### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASil l NGTON D.C. , 20460
I 

## MAY 0 8 

## 2015 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### MEMORANDUM SUBJEC T:
FROM:

THRU:

TO: Fenoxaprop and Fenoxaprop-ethyl Usage Information for Risk Assessment (PC # 129092& 12870 1) Bill C hi sm, Ph.D. , Senior Biologist Biolo g ical Analysis Branch Jihad Alsadek, Ph.D. , Economist

# ~ A

. 

# 11-LM Science In formation and Analysis Branch Michelle Ranville, Ph.D. , Economis Economic Ana lysis Branch Biological a nd Eco nomic Analysis Arnet Jones , Chief Biological Analysis Branch Diann Sims , Chief

# ~ Science In formation and Analy s i s Branch Timothy Kiely , Ch ief

# ~**~** Econom ic Analys is Branch 

# VV\ Bio logical and Economi c Analysi ivision (7503P Miguel Zava la , Chem ic al Review Manager Tracy Perry, Team Leader Kelly Sherman , Act in g Ch ief Risk Management and Implementation Branch III Pe sticide Reevaluation Di v i sion (7505P) 

### BEAD Product Review Panel date: April 15 , 2015

### SUMMARY This document describes the usage of fenoxaprop and fenoxaprop-ethyl which are undergoing registration re-evaluation in the Office of Pesticide Program s. The usage information is provided to describe how fenoxaprop formulations are used to help during risk m i ti gation discussions. BEAD was asked to describe the key crops where fenoxaprop formulations are used , its use rate , the average and upper bounds of treatment rates, application timing, and crops where applications are made by air. Our analysis did not find any ev idence of the use of fenoxaprop on an in-season (same calendar year) rotat ional crop. Proprietary data (2004-2012) show use of fenoxaprop formu lat ions on bar ley, soybeans, rice , and wheat. Use has declined over the l ast few years. Fenoxaprop

- ethyl (PC Code 12870 I) is a post emergence herbicide used to selectively control annual and perennial grass weeds with labeled use sites on fa ll ow, rice and soybeans
. Fenoxaprop (PC Code 12909.2) has labeled use sites on fallow, barley , cotton, right

- of-way , ornamenta ls, turf , rice , and wheat. Usage data in this document cover both active in gred ients, fenoxaprop and fenoxaprop

- ethyl, and are referred to collectively as fenoxaprop
. Fen oxaprop inhibit s acetyl CoA carboxy l ase enzyme (ACCase) (WSSA Group 

### 1) and interferes with meristematic tissue development. 

### Usage Data on Key Crops Table 1 

### shows that, while most of this herbicide is used in wheat crops, it is also applied to a relatively larg e percentage of the barley and rice crops. Approximately ten percent of the barley and wheat crops receive treatments with this herbicide , on average, indicating that fenoxaprop is important in controlling grass weeds in production of the se crops.


### T bl 1 S

a e creerung L l E . eve st1mates o 

### f 

### A
. .gncu turalUses o 

### f Fenoxaprop, 2004 2012

- 

### Crop Average Annual Perc ent Crop Treated Lbs A.I. Avera2e Maximum Bar l ey 20,000 10 20 

### Rice 10 , 000 5 10 

### Soybeans 20 , 000 <2.5 < 2.5



### Wheat 200,000 10 25 

### Footnote: All numbers are rounded. See Appendix I for sources.


### Acres Treated and App li cation Rates National average application rate , rate app lic at ions between the 

### goth and I 

### OOth percentile, acres treated , and acres grown (Table 2) are designed to provide add iti onal usage data on an individual crop basis for refined risk assessments. Thi s can be used to evaluate the opportunity for rate reduct ions as a mitigation option
. The average app li cation rates range from 0
. 033 to 0
. 093 lb a i

/ acre while between 

### 80 %and 

### 100%of the acres are treated at or below 

### 0.046 to 

### 0.109 lb ai/acre.

Page 2

### Tabl e 2
. 

### Fenoxaprop Nat ional Crop Acres Grown , Average Annual Total Acre Treatments , Maximum Label Rates , Average Application Rates per Treatment. and Upper Perc e ntile Application R ates; 2009-20 I 3 Maximum Average Average Si ng le (and Average Application Seaso nal) Appli cation Rate b etw ee n C r op Ann u a l C r op Annual Total Application Rate 80' h 

### and lOO 'h 

### Acres G r ow n 1 

### Acres Treated 1 

### Label Rate ( lb ai/ac r e) P e rcentil e' ( lb ai/ac r e) Barley 3
. 284,000 237 , 000 0.083 0.061 0.078 (0.083) 

### Rice 2,694 , 000 171,000 0.108 0.09 3 0.109 (0.142) 

### Soyb ea n 76 .10 5.000 250,000 0. 1 00 0.033 0.046 (0.128) 

### S prin g 12 , 178 , 000 2 , 690 , 000 0.083 0.062 0.080 

### Wheat (0.083) 

### Winter 34,723 , 000 76,000 0.083 0.055 0 .0 69 

### Wh ea t (0.083) 

### Sources: Ave r age annua l crop acres grown from 

### USDA Ce n s us of Agricu lture . Maximum si n g le app li cation

rat es from fenoxaprop product l abels

. A ll other inform ati o n from Proprietar y da t a. Numbers may not add due to rounding. 1 Rounded to nearest thou s and. 2 Represents the hi ghes t rate where between the 

## so ·· an d I 

## oo ·· percent o f the crop acre s are treated ( varies by

crop)

. 

### Application Method a nd Timing 

### Tab le 3 shows that th e majority of u sage over th e years 2009-20 I 3 was ground-applied
. Only two crops, barle y and rice , had a sig nifi cant percentage of aerial applicat ion. A pproximately e ig ht pe rcent of tota l ac re s treated for barley are app li ed aerially, and more than fifty percent of total ac res treated for rice are applied aerially. It appears that the rice aerial app lications were made to accommodate th e large number of ac res in volved and not spec i fically because of wet fields s ince they were applied pre-flood and only a sma ll number of acres were treated postnood. It 

### appears that the bar l ey and wheat aeria l applications were ge ne rall y app li ed late po s t so that the large fields could be treated in a s ho rt amoun t of time when the we e d s we re most sensiti ve. Applicat io n timi ng information at the national level for both aerial and gro und app li cations (Table 

### 4) shows when a particular crop is tre ated. Fo r refined risk assessments , this data shows w hen fenoxaprop is applied co mpared to when other species of plants and anima l s could be present.

Page 3

### T b l 3 F a 

### e enoxaprop 

### A

. I dG ena an 

### dU roun sage, 

### p t 

### fC ercen o rop 

### Acres Treated, 2009

- 2013 Bar l ey Rice Soybeans Whe a t , Wheat , S pri ng Winte r Aeria l 8% 53% 0 % 1% 2% Ground 92 % 47% 100 % 99% 98% So urce: Proprietary data


### T bl 4 

### T
.

a e 

## . 1mmgo

### f A 

### I' .p p 1cattons , 

### A . I Pl G 

### ena us 

### d 2009 201"' roun , 

## - .) 

## . Crop and Tim e of Application 4 Barley

Early Po st Late Post Rice

Before Crop Emergence-Pre-flood Early Postemergence-Pre-tlood L ate Postemergence- Pre-tlood Late Posteme rgence- P ost-flood Soybeans

Pri o r to Plantin g Before Crop Emergence Early Post Late Post Wheat, S prin g

At Planting Before Crop Em e rgence Earl y Post Late Po st Wh e at , Winter

Late Post So urce: Proprietary data 1 Rounded to nearest hundred. 2 Rounded to nearest ten. Average Acres Treated 1

237 ,2 00

14 , 600 222 , 600 1 7 1 , 400 11.600 7, 800 117 ,600 34,400 249 ,8 00

3,200 12 , 000 5 , 200 229.400 2 , 690 , 200 8 , 200 15 ,40 0 2 1 0 ,2 00 2,456.400

76,200 76,200 Average Pound s Rate Al per Acre 3 Al ! 14 ,36 0 0.061

920 0.062 13 ,440 0.060 16 ,040 0.093

840 0.07 1 760 0.098 11,500 0.098 2,940 0.085 8,400 0
. 033

120 0.035 520 0.044 120 0.023 7,640 0
. 033 166 , 260 0
. 062

460 0.058 960 0.062 11 , 620 0.055 15 3,220 0.062 4 , 160 0.055 4 , 160 0.055

3 The general application rate s for each crop are weighted averages based on annual total acres treated. 4 Time of Application : Prior To Pl anti ng is an app li catio n app lied just before the crop is p l anted
. A t Planting is an application app li ed during the planting operation. Before C rop Emergence is just before the seed ling emerges fro m the soi l. Ea rl y Pos t is ju s t afte r crop emergence. Late Post is just before the c rop canopy lays over ( lay-by) and the crop shades out any weeds
. Pre-flood and Post-flood refer to the time at which the rice field is permanently flooded which take s place when the seed lin gs have 4 to 5 leave s or at the development of2"d tiller.

P age 4

### Use Trends Figure I depict s use trends of fe noxaprop over th e past ten years for

-spring w heat , the crop with the hi g hest u sage . Usage was variable through 20 I 0 b ut s teadily decreased in the years 20 l I throu g h 2013. Figure 2 depict s usage of fenoxaprop over the past ten year s for all other crops. Similarly, usage has made a cl e ar downward trend on all crops except for rice. Usage on rice was below average in 20 13 b ut was steady in the preceding years.

r;,40U,000

Q(' l 'I fl "'(-:.' ' (\ I )0Q,{ 0 0 0 • "O ' t I'
• • <; 

### Figure 1. Fe noxaprop , Total Ac res Treated , S pring Wheat , 2004-2013 So urce: Prop rietary dat a

900,000

0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Soybeans Rice _,,.__ Barley -+- Wheat, Winter 

### Figure 2. Fcnoxap rop, Total Acres Tre ated , Other Crops, 2004

- 20 13 So urce: Propri etary data



### P age 5

### Multiple Crops in On e Calendar Year When consideri ng chronic exposure, th e application of an herbic i de to multipl e crops during a calendar year can be of concern. EPA proprietary data do not show any fenoxaprop app li cat ions to common rotation a l crops in the same state. For the crops that are most commonly treated (e
. g . , barley , soybeans , rice, and wheat (wi nter and spring)), th e only common rotational partners are soybeans followed by winter wheat. In this type of rotation the late posteme rge nce fenoxaprop application would be made in the spring of the following year. Biolog ically , it makes sense that there would only be one crop per year treated with this herbicide because most grassy weeds would be at their most sens itive li fe s tage durin g the spring and early summer.



### REF ERENCES EPA. 2007. Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl Summary Documen t Registration Review : Initial Docket , August 29, 2007, Docket N umber: EPA -H Q

- OPP- 2007-0437
. Proprietary data. 2004

- 20 13. USDA. 2007. Census of Ag ri cult ure. Crop Acres Grown.

Page 6

### APPENDIX 1 Wh a t i s a Scree nin g Lev e l Usage Ana l ys i s (SLUA)? • Ava i lable estimates of pesticide u sage data for a particu lar act ive ingredien t that is used on ag ricultural cro ps in the Un ited States. • Pesticide usage data ob tained from various sources. The data are then m erged , averaged, and ro und ed so that the prese nted information is not propri etary , bus in ess co nfid entia l, or trade secret. What does it conta in ? • Pe stic id e usa ge data for a s in g le active in gred ient only. • Agric ul tural use s ite s (cro p s) that the pest ici de is reported to be used on. • Avail ab l e pe sticide u sage informati on from U.S. states that produce 80% or more of a crop , in most cases, or le ss than 80%, in rare cases , depending on the sco pe of the survey a nd ava ilabl e resources. • Annual percent of c rop treated ( average & maximum ) fo r each agr icu ltural crop . • Average an nu a l pound s of th e pe s ticide app lied for eac h agricu ltural crop ( i .e. , for th e states s urve yed, not for the e ntire United State s). What ass umption s ca n I make about th e reporte d data? • Average pound s of ac tive in gre di e nt applied

- Va lues are calculated by merging pesticide u s age data sources together; averaging across a ll observatio ns, then rounding. Note: 

## If the estimated val ue is l ess than 500, then that value is labeled < 500. Estimated values between 500 & < l ,000,000 ar e round ed to I significant digit. Estimated values of1,000,000 or greater are round ed to 2 significant digits.) • Average percent of cro p treate d

- Values are calculated by merging data sources together; averag in g by yea r, averaging across all years, & rounding to the neare s t multiple of 5. Note: 

## If

t he es timated valu e is l ess than 2.5. t hen the valu e i s labeled < 2.5. 

## if the estimated value is less than I, !hen !he value is labeled < I. • Maximum p erce nt of c rop treated

- Valu e i s the si ng l e maximum va lu e rep orted across a ll data sources , across all years, & rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5. No te: 

## If th e estimated value is less Jhan 2.5, then the value is labeled < 2.5. What are the d ata so urces used? • US DA -N AS S (Un ited States Department of Agric ultur e's National Agricultural Statistics Serv ice)

- pe s ti c id e usage data fro m 2 004 to 2013. • Private p es ticide market r esearch

- pesticide usage data from 20 04 to 2013. • Ca liforni a Department of Pesticid e R egu lation ( DPR) Pesticide Use Reportin g (PUR) data fo r 2004 to 2012. What a r e the limitations to the d a ta? • Add i t iona l re g i stered uses may exist but are not included becau se the available surveys d o not report usage (e.g., small ac reage crops)
. • Lac k o f reporte d u sage data for the pestic ide on a c rop does n ot impl y zero usage. • Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data so u rces , but n ot qu antifie d
. In these i n stances, the s ite wo ul d not be repo rted in the SLUA. • Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf , post-harvest , mosquito control , etc.) are not reported in the SLUA. • Some s ite s show so me u se, even though they are not on the lab el. Thi s usage co uld be due to vario u s facto rs, includin g, but not limited to Sect io n 18 req uests, ex i sting s t ocks of the che mi ca l , data co ll ec ti o n erro rs, and ex perimental use permits (EU Ps).



### Page 7