a soybean 

season, which is a correct assumption. However this scenario would not occur in ND or OR. This 

cropping scenario would only occur below interstate I70, and the application interval would 

generally be 4 months. Therefore BCS recommends the ND and OR scenarios be updated.

 As scenarios are reconsidered, please note that there are factors on the label which may 

influence the application intervals. For example, the PUMA label does not allow harvest until 57-

70 days after the last application.

 For the reasons noted above, for the terrestrial exposure estimates (TREX), it is inappropriate to 

model two applications to the same crop, when that scenario does not exist and given that TREX 

is modeling in-field exposure. Greater consideration needs to be given to the agronomic practices 

and to the fact that the crop for the first application is no longer present when the second 

application occurs.
Page 3 of 11

EFED Response: As discussed in the draft risk assessment

“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 

day after the harvest date specified in the PRZM scenario. For applications of FPE to conservation 

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 day after the harvest date specified in the PRZM scenario.”

The goal of the aquatic modeling effort was to estimate environmental concentrations that could 

occur in a waterbody receiving runoff and drift from a field receiving multiple applications of FPE. 

EFED currently does not have multiple crop scenarios, so the assumption was made that the second 

application was made to a fallow field, thus eliminating the need to consider what specific crop (e.g., 

soybeans) is planted after the main crop, but still allow EFED to assess the impact of the maximum 

annual application rate that could occur to a specific field. 

BCS Comment (pp.7-8): Within the season EPA assumed one application at the maximum rate (0.01 lb 

a.i./A) and one at a significantly lower rate (0.028 lb a.i./A). The lower rate (0.028 lb a.i./A) is not a

recommended label rate, and is below a rate to be observed in the field. Using a rate that is below the 

recommended rates could lead to issues with resistance and to dis-satisfied customers who do not achieve 

the desired weed control. The appropriate in season rates would be either a single application at the 

highest rate (0.1 lb a.i./A) or two applications splitting the seasonal rate (2x0.064 lb a.i./A).

EFED Response: EFED will revise it’s modeling to reflect the lowest recommended label rate 

response for conservation reserves.

BCS Comment (p. 9): In order to achieve the annual maximum use rate, the EPA scenario included 3 

applications at the seasonal maximum (0.173 lb a.i./A), followed by one application at 0.012 lb a.i./A. 

The lower rate (0.012 lb a.i./A) is not a recommended label rate, and is below a rate to be observed in the 

field. Using a rate that is below the recommended rates could lead to issues with resistance and to dissatisfied customers who do not achieve the desired weed control. Therefore if 3 applications at the 

seasonal maximum of 0.173 lb a.i./A are used, no further applications would be made. If the desired goal 

of achieving annual maximum loading at the annual maximum rate per year, then a different scenario 

needs to be developed for multiple application rates at a lower rate.

EFED Response: For ornamental, rights-of-way, and turf, the maximum single application rate is 

0.173 lbs a.i./A, with a maximum seasonal and annual rate of 0.531 lbs a.i./A. However, the rate 

of 0.531 lbs a.i./A is not evenly divisible by 0.173 (0.173 x 3 = 0.519); therefore, a fourth 

application is technically feasible. Given that the lowest recommended single application rate for 

these uses is 0.02 lbs a.i./A, EFED will model four applications at 0.173, 0.173, 0.165, and 0.02 

lbs a.i./A.

BCS Comment (p. 10): The annual maximum use rate of 0.188 lb a.i./A is an error. As presented in the

November 2012 meeting, BCS agreed to limit the annual maximum use rate to 0.142 lb

a.i./A. If an application of 0.108 lb a.i./A is used, a second application of 0.034 lb a.i./A will not be used. 

This rate is not a recommended label rate, and is below a rate to be observed in the field. Using a rate 

that is below the recommended rates could lead to issues with resistance and to dis-satisfied customers 

who do not achieve the desired weed control. Generally speaking, another crop will not be grown within 

the same calendar year, and therefore for that field only the applications to rice should be considered for 

the annual application rate.
Page 4 of 11

EFED Response: As provided in Attachment 1, the letter submitted by the registrant in 

November 2012 indicates the maximum annual rate that can be applied is 0.188 lbs a.i./A, not 

0.142 lbs a.i./A as indicated in the table provided in the comments from Bayer. If the registrant 

wishes to amend the labels to reflect a maximum annual application rate of 0.142 lbs a.i./A, then 

EFED will revise its modeling approach. As a second application of 0.034 lb a.i./A would be 

below the minimum recommended treatment rate of 0.05 lbs a.i./A, EFED will revise its 

modeling approach to account for minimum application rate of 0.05 lbs a.i./A, resulting in a 

second application rate of 0.078 lbs a.i./A to achieve the maximum application rate per season of 

0.128 lbs a.i./A. However, EFED recommends that if the single maximum application rate of 

0.108 lbs a.i./A remains on the label, the label should specify that a second application should not 

be made, as it would be below the minimum recommended treatment rate. EFED will continue to

model three applications to the field, regardless of whether only one crop is grown within a given 

calendar year, as the label will allow for a maximum annual application rate of 0.188 lbs a.i./A. 

BCS Comment (p. 11): For the scenario where EPA assumed 3 applications in a year, one of the 

application rates used was 0.028 lb a.i./A. This lower rate is not a recommended label rate, and is below 

a rate to be observed in the field. Using a rate that is below the recommended rates could lead to issues 

with resistance and to dis-satisfied customers who do not achieve the desired weed control. The 

appropriate in season rates would be either a single application at the highest rate (0.1 lb a.i./A) or two 

applications splitting the seasonal rate (2x0.064 lb a.i./A). If one is to consider the annual maximum rate 

in order to assess potential annual loading, the more appropriate approach would be to model different 

crop. The rate for the different crop would then need to be the 0.06 lb a.i./A (as EPA assumed).

EFED Response: EFED will revise it’s modeling to reflect the lowest recommended label rate 

for soybeans (0.043 lbs a.i./A) with a coupled second application rate of 0.085 lbs a.i./A.

BCS Comment (p. 12): The current label restricts the use of grass grown for seed to the Oregon, 

Washington and Utah. The aquatic scenarios California, Pennsylvania and Florida, but especially PA 

and FL, do not represent the potential use areas for the crop of interest. BCS recommends that these 

scenarios be revised to represent the weather and soil conditions in the states allowed this use on the 

label.

EFED Response: Grass grown for seed was modeled using the turf scenarios from CA, FL, and 

PA, which are designed to represent protective estimates for applications throughout the nation. 

While the label restricts grass grown for seed to OR, WA, and UT, the three aquatic scenarios that 

were used in the modeling are designed to be protective reflections of EECs where grass grown 

for seed is permitted.

BCS Comment (p. 12): Appendix D contains the output for TerrPlant.

BCS Comment (p. 12): TerrPlant example output is located in Appendix D.

EFED Response: EFED will make the appropriate corrections to labeling the appendices in the 

revised risk assessment. 

BCS Comment (p. 12): This rate is correct for cotton and soybean, however, wheat and barley the 

maximum application rate is 0.083 lb a.i./A.

BCS Comment (p. 18): The maximum application rate for wheat is 0.83 lb a.i./A.

EFED Response: Although a maximum seasonal application rate of 0.083 lbs a.i./A is specified 

for wheat, the maximum annual application rate across all uses that can be made to a field on 

which wheat is also grown in the same year is 0.188 lbs a.i./A, per the Bayer commitment letter 
Page 5 of 11

signed November 30, 2012 (Attachment 1). Therefore the use of 0.083 lbs a.i./A as an exposure 

modeling input would underestimate the potential exposure to terrestrial animals.

BCS Comment (p. 13): BCS agrees with the NOAEL of 180 ppm for the two-generation reproduction 

study in rats, however the NOEL based on daily dose within the study is as follows [Table omitted]. BCS 

recommends EPA consider the measured dose ranges in the critical parts of the study in the risk 

characterization.

EFED Response: Mammalian chronic toxicity studies are reviewed by OPP’s Health Effects 

Division (HED). EFED will work with HED to extract dose-based endpoints based on measured 

dietary intake and integrate them into the final version of the ERA for FPE.

BCS Comment (p. 13): BCS asks for clarification in Table 3.12 where the honeybee acute contact is 

marked as the most sensitive endpoint that will be used in RQ calculation. Text on page 68 states “RQs 

were not calculated for terrestrial invertebrates” and Table 1.1 indicates that no RQs were calculated for 

insect pollinators.

EFED Response: The toxicity endpoint for honeybees was incorrectly labeled as being used in 

RQ calculations since it is a non-definitive endpoint. Rather, this endpoint is considered in 

conjunction with predicted exposure levels to qualitatively characterize the potential for risk to 

bees in the risk description section. Therefore, the asterisk for this endpoint will be removed from 

the table in the revised risk assessment.

BCS Comment (pp. 14-15): BCS Response: The radicle is the initial root like structure or embryonic root 

that forms prior to the development of the primary root system. Radicle length inhibition measurements 

are not representative, nor do they satisfy the objective of the seedling emergence test. Growth during 

germination is mainly driven by intrinsic factors of the seed, such as nutrient reserves, rather than 

external parameters. This can result in high variability in radicle length without accounting for external 

factors such as concentration of the test substance in the soil. The radicle length test design and endpoint 

is not required or supported in current or previous EPA guidelines. In the 1982 Pesticide Assessment 

Guidelines, Subdivision J Hazard Evaluation for NTPs, radicle length was only indicated as a visual 

marker of seed germination. In this evaluation, if the radicle length was >5mm the seed was considered 

germinated.

In the table above, only MRID 47333423 quantifies actual root length. In this study following the 1996 

guideline on Tier II seedling emergence testing (OPPTS 850.4225), root lengths were measured on day 

14 after test termination. Similarly, the replacement 2012 OCSPP 850.4230 guideline for seed 

germination uses root length as one of the studies effect endpoints. Root length is measured on day 14 

from seedlings upon termination of the test. The root length endpoint is reported as root inhibition IC10 

and IC50 values. Endpoints given for MRID 41276904 and 41276905 are for radicle length. Root length 

is not the same as radicle length and these endpoints are not comparable.

In MRIDs 4126904 and 4126905, radicle length testing was performed in a petri dish by sprouting 10 

seeds, without soil, on FPE treated filter paper. This petri dish is then incubated in the dark for 6 to 7 

days. This exposure scenario is not environmentally relevant and unrealistic in determining risk 

characterization for seedling emergence. Radicle length does not reflect an endpoint that mimics an infield application scenario for seedling emergence testing. Variability in this test design is high. For corn 

and oat, no dose response relationship existed for seed germination. In oat, a dose response was observed 

for radicle length, however for corn, no dose response relationship existed in radicle length 

measurements. In corn, at an exposure concentration of 0.0006 lb a.i./A, 13% inhibition was observed. At 

the next dose, 0.0012 lb a.i./A, 7% stimulation occurred, followed by a 33% stimulation in the 0.0024 lb 
Page 6 of 11

a.i./A treatment. The highest treatment level tested with corn, 0.0096 lb a.i./A resulted in a 14% 

inhibition, comparable to the lowest concentration tested. In both oat and corn, radicle length 

measurements had no correlation with seedling survival, germination, or emergence giving this endpoint 

no relevance in predicting effects on survival and growth.

As fenoxaprop-p-ethyl has been registered with the US EPA since 1987, several older study reports exist 

that are comprised of provisional test designs, often containing multiple endpoints that are no longer 

considered valid or accurate. BCS would like to clarify the correct conservative endpoints to be used to 

estimate risk to NTPs, based off of endpoints correlated with survival and growth. The endpoints below 

are supported by the current seedling emergence guideline OCSPP 850.4100, as this is the most 

scientifically up-to-date methodology.

EFED Response: The reviewer concurs that radicle length endpoints are highly variable and 

therefore will not be used in the final version of the risk assessment. The next most sensitive

endpoint(s) from available terrestrial plant toxicity studies will be evaluated for appropriateness

and integrated in the risk characterization and risk discussion sections of the assessment

accordingly.

BCS Comment (p. 16): The correct NOAEC value from the study report is 0.081 lb a.i./A. The 

nondefinitive endpoint (<0.081 lb a.i./A) was obtained by visually interpreting the results as stated in the 

DER “The reviewer felt that the 16.9 and 15.7% inhibitions at the tomato and cucumber treatment levels, 

respectively, were biologically significant.” DER (MRID 47333423). The original study reported pvalues associated with the control and limit (0.081 lb a.i./A) treatment for tomato and cucumber are 

p=0.132 and p=0.091, respectively. BCS seeks clarification on the reviewers visual determination of 

these endpoints reported in Table 2 of the DER for shoot dry weight/plant (MRID 47333423), as these 

values do not indicate significant difference from the controls in the submitted study report, Table 9 (page 

21).

EFED Response: EFED continues to rely on its previous determination that the inhibition to 

tomato dry weight is biologically significant based on the fact that the variance surrounding the 

measurements was reasonably low for control ( =10, s

2=0.76) and treated ( =8.3, s2=3.5) plants; 

however, EFED acknowledges that the finding of biological significance for the cucumber 

endpoint is weak due to the fact the variance was high and was greater than the mean 

measurements for both control ( =56, s

2=105) and treated ( =47, s2=54) plants.

BCS Comment (p. 16): BCS agrees that the most sensitive endpoints are corn plant height; however, 

BCS disagrees that these endpoints be derived by visual interpretation of the data. In the DER (MRID 

41276907), the reviewer reported “the no-effect level at or below which no adverse effects were observed 

in the data”. BCS believes that statistical no-effect level be used, representing the highest test level that is 

statistically similar to the control group. The correct mathematically derived endpoints for corn plant 

height are as follows: Corn plant height EC25 of 0.006 lb a.i./A with a NOEL of 0.0048 lb a.i./A.

EFED Response: Based on the analysis provided in the DER for MRID 41276906, it is not 

possible to determine the appropriate NOAEC for corn. The DER indicates a NOAEC of <0.0006 

lbs a.i./A for corn in the conclusions, but the reviewer results section indicates a definitive value 

of 0.0006 lbs a.i./A as the NOAEC with a footnote indicating that a 7% reduction in plant height 

was observed at this treatment level. Based on this discrepancy, EFED will re-examine this study 

in order to derive an appropriate endpoint for use in the final version of the risk assessment.

BCS Comment (p. 16): The MRID number listed (41276904) is for Tier I Seedling Emergence studies.

The correct MRID for the vegetative vigor Tier I studies is 41276906.
Page 7 of 11

EFED Response: The appropriate correction in MRID numbers will be made in the final version 

of the risk assessment.

BCS Comment (p. 17): BCS seeks clarification on this endpoint selection. In EPA’s DER for MRID

47333424, the reviewer calculated endpoint agrees with the BCS calculated endpoint of 0.020

lb a.i./A for Bluejoint marsh grass (page 17 of the DER MRID 47333424).

EFED Response: The NOAEC for root length (p. 18 of DER MRID 47333424) is 0.01 lbs a.i./A, 

which is the most sensitive endpoint for bluejoint grass. However, given that root measurements 

are no longer required in the current version of the OCSPP 850.4150 guideline, the next most 

sensitive endpoint 0.02 lbs a.i./A for shoot length and shoot dry weight will be used for risk 

assessment.

BCS Comment (p. 17): Root biomass is no longer an endpoint measured in current vegetative vigor test 

guideline OCSPP 850.4150. Root related endpoints are difficult due to inability to completely separate 

roots from organic material after harvesting. Also, the removal of seedlings from the soil media often 

results in separation and destruction of the root system. This results in a false inflation or deflation of 

biomass value. Depending on the amount of root material lost during harvest, or the amount of organic 

matter attached to root surfaces, the accuracy of this endpoint is greatly reduced. For these reasons, 

current guidelines do not indicate root based measurements.

Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl is known for its selective toxicity to monocots. This selectivity is seen in Tier I 

vegetative vigor and seedling emergence testing with FPE without safener, resulting in no exceedence for 

dicot species. Carrot resulted in IC25 values greater than 0.1 lb a.i./A. Correct conservative endpoints 

for carrot are for shoot dry weight, with EC25 >0.081 lb a.i./A and NOEL of 0.081 lb a.i./A.

EFED Response: EFED agrees with the registrant that root endpoints are no longer evaluated in 

the OCSPP 850.4150 guideline. Therefore, based on shoot weight, shoot length, and survival, the 

most sensitive dicot species is lettuce with a corresponding NOAEC and EC25 values of 0.041 and 

>0.081 lbs a.i./A, respectively. These values will be used to represent dicots for vegetative vigor 

endpoints in the updated risk assessment.

BCS Comment (p. 17): The text refers to incorrect table numbers: 

Table 4.2 represents acute and chronic RQs for direct effects to freshwater invertebrates.

Table 4.3 represents acute and chronic RQs for direct effects to estuarine/marine invertebrates

Table 4.4 represents RQ values for direct effects to aquatic vascular and nonvascular plants

EFED Response: The appropriate corrections will be made in the table captions in the final 

version of the risk assessment.

BCS Comment (p. 18): The endpoint in question (<0.081 lb a.i./A) for vegetative vigor studies was 

derived from visual interpretation of the data for cucumber and tomato plants. Although the BCS study 

reported p-values of 0.132 and 0.091 when compared to the controls, the DER indicated that the review 

“felt that the 16.9 and 15.7% inhibitions at the tomato and cucumber treatment levels, respectively, were 

biologically significant” (DER MRID 47333423). The correct conservative endpoint for these dicots, 

based on statistical analysis, is 0.081 lb a.i./A. Tier I studies support this as vegetative vigor testing 

resulted in IC25 values >0.1 lb a.i./A for tomato and cucumber plants (MRID 41276904).

As comments above address the definitive NOECs for monocots, a quick summary is included as follows: 

Corn dry weight (MRID 41276905) resulted in a NOEC of 0.006 lb a.i./A.
Page 8 of 11

EFED Response: The above comment is similar to a previous comment calling into question the 

determination of biological significance for tomato and cucumber endpoints in the seedling 

emergence study (MRID 47333424). EFED believes that the responder mistakenly identified 

these as vegetative vigor endpoints. Therefore, this issue has already been addressed above.

BCS Comment (p. 18): Effect distances need to be updated with the endpoints noted above.

Additionally. EPA should incorporate current nozzle technology and the updated drift data that has been 

developed since the spray drift task force.

EFED Response: EFED will update all terrestrial plant analyses including effect distances with 

updated endpoints as needed. With regards to the use of current nozzle technology and drift data, 

EFED is currently evaluating drift data submitted by Crop Life America, but does not anticipate 

the review to be completed in time for incorporation into this assessment. EFED will continue to 

use the AgDRIFT model for use in its assessments.

BCS Comment (p. 18): Footnote 4 is not indicated in Table 5.1

EFED Response: All footnotes will be appropriately updated in the final version of the risk 

assessment.

BCS Comment (p. 19): “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 registered use sites.” BCS seeks clarification of this statement. Table 5.1 

indicates that direct effects only exist for terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants- monocots, and for 

mammals.

EFED Response: EFED agrees with the registrant that there are no direct effects to listed 

freshwater fish nor estuarine/marine invertebrates and will update the text to reflect these 

conclusions.

BCS Comment (p. 19): Table G-4 showed hydrolysis considered in PFAM modeling is stable.

EFED Response: The registrant is correct, the stable hydrolysis value depicted in Appendix G 

was inadvertently inserted in Table G-4. The correct value of 24.6 days was actually used in the 

modeling and the Appendix Table G-4 will be corrected accordingly.

BCS Comment (p. 23): Drinking water exposure assessments used the same use pattern assumptions and 

interpretations as noted in the EFED documents and commented here. BCS recommends that the use 

pattern inputs be updated for ALL exposure assessments (drinking water, surface water, terrestrial 

vertebrates and terrestrial plants (as appropriate)).

EFED Response: EFED will coordinate with the Health Effects Division to correct the 

application rates in the drinking water assessment, based on the preceding discussions.
Page 9 of 11

Attachment 1. Bayer Commitment Letter
Page 10 of 11
Page 11 of 11