[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32256-32258]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11681]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2016 / Proposed
Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6671; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-164-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A300B4-203 and A300B4-2C airplanes. This proposed
AD was prompted by cracks found on pylon side panels (upper section) at
rib 8. This proposed AD would require a detailed inspection for crack
indications of the pylon side panels, a high frequency eddy current
(HFEC) inspection to confirm any crack indications, modification of the
pylon side panels, and repetitive inspections and repair if necessary.
We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the pylon
side panels. Such cracking could result in pylon structural failure and
in-flight loss of an engine.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6671; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-6671;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-164-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2015-0201, dated October 7, 2015 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A300B4-203 and A300B4-2C airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Cracks were found on pylon side panels (upper section) at rib 8
on Airbus A300, A310 and A300-600 aeroplanes equipped with General
Electric engines. Investigation of these findings indicated that
this problem was likely to also affect aeroplanes of this type
design with other engine installations.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
reduced strength of the pylon primary structure, possibly resulting
in pylon structural failure and in-flight loss of an engine.
    Prompted by these findings, EASA issued AD 2008-0181 [which
corresponded to FAA AD 2010-06-04, Amendment 39-16228 (75 FR 11428,
March 11, 2010; corrected May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23572))] to require
repetitive detailed visual inspections and, depending on aeroplane
configuration and/or findings, the accomplishment of applicable
corrective action(s).
    Since that [EASA] AD 2008-0181 was issued, a fleet survey and
updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses have been performed in
order to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal
(ESG2) exercise. The results of these analyses have shown that the
risk for these aeroplanes is higher than initially determined and
consequently, the threshold and interval were reduced to allow
timely detection of these cracks and the accomplishment of
applicable corrective action(s).
    Consequently, EASA AD 2013-0136 was published to supersede EASA
AD 2008-0181 and to require the inspections to be accomplished
within reduced thresholds and intervals. Afterwards, [EASA] AD 2013-
0136 was mistakenly revised [EASA AD 2013-0136R1 corresponds to FAA
AD 2015-26-06, Amendment 39-18354 (81 FR January 14,2016)] to reduce
the Applicability, because it was considered at the time that
aeroplanes on which Airbus mod 03599 was embodied, were not
concerned by the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0136.
    Since EASA AD 2013-0136R1 was issued, a more thorough analysis
determined that post-mod 03599 aeroplanes could be affected by this
unsafe condition after all.
    [During] further deeper review, a list of nineteen A300
aeroplanes was identified as

missing in the [EASA] AD 2013-0136R1 applicability, (aeroplanes
post-mod 03599).
    For the reasons described above this AD retains the requirements
of EASA AD 2013-0136R1 and mandates these requirements for the 19
missing A300 aeroplanes MSNs.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6671.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated
May 26, 2015. The service information describes procedures for an
inspection for crack indications of the pylons, a HFEC inspection to
confirm cracking, modification of the pylon side panels, and repairs if
cracks are found.
    Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A300-54-0081, dated August
11, 1993. This service information describes installation of a doubler
on the left pylon 1 and right pylon 2, on pylon side panels (upper
section) at Rib 8.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and Service Bulletin

    Unlike the procedures described in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-
0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015, this proposed AD would not
permit further flight if cracks are detected in the pylon or pylon side
panels. We have determined that because of the safety implications and
consequences associated with that cracking, any cracked pylon or pylon
side panel must be repaired or modified before further flight. This
difference has been coordinated with EASA.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                         Labor cost             Cost per product     Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of the pylon side panels  30 work-hours x $85 per      $2,550 per inspection   $10,200 per inspection
                                      hour = $2,550 per            cycle.                  cycle.
                                      inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that
would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We
have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this
repair.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                         Labor cost                Parts cost           Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crack Repair.......................  56 work-hours x $85 per      $3,910 per repair.....  $8,670 per repair.
                                      hour = $4,760 per repair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-6671; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-
164-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 7, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300B4-203 and A300B4-2C
airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers
210, 212, 218, 220, 227, 234, 235, 236, 239, 247, 255, 256, 259,
261, 274, 277, 292, 299, and 302.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/
Pylons.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by cracks found on pylon side panels (upper
section) at rib 8. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct
cracking of the pylon side panels. Such cracking could result in
pylon structural failure and in-flight loss of an engine.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Detailed Inspection of Pylons and Corrections

    At the applicable time specified in Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015: Do a detailed
inspection for crack indications of the pylons 1 and 2 side panels
(upper section) at rib 8, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04,
dated May 26, 2015.

(h) Crack Confirmation

    If any crack indication is found during the inspection required
by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, do a high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to confirm the crack, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015.

(i) Follow-On Actions for No Crack/Indication

    If the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD reveals
no crack indication, or if the HFEC inspection specified by
paragraph (h) of this AD confirms no crack: Do the actions specified
in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD
at the applicable time specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-
0075, Revision 04, dated May 26, 2015.
    (2) At the applicable time specified in Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-54-0081, dated August 11, 1993: Modify the pylons, in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin 300-54-0081, dated August
11, 1993. Thereafter, repeat the HFEC inspection specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD at the applicable interval specified in
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 04, dated May 26,
2015, and repair any crack before further flight using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

(j) Follow-On Actions for Crack Findings

    If any crack is confirmed during the inspection required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, repair before further flight using a
method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using the service
information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this
AD.
    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, dated August 11, 1993,
which was incorporated by referenced in AD 2010-06-04, Amendment 39-
16228 (75 FR 11428, March 11, 2010); corrected May 4, 2010 (75 FR
23572).
    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 01, dated
November 9, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 02, dated
June 26, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-0075, Revision 03, dated
March 27, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA;
or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0201, dated October 7,
2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6671.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 11, 2016.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-11681 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 54573]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19467]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-134-000.
    Applicants: ID Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of ID Solar 1, LLC of
Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 8/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20160810-5185.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2398-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-08-10_SA 2936 Ameren
Illinois-Norris Electric Coop Switching Agreement to be effective 8/2/
2016.
    Filed Date: 8/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20160810-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2399-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Rate Schedule No. 64 SPPC and Mt
Wheeler EPC Termination to be effective 8/11/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/10/16.
    Accession Number: 20160810-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 10, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19467 Filed 8-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

	OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

	& POLUTTION PREVENTION

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

Date:  09/12/2012

SUBJECT:	Quinclorac on Rhubarb and Low Growing Berries (except Strawberry).   Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data.

		Residue Chemistry Considerations for Registration Review of Quinclorac and Quinclorac Dimethyl Amine.

PC Codes:  028974, 128974	DP Barcode:  D397719, 404569, 404912

Decision No.: 459055 and 468877	Registration No.: 42750-169

Petition No.:  1E7957	Regulatory Action:  Section 3 Registration and Registration Review

Risk Assessment Type:  NA	Case No.:  7222

TXR No.:  NA	CAS No.:    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 84087-01-4, 84087-48-9

MRID No.:  48697501, 48697502	40 CFR:  180.463

From:	        	Susan V. Hummel, Chemist

		Gary Otakie, Chemist

                    	Risk Assessment Branch 4, Health Effects Division (7509P)

Through:     	Thurston G .Morton, Chemist

                    	Risk Assessment Branch 4, Health Effects Division (7509P)

To:	        	Sidney Jackson and Barbara Madden, PM#5

	        	RIMUERB, Registration Division (7505P)

	        	Erik Kraft and Kable Davis, PM#25

	        	Herbicide Branch, Registration Division (7505P)

		Wilhelmina Livingston, RM#60

		Pesticide Reevaluation Division (7508P)

Executive Summary

Quinclorac [3,7-Dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid] is a selective post-emergent herbicide used for the control of various annual grasses and broadleaf weeds in barley, wheat, rice, sorghum and grasses grown for seed.  Permanent tolerances have been established for residues of quinclorac per se in/on barley, rice, sorghum and wheat at levels ranging from 0.1 ppm in wheat straw to 1200 ppm in aspirated grain fractions [40 CFR §180.463(a)].  Permanent tolerances have also been established for residues of quinclorac, per se, in/on livestock commodities at levels ranging from 0.05 to 1.5 ppm.  In addition, there is a tolerance for residues quinclorac on cranberry in §180.463(b), as a result of a Section 18 emergency exemption at 15 ppm.

The Inter Regional Project No. 4 (IR-4) has submitted a request for tolerances and registration of quinclorac on low growing berries, except strawberries, subgroup 13-07H, and rhubarb.  Tolerances were proposed for residues of quinclorac in low growing berries, except strawberries, subgroup 13-07H, at 1.1 ppm, and rhubarb at 0.4 ppm.

A new physical form of quinclorac (EPA Reg. No. 7969-272) has recently been registered: Drive XLR-8 (Reg. No 7969-272), Paramount L Herbicide (Reg. No. 7969-315), Facet L Herbicide (EPA Reg. No. 7969-316), and Quinclorac 1.5 DMA (Reg. No 42750-224).  These products are DMA (dimethylamine) salt forms of quinclorac.  These products were not proposed for the new uses of quinclorac, proposed in the current petition, but are registered for use on rice and ornamental turf.

The qualitative nature of quinclorac residues in plants was considered adequately understood for the currently registered crops, based upon the metabolism studies on rice, sorghum, and wheat.  Additional metabolism data are needed on a fruit commodity to support use on berries.  Further metabolism data may be needed if uses are further expanded.  The qualitative nature of quinclorac residues in livestock is also understood based upon the adequate goat and poultry metabolism studies.  The Agency had concluded that parent is the only residue of concern in both plant and livestock commodities for purposes of the tolerance expression and risk assessment.  However, the official enforcement method includes a methylation step, so the methyl ester of quinclorac is implicitly included as a residue of concern.

An adequate enforcement method is available for enforcing quinclorac tolerances on plants and livestock, a GC/ECD method that uses methylation with diazomethane.  There are available FDA   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 multi-residue method (MRM) testing data that indicate that quinclorac is completely recovered using Protocol B.

Adequate analytical methods are available for determining residues of quinclorac, per se,  in/on plant parts, an LC/MS/MS method (BASF Method A9708/1).  The validated LOQ for quinclorac is 0.05 ppm.  However, this method would not determine the methyl ester of quinclorac, which is implicitly included in the residue of concern.

Adequate cattle and poultry feeding studies are available and support the use of of quinclorac.

Adequate rotational crop studies are available and support the use of quinclorac.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Regulatory Recommendations and Residue Chemistry Deficiencies

860.1200 Directions for Use.

Cranberry is an aquatic crop, and as such, a label restriction is needed regarding the use of treated rice and cranberry fields for aquaculture.  Alternatively, the petitioner may determine residues in catfish and crayfish raised in treated fields and propose tolerances for these commodities, if necessary.  The label provided for Quinclorac/QuinStar 4-L does not contain any restriction against aquaculture.

For Registration Review, the PM must ensure that all labels for quinclorac on rice and cranberry contain a label restriction restricting the use of treated rice and cranberry fields for aquaculture.

860.1300 Nature of the Residue in Plants

  While the metabolism of quinclorac is adequately understood with regard to the currently registered uses, there are no plant metabolism data for quinclorac on commodities similar to cranberry.

These data are not being required at this time.  However, any further expansion of the use of quinclorac to other commodities grown on larger acreages than rhubarb and cranberry, will trigger a requirement of additional metabolism data.

860.1400 Water, Fish, and Irrigated Crops

Data on catfish and crayfish are required, or the label must prohibit use of treated water from rice and cranberry fields for aquaculture.

For registration review, the PM must ensure that all quinclorac labels with uses on rice and cranberry contain such a restriction.

860.1480 Meat, Milk, Poultry, and Eggs

Tolerances in livestock commodities are not pertinent to the current petition.  However, tolerances in livestock commodities will be changed in connection with Registration Review.

860.1500 Crop Field Trials

Field trial data are adequate to determine quinclorac, per se.  IR-4 should note the current guidance for differentiating field trial sites.

Field trial data are adequate to support the existing uses of quinclorac on rice, grain sorghum, barley (imported), and pasture and range grasses.

The established tolerance on aspirated grain fractions should be revoked as it is not needed.  The tolerance on rice straw may be revoked, as rice straw is no longer considered a significant livestock feedstuff.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 860.1650 Submittal of Analytical Reference Standards

 Albaugh must supply the Pesticide Repository with analytical standards for quinclorac and the quinclorac methyl ester.

An analytical standard for the quinclorac DMA salt must be submitted to the EPA National Pesticide Standards Repository.

860.1550 Proposed Tolerances

A tolerance for residues of quinclorac on rhubarb may be set at 0.5 ppm.  A  tolerance for residues of quinclorac on low growing berries, except strawberries, subgroup 13-07H, may be set at 1.5 ppm.  At the time of publication of this tolerance, the tolerance for residues quinclorac on cranberry in § 180.463(b) should be revoked, since the tolerance being set will cover the Section 18 use.

In addition, IR-4 should be reminded to use the OECD tolerance calculation procedures.

Revisions to current tolerances for registration review are documented in Table 7.

Background

Quinclorac is a herbicide for the selective post-emergent control of various annual grasses and broadleaf weeds.  Quinclorac is adsorbed via the root system and partially through the foliage and acts as an inhibitor of cell wall synthesis.  The nomenclature of quinclorac and quinclorac DMA salt are summarized in Table 1, and the physicochemical properties of are summarized in Table 2.

Common name	Quinclorac, DMA salt

Company experimental name	BAS 514 51H

IUPAC name	3,7-dichloroquinoline-8-carboxylic acid, DMA salt

CAS name	3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid, DMA salt

CAS registry number	84087-48-9

Molecular weight	287.2

End-use product (EP)	Drive®XLR8 Herbicide, EPA Reg. No. 7969-272; Paramount® L Herbicide, EPA Reg. No. 7969-GRA; Facet L Herbicide, EPA Reg. No. 7969-GRL

Note:  Physicochemical properties of the technical grade quinclorac are reported below.

Only several physicochemical properties of the DMA salt of quinclorac are available.

Table 2.		Physicochemical Properties of the Technical Grade Quinclorac.

Parameter	Value	Reference

Melting point/range	~269°C	D342446, M. Doherty, 9/11/07

pH	3.4-3.5	RCB 3283 S. Hummel, 2/26/88

Density	~560 g/L	D342446, M. Doherty, 9/11/07

Water solubility (20°C)	0.0064 g/100 mL

	Solvent solubility (g/100 mL at 20°C to 25°C)	ethanol	0.2 	toluene <0.1

Lutrol®	<0.1	acetone	0.2

olive oil	<0.1	n-octanol	<0.1

acetonitrile	<0.1	1,2-propandiol	<0.1

ethyl acetate	0.1	dichloromethane	<0.1

ethyl ether	0.1	n-hexane	<0.1

	Vapor pressure (20°C)	<1.0×10-7 mbar (<0.75×10-7 Torr)

	Dissociation constant, pKa	4.34 at 20°C

4.35 at 25°C

	Octanol/water partition coefficient, log POW (20°C)	1.76 at pH 4

-0.74 at pH 7

 3.74 at pH 10

	UV/visible absorption spectrum	314 nm, 300 nm, 278 nm (95% ethanol) MRID 48051092

Table 2.		Physicochemical Properties of the Quinclorac, DMA Salt.

Parameter	Value	Reference

Melting point/range	NA

	pH	NA

	Density	NA

	Water solubility (20°C)	NA

	Solvent solubility (g/100 mL at 20°C to 25°C)	NA

	Vapor pressure (20°C)	NA

	Dissociation constant, pKa	4.33 ± 0.15  (Temperature not reported) MRID 48051092

Octanol/water partition coefficient, log POW (20°C)	NA

	UV/visible absorption spectrum	314 nm, 300 nm, 278 nm (95% ethanol) MRID 48051092

In addition, the registrant has submitted a comparative study of the dissociation behavior of quinclorac and its dimethylamine salt (MRID 48051902, “Comparative study of the Dissociation Behavior of Quinclorac Acid and its Dimethylamine Salt”).  The UV/Vis spectra of quinclorac TGAI and the UV/Vis spectra and dissociation constant of quinclorac DMA were presented.  The results of the study show that in aqueous solutions, the chemical form of the quinclorac dimethylamine salt is the same as that of the quinclorac acid form.

860.1200 Directions for Use

There are currently five quinclorac EPs registered to BASF in the U.S. for use on food/feed crops, three of which contain only quinclorac and two that are multiple active ingredient (MAI) formulations.  The single active ingredient formulations include a 50% WP and a 75% DF for use on rice (EPA Reg. Nos. 7969-93 and 7969-313) and a 75% DF for use on wheat, sorghum, and grasses grown for seed (EPA Reg. No. 7969-113).  The two MAI formulations are both 75% DF formulations; one contains 15% quinclorac and 60% 2,4-D and is registered for use on wheat and sorghum (EPA Reg. No. 7969-152), and the other contains 62% quinclorac and 13% imazethapyr and is registered for use on rice.

Proposed new uses.  IR-4 is proposing use of the Quinclorac 4-L AG (Reg. No. 42750-169), registered to Albaugh, Inc., containing 3.8 lb quinclorac/gallon, in connection with the current petition.

Table 3.	Summary of Proposed Directions for Use Quinclorac 4-L AG

Formulation

[EPA Reg. No.],

a.i. 	Applic. Timing, Type, and Equip. 1	Applic. Rate

(lb ai/A)	Max. Seasonal Applic. Rate

(lb ai/A)	PHI

(days)	Use Directions and Limitations 2

Rhubarb

Quinclorac 4-L

42750-169,

3.8 lb/gal DF, Quinclorac	Foliar ground application in 10 gal water, timing not specified.  A second application at least 30 days after the first application	0.37	0.75	30	Crop oil concentrate permitted.

Low Growing Berries, except Strawberry, subgroup 13-07H

Quinclorac 4-L

42750-169,

3.8 lb/gal DF, Quinclorac	Foliar ground application in 10 gal water, timing not specified.  A second application at least 30 days after the first application	0.50	1.0	60	Adjuvants not mentioned.

Conclusions.  Cranberry is an aquatic crop, and as such, a label restriction is needed regarding the use of treated rice and cranberry fields for aquaculture.  Alternatively, the petitioner can determine residues in catfish and crayfish raised in treated fields and propose tolerances for these commodities, if necessary.  The label provided for Quinclorac/QuinStar 4-L does not contain any restriction against aquaculture.

Existing Uses.  Existing uses of quinclorac include use on rice, grain sorghum, wheat, pasture and rangeland grasses, and use on barley in Canada for import into the US.  The dimethylamine salt of quinclorac has recently been registered for use on rice, grain sorghum, and wheat.

The current uses are as described under 860.1500 Field Trials.

860.1300 Nature of the Residue - Plants

D241204, J. Stokes, 11/6/1998

The qualitative nature of quinclorac residues in plants was considered adequately understood for the currently registered uses, based upon the metabolism studies on rice, grain sorghum, and wheat.  In each of these studies, the major 14C-residue in/on various matrices was identified as parent compound.  Based on the metabolite profiles observed in these studies, quinclorac undergoes hydroxylation of the quinoline ring of the parent, followed by conjugation with glucose and other biologically available compounds at the hydroxlated site.   Some radioactive residues are incorporated into the high molecular weight natural products.  Based on the above studies, HED concluded that parent is the only residue of concern in plant commodities for purposes of the tolerance expression and risk assessment.  However, all three metabolism studies are on grain commodities.  A 4th metabolism study, on canola, is available but has not been reviewed.

Metabolism in Rice.  (MRID 41063534).  The metabolism of 14C-ring labeled quinclorac in rice plants was studied under growth chamber and field conditions.  Growth chamber plants were treated at 1.4 lb.ai/A 14C-BAS 514H, an exaggerated dosage rate, at the four leaf stage of plant development. Growth-chamber rice plant samples were harvested for analysis at PHI=97 days. Field plants were treated at 0.75 lb/A 14C-BAS 514H, at the 3-5 leaf stage. The treatment level of field plants simulates the expected herbicide use rate. Field rice plants were harvested at PHI= 28 and 118 days.  Greater than 84% of the TRR in rice grain or straw was identified as the parent compound, quinclorac.

Metabolism in Sorghum:  (MRID #44322211).  Preemergence and post emergence applications of radiolabeled quinclorac were made to a confined sorghum plot.  The soil was a loamy sand soil with low organic matter.  Treatment levels were 0.47 lb ai/A preemergence (0 DAT) and 0.45 lb a.i./A postemergence (25 DAT) for a total of 0.92 lb ai/A.  Crop samples were collected and analyzed at various stages of maturity, including forage samples collected at twenty-five days after the postemergence treatment, and mature stover and grain collected at the final harvest (120 DAT).

TABLE 4.  Distribution and Identification of Residues from Sorghum RACs Treated at 0.92 lb a.i./A.

RAC	Radioactive Residues

Identified 	Unidentified	Residuum

quinclorac	quinclorac methyl ester	Soluble polars	Organosoluble

ppm	%TRR	ppm	%TRR	ppm	%TRR	ppm	%TTR	ppm	%TRR	ppm

forage	4.01	73.4	2.94	3.6	0.145	18.7	0.750	4.7	0.188	<1	<0.01

fodder	0.87	21.5	0.186	5.9	0.051	52.4	0.455	19.4	0.169	<1	<0.01

grain	0.83	73.5	0.610	1.7	0.014	5.5	0.044	6.6	0.055	<1	<0.01

The radioactive residues of quinclorac found in sorghum following typical agricultural practices consist predominantly of parent compound.  A minor metabolite, the methyl ester of quinclorac, is found in all tissues, but always at less than 10% TRR.   A lower percentage of the residue in sorghum fodder was found to be quinclorac, but the majority of the residue was soluble polar compounds.  The current analytical methodology (BASF Method No. A8902) employs a similar acetone extraction step as used in the above extractions.  Therefore, the accountability of the residues is high.

Metabolism in Wheat:   (MRID #44322207).   The test substance used in this study was quinclorac (labeled at the 3 position) at two application rates (0.112 lb ai/A (0.45X the proposed  rate) and 0.446 lb ai/A (1.8X the proposed rate)).  Only the higher application rate is presented in the table below.  Plants were grown in greenhouse conditions and sprayed 22 days after planting, when they were in the 3 to 5 leaf stage.  Forage samples were collected at a 37-day PHI, straw and grain at a PHI of 92 days.

TABLE 5.  Distribution and Identification of Residues from Wheat RACs Treated at 0.446 lb ai/A Quinclorac.

RAC	Radioactive Residues

ppm	Identified	Unidentified	Unextracted Marc

quinclorac	quinclorac methyl ester	aqueous acetone soluble	hydrolyzable non-hydrolyzable

%TRR	ppm	%TRR	ppm	%TRR	ppm	%TRR	ppm	%TRR	ppm

forage	13.1	45.1	5.9	6.4	0.84	38.4	5.1	10.3	0.34	1.9	0.06

straw	8.2	22.4	1.8	12.6	1.0	45.1	3.7	12.4	0.23	3.3	0.06

grain	3.9	68	2.7	3.7	0.15	17.2	0.68	3.3	0.04	0.3	<0.01

The primary path by which plants metabolize quinclorac is through the hydroxylation of the quinoline ring of the parent, followed by the conjugation of glucose and other biologically available compounds at the hydroxlated site.  Ultimately, some radioactive residues are incorporated into the high molecular weight natural products.

The petitioner, IR-4, requests a waiver from the requirement of another metabolism study based on the following.  In the studies to date it has been shown that in plants the primary path by which quinclorac is metabolized is through hydroxylation of the quinolone ring of the parent, followed by the conjugation of glucose and other biologically available compounds at the hydroxylated site.    These results were similar for all quinclorac metabolism studies submitted to date.

Rhubarb and cranberry are very low acreage crops.  Cranberry is commercially grown on just over 40,000 acres, and Rhubarb is commercially grown on approximately 2,000 acres in the US (based on 2002 census of Agriculture).

In addition, other related quinoline compounds, such as quinoxyfen have shown similar metabolism results in that the parent is the primary residue component (D276835, 3/26/2003, G. Kramer) when conducted on a wide variety of plant matrices (cucumber, grape, sugarbeet, and tomato).  In these studies, quinoxyfen was the primary residue component and other remaining compounds were incorporated into natural plant constituents.  In cucumber and tomato, unchanged quinoxyfen remained largely on the surface of treated plants.  The presence of multiple unidentified polar residues suggests that metabolism of quinoxyfen does occur to some extent to form more polar soluble components with the incorporation into insoluble material.

Conclusions.  While the metabolism of quinclorac is adequately understood with regard to the currently registered uses, there are no plant metabolism data for quinclorac on commodities similar to cranberry.  These data are not being required at this time.  However, any further expansion of the use of quinclorac to other commodities grown on larger acreages than rhubarb and cranberry, will trigger a requirement of additional metabolism data.

The methyl ester of quinclorac was reported in some grain commodities at <15% of the TRR.  The methyl ester is measured by the enforcement method, which includes a methylation step.

 860.1300 Nature of the Residue - Livestock

D241204, J. Stokes, 11/6/1998

D325790, M. Doherty, 9/13/2007

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The qualitative nature of quinclorac residues in livestock is understood based upon the adequate goat and poultry metabolism studies (MRIDs 41076104 and 41063535, respectively).  In both studies, quinclorac was the principal residue identified in each commodity.  HED concluded that parent is the only residue of concern for risk assessment and tolerance expression for livestock.  However, the enforcement method includes a methylation step and determines the methyl ester of quinclorac.

In a rat metabolism study (MRID 41063533), quinclorac was the primary metabolite reported.  Elimination was primarily in the urine (91-98%) with small amounts in the feces (1-4%) eliminated by day 5 after dosing.

Conclusions.  No further livestock metabolism data are required at the present time.

860.1340 Residue Analytical Methods

D241204, J. Stokes, 11/6/1998

DEB 5554, J. Garbus, PP#9F3755/9H5583, 8/7/90

Adequate analytical methods (GC/ECD) are available to enforcing quinclorac tolerances on plant (BASF Method A8902; MRID# 41063537) and livestock (BASF Method 268/1; MRID# 41063536) commodities.  Both methods have undergone successful agency method validation trials and have been submitted to FDA for publication in PAM II as the tolerance enforcement methods.  The LOQ of both methods is 0.05 ppm for all matrices.

In BASF Method 268/1, used for both plant and animal matrices, samples are soaked in 0.1 N NaOH for 1 hour and then extracted with acetone, pH adjusted with sodium bicarbonate, and then the extract is extracted several times with dichloromethane.  Organic extracts are combined, redissolved in ether and methanol, treated with diazomethane, and taken to dryness.  (No suitable substitute was found for the diazomethane.)  The methylated residue is dissolved in 75% dichloromethane/hexane and cleaned up with silica gel. The eluant fraction containing the methylated quinclorac is evaporated to dryness and redissolved in acetone/hexane. An aliquot is subjected to GC chromatography using a DB-5 column and electron capture detection.  Methylated standard is used for quantitation.  The LOD was reportedly 0.05 ppm, but this was also the lowest level validated.

In the current field trials, residues of quinclorac in/on rice, wheat, and sorghum plant parts were determined using a LC/MS/MS method (BASF Method A9708/1).  This method was adequately validated in conjunction with the analysis of field trial samples.

nal standards.  The 240→196 m/z ion transition was used to detect and quantify residues.  The validated LOQ for quinclorac is 0.05 ppm in both matrices, and the LOD was not reported.  With only one ion transition monitored, the LC/MS/MS method cannot be considered suitable for enforcement, but it is suitable for data collection.

Conclusions.  An adequate GC/ECD method is available for enforcing the proposed tolerances, and the field trial data were collected using an LC/MS/MS method adequate for determining quinclorac, per se.  If LC/MS/MS is tobe used, a method is needed for the methyl ester of quinclorac and any other metabolites found in the required metabolism study.

860.1360 Multiresidue Methods

PP#9F3755,  J. Garbus, 08/07/90

Adequate data are available evaluating quinclorac through the FDA Multi-Residue Methods Test guidelines, and quinclorac is detected by Protocol B.  Quinclorac is not detected by the other FDA MRM protocols.

860.1380 Storage Stability

D241204, J. Stokes, 11/6/1998

PP#9F3755,  J. Garbus, 08/07/90

Adequate data are available indicating that quinclorac (and the methyl ester) is stable under frozen storage conditions for up to 37-40 months in rice grain and straw, corn grain, forage, silage, and fodder, soybean grain and fodder, sugar beet roots and tops, alfalfa hay, sorghum forage, hay, silage, and fodder.

Storage stability of quinclorac residues in livestock tissues was assessed by reanalyzing tissue samples after a period of time equal to their storage prior to the initial analysis.  Stability in animal and plant tissues has been demonstrated in accountability studies where plant and animal tissues were stored for 3 years between radiochemcial and chromatography analyses (See J. Garbus, 08/02/90).

In addition, IR-4 provided concurrent storage stability data for rhubarb and cranberry, demonstrating stability for the time and conditions the samples were stored.

Conclusions.  The available storage stability data are adequate and support the storage conditions and durations incurred in the existing field trials, for currently registered uses.  The IR-4 concurrent storage stability data for rhubarb and cranberry are adequate for residues of quinclorac, demonstrating stability for the time and conditions the samples were stored.  Storage stability data are needed for residues of the methyl ester of quinclorac and other residues of concern found in any future metabolism study.

860.1400 Water, Fish, and Irrigated Crops

For existing use on rice and the proposed use on cranberry, a label restriction is needed regarding the use of treated rice and cranberry fields for aquaculture.  Alternatively, the petitioner can determine residues in catfish and crayfish raised in treated fields and propose tolerances for these commodities if necessary.  The label provided for Quinclorac/QuinStar 4-L does not contain any restriction against aquaculture.

Conclusions.  Data on catfish and crayfish are required, or the label must prohibit use of treated water from rice and cranberry fields for aquaculture.

For registration review, the PM must ensure that all quinclorac labels with uses on rice and cranberry contain such a restriction.

860.1460 Food Handling

This guideline topic is not relevant to the proposed use.

860.1480 Meat, Milk, Poultry, and Eggs

DP# D241204, J. Stokes, 11/6/1998

DP# D358151, G. Oatkie, 04/30/2009

Adequate cattle and poultry feeding studies are available. The uses proposed in this petition do not involve livestock feeds, and will not affect the existing tolerances on meat, milk, poultry and eggs.

For registration review, we are recommending that the tolerance on Grain, aspirated fractions be revoked, since data have been received demonstrating that the tolerance is not needed, as residues on aspirated grain fractions (AGF) are no higher than the tolerances on the grains. AGF were the highest contributor to the livestock dietary burden, but tolerances have since been established for grass commodities, which is now the highest contributor to the livestock dietary burden.

Dietary burdens for livestock were recalculated in connection with the petition for residues of quinclorac on pasture and rangeland grasses. (D358151, 04/30/2009, G. Otakie, MRID 45066302).  In the review of that petition we concluded:

As the use on grasses does not substantially alter the calculated MDB for cattle (275 vs 290 ppm), no changes are necessary in the existing tolerances for milk and meat, fat and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, horses and sheep.  However, the recalculated MDBs for poultry and swine indicate that the existing tolerances for poultry and hog commodities should be reassessed.

These data support the current 0.05 ppm tolerances (LOQ) for eggs and poultry fat and meat, and indicate that the current 0.1 ppm tolerance for poultry meat byproducts should be lowered to 0.05 ppm.  HED notes that lowering the tolerance for poultry meat byproducts to 0.05 ppm will also harmonize this tolerance with the existing Canadian MRL for poultry meat byproducts.

These data support the current 0.05 ppm tolerance (LOQ) for hog meat, and indicate that the current tolerances for hog fat (0.7 ppm) and hog meat byproducts (1.5 ppm) should also be lowered to 0.05 ppm.  Lowering the tolerances for these commodities will also harmonize the U.S. tolerances with the existing Canadian MRLs for hog fat and meat byproducts.

Conclusions. Tolerances in livestock commodities will be changed in connection with Registration Review.

860.1500 Crop Field Trials

48697501.der.doc Rhubarb

48697502.der.doc Cranberry

Cranberry (for Low Growing Berries except strawberry, subgroup 13-07.  Five cranberry field trials were conducted in the United States during the 2009 growing season, in North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Growing Zones 1 (MA; 2 trials), 5 (WI; 2 trial), and 12 (OR; 1 trial).  The two MA trials (MA01 and MA03) and the two WI trials (WI01 and WI02) were each conducted using the same Field Research Director (FRD).   Careful examination of the field trial records indicates that the only difference between each pair of trials was the use of different varieties of cranberry, and distance between MA trials of > 20 miles, and different soil characterics for the MA trials.  HED has concluded that there are insufficient distinguishing characteristics to classify the WI pair as separate trials; however, the trials were conducted prior to development of the guidance on field trial differentiation.

Following two foliar broadcast applications of the 3.8 lb ai/gal SC formulation of quinclorac at 0.484-0.528 lb ai/A, residues of quinclorac (and per trial averages) in/on cranberry harvested at a 57- to 62-day PHI were 0.15-0.68 (0.16-0.67) ppm.  Applications were made at a 28- to 32-day retreatment interval (RTI) using ground equipment in spray volumes of 29.7-35.3 gal/A.  A crop oil concentrate (COC) was added to the spray mixture for each of the applications at 2 pints/A.

Rhubarb.  Four field trials were conducted in the United States during the 2009 growing season in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Growing Zones 5 (MI; 1 trial) and 12 (OR; 3 trials).  The two rhubarb trials in Canby, OR (OR11 and OR12) and the trial in Hillsboro, OR (OR10) were conducted by the same Field Research Director (FRD).  Careful examination of the field trial records indicates there are sufficient distinguishing characteristics to classify the Hillsboro, OR trial as a separate trial from the Canby, OR trials, based on location (>20 miles apart) and spray volume (>25% higher at the Hillsboro site).  There are insufficient distinguishing characteristics to classify the two Canby, OR trials as separate trials; therefore, the Canby, OR trials constitute a single trial with replicate samples for purposes of 860.1500 data requirements.  The adjustment in trial numbers results in a total of three field trials, with one trial in Zone 5 and two trials in Zone 12.

Following two foliar broadcast applications of the 3.8 lb ai/gal SC formulation of quinclorac at 0.736-0.798 lb ai/A, residues (and per trial averages) of quinclorac in/on rhubarb harvested at a 29- to 33-day PHI were 0.05-0.231 (0.082-0.205) ppm.  The method LOQ was 0.05 ppm.  Applications were made at a 28- to 31-day retreatment interval (RTI) using ground equipment in spray volumes of 19.9-36.7 gal/A.  A crop oil concentrate (COC) was added to the spray mixture for each of the applications at a rate of 1-2 pints/A.

Conclusions.  Field trial data are adequate to determine residues of quinclorac, per se.

IR-4 should note the current guidance for differentiating field trial sites.

Existing Uses of Remaining Crops

Existing uses of Quiclorac include use on rice, wheat, soybeans, barley (import), grass forage and hay.  Each is discussed below, followed by a summary of available data for the dimethylamine salt of quinclorac (quinclorac DMA).

Rice.  (D241198, 10/01/98, J. Stokes, MRID 44323101)  Field trial data were submitted from fifteen sites in five states [(MS (3), AR (4), LA (5), MO (1), and TX (2)].  Data from CA were not included since the DF formulation is not registered in CA.  Rice was treated at 0.5 lb a.i./A with the DF formulation, with a 40-day PHI (time before flooding the field).  Residue decline samples from a plots in MS and AR at -6, -3, +3, and +6 before and after the targeted growth stage harvest per RAC.   The residues of quinclorac on rice grain ranged from 0.346 ppm to 4.35 ppm, and averaged 0.987 ppm.  The residues of quinclorac on rice straw ranged from 0.120 ppm to 2.74 ppm, and averaged 1.07 ppm. The established 5.0 ppm and 12.0 ppm tolerances are adequate to cover residues of quinclorac in harvested rice grain and straw, respectively, with a 40-day PHI.

Grain sorghum and wheat D241204; D248880; D248881, 11/06/98; PP#9F3755, J. Stokes

Grain Sorghum (MRID#’s 44322212, 44583102).

MRID#44322212: Four grain sorghum field trials with quinclorac 75% DF were conducted in KS, NE, OK, and TX.  A single postemergence broadcast spray application was made with  FACET 75 DF Herbicide (EPA Reg. No. 7969-113, 75% a.i. quinclorac) at a rate of 0.25 lb a.i./A at the six leaf stage.  Samples were collected at two stages of crop maturity, i.e., at the late dough stage for forage (54 to 83 DAT), and at grain/stover harvest (81 to 108 DAT).  Residues of quinclorac ranged from <0.05 ppm to 0.15 ppm in sorghum forage, <0.05 ppm to 0.26 ppm in sorghum grain, and all samples were <0.05 ppm in sorghum stover.  At the KS plot additional samples were collected for a residue decline study; samples were collected at -10, -5, +5, and +10 days in addition to the target stage samples. All of the samples of sorghum grain and forage/stover had residues <0.05 ppm.

MRID#44583102:   Twelve field trials trials with quinclorac 75% DF were conducted in nine states.  Grain sorghum was treated with one preemergence and one post emergence application of FACET DF at the  rate of 0.5 lb a.i./A per application.  (0.84X maximum seasonal application rate (preergemence + postemergence: 0.25 lb a.i./A + 0.38 lb a.i./A = 0.63 lb a.i./A)).   The maximum seasonal rate is 0.75 lb a.i./A.  The preemergence application was timed prior to planting and the postemergence allocation was 60 to 65 days before harvest of grain and stover.  Plants were harvested for forage and hay immediately after flowering or 30 days after the last treatment.  Silage was targeted to be harvested at the soft dough stage of the plant growth.   Maximum residues were reported as 3.67, 6.68, 4.50, 3.13, and 1.08 ppm in grain sorghum forage, grain, hay, silage, and stover, respectively.  Tolerances for residues on quinclorac were set at 6.0 ppm for sorghum grain, 3.0 for sorghum forage, and 1.0 for sorghum fodder.

Wheat MRID#44322208:  Twelve winter wheat field trials were conducted in 12 states.  A single broadcast preplant application of FACET 75DF was made at a rate of 0.25 lb a.i./A.  Three additional plots in KS, OK, and TX received a single broadcast application at  twice the label maximum rate, i.e., 0.5 lb a.i./A..   Samples were harvested according to normal crop maturity as follows: forage, 46 to 224 DAT, dried hay, 162 to 268 DAT, and grain and straw, 194 to 324 DAT.   Maximum residues in wheat commodities from the 0.25 lb ai/A rate were reported as 0.88, 0.32, 0.24, and 0.08 ppm quinclorac in forage, hay, grain, and straw, respectively; and 1.55, 0.54, 0.56, and 0.12 ppm quinclorac in forage, hay, grain, and straw, respectively, from the 0.50 lb ai/A rate.  Tolerances for residues of quinclorac were set on wheat forage (1.0 ppm), hay (0.5 ppm), grain (0.5 ppm), and straw (0.1 ppm).

Barley (imported).  Data for residues of quinclorac DF formulation were reviewed by PMRA.  Twelve field trials with spring barley, grown in the prairie provinces, were conducted.  The barley was treated with one ground application of Facet 75 DF at a target rate of 0.200 kg a.i./ha [0.18 lbs a.i./A] (2x rate or Canadian GAP).  A surfactant was added to the tank mix. Forage samples were harvested 16-30 days following application, while grain and straw were harvested 63-97 days following application.  Residues in forage ranged from <0.05-2.01 ppm.  The highest average field trial residue (HAFT) found in forage was 1.78 ppm.  In the grain, individual residues ranged from <0.05-1.25 ppm.  The HAFT in the grain was 1.165 ppm.  In the straw, the residues ranged from <0.05-0.484 ppm, with the HAFT being 0.299 ppm.  A tolerance of 2 ppm was established for residues of quinclorac on barley grain.

Aspirated Grain Fractions(AGF): Data for quinclorac aspirated grain fractions were not submitted for the original grain petitions.  The needed tolerance for AGF was estimated at 200X the 6.0 ppm tolerance for sorghum grain (200 X 6.0 = 1200 ppm).  Data were later provided.

(D344496, 09/25/08; GOtakie: Quinclorac.  Magnitude of the Residue in Wheat and Sorghum Aspirated Grain Fractions.  MRIDs 45598703 and 45598704.)

Two field trials were conducted for quinclorac (BAS 514 H) on wheat aspirated grain fractions and sorghum aspirated grain fractions.  The studies were conducted in the United States in Zone 5 (York County, Nebraska) during the 1999 growing season.  Residues of quinclorac were quantitated at 0.453 and 0.516 ppm in/on wheat AGFs following two applications of BAS 514 H at 0.25 lb ai/A/application (0.50 lb ai/A/season).  Residues of quinclorac were quantitated at 0.147 and 0.145 ppm in/on sorghum AGFs following two applications of BAS 514 H at 0.25 and 0.50 lb ai/A/application (0.75 lb ai/A/season). Ash content was between 12.0 and 17.5% in all wheat AGF samples and between 5.5 and 9.0% in all sorghum AGF samples.

Tolerances for quinclorac established under 40 CFR 180.463 are 0.5 ppm and 6.0 ppm on wheat and sorghum grain, respectively.  Average residues at the maximum application rate in aspirated grain fractions were 0.48 and 0.15 ppm, in wheat and sorghum respectively. Accordingly, separate tolerances on aspirated grain fractions are not required, pending submission of detailed weather data, throughout the residue trial period.  The existing tolerance for residues of quinclorac on AGF should be revoked.

Pasture and Rangeland Grasses.  (D358151, 04/23/2009, G. Otakie, MRID 45066302).  Thirteen field trials conducted in the United States in Zones 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 during 1999, quinclorac (75% DF) was applied to representative grass species as a single broadcast foliar application during vegetative development at rates of 0.746-0.780 lb ai/A (1x rate).  All applications were made using ground equipment in volumes of 9-41 gal/A, and include both MSO (0.5-3.3% v/v) and aqueous UAN (0.7-5.6% v/v) as adjuvants.

Following a single foliar application of quinclorac (DF) to grasses at ~1x the proposed rate, residues were 36.3-105.9 ppm in/on 26 samples of forage harvested at 0 DAT and 3.6-70.1 ppm in/on 26 samples of hay harvested at 7-8 DAT.  Average quinclorac residues were 68.3 ppm for forage and 24.3 ppm for hay, and the HAFT residues were 105.7 ppm for forage and 58.5 ppm for hay.  The residue decline data indicate that residues in/on forage declined steadily from an average of 43.1 ppm at 0 DAT to 7.1 ppm by 15 DAT.  For hay, residues initially increased from 70 ppm at 0 DAT to 83.5 ppm at 3 DAT, but then declined steadily to 24.3 ppm by 15 DAT.  Tolerances for residues of quinclorac were set at 150 ppm for grass forage and 130 ppm for grass hay based on these data.

Comparison of Quinclorac with Quinclorac DMA in rice, wheat, and sorghum.  Six field trials, each consisting of side-by-side trials comparing the dry flowable (DF) and the soluble liquid (SL) formulations of the dimethylamine salt (DMA) of active ingredient, were conducted in geographically diverse locations.

The results from these trials indicated that there was no discernable difference between the residues SL DMA salt in rice, wheat, and grain sorghum obtained using the dry flowable (DF) or soluble liquid (SL DMA) formulations of quinclorac.

Conclusions.  Field trial data are adequate to support the existing uses of quinclorac on rice, grain sorghum, barley (imported), and pasture and range grasses.  In decline studies on grains, when detectable residues were initially reported, residues generally degraded substantially within 14 days.

The established tolerance on aspirated grain fractions should be revoked as it is not needed.  The tolerance on rice straw may be revoked, as rice straw is no longer considered a livestock feedstuff.

860.1520 Processed Food and Feed

There are no processed commodities in connection with the current petition.

For registration review, processing studies submitted to support existing tolerances are adequate.   Processing studies were submitted for Rice (MRID 41063543), Sorghum (MRID 44322213), and Wheat (MRID 44322209).

Table 6.  Average Processing Factors for Sorghum

Commodity						Processing Factor (x)

Rice, hulls	1.1

Rice, bran	3.5

Rice, milled	0.76

Grain sorghum flour (dry milling)	0.90

Grain sorghum starch (wet milling)	0.04

Wheat, bran	1.8

Wheat, middlings	0.79

Wheat, shorts	1.24

Wheat, flour	0.66

Wheat, germ	2.8

Tolerances for residue of quinclorac of 1.0 ppm, 1.5 ppm, and 0.75 ppm, were set for wheat bran, wheat germ, and wheat shorts, respectively.

Conclusions.  Available processing data are adequate to support the currently registered uses of quinclorac. Residues concentrate on hulls and some milling fractions.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 860.1650 Submittal of Analytical Reference Standards

Analytical standards for quinclorac and the quinclorac methyl ester are available from BASF, but not from Albaugh, Inc. The methyl ester of quinclorac is used as an analytical standard for the quinclorac enforcement method.  Albaugh must supply the Pesticide Repository with analytical standards for quinclorac and the quinclorac methyl ester.

An analytical standard for the quinclorac DMA salt must be submitted to the EPA National Pesticide Standards Repository.

860.1850/1900 Confined and Field Accumulation in Rotational Crops

DP# D241204, J.Stokes, 11/6/1998

Adequate rotational crop studies are available to support the use of quinclorac.  (MRID 42294108, 42294109 – confined rotational crop; MRID 41781428 – field rotational crop)

The confined rotational crop studies are summarized in the tables below.  No quantifiable residues (<0.05 ppm for the current enforcement method) were reported in chard, or beet tops or roots 10 months (309 days) after treatment at the 1x application rate of 0.5 lb ai/A.  Detectable residues were reported in chard 1 months after a 2x application rate of 1.0 lb ai/A.

Field rotational crop (MRID 41781428). Rotational crop studies were conducted in LA and MS following the application o f 0.5 1b ai/A of quinclorac to rice that was harvested in the fall of 1987.  No residues greater than the limit of detection of 0.05 ppm quinclorac were found in mustard leaves and turnip leaves and roots when planted 4 months or 9 months (20 and/or 270 days)  after a quinclorac application to rice.  (The analytical method was validated down to 0.05 ppm, so 0.05 ppm may be called the limit of quantitation (LOQ) or the lower limit of method validation (LLMV).

860.1550 Proposed Tolerances

The current tolerance expression for quinclorac is:

“Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide quinclorac, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table in this paragraph. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is to be determined by measuring only quinclorac, 3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid, in or on the commodity.”

The tolerance expression is in accord with our current guidance on tolerance expressions.

Permanent tolerances have been established for residues of quinclorac in/on small cereal grain commodities at levels ranging from 0.1 ppm in wheat straw to 15 ppm in rice bran [40 CFR §180.463(a)], and for grass forage at 150 ppm and grass hay at 130 ppm.  There is also a 1200 ppm tolerance for AGF; however, recently reviewed data indicate that a tolerance on AGF is not necessary (DP# 344496, G. Otakie, 9/25/08).  Permanent tolerances have also been established for residues of quinclorac per se in/on livestock commodities at levels ranging from 0.05 to 1.5 ppm.  The tolerances being proposed by IR-4 for the current petition are listed in Table 7, along the HED’s recommended tolerances.

An adequate number of field trials at ~1x the proposed use rate are available for rhubarb and cranberry to support permanent tolerances.  The Agency’s SOP “Guidelines for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data” were utilized for determining the appropriate tolerance level for each commodity (Appendix II).  The recommended tolerance for rhubarb is 0.5 ppm, and the recommended tolerance for Low growing berries, except strawberries, subgroup 13-07H is 1.5 ppm.

Based on the recalculated dietary burdens for livestock and the data from the available cattle and poultry feeding studies, the current tolerances for livestock commodities are adequate, with the exceptions of the tolerances on poultry meat byproducts and hog fat and meat byproducts.  Based on the recalculated MDBs for swine (6.0 ppm) and poultry (5.4 ppm) and the data from the poultry and cattle feeding studies, the existing tolerances for poultry meat byproducts and hog fat and meat byproducts are too high as quinclorac residues in these commodities are expected to be <0.05 ppm at 1x the MDB.  Therefore, the tolerances for these livestock commodities should be lowered to 0.05 ppm.  Lowering the tolerances on these commodities will also harmonize the U.S. tolerances with the existing Canadian MRLs for poultry meat byproducts and hog fat and meat byproducts.

In addition, HED notes that the Agency no longer considers rice straw to be a significant livestock feedstuff (OPPTS 860.1000, Table I, ChemSAC memo 6/30/08).  Therefore, the current tolerance for residues of quinclorac on rice straw may be revoked.

CODEX  has not established any established maximum residue limits (MRLs) for quinclorac.  Canada has established maximum residue limits (MRLs) for quinclorac on selected agricultural commodities.  An International Residue Limit Status Sheet is attached in Appendix I.

The use of the DMA salt of quinclorac will not affect the established tolerances for quinclorac on rice, grain sorghum, and wheat.

Table 7. 	Tolerance Summary for Quinclorac.  § 180.463

Commodity	Current/Proposed Tolerance (ppm)	Recommended Tolerance (ppm) Comments; Correct Commodity Definition

Low growing berries, except strawberries, subgroup 13-07H	1.1	1.5 Revised level based on OECD tolerance calculation procedures.  At the time of publication of this tolerance, the tolerance for residues quinclorac on cranberry in § 180.463(b) should be revoked.

Rhubarb	0.4	0.5	Revised level based on OECD tolerance calculation procedures.

Currently Established Tolerances Reevaluated for Registration Review

Barley, grain	2.0	2.0	The tolerance needs a footnote to indicate that there are no U. S. Registrations.

Cattle, fat	0.7	0.7

	Cattle, meat byproducts	1.5	1.5

	Cattle, meat	0.05	0.05

	Egg	0.05	0.05

	Goat, fat	0.7	0.7

	Goat, meat byproducts	1.5	1.5

	Goat, meat	0.05	0.05

	Grain, aspirated fractions	1200	revoke	Data submitted demonstrate that the tolerance is not needed.  Current tolerance was based on a theoretical calculation.

Grass, forage	150	150

	Grass, hay	130	130

	Hog, fat	0.7	0.05	Based on the residue data from the cattle feeding and the calculated MDB of 6.0 ppm for swine, the tolerances can be lowered to the method LOQ (0.05 ppm).  This level is harmonized with Canada.

Hog, meat byproducts	1.5	0.05	Based on the residue data from the cattle feeding and the calculated MDB of 6.0 ppm for swine, the tolerances can be lowered to the method LOQ (0.05 ppm).  This level is harmonized with Canada.

Hog, meat	0.05	0.05

	Horse, fat	0.7	0.7

	Horse, meat byproducts	1.5	1.5

	Horse, meat	0.05	0.05

	Milk	0.05	0.05

	Poultry, fat	0.05	0.05

	Poultry, meat byproducts	0.1	0.05	Based on the residue data from the poultry feeding and the calculated MDB of 5.4 ppm for poultry, the tolerance can be lowered to the method LOQ (0.05 ppm).   This level is harmonized with Canada.

Poultry, meat	0.05	0.05

	Rice, bran	15.0	15.0

	Rice, grain	5.0	5.0

	Rice, straw	12.0	Revoke	Rice straw is no longer a regulated livestock feedstuff.

Sheep, fat	0.7	0.7

	Sheep, meat byproducts	1.5	1.5

	Sheep, meat	0.05	0.05

	Sorghum, grain, forage	3.0	3.0

	Sorghum, grain, grain	6.0	6.0

	Sorghum, grain, stover	1.0	1.0

	Wheat, forage	1.0	1.0

	Wheat, germ	0.75	0.75

	Wheat, grain	0.5	0.5

	Wheat, hay	0.5	0.5

	Wheat, straw	0.1	0.1

References

DP Barcode:	None.  CB 6228, 6229, 6230

Subject:		PP#9G3797, FAP#0H5594, EUP# 7969-EUP-25. Quinclorac (New Chemical on Rice with Temporary Tolerances).

From:		A. Aikins

To:		R. Taylor/V. Walters

Dated:		7/26/1990

MRID(s):	41063501 through -03, 41063534 through -46, 41076101 and 41076104

DP Barcode:	None.  CB 5554

Subject:		New Chemical Review: PP#9F3755/9H5583: Quinclorac (FACET) in or on Rice Grain and Straw. Evaluation of Analytical Method and Residue Data.

From:		J. Garbus

To:		R. Taylor/J. Miller

Dated:		8/7/1990

MRID(s):	41063501 through -03, 41063534 through -46, 41076101 and 41076104

DP Barcode:	None.  EFED DER

Subject:		DER for Paulick, R.C. January 1991. Magnitude of the residues of quinclorac (BAS 514H) in rotational crops (mustard and turnips) following rice culture in Louisiana (RCN 87096) and Mississippi (RCN 87098). BASF Report No. A9104.  BASF Registration Document No. 91/5022.

From:		RJ. Mahler

To:		R. Taylor/V. Walters

Dated:		11/5/1991

MRID(s):	41781428

DP Barcode:	None.  EFED DER

Subject:		DER for Nelson, DM. 1992. Accumulation study of 14C-BAS 514H in fall planted confined rotational crops. BASF Protocol No. M8909. BASF Report No. M9125. BASF Registration Document No. 92/5044. Unpublished study performed and submitted by BASF Corp. Agricultural Products, Research Triangle Park, NC. 107 pp

From:		RJ. Mahler

To:		R. Taylor/V. Walters

Dated:		9/15/1992

MRID(s):	42294109

DP Barcode:	None.  EFED DER

Subject:		DER for Uinkler, V and JM Nelson. 1991. Accumulation of 14C-BAS 514H in annual confined rotational crops. BASF Protocol No. M8910. BASF Report No. M9123. BASF Registration Document No. 91/5170. Unpublished study performed and submitted by BASF Corp. Agricultural Products, Research Triangle Park, NC. 104 pp.

From:		RJ. Mahler

To:		R. Taylor/V. Walters

Dated:		9/17/1992

MRID(s):	42294108

DP Barcode:	D241198

Subject:		Quinclorac. ID#007969-00113. Revised Section B. Reduction In PHI For Use On Rice.

From:		JStokes

To:		MJ Nelson

Dated:		10/01/98

MRID(s):	44323101

DP Barcode:	D241204; D248880; D248881

Subject:		PP#7F4870. Quinclorac. In/On Grain Sorghum and Wheat. Evaluation of Analytical Method and Residue Data.

From:		JStokes

To:		MJ Nelson

Dated:		 11/06/98

MRID(s):	 44322206, 44322207, 44322208, 44322209, 44322211, 44322212, 44322213, 44322214, 44322216, 44583101, 44583102, and 44583103

DP Barcode:	D342446

Subject:		Quinclorac – Request for Establishment of Tolerances on Barley Grain without a U.S. Registration.  Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data. Petition Number 0E6114.

From:		M. Doherty

To:		H. Johnson/J. Tompkins

Dated:		9/11/2007

MRID(s):	44817507, 45088301

DP Barcode:	D344496

Subject:		Quinclorac. Magnitude of the Residue in Wheat and Sorghum Aspirated Grain Fractions.

From:		G. Otakie

To:		J Schnackenbeck

Dated:		9/25/2008

MRID(s):	45598703 & 45598704

.

DP Barcode:	D358151

Subject:		Quinclorac; Petition for Tolerances and Use on Pasture and Rangeland Grasses.  Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data.

From:		G. Otakie

To:		James Tompkins

Dated:		04/30/2009

MRID(s):	45066302

F.	DOCUMENT TRACKING

RDI: S. Hummel 08/11/12;RAB4chemists

Petition Number:  1E7957

DP#: D397719 and

PC Code:  128974, 028974

Attachment 1. Residue Chemistry Data Requirements

Residue Chemistry Data Requirements for Quinclorac

GLN Data Requirements	Current Tolerances (ppm) [§180.463]	Additional Data Needed?	MRID Nos.

860.1200: Directions for Use	NA

860.1300: Nature of the Residue - Plants

NA

No	41063534, 44322207, 44322211, 44817502

860.1300: Nature of the Residue - Livestock	NA	No	41076104, 41063535

860.1340: Residue Analytical Method

Plant and Livestock Commodities	NA	No	41063537, 44583103

41063536

860.1360: Multiresidue Method

	41063541

860.1380: Storage Stability Data

Plant Commodities	NA	No	41063544, 44322214

Livestock Commodities	NA	No

	860.1400: Magnitude of the Residue - Water, Fish and Irrigated Crops	NA NA	None

860.1460: Magnitude of the Residue - Food Handling	NA	NA	None

860.1480: Magnitude of the Residue - Meat, Milk, Poultry, Eggs

 Cattle fat, meat, and meat byproducts	0.7/1.5/0.05	No	41063545

Hog fat, meat and meat byproducts	0.7/1.5/0.05	No	None

Milk	0.05	No	41063545

Eggs and the Fat, Meat and Meat Byproducts of Poultry	0.05/0.05/0.1/0.05 No	41063546

860.1500: Crop Field Trials

Rhubarb	0.5 proposed	No	48697501

Cranberry	1.5 proposed	No	48697502

Grains

	Barley grain (imported)

No	44817507, 45088301

Rice grain, straw	5.0/12.0	No	41063542, 44323101

Sorghum forage, grain, stover	3.0/6.0/1.0	No	44322212

Wheat forage, grain, hay, straw	1.0/0.5/0.5/0.1	No	44322208, 44322209, 45066301

Grain, aspirated fractions

No	45598703, 45598704

Pasture/rangeland grasses

No	45066302

Comparison of DF formulation of quinclorac to quinclorac DMA salt in rice, sorghum, wheat

No	48051901

860.1520: Processed Food/Feed

Barley

No

	Rice

No	41063543

Sorghum

No	44322213, 44583102, 44583104

Wheat

No	 44322210, 44817501,

860.1650: Submittal of Analytical Reference Standards	NA	No	None

860.1850: Confined Accumulation in Rotational Crops	NA	No	42294108, 42294109

860.1900: Field Accumulation in Rotational Crops	NA	No	41781428

Attachment 2

Additional information on metabolism from EFED reviews

From 3/8//99 review by R. Mahler and E. Odenkirchen, Quinclorac Herbicide, Environmental Fate and Effects Assessment and Characterization for a Section 3 Use on Wheat and Sorghum

Hvdrolysis (161 - 1)

.

Fifty ppm [3-14C] quinclorac was hydrolytically stable in aqueous buffered pH 5, 7, and 9

solutions. After 737 hours, quinclorac comprised >98% of the applied in the three buffer

solutions and was the only [14C]compound detected. This study is acceptable. (MRID

40320816)

P&Q degradation in Water (161-2)

[3-'4C]Quinclorac (radio chemical purity 99.6%), at 5.4 ppm, degraded slightly (-40% of

the applied) in a sterile aqueous pH 7 buffer solution that was irradiated for 697 hours

using a xenon arc lamp at 25 C. After 697 hours of irradiation, quinclorac comprised 92%

Iof the recovered radioactivity, an unidentified degradate comprised 1.6%, and 2.7%

remained near the origin of the TLC plate. The extrapolated half-life was 100 days (note

extrapolations beyond the study duration are uncertain). The sensitized half-life using

acetone was 52 days. This study is acceptable. (MRID 41063560)

Conversely, the photolytic half-lives of non-radiolabled quinclorac in non-sterile natural

river water and solutions containing activated sewage sludge were, respectively, 5 and 10

days (not corrected for dark control results, which suggest that between 8- 12% of

degradation would be accounted for processes other than photolysis over a 47-day

incubation). The authors concluded that photolysis was the main route of degradation in

these two studies; however, they did not identify any degradates. Furthermore, the length

of exposure was only 6 hours/day.  Had a longer daily sunlight exposure regime been

used, the half-lives, as determined, may have differed from that reported and may have

been less by at least one-half, based on a typical 12-hour daylight exposure period. This

study is supplemental. (MRID 41063564)

From Y Donovan, “Quinclorac: Section 3 Registrations for New Use on Pasture/ Rangeland: Drinking Water Exposure Assessment, D362085, June 3, 2009.

For persistence, laboratory data indicate that quinclorac is stable to hydrolysis, photolysis in sterile water, as well as aerobic and anaerobic metabolism in soil.  Conversely, quinclorac undergoes rapid photolysis in non-sterile rice paddy, natural river waters, and solutions containing activated sewage sludge (half-lives of 5-10 days).  Photolysis on soil surface is also a route of dissipation with a mean half life of 141 days.   Field studies reviewed to date indicate that quinclorac is moderately persistent (18-176 days half-lives) in terrestrial environment.

According to the aerobic soil metabolism and field dissipation studies and the research cited in the literature reviews, the fate of quinclorac can be described as such:

Quinclorac is initially metabolized to the primary degradate, 3-chloro-8-quinoline carboxylic acid (BH 514-1).  This degradate undergoes further degradation to 5-chloro-2-hydroxy-nicotinic acid, which in turn is metabolized to 5-chloro-2,6-dihydroxy-nicotinic acid, 2 hydroxy-3-chloro-8-quinoline carboxylic acid (BH 514 2-OH), 7-chloro-8-quinoline carboxylic acid, 8-quinoline carboxylic acid, and other small fragments.  These compounds can then bind with or become incorporated into the soil or humic material of the soil as a part of natural soil components (i.e., carbon pool of the soil), and/or can degrade to CO2, a major terminal product.

The only volatile compound detected in the aerobic soil metabolism study (MRID 44084503) was CO2 at a maximum concentration of 7.1% TRR.  Other than parent, residues identified at maximum concentrations were: BH 514 2-OH (14.9% TRR), BH 514-Me ester (7.8% TRR).  Parent was found at maximum concentrations of 58.1% TRR.

BH 541-1 was also reported in the aerobic aquatic metabolism (MRID 42294102), at maximum of 55.7% of the initial radioactivity after 6 months and 30.8% after 12 months.  Adsorption/desorption studies determine that this degradate is less mobile than its parent, with Kd’s ranging from 1.56 in sand soil, 1.97 in sandy loam soil, 11.4 in loam soil, 13.3 in clay loam soil, and 30.2 in silty clay soil.  This degradate was not reported in any of the terrestrial field dissipation studies, at any soil depth.

For mobility in aquatic environment, aquatic field dissipations studies with rice indicate that the compound is less stable than predicted by the laboratory and is probably not mobile under normal use conditions.

For volatility, both vapor pressure (7.5 x 10-8 mm Hg at 20o C) and Henry's Law Constant (1.22 to 24.3 x 10-15 atm.m3 mol-1 ) indicate a low possibility of volatilization from soil and water.  Bioaccumulation in fish is not expected according to the acceptable fish accumulation study, which showed that after 28 days of exposure, quinclorac did not accumulate in channel catfish.  No BCF value was reported (MRID 40320819 and 41063559).  Furthermore, the octanol/water partition coefficient (KOW) of 0.266 also suggests that quinclorac has low potential to bioaccumulate.

A detailed assessment of the environmental fate of Quinclorac could be found in the “Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects Assessment and Characterization for a Section 3 for Use on Wheat and Sorghum” report dated March 05, 1999 (DP Barcodes: 250179, 248882, 248884, 192866, 231399, and 238400).  The chemical structures of quinclorac and its 2 major metabolites (BH 514-1 and BH 514 2-OH) are shown in Table III.

Table III - Chemical Structures of quinclorac and its major metabolites

Appendix I: International Residue Limits

Quinclorac (PC Code 128974; Date of Request 7/26/12)

Summary of US and International Tolerances and Maximum Residue Limits

Residue Definition:

US	Canada	Mexico1	Codex

40 CFR 180.463

Plant/Livestock: quinclorac, 3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid 3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid

None

Commodity	Tolerance (ppm) /Maximum Residue Limit (mg/kg)

	US	Canada	Mexico1	Codex

Barley, grain	2.0	2.0

Cattle, fat	0.7	0.05

Cattle, meat byproducts	1.5	0.05

Cattle, meat	0.05	0.05

Egg	0.05	0.05

Goat, fat	0.7	0.05

Goat, meat byproducts	1.5	0.05

Goat, meat	0.05	0.05

Grass, forage	150

	Grass, hay	130

	Hog, fat	0.7	0.05

Hog, meat byproducts	0.05	0.05

Hog, meat	0.05	0.05

Horse, fat	0.05	0.05

Horse, meat byproducts	1.5	0.05

Horse, meat	0.05	0.05

Milk	0.05	0.05

Poultry, fat	0.05	0.05

Poultry, meat byproducts	0.05	0.05

Poultry, meat	0.05	0.05

Rice, bran	15.0

	Rice, grain	5.0	5.0

Sheep, fat	0.7	0.05

Sheep, meat byproducts	1.5	0.05

Sheep, meat	0.05	0.05

Sorghum, grain, forage	3.0

	Sorghum, grain, grain	6.0

	Sorghum, grain, stover	1.0

	Wheat, forage	1.0

	Wheat, germ	0.75

	Wheat, grain	0.5	0.5

Wheat, hay	0.5

	Wheat, straw	0.1

	Proposed MRLs

Low growing berries, except strawberries, subgroup 13-07H	1.5

	Rhubarb	0.5

	MRLs With No US Equivalent

Barley, bran

3.5

Completed by: M. Negussie; 07/31/2012

1 Mexico adopts US tolerances and/or Codex MRLs for its export purposes.

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions . Time-limited tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide quinclorac, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodity in the table in this paragraph. Compliance with the tolerance level specified in this paragraph is to be determined by measuring only quinclorac, 3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid, in or on the commodity. The tolerance expires and is revoked on the date specified in the table in this paragraph.

Commodity	Parts per million	Expiration/revocation date

Cranberry	15.0	12/31/12

Appendix II

OECD MRL CALCULATOR

Quinclorac

Cranberry

US

2 x 0.25 lb ai, 60 PHI

Quinclorac

Residues (mg/kg) 	Cranberry

0.550 	US

0.180 	2 x 0.25 lb ai, 60 PHI

0.165

0.155 	Total number of data (n) 	5

0.670 	Percentage of censored data 	0%

Number of non-censored data 	5

Lowest residue 	0.155

Highest residue 	0.670

Median residue 	0.180

Mean 	0.344

Standard deviation (SD) 	0.247

Correction factor for censoring (CF) 	1.000

Proposed MRL estimate

- Highest residue 	0.670

- Mean + 4 SD 	1.331

- CF x 3 Mean 	1.032

Unrounded MRL 	1.331

Rounded MRL 	1.5

High uncertainty of MRL estimate.

[Small dataset]

OECD MRL CALCULATOR

Quinclorac

Rhubarb

US

2 X 0.375 lb ai

Quinclorac

Residues (mg/kg)

Rhubarb

0.205

US

0.173

2 X 0.375 lb ai

0.108

0.067

Total number of data (n)

4

Percentage of censored data

0%

Number of non-censored data

4

Lowest residue

0.067

Highest residue

0.205

Median residue

0.141

Mean

0.138

Standard deviation (SD)

0.062

Correction factor for censoring (CF)

1.000

Proposed MRL estimate

- Highest residue

0.205

- Mean + 4 SD

0.388

- CF x 3 Mean

0.415

Unrounded MRL

0.415

Rounded MRL

0.5

High uncertainty of MRL estimate.

摧珮!

h p

-

8

F

V

`

o

w

‹

Œ

£

¦

Ô

ç

é

ð

&

X

Y

Ԁ8

`

w

Æ

Ç

ñ

@

@

.

X

Y

k

l

฀ꂄㄅĤ葝֠摧ḶlሀY

j

k

l

z

{

¦

¾

Õ

ß

ഀ׆Ā褐㄀Ĥ摧ᇫE

 h|

 h|

 h|

☊଀݆㄀Ĥ摧又

␆༁㢄㄄Ĥ葞и摧ṱÖ

萏ː葞ː摧៍Æ

jÛ

攃昀Ĵ؀

Æ

hÊM

␆ഁ׆Āᨄ㄀Ĥ摧䷊

  h›=

h›=

h›=

h›=

$

$

$

$

愀Ĥ摧㶛

yt›=

愀Ĥ摧㶛

摧㶛

yt›=

 h|

  h›=

h›=

h›=

h›=

h›=

愀Ĥ摧㶛

摧㶛

ﰃ昀Ĵ瑹㶛

$

$

yt›=

hm

hp

hp

h¬

h¬

hp

h|

hni

h¬

 h|

h|

 h|

h|

 hì

hì

$

将

\

  hì

hì

hì

 hì

hì

将

将

将

ytì

将

ytì

gdì

gdì

将

将

将

ytì

将

ytì

gdì

gdì

将

将

将

ytì

将

ytì

$

a$gdì

$

$

a$gdì

将

将

将

ytì

将

ytì

gdì

gdì

将

将

将

ytì

将

ytì

$

a$gdì

$

$

a$gdì

将

将

将

ytì

将

ytì

$

a$gdì

$

a$gdì

将

将

将

ytì

将

ytì

gdì

gdì

将

将

将

ytì

将

ytì

gdì

gdì

将

  hm

hm

hm

hm

  hì

hì

hì

将

将

ytì

  hm

$

$

$

$

`„`úgdm

$

萏֠萑褐葞֠葠褐摧㟖Ý

 h

 h

  hm

hm

h¤@

h¤@

h¤@

h¤@

h¤@

h¤@

h¤@

 h

 h

 h

  h

 h

 h

  h

”ÿô

”ÿô

”ÿô

ì

ì

ì

ì

[Small dataset]

Quinclorac 128974     	Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data DP#: D397719

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES   32


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54107-54108]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19282]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0466]

Waterway Suitability Assessment for Expansion of Liquefied
Natural Gas Facility; Ingleside, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard, at Sector Corpus Christi, announces receipt
of a Letter of Intent (LOI) and Waterways Suitability Assessment (WSA)
for a construction project expanding a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) approved Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility in
Ingleside, Texas. The LOI and WSA were submitted by Rodino, Inc. on
behalf of Cheniere's Corpus Christi Liquefaction (CCL) Project. The
Coast Guard is notifying the public of this action to solicit public
comments on the proposed expansion of LNG facilities.

DATES: Comments must be submitted to the online docket via http://www.regulations.gov, or reach the Docket Management Facility, on or
before September 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0466 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document:
call or email MST2 Rebekah Wagner, Sector Corpus Christi Waterways
Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments (or related materials) on this
notice for the waterway suitability assessment for the expansion of an
LNG facility, as defined by 33 CFR 127.005. We will consider all
submissions and may adjust our final action based on your comments. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice,
indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Discussion

    Under 33 CFR 127.007, an owner or operator planning new
construction to expand or modify marine terminal operations in an
existing facility handling LNG or Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG), where
the construction, expansion, or modification would result in an
increase in the size and/or frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on
the waterway associated with a proposed facility or modification to an

existing facility, must submit an LOI to the Captain of the Port (COTP)
of the zone in which the facility is or will be located. Under 33 CFR
127.009, after receiving an LOI, the COTP issues a Letter of
Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG or
LHG marine traffic to the appropriate jurisdictional authorities. The
LOR is based on a series of factors outlined in 33 CFR 127.009 that
relate to the physical nature of the affected waterway and issues of
safety and security associated with LNG or LHG marine traffic on the
affected waterway.
    The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comments on the
proposed construction and expansion project related to a FERC approved
LNG facility as submitted by Rodino, Inc. on behalf of Cheniere's CCL
Project in Corpus Christi, Texas. Input from the public may be useful
to the COTP with respect to developing the LOR. The Coast Guard
requests comments to help assess the suitability of the associated
waterway for increased LNG marine traffic as it relates to navigation,
safety, and security.
    On January 24, 2011, the Coast Guard published Navigation and
Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 01-2011, ``Guidance Related to
Waterfront Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities.'' NVIC 01-2011
provides guidance for owners and operators seeking approval to
construct and operate LNG facilities. The Coast Guard will refer to
NVIC 01-2011 for process information and guidance in evaluating the
project included in the LOI and WSA submitted by Rodino, Inc. A copy of
NVIC 01-2011 is available for viewing in the public docket for this
notice and also on the Coast Guard's Web site at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/2011/NVIC%2001-2011%20Final.pdf.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; Department of Homeland Security Delegation Number
0170.1(70), 33 CFR 127.009, and 33 CFR 103.205.

    Dated: July 28, 2016.
M.T. Cunningham,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Corpus Christi,
TX.
[FR Doc. 2016-19282 Filed 8-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P