UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C. , 20460 

### AUG 0 6 2014

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Usage Report Package in Support ofTebufenozide (129026)

FROM:

THRU:



### TO: Don Atwood

## fr~ 

# ky**~** Science and Information Analysis Branch Biological and Economic**~alysis Div** **ion (7~03P)**  Diann Sims, Chief

# ~ Science Information and Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) Kaitlin Keller, Chemical Review Manager Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P)

This memorandum transmits the Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) report for Tebufenozide. Please refer to the coversheet ofthe SLUA for an explanation ofthe data sources and other information that describes the report content. Also, please refer to the footnotes ofthe SLUA report for an explanation ofsymbols used to characterize the data. For questions, comments and other usage or label use information requests, please contact me at 308-8088.

cc:Tebufenozide (129026) ScreeningLevel Usage Analysis (SLUA)

· Date: August 5, 2014 Whatis a ScreeningLevel Usage Analysis (SLUA)? • Available estimates ofpesticide usage data for a particular active ingredientthat is used on agricultural crops in the United States. • Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources. The data are then merged, averaged, androunded so that the presented information is not proprietary, business confidential, ortrade secret. What does it contain? •Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only. •Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reportedto be used on. •Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states thatproduce 80% or more ofa crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases, depending onthe scope ofthe survey and available resources. • Annual percent ofcrop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural crop. • Average annual pounds ofthe pesticide applied for each agricultural crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States)

. What assumptions can I make about the reported data? • Average pounds ofactive ingredient applied

- Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all observations, then rounding. Note: 

## If the estimatedvalue is less than 500 , then that value is labeled <500. Estimatedvalues between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significantdigit. Estimatedvalues of 1,000,000 orgreater are roundedto 2 significant digits.) • Average percent ofcrop treated

- Values are calculated by merging data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, & rounding to the nearest multiple of5. Note: 

## If the estimated value is less than 2.5 , then the value is labeled <2

.5

. 

## If the estimatedvalue is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1. • Maximum percent ofcrop treated

- Value is the single maximum value reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the nearest multiple of5. Note: 

## If the estimatedvalue is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5. What are the data sources used? • USDA-NASS (United States Department ofAgriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)- pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2012: • Private pesticide market research- pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2012. • CaliforniaDepartment ofPesticide Regulation (DPR) PesticideUse Reporting (PUR) data for 2004 to 2011. What are the limitations to the data? • Additional registered uses may existbut are not included because the available surveys do notreport usage (e.g., small acreage crops)

. • Lack ofreported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply zero usage. • Usage data on a particular site may benoted in data sources, but not quantified. In these instances, the site would not be reported in the SLUA. • Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control, etc.) are not reported in the SLUA. A separate request must be made to receive these estimates. • Some sites show some use, even though they are not onthe label. This usage couldbe due to various factors, including, butnot limited to Section 18 requests, existing stocks ofthe chemical, data collection errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

### August 5, 2014 ScreeningLevel Estimates ofAgricultural Uses ofTebufenozide (129026) SortedAlphabetically**(Reportin~** 

### Timeframe: 2004-2012) Crop Avg. Lbs. Percent Crop Treated A.I. Average Maximum 1 Alfalfa 

### 2 Almonds 

### 3 Apples 

### 4 Blueberries 

### 5 Broccoli 

### 6 Cabbage 

### 7 Caneberries 

### 8 Cauliflower 

### 9 Celery 

### 10 Cotton 11 Grapes+ 

### 12 Lettuce 

### 13 Parsley 

### 14 Pears 

### 15 Pecans 

### 16 Peppers 

### 17 Pistachios 

### 18 Rice 

### 19 Spinach 

### 20 Sugarcane 

### 21 Tomatoes 

### 22 Turnips 

### 23 Walnuts All numbers rounded

. <500 Less than 500 pounds ofactive ingredient <2.5 Less than 2.5 percent ofcrop treated

<1 Less than I percent ofcrop treated 1,000 <1 <2.5 4,000 <2.5 5 1.,000 <1 <2.5 1,000 10 15 <500 <2.5 5 <500 5 5 <500 5 10 1,000 5 10 <500 5 20 1,000 <1 <2.5 1,000 <1 <2.5 2,000 5 15 <500 5 5 <500 <1 <2.5 2,000 5 10 1,000 5 25 1,000 <2.5 <2.5 <500 <1 <2.5 <500 <2.5 <2.5 10,000 15 25 7,000 5 15 <500 <2.5 5 5,000 5 10

+ Crops not known to be listed on active end use product registrations or as Section 18 emergency exemptions when this report was run

SLUA data sources include: USDA-NASS (United States Department ofAgriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service) Private Pesticide Market Research California DPR (Department ofPesticide Regulation) These results reflect amalgamated data developedby the Agency and are releasable to the public

.