Code a	Commodity	Existing MRL b	Data gap(s) Art. 12 Review	Proposed MRL	Conclusion/recommendation
Enforcement residue definition: Quizalofop (sum of quizalofop, its salts, its esters [including propaquizafop] and its conjugates, expressed as quizalofop [any ratio of constituent isomers])
0151010	Table grapes	0.02*	Art. 10 MRL application	0.02*	No change proposed. The submitted data are not sufficient to support the MRL proposal of 0.04 mg/kg, based on the NEU use of quizalofop‐P‐tefuryl. The existing MRL of 0.02 mg/kg (LOQ) is still deemed appropriate considering that all the residue trials submitted for table grapes indicated residue values below the LOQ. Risk for consumers unlikely
0251000	Lettuces and salad plants	0.2 (ft 4)	Footnote related to data gap No. 7 [Some information on residue trials unavailable for propaquizafop]	0.15	The data gap identified by EFSA concerning the lack of residue trials to support the GAP reported in the MRL review for propaquizafop on lettuces and salad plants is not addressed. Therefore, the MRL of 0.2 mg/kg is not supported However, an alternative MRL of 0.15 mg/kg, fully supported by data, can be proposed based on a GAP on propaquizafop assessed in the context of a previous MRL application for lettuces and salad plants Risk for consumer is unlikely
0252010	Spinaches	0.2 (ft 2)	Footnote related to data gap No. 4 [Some information on analytical methods unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐ethyl]	0.01* or 0.15 (Risk management decision)	The data gap identified by EFSA concerning the lack of information on analytical methods for quizalofop‐p‐ethyl on spinaches has not been addressed However, sufficient data are available to support an MRL proposal of 0.15 mg/kg based on the existing SEU GAP on spinach for propaquizafop Risk for consumers unlikely Risk manager decision is needed on whether lowering the existing MRL to the LOQ of 0.01 mg/kg or to consider the MRL of 0.15 mg/kg
0252030	Chards/beet leaves	0.04 (ft 2)	Footnote related to data gap No. 4 [Some information on analytical methods unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐ethyl]	0.01*	The data gap identified by EFSA concerning the lack of information on analytical methods for quizalofop‐p‐ethyl on spinaches and chards/beet leaves has not been addressed. No fall‐back option has been identified for this crop Risk managers may consider lowering the existing MRL to the LOQ of 0.01 mg/kg
0401050	Sunflower seeds	0.8	Art. 10 MRL application	1.5	The submitted data are sufficient to derive an MRL proposal, based on NEU use of quizalofop‐P‐tefuryl Risk for consumers unlikely
0401070	Soyabeans	0.2	Art. 10 MRL application	0.3	The submitted data are sufficient to derive an MRL proposal, based on NEU use of quizalofop‐P‐tefuryl Risk for consumers unlikely
0631000	Herbal infusions from flowers	0.8 (ft 1)	Footnote related to data gap No. 3 [Some information on storage stability unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐ethyl] and data gap No. 2 and 4 [Some information on analytical methods unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐ethyl]	0.05*	The data gaps identified by EFSA concerning the lack of information on storage stability and analytical methods to support the GAPs reported for quizalofop‐p‐ethyl on herbal infusions from flowers has not been addressed Risk managers may consider lowering the existing MRL to the LOQ of 0.05 mg/kg
0632000	Herbal infusions from herbs	0.8 (ft 1)	Footnote related to data gap No. 3 [Some information on storage stability unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐ethyl] and data gap No. 2 and 4 [Some information on analytical methods unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐ethyl]	0.05*	The data gaps identified by EFSA concerning the lack of information on storage stability and analytical methods to support the GAPs reported for quizalofop‐p‐ethyl on herbal infusions from leaves and herbs has not been addressed Risk managers may consider lowering the existing MRL to the LOQ of 0.05 mg/kg
0810000	Seed spices	0.05* (ft 5)	Footnote related to data gap No. 2, 3, 4, 5 [Some information on residue trials, analytical methods and storage stability unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐ethyl]	0.05*	The data gaps identified by EFSA concerning the lack of information on residue trials, storage stability and analytical methods to support the GAPs reported for quizalofop‐p‐ethyl on seed spices has not been addressed EFSA recommends keeping the MRLs at the LOQ Risk for consumers unlikely
0820000	Fruit spices (except caraway)	0.05* (ft 5)	Footnote related to data gap No. 2, 3, 4, 5 [Some information on residue trials, analytical methods and storage stability unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐ethyl]	0.05*	The data gaps identified by EFSA concerning the lack of information on residue trials, storage stability and analytical methods to support the GAPs reported for quizalofop‐p‐ethyl on fruit spices has not been addressed. New residue trials on seed spices or fruit spices have not been submitted EFSA recommends keeping the MRLs at the LOQ Risk for consumers unlikely
0820030	Caraway	0.04 (ft 5)	Footnote related to data gap No. 2, 3, 4, 5 [Some information on residue trials, analytical methods and storage stability unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐ethyl]	0.04	A new GAP for quizalofop‐p‐ethyl was reported and assessed under Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. In the framework of the previous MRL application, the requirements on residue trials, analytical methods and storage stability were considered sufficiently addressed for caraway An enforcement method with an LOQ at 0.01 mg/kg is available for caraway Risk for consumers unlikely
1011010	Swine muscle	0.02* (ft 3)	Footnote related to data gap No. 8 [Some information on analytical methods being unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐tefuryl]	0.02*	The general data gap on analytical methods (validation data demonstrating the efficiency of the extraction, hydrolysis and derivatisation steps included in the proposed analytical method for enforcement of residues in livestock) is addressed The efficiency of the hydrolysis step is demonstrated. The extraction efficiency is not needed since MRLs are set at the LOQ. The MRL is confirmed. Risk for consumers unlikely
1,011,020	Swine fat	0.02* (ft 3)		0.02*	The general data gap on analytical methods (validation data demonstrating the efficiency of the extraction, hydrolysis and derivatisation steps included in the proposed analytical method for enforcement of residues in livestock) is partially addressed The efficiency of the hydrolysis step is demonstrated. The extraction efficiency is not demonstrated EFSA recommends keeping the MRL at the LOQ. Risk for consumers unlikely
1011030	Swine liver	0.02* (ft 3)		0.02* (Risk management decision)	The general data gap on analytical methods (validation data demonstrating the efficiency of the extraction, hydrolysis and derivatisation steps included in the proposed analytical method for enforcement of residues in livestock) is addressed The efficiency of the hydrolysis step is demonstrated. The extraction efficiency is demonstrated in poultry liver and risk managers might accept the validation of the extraction of efficiency on poultry liver as sufficient to cover both swine liver and kidney (covering also edible offal). Risk managers decisions are needed. Risk for consumers unlikely
1011040	Swine kidney	0.1 (ft 3)		0.1 (Risk management decision)
1011050	Swine Edible offals (other than liver and kidney)	0.1 (ft 3)		0.1 (Risk management decision)
1012010 1013010 1014010 1015010	Bovine muscle Sheep muscle Goat muscle Equine muscle	0.02* (ft 3)	Footnote related to data gap No. 8 [Some information on analytical methods being unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐tefuryl]	0.02*	The general data gap on analytical methods (validation data demonstrating the efficiency of the extraction, hydrolysis and derivatisation steps included in the proposed analytical method for enforcement of residues in livestock) is addressed The efficiency of the hydrolysis step is demonstrated. The extraction efficiency is not needed since MRLs are set at the LOQ. The MRLs are confirmed. Risk for consumers unlikely
1012020 1013020 1014020 1015020	Bovine fat Sheep fat Goat fat Equine fat	0.02* (ft 3)		0.02*	The general data gap on analytical methods (validation data demonstrating the efficiency of the extraction, hydrolysis and derivatisation steps included in the proposed analytical method for enforcement of residues in livestock) is partially addressed The efficiency of the hydrolysis step is demonstrated. The extraction efficiency is not demonstrated EFSA recommends keeping the MRLs at the LOQ. Risk for consumers unlikely
1012030 1013030 1014030 1015030	Bovine liver Sheep liver Goat liver Equine liver	0.03 (ft 3)		0.03 (Risk management decision)	The general data gap on analytical methods (validation data demonstrating the efficiency of the extraction, hydrolysis and derivatisation steps included in the proposed analytical method for enforcement of residues in livestock) is addressed The efficiency of the hydrolysis step is demonstrated. The extraction efficiency is demonstrated in poultry liver and risk managers might accept the validation of the extraction of efficiency on poultry liver as sufficient to cover both bovine liver and kidney (covering also edible offal). Risk managers decisions are needed. Risk for consumers unlikely
1012040 1013040 1014040 1015040	Bovine kidney Sheep kidney Goat kidney Equine kidney	0.3 (ft 3)		0.3 (Risk management decision)
1012050 1013050 1014050 1015050	Bovine Sheep Goat Equine Edible offals (other than liver and kidney)	0.3 (ft 3)		0.3 (Risk management decision)
1016010	Poultry muscle	0.02* (ft 3)	Footnote related to data gap No. 8 [Some information on analytical methods being unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐tefuryl]	0.02*	The general data gap on analytical methods (validation data demonstrating the efficiency of the extraction, hydrolysis and derivatisation steps included in the proposed analytical method for enforcement of residues in livestock) is addressed The efficiency of the hydrolysis step is demonstrated. The extraction efficiency is not needed since MRLs are set at the LOQ. The MRL is confirmed. Risk for consumers unlikely
1016020	Poultry fat	0.04 (ft 3)		0.02*	The general data gap on analytical methods (validation data demonstrating the efficiency of the extraction, hydrolysis and derivatisation steps included in the proposed analytical method for enforcement of residues in livestock) is partially addressed The efficiency of the hydrolysis step is demonstrated. The extraction efficiency is not demonstrated Risk managers may consider lowering the existing MRL to the LOQ
1016030	Poultry liver	0.04 (ft 3)		0.04	The general data gap on analytical methods (validation data demonstrating the efficiency of the extraction, hydrolysis and derivatisation steps included in the proposed analytical method for enforcement of residues in livestock) is addressed The efficiency of the hydrolysis step is demonstrated. The extraction efficiency is demonstrated in poultry liver and Risk Managers might accept the validation of the extraction of efficiency on poultry liver as sufficient to cover both liver and kidney (covering also edible offal). EFSA proposes maintaining the MRL for poultry liver, while risk managers decisions are needed for kidney and edible offal. Risk for consumers unlikely
1016040	Poultry kidney	0.04 (ft 3)		0.04 (Risk management decision)
1016050	Poultry Edible offals (other than liver and kidney)	0.04 (ft 3)		0.04 (Risk management decision)
1020000	Milk	0.015 (ft 3)	Footnote related to data gap No. 8 [Some information on analytical methods being unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐tefuryl]	0.01*	The general data gap on analytical methods (validation data demonstrating the efficiency of the extraction, hydrolysis and derivatisation steps included in the proposed analytical method for enforcement of residues in livestock) is partially addressed The efficiency of the hydrolysis step is demonstrated. The extraction efficiency is not demonstrated Risk managers may consider lowering the existing MRL to the LOQ
1030000	Birds eggs	0.01* (ft 3)	Footnote related to data gap No. 8 [Some information on analytical methods being unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐tefuryl]	0.01*	The general data gap on analytical methods (validation data demonstrating the efficiency of the extraction, hydrolysis and derivatisation steps included in the proposed analytical method for enforcement of residues in livestock) is addressed The efficiency of the hydrolysis step is demonstrated. The extraction efficiency is not needed since MRLs are set at the LOQ The MRLs are confirmed at the LOQ of 0.01* mg/kg. Risk for consumers unlikely

Abbreviations: GAP, Good Agricultural Practice; MRL, maximum residue level; NEU, northern Europe; SEU, southern Europe.

^* Indicates that the MRL is set at the limit of analytical quantification (LOQ).

^a Commodity code number according to Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.

^b Existing EU MRL and corresponding footnote on confirmatory data.

^{ft 1} The European Food Safety Authority identified some information on analytical methods and storage stability as unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐ethyl. When re‐viewing the MRL, the Commission will take into account the information referred to in the first sentence, if it is submitted by 14 June 2021, or, if that information is not submitted by that date, the lack of it.

^{ft 2} The European Food Safety Authority identified some information on analytical methods as unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐ethyl. When re‐viewing the MRL, the Commission will take into account the information referred to in the first sentence, if it is submitted by 14 June 2021, or, if that information is not submitted by that date, the lack of it.

^{ft 3} The European Food Safety Authority identified some information on analytical methods as unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐tefuryl. When re‐viewing the MRL, the Commission will take into account the information referred to in the first sentence, if it is submitted by 14 June 2021, or, if that information is not submitted by that date, the lack of it.

^{ft 4} The European Food Safety Authority identified some information on residue trials as unavailable for propaquizafop. When re‐viewing the MRL, the Commission will take into account the information referred to in the first sentence, if it is submitted by 14 June 2021, or, if that information is not submitted by that date, the lack of it.

^{ft 5} The European Food Safety Authority identified some information on residue trials, analytical methods and storage stability as unavailable for quizalofop‐P‐ethyl. When re‐viewing the MRL, the Commission will take into account the information referred to in the first sentence, if it is submitted by 14 June 2021, or, if that information is not submitted by that date, the lack of it.