UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHI N GTON , D
. C
. 20 4 60 

### JU N 102015

MEM O RANDUM OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY A N D POLLUTIO N PREVE NT I ON

S UBJECT : BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration R eview: Fluoxastrobin (028869) 

### FROM : Leonard Yourman , Plant Pathologist Biological Analysis Branch



### THRU: Cy nt hi a Do u co ure , Env iro n men tal P rotection Spec i a li st Scie nce Information and Ana lys is B ranc h 

## , Derek Berwald , Economist

# ~ f.l:- \J\A

# ~ Economic Analysis B ranch 

### 'J ) Biologica l and Eco nom ic Analys; Div i '.io n (7503P Arnet Jones , Chief \ Biological Analys i s B ranc Di ann Si m s , C hi ef Science Information and Analysis Branch T imothy Kiely , Chief 

# fr4.- fAA.._ ( 

# A Economic Analysis Branch

### ~ 

# J v 

# 0 Biological and Eco nomic Analysis Division (7503P) 

### TO : Moana App leyard, Chemical Rev iew Manager Ri sk Management and Imp lemen ta tion Branc h V Pesticide Re-eval uat io n Di vis ion (7508 P)


### Pro duct Rev iew P a ne l date: May 1 3, 2015

Page 

### 1 of 11SUMMARY Fluoxastrobin was registered in 2005 as a broad

- spectrum fungicide of the quinone outs i de inhibitor (Qol) chem ical group (also called strobilurin fungicide). Based on available private market research, agricu ltural use of fluoxastrob in in the U.S. fluctuated during the 2008 to 2013 time frames with the highest reported use occurring during the 2010-2011 timeframes. The predominant uses, based on percent crop treated (PCT) are peanuts , peppers and wheat ( < 2.5%). The proportion of use of fluoxastrobin in terms of pounds applied are corn (36%), soybeans (30%) , and spring wheat (19%). BEAD also found that in 201 1 , approximately 20 , 000 lbs a.i. of fluoxastrobin was reported ly used in the professional turf management and horticultural segments . INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to convey usage information and a broad overv i ew of the pest management roles of pesticides that are beginning to undergo reg i stration rev i ew . The anticipated audience consists of the team of EPA staff currently evaluating the registration status of fluoxastrobin , and the general publ i c. This document bu il ds upon the data B EAD provides in the Label Use Informati on System (LU IS) reports and the Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) to Registration Review teams. The document is based on information and data availab le to BEAD as of Apri l 2015
. HISTORY OF BEAD ASSESSMENTS F OR FLUOXASTROBIN BEAD prepared a Screening Leve l Usage Analys i s (SLUA) in April 2015 that contained usage information on predominant uses of fluoxastrobin during the 2004

- 2013 time frame. The top uses in terms of average percent crop treated (PCT) and average pounds a . i. applied annually include the following: peanuts , peppers , and wheat , each w ith an average PCT of < 2
. 5%
. The average annual pounds a.i. applied on peppers (1,000) and peanuts (2 , 000) are relatively low , wh il e the pounds a . i
. applied on wheat (10 , 000) is considerably higher. To date, BEAD has not rev iewed any Section 18 Emergency Exemption Requests for the use of fluoxastrobin; this shou l d not be interpreted as a lack of benefits associated with the chemical.
COMMON FORMULATIONS AN D APPLICATION M E THOD S Fluoxastrobin is formulated as dry flowab le, emulsifiable, flowable, and soluble concentrates , as well as granules , which are applied as broadcast , banded , chem i gation, in furrow , or soil drench treatments using either aerial, ground, sprinkler irrigation , or granu le applicator equipment. Fluoxastrob in is also app li ed as a seed piece treatment. Dual-a.i. products are ava il able with chlorothaloni l , myclobutanil , tebuconazole , or flutriafol.
Page 2of11USE SITES Agricultural Use Sites: F luoxastrobin is registered for use on crop subgroups 1 3-07G l ow growing berries, 1 C tuberous and corm vegetables , 48 leaf petioles, 9A melons , and 98 squash/cucumber, as we ll as com , fruiting vegetab les , peanuts , potatoes, rice , sorghum , soybeans, and w heat. Fluoxastrobin is also used on sod farm turf. Non-Agricultural Use Sites : Fluoxastrobin is registered for use on ornamentals and ornamental l awns and turf.
FLUOXASTROBIN USAGE Agricultural Usage Trend Registration of the fluoxastrobin Evito®product was approved in 2006, for use on fruiting vegetables , celery, peanuts, and potatoes. In 2010, fluoxastrobin was approved on w heat, sweet corn , field corn, and soybean. Agricultural use appears to have grown steadily over the 2008-2013 t ime frame, altho ugh use in the early years was qu ite small as the new product came onto the market and did not include corn or soybean use. Figure 1 shows the pounds app li ed from 2008

- 2013, and F i gure 2 shows the acres treated with fluoxas trobin , according to proprietary market researc h s urveys . Th e most obvious feature of the use data in the figures is that data for 2011 is much larger than other years. Although it is possible that this is accurate (Evito® was approved for corn , soybean , and wheat in 2010), we know that the sample sizes for fluoxastrobin use in this survey are quite small , and so it is possib le that the relatively higher apparent use in 20 11 is an artifact of the sampling method. For this reason , we have reduced th e saturation of the 2011 data point in both c h arts , so that it do es not camo u flage w hat appears to be a real , substantial growth trend in fluoxastrobin use. During the 2008-2013 period , approx imate ly 33,000 lb s a.i. we re applied on average annually to 363 , 000 acres at an overall average application rate of 0
. 09 lb s a .i. per acre. These average figures include 201 1 use data
. By comparison , ano th er Qol fungicide, pyraclostrobin , was used on average (2008

- 2012) on over 25 million ac res per year with an annual average of approximately 2 million lb (2008

-2012) (39% of th e total lb was used on corn, 24% on soybean , and 5% on spri ng wheat) (BEAD, 2014).

Page 3 of 11Figure 

### I. Fluoxastrobin Usage : P o und s A I Applied , 2008

- 20 1 3 90.000

0 

# - 2009 

# - 2005 2010 Year Source: EPA Propri e ta ry Data, 2008-2013

P age 4 of 11 2011 2012 2013Figure 2 : Fluoxastrobin Usage : Total Area Treated , 2008-2013**l.~00.000**

,.. v 

### wos 

# - 2C09

Source: EPA Propri etary Data , 2008

-2013

Agricultural U sage: Top Crops, 2008 -201 3 

# - 2C10 vear 1011**101~** 2013

Fluoxastrobin is used primarily on com , soybean s , and s prin g wheat as shown in Table 1. Together , they constitute 85% of total fluoxa s trobin pound s a.i. applied and nea rly 90% of acres treated.


### T bl 

### I F l

a e uoxastrob ' 

# u m sage on 

### T C op rops . 2008 2013 

# - Top Crops Prop o rtion of Proportion of Avg A.I. R ate Labeled Max Total Pounds A. I. Total Area (lb a .i ./acre) App Rate p e r App l ied Treated App li cati on ( lb a.i ./ acre) Com 36% 24% 0.09 0.18 Soybeans 30% 3 1 % 0.06 0.18 Wheat , Spring 19 % 3 4 % 0.04 0.12 Other* 15 % 11% 0.05-0.10 0. 12-0.18 *Other cr op s include pe anuts, p eppers , potato es. and winter wheat. Source: P roprietary Data , 2008-20 I 3

Page 5 of 11Agricu ltural Usage: Top States. 2008

-20 1 3 Fluoxastrob in is used primarily in Nebraska , Ke ntucky , and North Dakota. Together, they constitute approximately 60% of fluoxastrobin u se in the U.S
. (Tab l e 2)
. Ov erall , tluoxastrobin occ upies a relati ve ly small portion of Qol use for these crops. T bl 2 Fl

a e uoxastro

### b. 

## u m 

### . T S sage m op tates , 2008 2 013 

### - T op States Proportion of Tot a l Proportion of Total Avg A. I. Rate Pounds A.I. Applied Area Treated ( lb a.i. per acre) Nebraska 24% 13 % 0.11 Kentucky 20% 20% 0.06 North Dakota 17 % 27% 0.04 Other* 39 % 40% 0.03 -0.18 *Other states include AL , FL, GA. IL, IN, IA , KS. MN. M O. MT , OH. OR, SD , TN. WA. a nd WI. Source: Propriet ary Data, 2008

-2013
Agric ultural Use Inte n s ity of F luoxastrobin Us e in th e U
. S. Another measure of u sage i s the use intensity. I n t hi s analysis , the use intens ity is expressed as the average annual amount ( in pounds) of the active ingredient applied p er 1 , 000 acres of crop acres grown. This diff er s from the application rate , which is expressed as th e pounds a.i. applied per treated area. Figure 

### 3 s patially repr ese nt s fluoxa s trobin ' s use inten s ity in the U .S. in K e ntucky, which i s dri ve n by production of soy beans. For more information on F igure 3 , see A ppendix A.

Page 6of11**~igure** 

### 3. Annual Average Agricultural Use Intensity of Fluoxastrobin (2009-2013).

Pounds Active Ingredi e nt p e r 1,000 Crop Acres Grown 

## D No Date 

## D <0
.03 

## D 003

- 009

- 01

- 05

- > 0 5 (So urc e: Pro pri etary Dat a, 2009

-2013)

No na gricultural Usage According to private market research, approximately 20,000 lbs a.i. were reportedly used by the professional turf management and horticu ltura l segments in th e U.S. in 201 1
. This rep resents 0.2% of the total fungicide pounds a.i. applied in these mark ets.

Page 7 of 11BIOLOGICAL AS PECTS RELEVANT TO FLUOXAST ROBIN The Fungicide R esis ta nc e Action Committee (FRAC) has designed a group classification system based o n a fungic i de 's mode of action (FRAC, 2015). Fluoxastrobin is class ified as a quinon e o ut side inhibitor (Qo J ) fung i c ide and FRAC li s ts it as a Group 11 fw1gicid e . Qol fungicides have been very important in disease manageme nt s in ce the first product (azoxys trobin) was reg i s tered in the late 1990s. They inhibit fungal re s piration by binding to the " quinone outsid e" s ite of the mitochondrial cytochrome b protein. When the compound binds to the site it block s electron transfer betwee n cytochrome b and cytochrome c, which disrupts synthesis of ATP and ultimately inhibit s cell re s piration. Group 

### 11 fungicides have been shown to exh ibit cross-res istance; that is , a pathogen that ha s developed resistance to one of the Group 11 active ingredients is rega rd ed to hav e resistance to the othe r Group 11 ac tiv e ingredients. Nevertheless, each Qo l active ingredient has a different chemical structure and characteristic (e.g., systemic mobility within the p lant can vary among different active in gredients). Generally, Qof fun g icide s have limited systemic movement in the plant but do have tran s laminar movement across the leaf. Fluoxastrobin is one of only two registered fungicide s (the other being azoxyst r obin) that move within the xyle m of the plant , thu s e ngendering some curative**~swell** as preventative activity (e.g., Bradl ey, 2011; Dufault , 2013).
ROLE OF FLUOXA S TROBIN IN DISEA SE MANAG E MENT Qo l products are among the most widely used fungicides due to their effectiveness in managing many diseases caused by numerous fungal pathogen s (Vince lli , 2012). Re s is tance has been documented for some important fungal pathogen s (e.g., Faske , 2012) and product labels have extens ive resistant management language to maintain the effectiveness of this group of fungicides
. Many Qo f fungicides are available as mixed-a.i. products for improving efficacy and to enhance resistanc e management. Because of their high efficacy in inhib i ting spo re germinatio n and th ei r tendency to accumulate in the cuticle l ayers of th e leaves , Qo l fungicides are most effective when app lied as protectants before pathogen spores penetrate the leaves (e.g.,
. For many uses Qol fungic id es may be interchan gea ble in terms of effect iveness, while in other s ituations indi v idual Qol active ingredients may exhibit different levels of efficacy. As such, in some situations, a particular Qol active ingredient may be recommended in preference to another Qo l fungicide. Wh ere curative activity is required fluoxastrobin might b e se lected by a user preferentially compared to some other Qo l fungicides due to it s movement through the xylem and , therefore , fluoxastrobin may have benefits for curative treatments. However , BEAD did not find extensio n info rm ation spec ifically r eco mme nding fluoxastrobin rath e r th an other QoI fungicides to manage target dis eases . Qol fungicides are effective against several di seases of field crops as we ll as vegetab le and fruit crops. Historicall y, fungicides were little u sed o n field crops such as com and wheat (e.g., Is leib , 20 13 )
. U se on com in creased substantially in 2007 , due in part to price of hyb rid com, increase in disease in some areas, newer fungicides that were available, and increa sed marketing by manufacturers. Page 8 of 11Fluoxastrobin and other Qol fungicides target rusts of co rn , soybean , and w heat ( Kemerai t , 2012). Qo l fungicides , including tluoxastrobin , have been u sed to manage soybean aerial web blight and frogeye leaf s p ot (e .g. , Purdu e , 2014 ), althoug h frogeye leaf spot path ogen has shown resistance in so me locations (e .g. , Faske , 20 1 2). Fluoxa s trobin may be u sed to manage w h eat tan spot a lth o ug h e fficacy differences among Qol fungicide s hav e been noted (e.g., fluoxastrobin was rated Very Good; pyraclostrobin rated Excellent) ( M U, 20 12)
. Fluoxastrobin and other Qol fung ic id es a lso may be used to manage w h eat Septoria leaf blotch and wheat g lume blotch. Q o l fungicides , includin g fluoxastrob in can b e very effective aga in s t anthracnose fruit rot and leathe r rot of s trawb e rri es applied postbloom to harv est (E lli s, 20 1 3). Qol fun g icides have been u se d to mana ge imp ortant melon/cucurbit disea ses gummy s te m bli g ht and downy mildew , but widespread patho ge n re s istance has been fo und to thi s fun g icide gro up (e.g., R o b erson, 2007).
INFORMATION THAT MAY BE USEFUL FOR BEAD 'S FUTURE WORK ON FLUOXASTROBIN
• In formation of any speci fic pre fe rential uses for fluoxastrobi n co mpared to other availab le Qo l fungicides includin g particular disea se/ crop systems or locations
REFERENC ES BEAD. 2014. BEAD C hemic a l Profile for Regis tratio n Review: Pyraclostrobin (099100). February 27 , 20 14
. Biolo gical and Economic Analysis Division , OPP. Bradl ey , C. 20 11. Pro v idin g some clarity on fungi c id e produ c t s. The Bulletin Iss ue 2, Article 4 , April 8 , 20 11. U niv e rs ity of. Illinois Extension. http ://bullctin.ipm
. ill i no is . edu/ article
. php ? id= 1454 ; Du fa ult , N. 20 1 3. Fun g icide basics and use in vegetable di sease mana ge ment. U niversity of Fl o rid a Extension. http :// hos
. ufl
. edu/ sitcs /dcfau lt / filcs / focultv/ gdliu/ Dufault
. pdf Elli s, M.A. 20 1 3. Using fungicides to control strawber r y fr uit rots in Ohio-2012. Ohio State University Ex tension. http: // strawberries
. ces . ncsu .edu/\\ p-content/ uploads / 2013 / 05 / Fungicidcs

for-S trawberrv

- Frui t-Rots

- iti
.pdf E P A Screening Leve l Usage Anal ys is ( SLUA), Ap ril 2015 Faske , T
. 2012. S trobiluri n-re s i stant frogeye leaf spot confirmed in Arkan sas. D e lta Farm Press , Aug. 17 , 20 12. http ://dcltafarmpress
. com/sovbeans /strobilurin-rcsistant-frogevc

- lcaf

- spot
con fi m1cd-arkansas

Page 9 of 11FRAC. 2015. Fungic ide Resistanc e Action Committee Code List: Fungicides Sorted by Mode of Action. http ://www.frac
. info/ docs/ default-source/ publications/ frac-code-list/ frac-code-list-2015- fina!C2AD7 AA36764
.pdf?sfvrsn=4 Isleib , 

### J. 2013. Fo li ar fungicide use in com. Michigan S tate Unive r sity Ex te nsion. http ://msuc.anr . msu.edu/news/ foliar fungicide use in corn Kemerai t , R. C. 2012. Fungicides and man agement of rusts. University of Georgia Extension. http ://v.r ww .plantmanagementnetwork.orn / proceed ings/ FCRS / 201 1 / Presentations / Kemerai t .pdf MU. 2012. Wheat disease situat ion . Un iversity of Missouri Extension. http ://ipm.missouri.edu/IPCM/ 2012/4/ 2012-Wheat-Disease-Situation / Proprietary Data , 2008-2013 Purdue. 2014
. Fung i cide efficacy for control of soybean fo li ar diseases. Purdue Un ivers i ty Extension. https: //www . extension
. purdue
. edu/extmedia/BP/ BP-l 6 l-W
. pdf Vincelli , P
. 2012. Qol**(stro~ ilurin** **)** fung ic ides: Benefits and risks
. Plant Health Instructor , APSnet Publication. http :// www . apsnet . org/ edcenter /advanced/topics/ Pages / StrobilurinFungicides
. aspx .

Page IO of 11APPEND I X A
The map included h ere in is primarily for the use of the risk assessors in the Env ironmental Fate and Effects Di visio n . The map provide s a very broad geographical v iew of the average annual amount (in pounds) of the acti ve ingredient applie d per 1 , 000 acres of crop acres g rown. These data are included in the maps because risk assessors are interested in the amount of a pesticide used across agric ultural land. T he calculated values presented in the m ap are not equivale nt to an application rate (lb a.i ./A). The data used to ge ner ate these maps hav e several limitations. Any interpretat ion of the map s s hould consider th e unde rlyin g data and the associated limitations carefully. The numerato r (an nu a l average pounds applied) is based on pri vate mark et s urveys of pesticide use in ag riculture ave ra ged over the last five yea rs (Propri eta ry D ata , 2009-2013). These surveys cover about 60 crops and**ar~** targe ted in sta tes that produce the majority of the crop. Although the surveys capture most of the use of a particular active in gred ien t in agriculture , th ere are several limitati ons to these surveys.
• States with minor production of a surveyed crop are not samp le d • N ot a ll types of p esticides are surveyed in every crop in every year • M an y spec ia lty crops with ver y s mall ac reages are not included in the s urvey The result of these limi tations is that states that show no u sage may actually have a s mall amount of the active in gredient bei ng used. In some cases the displayed use intensity may be distorted because the surveyed crops and the reported pesticide u sage may not accurate ly represent the actua l pesticide usage on th e crops produced in the stat e. The denominator ( 1 , 000 crop acres grown) was also obtained from the sa me private market s urv ey databas e . Th e " Crop Acres Grown " vari a bl e re presents the tot a l acres g rown in a given state of all of th e s urv eye d c. rops. Thi s value is ind ependent of pe sticide u sage a nd pesticide registration. It i s imp o rt an t to note that the s urveyed crops (about 60) are sampled from states that are major producers of each crop. Therefore , t here are cases whe re the actual crop acreage in a stat e is hi ghe r th an that repo rted by crop acres g rown in the survey because e ither that state and/or crop was not included in the survey. The re a der should p ay particular attention to the fi g ure le ge nd s and rea li ze that a map prepare d for a particular c he mical i s not directly comparab le to a map prepare d for a d i fferent chemical as the lege nd bin s will like ly be diff erent.

Page 11 of 11