### MEMORANDUM Subject: RegistrationReview -

### PreliminaryProblem Formulation Assessment of Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl I 

### To: Kylie Rothwell, Team Leader Kevin Costello, Chemical Review Manager ReregistrationBranch SpecialReview and Reregistration Division Office of Pesticide Programs From: Kristina Garber, Biologist Greg Orrick, Environmental Scientist -12-07 

### Environmental Risk Branch 

### 4 Environmental Fate and Effects Division 

## i

Environmental Risk Branch 

### 4 Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office ofPesticide Progtams Office ofPesticide Programs 

# - 6- Through: ElizabethBehl, Chief 

### 'LJ"B/\W*

Attached is the preliminaryproblem fornulation for the ecological risk as conducted as part ofthe Registration Review ofthe herbicide 

### -&-~() 7

### /1z187I I I 

## REGISTRATION REVIEW I 1
I 

## ECOLOGICAL 

## RISK ASSESSMENT PR FORMULATION FOR: I 

### Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 

# i I

Prepared by: 

### (+)-Ethyl 

### 2-(4-((6-chloro-2-benzoxazolyl)oxy)phenoxy)prop~anoate CAS Registry Number: 

### 7 1283-80-2 

### PC Code: 

### 129092

Kristina Garber, Biologist Greg Orrick, Environmental Scientist I I

Reviewed by: 0 

# I

R. David Jones, SeniorAgronomist Brian Kiernan, Biologist Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief U.S.
1200 Pennsylvania Mail Code 750713 Washington, DC

### 1. 

### STRESSOR SOURCEAND DISTRIBUTION Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl [FPE; (+)-ethyl is a selective 

### Aryloxyphenoxypropionateherbicides are mobile in the phloem and

ofthe purity. There are 18 Section 3 

### product registrationsthat currently contain FPE ble 11, 

### which include agricultural and non-agricultural uses. Agricultural uses include peanuts, rice, soybeans, and wheat. Non-agricultural uses include iightsincluding applicationrates, methods and timing, see Appendix A. 

### of-way, and turf. FPE products are flowable and are applications by cheinigation areprohibited. For 1 

## i

I Silverado Herbicide 

## 1 264-650 

## I conservation reserves, cottoq', peanurs, 

## I I I I 

# ~ soybean$ I Table 1. CurrentFPE Section3 product labels.

Cheyenne Herbicide Dakota Herbicide Puma 1EC Herbicide Ricestar Herbicide Acclaim Extra Herbicide Preclaim EW Herbicide 

## , Preclaim Crabgrass Killer & Weed Uses cotton,rights-of-way, soybe~ns conservation reserves, rice, barlev. wheat Product Name Fusion Herbicide Whip 3 60 Herbicide Tiller FC Herbicide

- Preventer Preclaim Herbicide Triway + PhenoxapropReady-toHerbicide Triway + PhenoxapropReady-to-Use 

## 1 72 155-66 

## I turf (residential) I I Registration W 100-1059 264-647 264-649
264-654 264-655 264-666 264-682 432-950 432-957 

## , 432-958
Spray Herbicide 432-959 72 155-62 I Triway

### + Fenoxaprop Concentrate 

## 1 72 155-63 

## I turf (residential) I Herbicide Crabgrass Killer R-T-S Herbicide Bayer Advanced Lawn Herbicide 3F 

## , soybeans, wheat I ,

1

Concentrate Bayer Advanced Lawn Herbicide 3F Ready-to-Use wheat wheat barley, wheat rice ornamentals, rights-of-way, ornamentals, rights-of-way, ornamentals, rights-of-way, turf (residential)

72 155-74 72 155-77 I I
I turf 

# ~ turf 

# ~
turf ,

I I 72155-78 

## , ornamentals (residential),tqf (residbntial)

ornamentals (residential), turf turf (residential) (residpntial) I turf (residential) !

## 2. INTEGRATION OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION 1 I 

### The risk assessmentsthat serve as the basis for this problem formulation nclude the following (for details, see Appendix B): 

# I I I I 

### 1 Section 

### 3 New Use (S3NU) Risk Assessment ofproposed uses cotton, peanuts, and conservation reserves (DPbarcode 164986; 1 DrinkingWater Assessment (DP barcode 23961 8; Oct. 4 Section 18 Risk Assessments for uses on barley and rice 1 Section 18 Risk Assessment 

### (DP barcode 338410+) for 2007 

### 3. ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS 

# 1 Registrant submitted data for exposures of aquatic and At this time, several data gaps exist for the toxicity of In order to fill these data gaps, available data for fenoxaprop-ethyl will b this ecological risk assessment. Available toxicity data for fenoxaprop-ethyl indicate has similar acute toxicity to aquatic organisms when compared to FPE assessment, it will be assumed that the R- and S-enantiomers are of cases where toxicity data are availablefor both FPE and endpoint (i.e.

### the lowest toxicity value) will be used, FPE or fenoxaprop-ethyl,for derivingRQs for FPE. organisms that will be ecological effects data for FPE and described in Appendix D. 

### In some These data are considered organisms to formulated considered quantitatively in this assessment. The ECOTOXicologydatabase (ECOTOX), was searched in order to ecological effects data. No data were located in ECOTOX for FPE. toxicity data are available for aquatic (30 

### records) and terrestrial data will be evaluated at a later time for their possible value 3.1. Effects to aquatic organisms I I 

### On an acute exposure basis, FPE is considered very highly toxic (LC50 estuarinelmarineinvertebrates, highly toxic (LC50 toxic (LC5o >

### 1 

### - 10mg/L) to freshwater invertebratesand chronic toxicity data for rainbow trout indicate a NOEC toxicity data for mysid shrimp indicate a NOEC of 0.01 (LC50 >

### 1 - 1



### 0 mg/L) to aquatic vascular plants and vascular plants. Summariesofthe most sensitive FPE are located in Table 2. I3.2. Effects to terrestrial organisms 

# I 

# I Lepomis macuoc~zi?~us LC50 96 0.3 1 

### **

Data are availableto assess the toxicity ofFPE to terrestrial plants. A test with dicot species (carrot, soybean, cabbage, lettuce, tomato and (Bluegill Sunfish)

O~ZCO~~Z~~C/ZUS mykiss (Rainbow Trout) Daphnia nzagna

(Water Flea) Cypuinodon vnriegatus (Sheepshead

minnow) Mysidopsis bakin

(Mysid shrimp)
Lemna gibba

(duckweed) Selenastuum capricomutum (Green algae) 

### * Based on nominal Freshwater fish and amphibians
Freshwater Invertebrates

Estuarine1 Marine Fish

Marine Invertebrates Aquatic vascular plants Aquatic nonplants concentrations. **Based on exposures of organisms to fenoxaprop-ethyl NOEC LOEC ECso
LC50
LC50 NOEC LOEC ECso NOEC

EGO NOEC 

# ~ I 

### No data are availableto characterize chronicexposures of freshwater estuarinelmarinefish to either FPE or fenoxaprop-ethyl. In 

### light of Chronic Ratio (ACR) approach will be used to estimate the chronic organisms. Available toxicity data for mysid shrimp exposed to 0.107 mg/L and 

### a 28 

### day NOEC of 0.01095mg/L. The result is invertebrates. Application ofthis ratio to available acute mg/L), results in an estimated chronicNOEC value of rainbow trout exposed to 

### FPE include a mg/L. Theresult is 

### an ACR of 20.9 for fish. data for sheepsheadminnow (>1.0mg/L), mg/L. 9 1 (days)
48
96
96 28 (days) 14 (days)

120 0.022" 0.036" >1.058
>1.0**
0.098** 0.01095 0.03265

>3.00 3.00 0.43 0.027 pr1~~sion~1 Su~iplemedtal 

### I suFPlemer/tal Aciceptabl: Provisional
Su~~~l~mental s"p~)lemen~l

I 4478680 1
44664002
00163779
00 163777 44786802
44664003
42009609

### >0.1 lb a.i./A. As expected based on the target organisms (i.c.

### grasses) was more toxic to nionocots in a seedlingemergence test. Corn was tested monocots, with an EC25and NOEC of 0.002 and <0.0006 Ibs toxicity data were submittedto assess the effects of FPE to the Available vegetative vigor toxicity data for monocots monocot species tested, with EC25and NOEC of These data are summarized in Table 3.



### No data are available at this time to characterize the effects marninals or to terrestrial invertebrates;however, these data are Therefore, available data for fenoxaprop-ethyl areused to 

### fill toxicities ofFPE and fenoxaprop-ethyl are presumed for both I Species Measure of - End- Test Reference (common name) effect point Mean Concentration Substance



### Fenoxaprop-ethyl (and thus, FPE) is classified practically nontoxic to m ppm), birds (LD5() >2000 mgkg, LCs0

### >5000 mglkg), and terrestrial an acute exposure basis. Chronic exposures to rats in a reproduction for reproduction and parental effects of 5 ppm (0.25 mglkglday). quail in reproduction studies indicate effects to hatching, with a available to assess the toxicity of exposures of fenoxaprop-ethyl ofthe most sensitive data fiom submitted terrestrial toxicity located in Table 4. Dicot

Corn

Con?

I Seedling Emergence

(Tier 1) Seedling Emergence

(Tier 2) Vegetative vigor (Tier 2) EC,~ EC,, NOEC

EC,, NOEC >0.1 lb a.i./a 0.002 lbs a.i./A <0.0006 lbs a.i./A 0.0025 lbs a.i./A <0.0006 1bs a.i./A 4 1276904

41276905

4 127690'7 (% a.i,) isomer)
7'2 (D isomer)

7.2 k:ceptab\e
A'~~~~~~~/~
Iplatjirhj~nchos Anas 

# I Birds, terrestrial phase reptiles Coiinus 

# I virgin ianus (Northern Bobwhite

Quail) Terrestrial (Honey Bee) invertebrates 2357 mgikg (males) LD5o 2500 mglkg (females) NOAEL 5 PPm (0.25 mglkglday) 30 ppm* 

# I >5620 ppm LD50 

# 1 >25 10 mglkg

NOAEC 

# 1 30 ppm I LOAEC 180ppm**

LDro 

# 1 >lo0 pglbee 96.6k0.9 Acceptable 00130330 96.660.9 Acceptable 00130334

I I *Based on decreased blood lipids in parent, and reduced pup body weights. I **Based on effects to hatching. I I I I 

### 4. 

### INCIDENT 

### REPORTS The Agency has received 

### 78 reports of adversefield effects to non-target linked to the use of

### FPE. All of these incidents involved damage to a rice, or wheat). The Agency considered the cause to be uncertain in one herbicide was applied to the crop. In the remaining 36 

### cases, be the probable cause. Most ofthe incidents were reports of crop following application of the herbicide directlyto the crop, carryover effects of applications made to another crop in a the incidents involved damage to crops or other plants The Agency has received one report linking FPE to adverse field effectst 1998,Approximately 200 

### fish died in a pond in Wl.llte County, Illinois FPE, along with two other herbicides (fluazifop-p-butyl and fomesafen soybean field. Because FPE 

### is highly toxic to fish and was applied in pond, the Agency believes that exposureto this herbicide was a factor to the fish mortality.

### For current assessments, exposureis assessed in terms ofthe residues of p-ethyl, which include the parent (AE F046360), fenoxaprop-p acid (AE hydrolytic product AE F054014 (USEPA, 

### 2007). FPE degrade slowly, as they are stableto photolysis, hydrolyzewith a and biodegrade with a half-life of4-9 months under a range of provisional rice paddy dissipation studyindicated that residues of 3.6 

### days before the paddy was reflooded. The Agency has received no report of adverse field effects to non-target nimals or plants that have been attributed to the use of fenoxaprop-ethyl. The Agency also ha no inpident report water. 

# 1 from pesticide registrants concerning fenoxaprop-ethyl contamination of ound or surface 

# P

I 

### A lack ofreported incidents does not necessarily mean that such incident4 have not occurred. In

Environmental fate-related data submitted in support of the unregistered r fenoxaprop-ethyl (PC code 128701) will not be used in current environmentalfate characteristicsofthe two mixtures have not Chemical properties of FPE and environmental fateparameters concern are listed in Table 5. 

### addition, incident reports for non-target plants and animals typically prov:~d mortality events only. Reports for other adverse effects, such as reduced reproduction, are rarely received.
I 

### 5. 

### EXPOSURE CHARACTERISTICS FPE residues bioconcentrate in fish and can be moderately mobile in soil. environmental fate and transport data submitted for FPE areprovisional The submitted data indicate that, as an ester, FPE rapidly de-esterifies (tin 

### fenoxaprop-p acid (AE F088406, 

### (D+)-2-[4-(6-chloro-2-benzoxazolyloxy)phenxy] which is also biologically active (USEPA, 

### 1997). The environmental fate submitted for fenoxaprop-pacid is poor, consisting of a hydrolysis study with extrapolated values for environmental temperatures (MRID 44659603) equilibrium study (MRID 44768101 ), 

### both of which are in review. gro

T 

### and cur/-entlyin review.

range/ = 

### 1-3 days) to propanoate), and tdansport data set condu ted at 50-65OC an a batch 

# 4

I 

# ~

Chemical name

Water solubility (pH 5.8; 20°C) 0.7 mg/L M D 44676401 (pr visional) Octanol-water partition coefficient (Gw) 38,000 Molecular mass Vapor pressure (20°C) (D+)-ethyl-2-[4-(6-chloro-2- benzoxazolyloxy)phenoxy]propanoate

# I M D 44676401 (pr



# %

visional) 361.8 dm01 1.4 x lo-' torr M$D 44676401 (prbvisional) 

### ACD. # 412-03-0113Fish Bioconcentration Factor Table 5. General chemical properties and environmental fate parameters offenoxaprop-p-ethyl (based on provisionalsources). 

### 1

Soil-water distributioncoefficient (Kd)

# '; Organic carbon partitioning coefficient (KOC)' ChemicaYFate Parameter

Totalresidues Freundlich soil-water distribution coefficient (KF) *; Total residues Freundlich organic carbonpartitioning coefficient (KFOC) Value

Hydrolysis half-life; Totalresidues half-life (pH 5,25"C) Hydrolysis half-life; Total residues half-life (pH 7,25"C) Hydrolysis half-life; Total residues half-life (pH 9,25"C) Aqueous photolysis half-life j Source

Aerobic soil metabolism half-life; Total residues half-life Anaerobic aquatic metabolism half-life; Totalresidues half-life Terrestrialfield dissipationhalf-life; Total residues half-life 129 (edible) 1021 (non-edible) 510 (whole fish) 12.6Llkg; 5420Wkgoc 176Wkg; 6670 L/kgoc 213 Llkg; 26200 L/kgoc

Point estimates at 0.35 ppm dosing concentration. llnis the Freundlich exponentthat describes curvilinearity. 5.1 Transport and mobility 

# I 

# '

FPE is partially solublein water, dissolving at 0.7 

### mg/L at 20°C and pH The compoundis not expected to volatilize significantlydue to its low



### FPE is slightly to hardly mobile (& of 12.6to 443); however, its and 

### AE F054014 are mobile 

### (Kd of 1.8 to 25 and provisionalbatch equilibrium study (MRID 

### 42915001). (TRC), which include FPE and these two degradates, are Freundlich soil-water partitioning coefficients

### (KF)for 4.10 (l/n=1.00) to 9.77 (l/n=1.00). Mobility ofthe

### affinity to organic matter, as the coefficientofvariation 

### (CV) across four for 

### KFoC (87%) is greater than that for KF

### (36%). In general, compounds, such as 054014, with 

### KFvalues less than five aremobile enough to concern in some soils. A provisional study specificallyon fenoxaprop-p acid appears to confirm mobility than FPE (KF

### range = 

### 1.17 (l/n=0.88) to 8.76 (l/n=0.73); MRID 5.2 

### Degradation 

# 1 FPE is hydrolyzed moderately in acidic conditions (t%= 37.5 d at 

### pH conditions (tx = 

### 75.1 d at pH 7), and quickly in alkaline conditions (t 44659602). Three major hydrolysis degradates were identified: (6-chloro-2,3-dihydro-benzoxazol-2-one),and AE F096918 (2- Fenoxaprop-p acid is the primary degradate at up to 63.6% of hydrolysis study 

### (14 days after treatment (DAT); 

### MRID 4465 acid may hydrolyze to AE F054014, which was observed in ofthe applied (21 DAT); fenoxaprop-p acid moderately F096918 at equal molar amounts; AE F096918 was obs degradation of FPE by photolysis (MRID 44676401). DAT) in the anaerobic aquaticmetabolism study 

### (MRI
FPE was quickly aquatic systems (tx

### < 1 d; MRID two metabolism studies were DAT), AE F096918 at up to 42.0% of the applied (64 study, 

### M3 (an unidentified degradatein the aerobic applied (59 DAT), and carbon dioxide at up to applied, in the aerobic soil metabolism and 5.3 

### Field studies 

# I 

# i A terrestrial and aquatic field dissipation study ofFPE was conducted Whip@(HOE 46360 75 EW; MRID 43066404). Whip@was subplots of clay loam soil in a drained rice patty in California own to the 1 

# - to 4-leaf stage. At 4 DAT, the paddy was flooded with 6 irrigated through 60 

### DAT. Soil samples (0-12 inch limit of quantitation for residues ofFPE was 10 FPE residues were analyzed for individual fenoxaprop-p acid, and AE F054014) life of 3.6 days. This dissipation rate the submitted fate and transport major routes of dissipation for FPE residues were detected at a maximum concentration of 350 ppb (1

### 5% concentration; 0-3 inch depth, 0.04 DAT) and at a maximum depth of 

### 6

### were not detected above the limit of quantitationin flood water. FPE was detected at a maximum concentrationof 60 ppb (0-3 inch depth; 1-2DAT); acid was detected at a maximum concentrationof 270 ppb (0-3 inch depth; 0.4 was detected at a maximum concentrationof 70 ppb (0-3 inch depth, 4 ofFPE parent, fenoxaprop-p acid, and AE F054014were not reported.
Major degradates of FPE include fenoxaprop-p acid, AE F054014, AE unidentified compound), and carbon dioxide (chemical names and Appendix E). 

### One minor degradate has been identified, AE 

### benzoxazolyloxy)phenol). FPE and its major degradates moiety (fenoxaprop-p acid and AE F054014) are and, therefore, for mammals (USEPA, 2007). concern areunavailable. 

### In the absence of have similar toxicity to FPE parent. be used for current drinking water evaluate the potential exposure of FPE, fenoxaprop-p acid, and AE F054014. I 

### 5.4 Degradates



### 6. 

### CHARACTERISTICS OF ECOSYSTEMS POTENTIAL Y

# AT RISK 

# L ,



### For FPE and pesticides in general, the ecosystems at the use areas. These would include agricultural soybeans and wheat, as well as conservation ornamentals, golf courses, sod farms, other water bodies directly adjacentto use sites and/or discharged ground water. Within water bodies, the water column, water are all compartmentsof concern. Organisms of concern include fish, amphibians, terrestrial and aquaticinvertebrates, and plants. The intended to reflect population sustainabilityand community structure hence relateback to ecosystems at risk. If

### risks are expected for biological organization. screening-level assessment,then risks mightbe expected to 

### 7. 

### ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS Assessment endpoints are defined as "explicit expressions ofthe actual value that is to be protected." Defining an assessment endpointinvolves two valued attributes ofthe environment that are considered to be at defining the assessment endpointinterms of an ecological aquatic invertebrates) and its attributes (i.e., survival and the assessment endpoints is based potentially at risk, the migration pathways ofpesticides, receptors are exposedto pesticide-related assessment endpoints is important

### assessment for addressing risk management issues of concern. are typically estimated fiom the available toxicity studies,which are effects to characterize potential ecologicalrisks associated with FPE. 

# 1, To estimate exposure concentrations,an ecological risk assessment the maximum application rate to use sites that have vulnerable endpoints are used fiom surrogatetest speciesto estimate acute mortality and chronicreproductive, growth and

effects to non-target animals and plants. toxicity tests are intended to determine effects of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and plants. potential of a pesticide to cause adverse effects, and to determinethe need for precautionary I 

### 8. 

## CONCEPTUAL MODEL The conceptual model used to depict the potential ecological risk asso that FPE is capable of affecting aquatic and terrestri concentrations are sufficiently elevated as a result o preliminary iterativeprocess of examining fate and risk hypothesis, has been refined to reflect the exposurepathways an risk is most likely. Based on a preliminaryrisk screeningand past a FPE is highly toxic to freshwaterfish on an acute exposure basis 

### an mammals and birds when chronicallyexposed, the hypothesis for animals (depicted in Figure 1) focuses on both aquatic and terres exposure as a result of direct spray, spray drift, granules, and aquatic plants is also considered 

### in this screening-level asses major route of exposure considered is the dietaryroute; con leaves or insectsthat have FPE residues as a result of s species, the major routes of exposure are considered t integument. Aquatic plants may be exposed via dire Estimated exposure concentrations (EEC) for all organisms are obtained several Agency exposure models. EECs modeled for the preliminary Section 18

### risk assessmentused degradation half-lives calculated for risk concern in the submitted environmental fate studies. As shown lives increased fi-om short-moderate values for FPE aloneto counting TRC 

### and aerobic soil metabolism and anaerobic increased fiom rapid values for FPE alone to approaching 8.1. Risk Hypothesis 

# I i Risk hypotheses are specific assumptions about assessment endpoints) and may be evaluatedon theory and logic, models, or probability models (USEPA, 2004). 

### For this

### where the stressor is therelease of FPE to the environment. The followin* risk gypothesis is presumed for this screening level assessment: 

# I Based on the application methods, mode of action, and the sensitivkty of$on-target aquatic and terrestrialspecies, 

### FPE has the potential to reduce su and/orgrowth in terrestrial and aquatic organisms. 

### In order for a chemical to pose an ecological risk, its residues of concern organisms at concentrationsfound to cause adverse effects. The which a pesticide moves in the environment fiom the application The assessment of ecological exposurein this assessment exposure routes to non-target species. and potential migration pathways for FPE residues of I 8.2. 

### Diagram 

### Application methods for the use of FPE involve spray using ground or aeri equipment. Ecological receptors that may potentiallybe exposed to FPE include terres a1 a$d semi-aquatic wildlife (i.e.,

### mammals, birds, amphibians, terrestrial invertebrates, reptile and plants). In addition, aquaticreceptors (e.g.,

### freshwater and estuarine/marinefish and i verte rates, 

# iP amphibians, and aquatic plants) may alsobe exposed as a result ofpotenti 

### 1miqtion of FPE via spray drift andlorrunoff from the site of applicationto various aquatic env ronm nts. These data form thebasis for identifyingpotential endpoints, stressors, and ecological effect associated with FPE 

### use (Figure 

### 1). 

### I 

# t
I

### Stressor Sourcel Transport Pathways Sourcel Exposure Media Exposure Route

Attribute Changes Birds, Mammals, Reptiles, Terrestrial Phase Amphibians

Reduced survival or Terrestrial Upland Aquatic ' Riparian Plants Plants Plants



# \ Plant PO ulation Reduced Reduced survival, population I I 

### - Aquatic Invertebrates, Vertebrates jndividual .Vertebratesand invertebrates :.teduced survival 2r reproduction 

### Figure 

### 1. Conceptual model of the transport and effects ofFPE in Dotted lines indicate exposure routes that were considered and not significantlyto the fate and transport of FPE. 

### 9. ANALYSIS PLAN OPTIONS In Registration Review, pesticide ecological risk assessments will follow Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment, will be in compliance with "Overview ofthe Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of accordance with Section 7 

### ofthe Endangered Species Act. Environmental Protection Agency" ("Overview Document"; USEPA, 

# I I 

### A review ofpreviously completed screening level risk assessments assessments of acute and chronicrisk to non-target organisms has uses. Based on toxicity data and Risk Quotients (RQs) described for grass grown for seed in Oregon (themost recent ecological potential effects to mammals and birds from chronic exposures when applied at the proposed label rates. The proposed (0.0825 Ibs a.i./A/year)is lower than or similarto the

### labels for all other uses (see Table 

### 6). Furthermore, due to a lack oftoxi to aquatic organisms, birds, and beneficial insects have not previously Agency. Appendix 

### B shows the current status of risk assessments for 9.1. 

### Discussion ofAssumptions and Uncertainties I 

# 1 In addition to conducting screening level assessments (and refined necessary) for all FPE uses, other uncertainties and potential paths forward are Maximum yearly application rates could not be determined based n information provided on product labels for all uses. In the absence oflabel cla 'fications, assumptions will be made in the ecological risk assessments according to the i ormationin Table 6. 

# I

Table 

### 6. Assumptions related to maximum rates per application, applicationsper year, intervals between applications, and maxim



### Availableproduct labels identified maximum applicationrates per s ason, not per year. Table 6 

### also includes assumptions related to the maximum number f seasynsper year. 

# I Since multiple crops to which FPE can be applied can be rotated on t e same field within the same year (e.g. barley and wheat; peanuts and cotton), it is possi le to dave multiple season applicationsof FPE. 

### The following amendments are recommended for improving label cl rity: , 

# ?I Soybeans

Turf Wheat 0.128 0.178* 0.135 NS =not specified NA = not applicable *some labels with this use do not identify the maximum application rate per app1ica:ion. **It is assumed that it is possible to apply every 14 days. 1 3 1

I

I NA

3 NA 

## ~ 1 I I 2 I I 2

### All labels should be amended to define the maximum rate er application for each use, as well as the maximum number of applications per 

### y in gccordance with CFR 156.10(i)(2). Several labels indicate "recommended" applicatio be altered to read "maximum application rates." On several labels, including72 155-62,72155-63, and 721 55-78, the density of FPE per product (e. 

### cited. See Appendix A 

### for label specific details. It will be assumed that aerial and ground methods of appl uses, excluding residentialuses. No data are available for assessing the responses of an es exposures to FPE. In the absence ofthese data, availabl fenoxaprop-ethylto sheepshead minnow (MRID 00163 No acute, sub-acuteor chronic toxicity data are availab the absence ofthese data, available data for the expos and quail (MRIDs 00130333,00155305,00130330, No acute or chronic toxicity data are available for exposures absence ofthese data, available data for the exposures of fen rats (MRIDs 00130010,0013001

### 1,0014847)will be used. No data are available for assessing the responses of exposures to FPE. 

### In the absence ofthese data, ava fenoxaprop-ethylto the honey bee (MRID 00130641) will be used. Several toxicity studies have been submitted in re1 organisms. At 

### this time, only draft DERs are avai which data will be used for risk estimation. No data are available for assessing the responses estuarinelmarinefish to chronic exposures ofFP method will be used to estimate NOEC values for these taxa. Data are unavailable for assessing the effects of a.i./A) to species of terrestrial dicot plants. The magnitude lower (e.g.

### 0.1 Ibs a.i./A). 9.2. Preliminary Assessment of Exposure and Risks Preliminary estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) were using the GENEEC2Model. EECs relevant to terrestrial animals using T-REX and TerrPlant, respectively (seeAPPENDICES 

### F Based on preliminary aquatic EECs and the assumptions discussed abo risks at the highest labeled application rate are expected for all non-list animals (1.14 lbs a.i./A @ 

### 26 applications per year on conservation re expected for non-listed and listed birds and terrestrial mammals due t dosebased exposuresto FPE. Risks are expected as well for non-list monocots inhabiting semi-aquaticand dry areasbased on exposures maximum applicationrate. Becauseofthe potential risk from direct

### listed taxa described above, should exposureoccur, listed speciesin all t ma3potentially be affected indirectly due to alterationsin their habitat 

### (e.g.,food sources, and areas to reproduce). If 

### the planned ecological risk assessment continues to indicate that FPE either directly or indirectly, listed species or criticalhabitat, and therefo likely to adversely affect" determination,Wherrefinements will be m determining whether use ofFPE "may affect" a particular listed specie "likely to adversely affect" the species, or inthe case of designated ofthe pesticide may destroy or adversely modify any principle con critical habitat, and if so, whether the expected impacts are "likely critical habitat. The first step in the process is to improve the expo refiningthe geographic proximity ofFPE's use 

### and the listed spe there is no geographic proximity, this informationwould support will have no effect on the species or critical habitat. If after 

### co analysis the Agency determines that geographic proximity exi and any potential indirect effects ofthe pesticide use will be consistent with the Agency's Overview Document. The A the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine F Services'), consistent with the Services' regulations. I 

### I Ifthe screening level risk assessment identifies potential concerns for species, the next step for EPA and the Services would be to identify critical habitat arepotentially implicated. Analytically, the critical habitat can occur in either oftwo ways. First, the action area overlaps critical examine whether FPE's potential impacts on species indirectly or directlyaffect a agencies could determine which constituent elementsthat fall range ofthose listed species. Then EPA would determine 

### 9.3. Anticipated

### Data Needs 

### EFED is awaiting review ofthe majority of submitted environmental fate s diesfor FPE before recommending the request of any additional environmental fate data.

As stated above, there is uncertainty fenoxaprop-ethylto represent effects of organisms to 

### FPE. Although that FPE and 

### fenoxaprop-ethyl are of similar acute toxicities to currently no data to compare effects of FPE and this assessmentis conducted, if there is a lack available data for fenoxaprop-ethyl will be EFED recommends requiring 

### an acceptable vegetativevigor (Tier 1) study on dicjots. I

### mammals and birds exposed to FPE would decrease uncertainties associat with assuming that the two isomers are of equivalent toxicities to these organisms. EFED requiring acceptabletoxicity studies of mammals and birds exposed to FPE. interested in data related to chronic exposures (reproductive toxicity studi effects were observed in studies where mammals and birds were exposed to 00014847 and 00155304). The Agency will also conduct a search ofthe open literatureto ensure science is utilized. The Agency uses the ECOTOX mechanism for searchingthe open literature for integrates threepreviously independent into a system which includestoxicity literature, for aquatic life, terrestrial utilizes specific screening criteriato purposes. 

### 9.4. Other InformationNeeds 

# 1 There is specificinformationthat will assist the Agency in refiningthe eco assessment, including any species-specific effects determinations. The Ag obtaining the following information: 1. 

### confirmation on the following label information 

# 1 

# ~ a. sites of application I 

### b. formulations c. maximum applicationrates d. fi-equencyof application, application intervals, and applicationsper season e. geographic limitations on use 2. 

### use or potential use distribution (e.g., 

### acreage and uses) 3. 

### use history 4. median and goth percentile reported use rates (lbs. ailacre) from usbge d4a -

### national, state, and county I 

# ~ 5. 

### application timing (date offirst application and applicationinterval#)by dse -

### national, state, and county 6. 

### sub-county crop location data 7. usageluse information for non-agricultural uses (e.g., 

### golf courses, ornamentals) 8. directly acquired county-level usage data (not derived from state a. maximumreported use rate (lbs. a.i./acre) 

### from usage data

# -1 county b. percent crop treated -

### county c. median and 9oth percentilenumber of applications -

### county d. total pounds per year - 

### county 

# ~I 

# ~

### 10. REFERENCES The analysis plan will be revisited and may be revised depending upon thp data available inthe

Martin, H. 2000. Herbicide mode of action ood anti Rural Affairs. ISSN 1198-712X. Available online at: ps/factb/00-061.htm#lipid. 

### open literature and the information submitted by the public in response to Registration Review docket.

USEPA. 1997. Section 18 for the Use of Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl (TillerEC) on Barley 236605,236606. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of nlemorandunl to RD. Jul. 10, 1997. 

### the opening ofthe

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of ticide qrograrns. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofPrevention, Pesticides and ubstandes, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington DC. January 23,2004. USEPA. 2007. Personal email communication with Michael Doherty, Health Effects ~ijision. $clay 23,2007. 

## I I Submitted Studies Acc. # 4 12-03-0113. Moraski, R. 1983. EAB Review of 8340 -EUP -T. HED memo andurn, Nov. 3, 1983. WED Records Center Series 361 ScienceReviews -File R038903. 52 p. 

# i
MRID 130010.Hollander; Weigand (1982) Acute Oral Toxicity of HOE 3317 10 H (Aqtive Ingredient Techn.) to the Male Rat: Report No. 576/79;A24696. lteceived Aug 4, 1983 under 8340-EX-7; prepared by Hoechst AG, W. Ger., Somerville, NJ; CDL:07 1787-B) 

## I MRID 1300 1 1. Hollander, Weigand (1982) Acute Oral Toxicity of HOE 3317 1 0 H AT 03 (Active Ingredient Techn.) to the Female Rat: Report No. 577179; A24698. (Translation; unpublish d stud9 received Aug 4, 1983 under 8340-EX-7; prepared by HoechstAG, W. Ger., submittedby Ameri,an Hokchst Corp., Somerville, NJ; CDL: 071787-C) 

# 1 1 i MRID 130330. Fink, R.; Beavers, J. (1982)Acute Oral LD50: Bobwhite Quail: HOE-33 OHAT 203: Project No. 125-129. Final rept. (Un- published study received Aug 4, 1983 under Wildlife International, Ltd., submittedby AmericanHoechst Corp., MRID 130333. Fink, R.; Beavers, J. (1982) Eight-day Dietary LC50: Mallard Duck: HO Project No. 125-128. Final rept. (Un- published study received Aug 4, 1983 Wildlife International, Ltd., submittedby American Hoechst Corp., MRID 130334. Fink, R.; Beavers, J. (1982) Eight-day Dietary LC50: OH AT 203: Project No. 125-127. Final rept. (Unpublished studyreceived Aug 4, 1983 pre- pared by Wildlife International, Ltd., submittedby American Hoechst Corp., MRID 130641.Atkins, E. (1982) Bee Adult Toxicity Dusting Test Summary: Summary heel ~b. 729. (Unpublished study received Aug 4,1983 under 8340-EX-7;prepared by Univ. f Califl Riverside, Dept. of Entomology, submittedby American Hoechst Corp., Somerville,NJ; CDL:O 1796-4) 

# E

MRID 148474.Tesh, J.; Willoughby, C.; Whitney, J. (1985) Effects Upon ReproducTreated Continuously Throughout Two Successive Generations:Vols I, 84lHAG0871636.Unpublished study preparedby Life Science Research.MRID 155304. Roberts, N.; Phillips, C.; Anderson, A.; et al. (1985) The Effects of Diet ry Inclusion of Hoe 033 171--Active Ingredient Technical (Code: HOE 033 171OH ZD96 0001) on eproduction in the Bobwhite Quail: HRC Report No. HST 243185 162. Unpublished Hoechst rep0 A3 1296prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre plc. 22 1p. 

# 1
I 1 MRID 163779.McAllister. W.; Swigert, J.; Bowman, J. (1986) Acute Toxicity of HOE 3 17 1technical Substance to Sheepshead Minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus):Amended Static Acute Toxi Re&. #33977. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-ChemistryLaborato- ries, Inc. 60 MRID 41276904. Chetram,R. (1989) Tier 1: Seed GerminationISeedling Emergence: Study: HOE-046360: Lab Project Number: LR881110B. Unpublished study Laboratories, Inc. 155p. 1 MRID 41276905. Chetram, R. (1989) Tier 2: Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence Study: HOE-046360: Lab Project Number: LR89114B. Unpublished study Laboratories, Inc. 134p. I MRID 41276907. Chetram, R. (1989) Tier 2: Vegetative Vigor Project Number: LR89114A. Unpublished study prepared by MRID 42009604. Fischer, R. (1986) The Effect ofHOE 046360: Substance, Trout) in a Static Acute Toxicity Test (Sg347la,Method EPA): Lab 092E. Unpublished study prepared by Roechst AG. 20 p. MRID 42009607. Murphy, D.; Peters, G. (1991) TechnicalFenoxaprop-p-Ethyl (...): A ThroughAcute Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Mysid (Mysidopsisbahia): 101 A. Unpub- lished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 66 p. MRID 42009609. Heusel, R. (1991) Fenoxaprop-P-Ethyl: Substance, Technical (...): capricomutum (Green Alga) in an Algal Assay Bottle Test (Method EPA): A46010. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 55 p. MRID 42915001. Reynolds, J. 1992. Adsorption and Desorption of project # 91063. Unpublished studyperformed by by Hoechst Celanese Corporation, Somerville,NJ. Sep. 17, 1992(revised MRID 43066404. Carringer, R. and J. O'Grodnick. Aquatic Dissipation ofHOE 46360 Herbicide] (Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl) Applied to Rice in California. Lab. Study# (EAL). Unpublished study performed by American Agricultural Services, Dec. 8, 1993. 300 p. Analytical Laboratories,Winston-Salem, NC; submitted by Hoechst MRID 43400602. Buttner, B. 1992. HOE 046360-chlorophenyl-~-'4~: Aerobic Soil M tabolisbn Study at 11 and 21 "C. Lab. study # CB911017. Unpublished study performed by Hoechst Akti ngesellbchaft, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; submitted by AgrEvo USA Company, Wilmington, DE. Ja .23, 1992. 79 p. 

# t
MRID 44659601. Schollmeier, M., U. Eyrich, and A. Uhl. 1992. HOE 046360, (Fenox prop-p~ethyl); Determination of the Partition Coefficientn-OctanoliWater. Lab. study # CP92 131. ~b~ublished study performed by Hoechst AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; submitted by AgrEvo USA Clompany, Wilmington, DE. Nov. 11, 1992. 22 p. 

# i i 

# I MRID 44659602. Reynolds, J. 1993. HOE 046360 (Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl): Hydrolysiso in Water at pH 5,7,and 9. Lab. study # 93091. Unpublished study performed Inc., Plainsboro, NJ; submittedby AgrEvo USA Company, Wilmington, DE.MRID 44659603. Schollmeier, M. and U. Eyrich. 1993. Free Acid Metabolite of 6q (Fenoxaprop-pethyl): Determination of the Abiotic Hydrolysis as a Function ofpH. Lab CP9pl009. Unpublished study performed by Hoechst ScheringAgrEvo GmbH,Frankfin? am Mai ;s9bmittedby AgrEvo USA Company, Wilmington, DE. Aug. 11, 1993. 99 p. I I MRID 44664002. Stachura, B.; Ruff, D. (1998) Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl Technical 88.1% 1C97 0002: The 48 Hour Acute Toxicityto Daphnia magna, in a Static Number: BMM98W514: A6751 1:AZ 06135. Unpublished study P
. MRID 44664003. Christ, M.; Ruff, D. (1997) Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 1C970002: The Toxicity to Duckweed (Lemna gibba), BM9W502: A57845: AZ 07051. Unpublished study MRID 44676401. Schwab, W. 1993. HOE 046360-I4c,Photodegradationof Fenoxapr Sterile Water, and Distilled Water. Lab. study # CP911035. Unpublished Aktiengesellschaft,Frankfin-t amMain, Germany; submittedby AgrEvo Sep. 28,1993. 151 p. MRID 44768101. 1999. Rupprecht,J. The Adsorption/Desorptionof [I4c] AE Sediment. Lab. study # BM98E501. Unpublished study performedby NC; submitted by AgrEvo USA Company, Wilmington,DE. Feb. 22, MRID 415677077. Wink, 0. and R. Fischer. 1987. HOE 046360-'~~: Metabolism Study with Bluegill Sunfish, (Lepomismacrochirus). Lab. Unpublished study performed by Hoechst AG, Frankfurt am Main, Celanese Corporation, Somerville, NJ. Oct. 30, 1987. 83 p. I MRID 44786801. Stachura,B.; Ruff, D. (1999) Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl Technical: Effects o Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchusmykiss: Lab Project Number: BM98W5 13:COO prepared by AgrEvo Research Center. 168p. MRID 44786802. Boeri, R.; Magazu, J.; Ward, T. (1999)Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl Toxicity to the Mysid, Mysidopsisbahia in a Flow Through System: AG: BM98W519. Unpublished study preparedby T.R. Wilbury MRID 4508 1601. Volkel, W. 2000. I4c-AE~0463601'~~-AE F033171: Anaerobic Aquatic System. Lab. project # 725040. Switzerland; submittedby Hoechst Schering

### APPENDIX A: Current FPE Registrations and Uses, Including Maximum Application Rates andApplication Timing.

Barley 

# 1 264-649

Use Label Application Method 

# 1 Barley 

# 1 264-666 Application timing
ground, aerial

Conservation 264-647 Reserve (set aside) 3-6 leaf stage of barley

Not specified Application

Interval

(days)

-

Not specified Maximum Application RateIAp (Ibs a.i./A)

Not specified Rlax # apslyear

ground, aerial Not specified Not specified Conservation Reserve (set aside) Not specified 264-650

- Label states that the user can make 2 applications

per season for a maximum of 1.5pints product per season. The maximum single application rate

allowed by the label correspondsto 1.5pints ground, aerial
product per season. Applications allowed in: AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, MO, NC, NM, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA Not specified

Cotton

Ornamental - 432-958 100-1059 ground, aerial

to young, actively growing weeds "before, during or after planting or after harvest of sovbeansor cotton" Not specified Not specified ground, preemergenceto 3 aerial*"

- pp --- - tiller -

pp - - - - ground, to young, actively aerial** growing weeds 

# t Ornamental 432-959 Ornamental 432-950 ground, when weeds emerge aerial*"Us 

# 'T
ppiation Cn~s 

# -1

Method Interval Application apslyear (days) RateIAp (lbs a.i./A) Ornamental -

residential 1 Not specified Not specified Not specified Application rate determined using product density defined on MSDS. Label states that the user can make 2 applications

per season for a maximum of 1.5pints product per season. The maximum single application rate

allowedby the label corresponds to 1.5pints product per season. Peanuts

Rice Rice ground, aerial I Not specified

see label ground, aerial ground, aerial can be applied to rice from 2 leaf stage to late tillering stage when weeds emerge Maximum single application rate is not specified. 2 applications per season are permitted for a total of 0.136 lbs a.i./a. Right-ofWay ground, aerial*" Label gives recommended single application rates, with a maximum of 39 oz. Maximum single application rate in this table is relevant to

40 oz application. The total applicationper season is 120 oz (0.534 lbs a.i./A), which could conservatively be the maximum single application rate. ground, aerial*

### * aerial** preemergence to 3 tiller growing weeds -*i - specified 

### ( Soybeans ground, aerial see labelr--rTiTiaTicT*-m Method Interval lipp~ication apslyear Conllnents (days) Rate/Ap(Ibs a.i./A)

-- Turf - residential 432-958 I I

Turf - residential 

# ' ground, aerial 

### I

72 155-62 ground, 

# I when weeds emerge

# 1 14 ground, aerial

aerial*" Not specified NA

"before, during or after planting or after harvest of soybeans or cotton"

ground***- - to .-young, actively Not specified 

# 1growing weeds NA

ground, aerial*

### * ground, aerial**

Not specified preemergenceto 3 tiller to young, actively

growing weeds

ground*** Not specified NA NA

-- - Notspecified

Not specified Not specified Label states that the user can make 2 application! per season for a maximum of 1.5 pints product per season. The maximum single applicationrate

allowedby the label correspondsto 1.5 pints productper season. Applications allowed in: AL, AR, CT,DE, FL, GA,ID, IL, In, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, KO, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VT VA, WA, WV, WI, WY Label gives recommended single application rates, with a maximum of 39 oz. Maximum single application rate in this table is relevant to

40 oz application. The total application per season is 120oz (0.534 lbs a.i.lA), which could conservativelybe the maximum seasonal application rate.

Not specified Applicationratee-mind-using product density defined on MSDS.

# 1

use - ~~~~~plication Method timing

# 1 -AqkT- lnterval Application aps/year

# Tiis

# --I KatetAp (Ibs a.i,/A) Turf - residential Turf - residential Turf - residential Turf

### - residential Wheat Wheat Wheat Wheat Wheat *Maximumnumber of applicationsof maximum application rate per SEASON. **Application method is not defined.
-
. . ***It is assumed>-

- - '-rr-W-amotl-m&bdbMmhods. 72155-63 72155-66 72 155-77 72 155-78 264-649 264-650 264-666 264-654 264-655 ground*** ground*** ground*** ground**

### * ground, aerial ground, aerial ground, aerial ground, aerial ground, aerial Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified 3-6 leaf stage of wheat 3 leafto tillering

stage in wheat from emergence to 70 days from harvest

3 leaf to tillering

stage in wheat 3 leaf to 6 leaf stage in wheat Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified NA NA NA NA NA Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified 0.135 0.084 0.0825 0.082 0.0388 Not specified

Not specified

Not specified

Not specified 1



### * 1" 1

### * 1

### *
1 

### * For use in TX and OK only.

### APPENDIX 

### B: Past Ecological Risk Assessments for FPE. 

# i

2-14-1996 FPE

10-3-1997 FPE DWA 4-28-1998

I I Wheat, soybeans, cotton, peanuts, consellration reserve Barley in North Dakota

FPE's safener

3-25-1999 2-2-200 1
6-25-2007 All 

## I NIA tj 18

FPE 1818 FPE & its safener FPE Rice in Arkansas 

# 1Yes Barley in North Dakota

$18 $18 Yes

Grass for seed in 

## 1Yes Rice in Arkansas and Louisiana Oregon Yes Lcw

Ri.lk

lis to risk 

## 10 mammals, birds, fish, aq~atic plants from unaccepta5le only enjangerqd Little risk Potential including Ckronic :ed semi-aquatic in-vertebrates and aquatic safener. No expected

risk to listed species. to terrestrial plants. No

s~ecies concerns. to non-target animals. risk to terrestrial plants, 3 listed dicots in AR. risk to mammals; no manlmals identified. Rislc monocots and

### APPENDIX C: Comparison of available ecotoxicity data for FP qenoxapropethyl. Data are available for 4 aquatic species for comparison ofthe fenoxaprop-ethyl exposureto the same species. Acute 

### FPE and fenoxaprop-ethylresult in order ofmagnitude (Table C.l). When aquatic animals (fish and invertebrates), to moderately toxic to these organisms are identified in Appendix D.fenoxaprop-ethyl I 10

- 

### Figure C.1. 

### Acute toxicity data 

### (ECSOs) for aquat fenoxaprop-ethyl. "freshwater fish; **freshwater invertebrates; ***estuarine invertebrates Moderately toxic 

# . FPE I

### APPENDIX 

### D: Registrant submitted effects data 

### for TGAI 

### FPE ethyl. 

### Available aquatic toxicity data for FPE and fenoxaprop-ethyl are pres and 

### D.3, respectively. Availableterrestrial toxicity data for 

### FPE and are presented in Tables 

### D.2 and D.4, 

### respectively.

Leponzis macroclzir.us

(Bluegill Sunfish)
Oncol-lycusnzylciss

(Rainbow Trout)

Immobility EC50 48 >1.058 88.1 Daplznia magna

(Water Flea) Immobility ECSo 48 2.7** 95.9 Invalid 42009606 I I I I I Freshwater Invertebrates

I I I I I I I I EstuarineIMarinelnvertebrates t I I I I I I I Mortality Mortality MolTalit~

I I 

# 1 ,! 

# 1 9 Y 

# 1 88.1 

# I DER LC5o

LC50
44786801

Mysidopsis bahia

I I I I I Aquatic Pla~lts

96 96 96

Mortality Dry Weight I
Lemna gibba

(duckweed) NaviculapelIiculosa I I I I I I I 0.58** 0.46"" 0.58** 0.022""

LC50 NOEC LOEC

Frond number
% ldibition 95.6 95.5 95.5

96
28 (days)

Ec50 NOEC EC5o 1Acceptable Acceptable JuPPlemental

0.107 0.01095 0.03265

14 (days)

96 42009603 42009604 42009605

89.5

>3.00 ' 3.OO 2.5 I Acceptable

88.:.
88.: 42009607 (Draft DER I 44786802


# ~ ~'b~plemental

IDraftDER 44664003
44768105(Freshwater diatom) NOEC 1.6 I SkeIetonema costaturn EC5o >0.8 (~~~i~~ diatom) % Inhibition 96 88.:~ Draft DER 44768 104 NOEC 0.38 Anabaenaflos-aquae EC5o I

(Blue-green algae) % Inhibition 96 >0.78 88.1 

## raft DER 44768 103 NOEC I I I Sele~lastiwrn EC5o 0.43 I capvicornutum (Green % ~~hibi~i~~ 120 97.4 ~bpplemental 42009609 algae) NOEC 0.027 I I I 

# I** Based on nominal concentrations. I 

# I>0.1 lb a.i./A

<0.1 lb a.i./A

Onion Seedling Emergence

(Tier 2) ECzs NOEC Corn

I 

# I

I I I I I I 0.0025 lbs a.i./A <0.0006 lbs a.i./A 

### ---- 0.0779 lbs a.i./A N/A 0.08 17 lbs a.i./A <0.0480 lbs a.i./A Oat
Ryegrass N/A 20.0960 Ibs a.i./A 7.2
7.2

7.2 Vegetative vigor (Tier 2) Vegetative vigor (Tier 2) 7'2 (Disomer)

EC,, NOEC

EC,, NOEC Acceptable 4 1276907 Acceptable 4 1276905

I ~ccebtable

I Accebble I 4 1276907
41276907" J r I I I I I Freshwater Invertebrates I

(crayfich) - EstuarineIMarine Fish I I Daphnia magna

(Water Flea) Pr-ocam barus simulans

I I I I I I I I EstuarineiMarine Invertebrates Immobility Moi-tality
Cyprinodon variegatus (Sheepshead

minnow) Mysidopsis bahia Mortality

(Mysid shrimp) Mysidopsis bahia 

# ~ 

# 1 Mortality 

# 1 1-CSo

# 1 96 

# / ().lo7 

# 1 96.1 

# I hcceptable 42009608 (Mysid shrimp) 

# 1 1 EC50
LC5@

Mortality

- I I I I I I I Aquatic Plants I I 48
96

LCso

Cr-assostr-ea

vir-ginica (Eastern oyster)

Mercenaria nzei-cenaria (Quahog clam) 3.18 (1.79-7.36) 1.1 (0.74- 1.5)

96

Immobility Immobility

Selenastrurn ccvr-icornutum (Green algae) 96.0 96.?

>1.O

EC5@
ECSO

% Inhibition I Acceptable I JuPPlemental

96. up~lemental 

# I

48
48

EC50 00 130342
00154343

00 163779

0.25 (0.15-0.38) 0.20 (0.1 1-0.35)

7 (days) 96.5
96.5

73 1.9 (227.7- 6093.2) S

# 1 Pplemental I Acceptable

960c 00 163775 ACC: 40404702
jcceptable Acc: 40404704TABLE D.3. Summar) of submitted toxicity studies for aquatic organisins exp sed to fenoxaprop-ethyl (PC 128701). 

# 7

% Inhibition Ref. (3lRID)



### ** Based on nominal concentrations. 

### *** Not listed in OPPIN under this PC code. Study Classification



### * Draft DER available. EC5o NOEC

I I I I I % a. 

### . Mean conc,

units in mg a.i.11, (95%) c.i.) 5 (days) Duration

(hours)Endpoilit Species (common name) 0.65 0.104 Measure of Effect
96.8 4ccePtable 42009610Ratfus nonjegicus (laboratory rat) 2357 mg/kg (males) Mortality LD5o Technical 2500 mglkg (females) 

# 1
NOAEL

# 1

ppm 

# 1
97.2 

# 1 (0.25 mgikglday) Reproduction LOAEL 30 PPm Accgptable I 

# '

1 (1.5 mg'kglday) 

## I Birds I I I

I I I I II I Ten-estrialInvertebrates I I I I I I I Anus platyrhynchos (Mallard Duck) Japanese Quail (male) Japanese Quail (female) Colinus vil*ginianus (Northern Bobwhite

Quail) Mortality Mortality - Reproduction Mortality Mortality Mortality Mortality

. hatching LD5o LC50
LOAEC

LD5o LD.50 LD5o Lcso NOEC LOEC >25 10 mglkg >5620 ppm

180ppm (highest test conc.) >180ppm >5000 mglkg >5000 mgikg >25 10mglkg >5620 30 PPm 180ppm 96.650.9 96.650.9

95.5

Technical Technical 96.650.9 96.6k0.9

95.5 1ntalid I Acc$ptable 

## / Acceptable
I Suppllemental I Supplpmental I ~ccd~table Acceptable 

# 1 Acceptable 00130329 00130333 00155305
0013033 1 00130332 00130330 00130334 00155304

### APPENDIX E: Chemical Names, Structures, and Maximum 

### Re orted Amounts of Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl and its 

### Degradates. 

# I

- -- Table E.1. Maximrim Reported Amounts of Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl Degradation /Products. Degradate Maximum % of Applied Study Type [ MRII) AE F088406 63.6 (14 d) Hydrolysis 

## RID 44659602 65.8 (3 d) Aerobic soil metabolism 100.8 (2 d) Anaerobic aquatic metaboyism AE ~054014' 35.8 (2 1 d) Hydrolysis RID 44659602 8.2 (168 d) Aqueous photolysis RID 44676401 2.8 (27 d) Anaerobic aquatic metabolism AE F040356 4.9 (168 d) Aqueous photolysis IVIRID 4467640 1 6.8 (14 d) Aerobic soil metabolism MRID 43400602 5.5 (97 d) Anaerobic aquatic metabolism IdRID 4508 1601 -- AE F096918 42.0 (64 d) Anaerobic aquatic metabolism 

## im~ 4508 160 1 M1 (multiple compounds) 12.4 (168 d) Aqueous photolysis FdRID 4467640 1 M2 (unidentified) 6.4 (168 d) Aqueous photolysis MRID 44676401 M3 (unidentified) 10.2 (59 d) Aerobic soil metabolism 

# RID 43400602 I M4 (unidentified) 3.3 (7 d) Aerobic soil metabolism MRID 43400602 M5 (unidentified) 4.9 (168 d) Aqueous photolysis 

# 1 MRID 44676401 

### coz 14.5 (98 d) Aerobic soil metabolism PrlRID 43400602 29.9 (238 d) Anaerobic aquatic metabol sm MRID 4508 160 1 Unextracted residues 60.3 (98 d) Aerobic soil metabolism PARID 43400602 58.5 (163 d) Anaerobic aquatic metabol sm PARID 4508 1601 i AE F054014 accounted for up to 20.7% of the applied in unextracted residues dur metabolism study (MRID 43400602).-- Table E.2. Chemical IVames and Structures of Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl and its ~edradates. Chemical Name Structure

6-chloro-2,3-dihydro-benzoxazol-2- one

### APPENDIX 

### F: Preliminary EECs for aquatic habitats and RQs organisms.

Table F.2. Preliminary Tier I Aquatic EstimatedEnvironmental Concentrati ns (E C) of FPE Residues of Concern. Re~orted in urrlL (Calculated using GENEECZ). 

# 1 '"i Table F.1. Agency Levels of Concern (LOCs). ,

Conservation Reserve Conservation Reserve LOC 0.5 1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.05 -- 1 8 Risk Presumption Taxa Birds, mammals, aquatic animals

Cotton, Peanuts 

### j 

# ~ Acute Restricted Use Acute Endangered Species

Ornamental Rice Chronic Risk Birds, mammals, aquatic animals Birds, mammals Aquatic animals Birds, mammals Aquatic animals Plants

Right-of-way 1

Soybeans Turf Wheat 29.64 (assuming 700 700 700 26 app/yr) 3.42 (assuming 136 136 134 i i
2.392 (assuming 80.7 26 ~PP!Y~) 

# 1 80.5 

# 1 79.5 

# I

1.068 (assuming

## 1 39.8 139.8 139.2 

## /

At the Tier I 

### screening level, preliminary acute RQs exceed the aquatic animals at the highest labeled application rate of

### FPE applicationsper year on conservation reserves) (Table F.3). 

### exceed the listed LOC 

### for fi-eshwaterfish fi-omuse on ornal-nentals,rice, rights-of-way, and turf; for estuarinelmarine fish from use on listed estual-inelmarineinvertebratesfrom all labeled uses.Table F.3. PreliminaryRQs for acute exposures of aquatic organismsto FPE bold).' 

## 1 Barley 

## 1 0.0176 

## 1 0.00515 

## 1 0.00545 

## 1 / 0.0556 

## 1 Use pattern Conservation Reserve (26 app) Conservation Reserve (3 avv) FW Fish

Cotton Ornamental Peanuts Rice



### ' EECSwere based on peak values reported in Table F.2; toxicity values were rep0 ed in able 2. 

# t T EM Fish FW Invertebrates 2.26 0.439

Right-of-way Soybeans Turf Wheat 

### At the Tier I 

### screening level, preliminary chronic RQs exceed the animals at the highest labeled application rate ofFPE (1.14 lbs per year on conservation reserves) (Table 

### F.4). Preliminary EF1 Invertebrates

0.0164 0.260 0.0164

1.35

LOC 

### for fi-eshwaterfish and estuarine/marineinvertebrates fi-omuse 

### dn con&xvation 0.662 0.129

0.134 0.0 166 0.128 0.033548



### reserves, ornamentals, rice, rights-of-way, and turf; for freshwater on conservation reserves and rice; and for estuarine/marinefish reserves, ornamentals, and rice. 0.00480 0.0763 0.00480

0.396

Table F.4. Preliminary RQs for chronic exposures of aquatic organismsto FP in bold).' 0.700 0.136

0.0392 0.00488 0.0376 0.00983 7.54 1.89 0.00508 0.0807 0.00508

0.419 o.ob1s 0.823 0.0!518

4.28 0.0415 0.00516 0.0398 0.0104

ity values for FW inverteb 0.423 0.0526 0.406 0.106122

Use pattern Barley EM Invertebrates FW Fish 0.236 

# 1 0.0496 

# 1 0.109 0.489 FW Invertebrates EM Fish

### APPENDIX G: 

### Preliminary EECs for terrestrial habitats and 

### R s for ferrestrial organisms. 

# a
G.1. 

### Terrestrial animals I I 

### I T-REX is used to calculate dietary and dose-based EECs ofFPE Input values for T-REX are located in 

### Table 

### G.1. Upper-bound values are utilized to derive EECs for triticonazoleexposures to birds based on dietary- and dose-based exposures 

### (Table G.2). scenario allowed by the labels, which applies to uses on cons is used to characterize exposures to mammals and birds. A simulated. Considerationis given to different types of feeding and birds, including herbivores, insectivoresand granivores. 

### F three weight classes ofmammals (1

### 5,35 and 

### 1000 g) and bird considered. Toxicity values used to define effects to mammal chronic exposures are described in the effects characterizatio Due to a lack of data specificto FPE, effects data for fenox derivation of RQs.

Application Interval (days)

-. Number of Applications 26 

### ' defaultvalue FPE maximum Application Rate (lbs a.i./A) Half-life (days)

Acute dose-basedRQs are derived using the reported LDso2357 m potential for dose-based RQ values exceeding the listed species medium sized mammals consuming short grass as well as small broadleaf plants or small insects. The LOC is not exceeded for 1.14 

### --- 3s1

### tall grass, fruits, pods, tall grass, broadleaf plants, mammals consuming short using the reported NOAEC of 5 

### ppm (mgikg-diet). calculated using the NOAEL of 0.25 based exposures, the LOC for size classes and all mammal classes.

, , . ~ar~e/ (1000 g) 

### Table 

### G.3. Acute RQs for mammals of different size and feeding

Tall Grass Broadleafplantslsm insects Food Type Dose Based Small (15 g) 

### f Medium (35g) 

### f

103.50' 127.02' Seeds (granivore) 225.82' 27.21' 23.24'

- 

### ' Exceeds LOC (1) for chronic exposures to non-listed and listed terrestrial mammals. 897.96' 1102.04' 56.07'

P 12.46' 767.03' 941.36'



### Acute dose-basedRQ values are calculated using the value available quail (LDS0>25 10

### mg a.i./kg-bw). The acute risk LOC for non-listed potentially exceeded for small birds consuming short grass. The acute LOC is potentially exceeded for small and medium birds feeding on grasses, broadleaf plants and small insects (Table G.5). I 411.16' 504.61'



### ::'or the bobwhite speci s is

risk isted species short asses, tall 

# i

I I I I I

I I 

### ITable G.5. Dose-based RQ values for acute exposures to birds. 

### i Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleafplantslsm insects 

# - "otentially exceeds the acute listed speciesLOC for birds (0.11). 

# ~ I 100 g 

## I j1OOOg Food Type
Fruitslpodslseedsllginsects 

## I <0.04


### Acute dietary-based RQ values are calculated using the LCSOfor bob mglkg-diet). The acute risk LOC is potentially exceeded for listed grasses, broadleaf plants and small insects. Chronic dietary-based calculated using the bobwhite quail NOAEC (30 

### mglkg-diet). The exceeded for birds feeding on short grasses, tall grasses, broadleaf insects (Table 

### G.6). 20 g <0.711" 

## 1 <0.33' <0.402 '~otentiall~ exceedsthe acute LOC for birds (0.5). 

## 1 I <0.02



# 1 Short Grass <0.201 3b.64' 

## i 

# 1 <0.32' ~0.15~ <0.18~ 

## 1 <0.011 <0.10~ <0.051 <0.06

## i

fcod type. RQ Table G.6. Acute and chronic, dietary-based RQ s for birds by Food Type Tall Grass Broadleafplants/small insects 

# 1 'LOC 

### (i) exceeded for chronic exposuresionon-listed and listed bids. Fruitslpodslseedsllargeinsects


### Based on the informationabove, chronic exposures are potentially If the lowest annual maximum use is modeled in T-REX, LOCs mammals and birds are still exceeded (Table G.7). 

### This use year, applies to cotton and to peanuts (Table 

### 6). Acute RQ
<0.09 <O.lll Chronic
11.25~ 21.17' LOC (0.1) may be exceeded for acute exposures to listed birds. <0.01 d.35' 

## i

### G.2. Terrestrial Plants I TerrPlant is used to calculateEECs for non-target plant species i aquatic areas (Table 

### G.8). Selected model parameters include: 1.14 lbs a.i./A to represent the maximum single application rate runoff value of 0.01 (selected based on 

### FPE solubility,which is <10 mg/L). EECs for these crops correspond to aerial applicati which assumes 

### 5 % spray drift. EECs relevant to terrestrial pl concentrationsin drift and in iunoff. SinceEECs do not cons exposures could 

### be underestimated in cases where plants are applications of 

### FPE. Based on the single maximum applicati air, the LOC is exceeded for non-listed and listed species of semi-aquatic areas. The LOC for non-listed and listed dicot areas is potentially exceeded (Table G.9).

Coi~servation reserve 0.0684 0.171 I I