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


### NOV 10 

## 2014

:MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION



### SUBJECT: Acequinocyl (006329) Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)


### FROM:

THRU: CynthiaDoucoure, Environmental Protection Specialist Science and Information Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) Diann Sims, Chief

# ~ Science Information and Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) TO: Margaret Hathaway, Chemical Review Manager Risk Management and Implementation Branch II Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

This memorandum transmits the Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) report for acequinocyl. 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 SLUAreport for an explanation ofsymbols used to characterize the data. For questions, comments, and other usage or label use information requests, please contact me at 703-308-8133.Acequinocyl (006329) ScreeningLevel Usage Analysis (SLUA) Date: October 20, 2014 Whatis a ScreeningLevel Usage Analysis (SLUA)? • Available estimates ofpesticide usage data for a particular active ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States. • Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources. The data are then merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not proprietary, business confidential, ortrade secret. What does it contain? •Pesticideusage data for a single active ingredient only. • Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is 

### reportedto beused on. •Availablepesticide usage informationfrom U.S. states that produce 

### 80% or more ofa crop, in most cases, or less than 

### 80%, inrare 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 calculatedby merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all observations, then rounding. 

### Note: 

### If the estimated value is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500. Estimated values between 500 

### & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significantdigit. Estimated values of1,000,000 orgreaterare rounded to 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. 

### Ifthe 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 of

### 5. 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. •Privatepesticide market research- pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2012. • CaliforniaDepartmentofPesticide Regulation (DPR) PesticideUse Reporting (PUR) data for 2004 to 2011. What are the limitationsto the data? • Additional registered uses may existbut are not included because'the available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops). • Lack ofreported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does notimply zero usage. • Usage data on a particular site maybe noted in data sources, but not quantified. Inthese 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 could be due to various factors, including, but not limitedto Section 18 requests, existing stocks ofthe chemical, data**collect~n** errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).**(~**

### Date: October20, 2014 ScreeningLevel Estimates ofAgricultural Uses ofAcequinocyl (006329) Sorted Alphabetically (Reporting Timeframe: 2004-2012) Average PercentCropTreated Crop 

### AnnualLbs. 

### 1 Almonds 

### 2 Apples 

### 3 Grapefruit 

### 4 Grapes 5 Lemons 

### 6 Oranges**~** 7 Pears '"<>" ,•**·~** 

### 8 Strawberries 

### 9 Tangerines 

### 10 Walnuts

All numbers rounded.

<500: indicates less than 500pounds ofactive ingredient. <2.5: indicates less than 2
.5 percent ofcrop is treated
. <l: indicates less than l percent ofcrop is treated
.
SLUA data sources include: A.I. Applied Average 1,000 <1 1,000 <2.5 

### <500 <2.5 

### <500 <1 

### <500 <2.5 1,000 <1 

### <500 <1 1,000 

### 5 

### <500 <2.5 

### <500 <1

USDA-NASS (United States Department ofAgriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service) Private Pesticide Market Research These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public. Maximum <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5

10 

### 5 <2.5