MEMORANDUM 

Subject: Registration Review - Preliminary Problem Formulation 

Assessment of Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 

I 

To: Kylie Rothwell, Team Leader 

Kevin Costello, Chemical Review Manager 

Reregistration Branch 

Special Review 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 of Pesticide Progtams 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

- 6- Through: Elizabeth Behl, Chief 'LJ"B/\W* 

Attached is the preliminary problem fornulation for the ecological risk as 

conducted as part of the Registration Review of the herbicide 

-&-~() 7 /1z187 

TEXT SEARCHABLE DOCUMENT
I 

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, Senior Agronomist 

Brian Kiernan, Biologist 

Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief 

U. S. 

1200 Pennsylvania 

Mail Code 750713 

Washington, DC 
1. STRESSOR SOURCE AND DISTRIBUTION 

Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl [FPE; (+)-ethyl is 

a selective 

Aryloxyphenoxypropionate herbicides are mobile in the phloem and 

of the purity. 

There are 18 Section 3 product registrations that 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 application rates, methods and timing, see Appendix A. 

of-way, and turf. FPE products are flowable and are 

applications by cheinigation are prohibited. For 1 

i 

I Silverado Herbicide 1 264-650 I conservation reserves, cottoq', peanurs, I 

I 

I 

I 

~ 

soybean$ I 

Table 1. Current FPE Section 3 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 + Phenoxaprop Ready-toHerbicide 

Triway + Phenoxaprop Ready-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 assessments that 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 of proposed uses 

cotton, peanuts, and conservation reserves (DP barcode 164986; 

1 Drinking Water 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 available for both FPE and 

endpoint (i.e. the lowest toxicity value) will be used, 

FPE or fenoxaprop-ethyl, for deriving RQs 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 ECOTOXicology database (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 

estuarinelmarine invertebrates, highly toxic (LC50 

toxic (LC5o > 1 - 10 mg/L) to freshwater invertebrates and 

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. Summaries of the most sensitive 

FPE are located in Table 2. I 
3.2. Effects to terrestrial organisms I I 

Lepomis 

macuoc~zi?~us LC50 96 0.3 1 ** 

Data are available to assess the toxicity of FPE 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 available to characterize chronic exposures of freshwater 

estuarinelmarine fish 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 0.01095 mg/L. The result is 

invertebrates. Application of this ratio to available acute 

mg/L), results in an estimated chronic NOEC value of 

rainbow trout exposed to FPE include a 

mg/L. The result is an ACR of 20.9 for fish. 

data for sheepshead minnow (>1.0 mg/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 seedling emergence test. Corn was 

tested monocots, with an EC25 and NOEC of 0.002 and <0.0006 Ibs 

toxicity data were submitted to assess the effects of FPE to the 

Available vegetative vigor toxicity data for monocots 

monocot species tested, with EC25 and 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 are used to fill 

toxicities of FPE 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 

of the 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'~~~~~~~/

I 
platjirhj~nchos Anas I Birds, terrestrial 

phase 

reptiles Coiinus I 

virgin ian us 

(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 180 ppm** 

LDro 1 >lo0 pglbee 

96.6k0.9 Acceptable 00130330 

96.660.9 Acceptable 001 30334 

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 adverse field 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 of the incidents were reports of crop 

following application of the herbicide directly to 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 effects t 

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 exposure to this herbicide was a 

factor to the fish mortality. 
For current assessments, exposure is assessed in terms of the 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 stable to photolysis, hydrolyze with a 

and biodegrade with a half-life of 4-9 months under a range of 

provisional rice paddy dissipation study indicated 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 of reported 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 

environmental fate characteristics of the two mixtures have not 

Chemical properties of FPE and environmental fate parameters 

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 are provisional 

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-p acid is poor, consisting of a hydrolysis study 

with extrapolated values for environmental temperatures (MRID 44659603) 

equilibrium study (MRID 44768 101 ), both of which are in review. 

gro 

T 

and cur/-ently in review. 

range/ = 1-3 days) to 

propanoate), 

and tdansport data set 

condu ted at 50-65OC 

an 4 a batch 

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. # 412-03-01 13 
Fish Bioconcentration Factor 

Table 5. General chemical properties and environmental fate parameters of fenoxaprop-p-ethyl (based on 

provisional sources). 1 

Soil-water distribution coefficient (Kd) '; 

Organic carbon partitioning coefficient (KOC)' 

ChemicaYFate Parameter 

Total residues Freundlich soil-water distribution 

coefficient (KF) *; Total residues Freundlich 

organic carbon partitioning coefficient (KFOC) 

Value 

Hydrolysis half-life; Total residues 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; 

Total residues half-life 

Terrestrial field dissipation half-life; 

Total residues half-life 

129 (edible) 

102 1 (non-edible) 

5 10 (whole fish) 

12.6 Llkg; 5420 Wkgoc 

176 Wkg; 6670 L/kgoc 

213 Llkg; 26200 L/kgoc 

Point estimates at 0.35 ppm dosing concentration. 

lln is the Freundlich exponent that describes curvilinearity. 

5.1 Transport and mobility I ' 

FPE is partially soluble in water, dissolving at 0.7 mg/L at 20°C and pH 

The compound is not expected to volatilize significantly due to its low 

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

and AE F054014 are mobile (Kd of 1.8 to 25 and 

provisional batch equilibrium study (MRID 4291 5001). 

(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 of the 
affinity to organic matter, as the coefficient of variation (CV) across four for KFoC (87%) is 

greater than that for KF (36%). In general, compounds, such as 

054014, with KF values less than five are mobile enough to 

concern in some soils. 

A provisional study specifically on 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 

of the 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 aquatic metabolism 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 degradate in 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 of FPE 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 of FPE 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 quantitation in flood water. FPE was detected at a 

maximum concentration of 60 ppb (0-3 inch depth; 1-2 DAT); acid was detected at 

a maximum concentration of 270 ppb (0-3 inch depth; 0.4 was detected at a 

maximum concentration of 70 ppb (0-3 inch depth, 4 of FPE parent, 

fenoxaprop-p acid, and AE F0540 14 were 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 are unavailable. 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 adjacent to use sites 

and/or discharged ground water. Within water bodies, the water column, 

water are all compartments of concern. Organisms of concern include 

fish, amphibians, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and plants. The 

intended to reflect population sustainability and community structure 

hence relate back to ecosystems at risk. If risks are expected for 

biological organization. 

screening-level assessment, then risks might be expected to 

7. ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS 

Assessment endpoints are defined as "explicit expressions of the actual value that 

is to be protected." Defining an assessment endpoint involves two 

valued attributes of the environment that are considered to be at 

defining the assessment endpoint in terms of an ecological 

aquatic invertebrates) and its attributes (i.e., survival and 

the assessment endpoints is based 

potentially at risk, the migration pathways of pesticides, 

receptors are exposed to 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 ecological risks 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 surrogate test species to estimate 

acute mortality and chronic reproductive, 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 determine the 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 iterative process of examining fate and 

risk hypothesis, has been refined to reflect the exposure pathways an 

risk is most likely. Based on a preliminary risk screening and past a 

FPE is highly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute exposure basis an 

mammals and birds when chronically exposed, 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 dietary route; con 

leaves or insects that 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 assessment used degradation half-lives calculated for 

risk concern in the submitted environmental fate studies. As shown 

lives increased fi-om short-moderate values for FPE alone to 

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 evaluated on theory and logic, 

models, or probability models (USEPA, 2004). For this 
where the stressor is the release 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 terrestrial species, FPE has the potential to reduce su 

and/or growth in terrestrial and aquatic organisms. 

In order for a chemical to pose an ecological risk, its residues of concern 

organisms at concentrations found to cause adverse effects. The 

which a pesticide moves in the environment fiom the application 

The assessment of ecological exposure in 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 potentially be exposed to FPE include terres a1 a$d semi-aquatic 

wildlife (i.e., mammals, birds, amphibians, terrestrial invertebrates, reptile and plants). In 

addition, aquatic receptors (e.g., freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and i verte rates, i P amphibians, and aquatic plants) may also be exposed as a result of potenti 1 miqtion of FPE via 

spray drift andlor runoff from the site of application to various aquatic env ronm nts. These data 

form the basis for identifying potential 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 

.Vertebrates and 

invertebrates 

:.teduced survival 

2r reproduction 

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the transport and effects of FPE in 

Dotted lines indicate exposure routes that were considered and not 

significantly to 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 of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of 

accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Environmental Protection Agency" ("Overview Document"; USEPA, 

I I 

A review of previously completed screening level risk assessments 

assessments of acute and chronic risk to non-target organisms has 

uses. Based on toxicity data and Risk Quotients (RQs) described 

for grass grown for seed in Oregon (the most 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 similar to the 
labels for all other uses (see Table 6). Furthermore, due to a lack of toxi 

to aquatic organisms, birds, and beneficial insects have not previously 

Agency. Appendix B shows the current status of risk assessments for 

9.1. Discussion of Assumptions 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 of label cla 'fications, assumptions 

will be made in the ecological risk assessments according to the i ormation in Table 6. 

Table 6. Assumptions related to maximum rates per application, 

I 

applications per year, intervals between applications, and maxim 

Available product labels identified maximum application rates per s ason, not per year. 

Table 6 also includes assumptions related to the maximum number f I seasyns per year. 

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 applications of FPE. 

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

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, including 72 155-62,72 155-63, 

and 72 1 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 residential uses. 

No data are available for assessing the responses of an es 

exposures to FPE. In the absence of these data, availabl 

fenoxaprop-ethyl to sheepshead minnow (MRID 001 63 

No acute, sub-acute or chronic toxicity data are availab 

the absence of these data, available data for the expos 

and quail (MRIDs 00130333,00155305,00130330, 

No acute or chronic toxicity data are available for exposures 

absence of these 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 of these data, ava 

fenoxaprop-ethyl to 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 

estuarinelmarine fish to chronic exposures of FP 

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 GENEEC2 Model. EECs relevant to terrestrial animals 

using T-REX and TerrPlant, respectively (see APPENDICES 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 

dose based exposures to FPE. Risks are expected as well for non-list 

monocots inhabiting semi-aquatic and dry areas based on exposures 

maximum application rate. Because of the potential risk from direct 
listed taxa described above, should exposure occur, listed species in all t ma3 potentially be 

affected indirectly due to alterations in 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 critical habitat, and therefo 

likely to adversely affect" determination, Wher refinements will be m 

determining whether use of FPE "may affect" a particular listed specie 

"likely to adversely affect" the species, or in the case of designated 

of the 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 

refining the geographic proximity of FPE's use and the listed spe 

there is no geographic proximity, this information would 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 of the 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 

If the screening level risk assessment identifies potential concerns for 

species, the next step for EPA and the Services would be to identify 

critical habitat are potentially implicated. Analytically, the 

critical habitat can occur in either of two ways. First, the 

action area overlaps critical 

examine whether FPE's potential impacts on 

species indirectly or directly affect a 

agencies could determine which 

constituent elements that fall 

range of those listed species. 

Then EPA would determine 

9.3. Anticipated Data Needs 

EFED is awaiting review of the majority of submitted environmental fate s dies for FPE before 

recommending the request of any additional environmental fate data. 

As stated above, there is uncertainty 

fenoxaprop-ethyl to 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 assessment is conducted, if there is a lack 

available data for fenoxaprop-ethyl will be 

EFED recommends requiring an acceptable vegetative vigor (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 

acceptable toxicity 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 001 55304). 

The Agency will also conduct a search of the open literature to ensure 

science is utilized. The Agency uses the ECOTOX 

mechanism for searching the open literature for 

integrates three previously independent 

into a system which includes toxicity 

literature, for aquatic life, terrestrial 

utilizes specific screening criteria to 

purposes. 

9.4. Other Information Needs 1 

There is specific information that will assist the Agency in refining the 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 application rates 

d. fi-equency of application, application intervals, and 

applications per 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 of first application and application interval#) 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. maximum reported use rate (lbs. a.i./acre) from usage data -1 county 

b. percent crop treated - county 

c. median and 9oth percentile number 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 in the 

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 (Tiller EC) on Barley 

236605,236606. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

nlemorandunl to RD. Jul. 10, 1997. 

the opening of the 

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of ticide qrograrns. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, 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 12-03-01 13. Moraski, R. 1983. EAB Review of 8340 - EUP - T. HED memo andurn, Nov. 3, 1983. 

WED Records Center Series 361 Science Reviews - File R038903. 52 p. i 

MRID 1300 10. Hollander; Weigand (1982) Acute Oral Toxicity of HOE 33 17 1 0 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 (1 982) Acute Oral Toxicity of HOE 33 17 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 Hoechst AG, W. Ger., submitted by 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 OH AT 203: Project 

No. 125-129. Final rept. (Un- published study received Aug 4, 1983 under 

Wildlife International, Ltd., submitted by American Hoechst 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., submitted by American Hoechst Corp., 

MRID 130334. Fink, R.; Beavers, J. (1982) Eight-day Dietary LC50: OH AT 203: 

Project No. 125-127. Final rept. (Unpublished study received Aug 4, 1983 pre- pared by 

Wildlife International, Ltd., submitted by 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, submitted by American Hoechst Corp., Somerville, NJ; CDL:O E 1796-4) 

MRID 148474. Tesh, J.; Willoughby, C.; Whitney, J. (1985) Effects Upon ReproducTreated Continuously Throughout Two Successive Generations: Vols I, 

84lHAG0871636. Unpublished study prepared by 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 033 171 OH ZD96 0001) on eproduction in the 

Bobwhite Quail: HRC Report No. HST 243185 162. Unpublished Hoechst rep0 A3 1296 prepared by 

Huntingdon Research Centre plc. 22 1 p. 

1 I 1

MRID 163779. McAllister. W.; Swigert, J.; Bowman, J. (1 986) Acute Toxicity of HOE 3 17 1 technical Substance 

to Sheepshead Minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus): Amended Static Acute Toxi Re&. #33977. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laborato- ries, Inc. 60 

MRID 41276904. Chetram, R. (1989) Tier 1: Seed GerminationISeedling Emergence: 

Study: HOE-046360: Lab Project Number: LR881110B. Unpublished study 

Laboratories, Inc. 155 p. 

1 

MRID 41276905. Chetram, R. (1989) Tier 2: Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence 

Study: HOE-046360: Lab Project Number: LR89114B. Unpublished study 

Laboratories, Inc. 134 p. 

I 

MRID 41276907. Chetram, R. (1989) Tier 2: Vegetative Vigor 

Project Number: LR89114A. Unpublished study prepared by 

MRID 42009604. Fischer, R. (1986) The Effect of HOE 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) Technical Fenoxaprop-p-Ethyl (...): A 

ThroughAcute Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia): 

10 1 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 study performed by 

by Hoechst Celanese Corporation, Somerville, NJ. Sep. 17, 1992 (revised 

MRID 43066404. Carringer, R. and J. O'Grodnick. Aquatic Dissipation of HOE 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 Coefficient n-OctanoliWater. Lab. study # CP92 13 1. ~b~ublished study 

performed by Hoechst AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; submitted by AgrEvo USA Clompany, 

Wilmington, DE. Nov. 1 1, 1992. 22 p. 

i i I 

MRID 44659602. Reynolds, J. 1993. HOE 046360 (Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl): Hydrolysis o 

in Water at pH 5,7, and 9. Lab. study # 93091. Unpublished study performed 

Inc., Plainsboro, NJ; submitted by 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 of pH. Lab CP9pl009. Unpublished 

study performed by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH, Frankfin? am Mai ; s9bmitted by AgrEvo 

USA Company, Wilmington, DE. Aug. 1 1, 1993. 99 p. I I 

MRID 44664002. Stachura, B.; Ruff, D. (1998) Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl Technical 88.1% 

1C97 0002: The 48 Hour Acute Toxicity to Daphnia magna, in a Static 

Number: BMM98W514: A6751 1: AZ 06135. Unpublished study 

P . 

MRID 44664003. Christ, M.; Ruff, D. (1997) Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 

1C97 0002: The Toxicity to Duckweed (Lemna gibba), 

BM9W502: A57845: AZ 07051. Unpublished study 

MRID 44676401. Schwab, W. 1993. HOE 046360-I4c, Photodegradation of Fenoxapr 

Sterile Water, and Distilled Water. Lab. study # CP911035. Unpublished 

Aktiengesellschaft, Frankfin-t am Main, Germany; submitted by AgrEvo 

Sep. 28,1993. 151 p. 

MRID 44768101. 1999. Rupprecht, J. The Adsorption/Desorption of [I4c] AE 

Sediment. Lab. study # BM98E501. Unpublished study performed by 

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, (Lepomis macrochirus). 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, Oncorhynchus mykiss: Lab Project Number: BM98W5 13: COO 

prepared by AgrEvo Research Center. 168 p. 

MRID 44786802. Boeri, R.; Magazu, J.; Ward, T. (1999) Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 

Toxicity to the Mysid, Mysidopsis bahia in a Flow Through System: 

AG: BM98W519. Unpublished study prepared by T.R. Wilbury 

MRID 4508 1601. Volkel, W. 2000. I4c-AE ~0463601'~~-AE F033 171: 

Anaerobic Aquatic System. Lab. project # 725040. 

Switzerland; submitted by Hoechst Schering 
APPENDIX A: Current FPE Registrations and Uses, Including Maximum Application Rates and Application 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 

Conservation ground, aerial Not specified Not specified 

Reserve (set aside) 

Not 

specified 

264-650 

- 

Label states that the user can make 2 applications 

per season for a maximum of 1.5 pints product 

per season. The maximum single application rate 

allowed by the label corresponds to 1.5 pints 

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 

sovbeans or cotton" 

Not specified Not 

specified 

ground, preemergence to 3 

aerial*" - pp - -- - 

tiller - pp - - - - 

ground, to young, actively t aerial** growing weeds 

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 1.5 pints product 

per season. The maximum single application rate 

allowed by the label corresponds to 1.5 pints 

product per season. 

Peanuts 

Rice 

Rice 

ground, aerial I Not specified 

ground, aerial see label 

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-of Way 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 application per 

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 label 
r--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 1 growing weeds 

NA 

ground, 

aerial* * 

ground, 

aerial** 

Not specified 

preemergence to 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 application rate 

allowed by the label corresponds to 1.5 pints 

product per 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 120 oz (0.534 lbs a.i.lA), which could 

conservatively be the maximum seasonal 

application rate. 

Not specified 

Application ratee-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 

*Maximum number of applications of 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 leaf to 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 1 Yes 

Barley in North 

Dakota 

$18 

$18 

Yes 

Grass for seed in 1 Yes 

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 of the 

fenoxaprop-ethyl exposure to the same species. Acute 

FPE and fenoxaprop-ethyl result in 

order of magnitude (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. Available terrestrial toxicity data for FPE and 

are presented in Tables D.2 and D.4, respectively. 

Leponzis macroclzir.us 

(Bluegill Sunfish) 

Oncol-lycus nzylciss 

(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 

EstuarineIMarine lnvertebrates 

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) 

Navicula pelIiculosa 

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 

1 Acceptable 

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 

I 

DraftDER 

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 

00 154343 

00 1 63779 

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: 

40404704 
TABLE 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 42009610 
Ratfus 

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 I I I 

Ten-estrial Invertebrates 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 

180 ppm 

(highest test conc.) 

> 180 ppm 

>5000 mglkg 

>5000 mgikg 

>25 10 mglkg 

>5620 

30 PPm 

180 ppm 

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 

00 13033 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 4467640 1 

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 160 1 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 Estimated Environmental 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 

applications per year on conservation reserves) (Table F.3). 

exceed the listed LOC for fi-eshwater fish fi-om use on 

ornal-nentals, rice, rights-of-way, and turf; for 

estuarinelmarine fish from use on 

listed estual-inelmarine invertebrates from all labeled uses. 
Table F.3. Preliminary RQs for acute exposures of aquatic organisms to 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 

' EECS were based on peak values reported in Table F.2; toxicity values were rep0 ed in able 2. t T 

FW Invertebrates EM Fish 

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 of FPE (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-eshwater fish and estuarine/marine invertebrates fi-om use 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/marine fish 

reserves, ornamentals, and rice. 

0.00480 

0.0763 

0.00480 

0.396 

Table F.4. Preliminary RQs for chronic exposures of aquatic organisms to 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 of FPE 

Input values for T-REX are located in Table G.1. Upper-bound 

values are utilized to derive EECs for triticonazole exposures 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. Consideration is given to different types of feeding 

and birds, including herbivores, insectivores and granivores. F 

three weight classes of mammals (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 specific to FPE, effects data for fenox 

derivation of RQs. 

Application Interval (days) -. 

Number of Applications 26 

' default value 

FPE maximum Application Rate (lbs a.i./A) 

Half-life (days) 

Acute dose-based RQs are derived using the reported LDso 2357 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 

Broadleaf plantslsm insects 

Food Type Dose Based 

Small (15 g) f Medium (35 g) 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' 

P 

56.07' 

12.46' 

767.03' 

941.36' 

Acute dose-based RQ 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 

I 
Table G.5. Dose-based RQ values for acute exposures to birds. i 

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf p lantslsm insects - 

"otentially exceeds the acute listed species LOC for birds (0.11). ~ 

I 

Food Type 100 g I j1OOOg 

Fruitslpodslseedsllg insects 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~ exceeds the 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 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 

1 'LOC (i) exceeded for chronic exposuresio non-listed and listed bids. 

Fruitslpodslseedsllarge insects 

Based on the information above, 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 calculate EECs 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 

concentrations in drift and in iunoff. Since EECs 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