UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C

. 20460 

## DEC 02 Z014

MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION



### SUBJECT: BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Myclobutanil (128857) FROM:

THRU: Tara Chandgoyal, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist Biological Analysis Branch Claire Paisley-Jones, Biologist

## L.--f'CY"~ Science Information and Analysis Branch { Elizabeth Hill, Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branch Diann Sims, Chief Science Information and Analysis Branch Timothy Kiely, Chief

# ~**~** Economic Analysis Branch 

### 'J

# J Biological and Economic Analysis Division 7 3P) TO: Khue Nguyen, Chemical Review Manager Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

PeerReview Panel date: November 5, 2014

1

### SUMMARY Myclobutanil fungicide belongs to the triazoles chemical group ofDe-Methylation Inhibitors (DMI) fungicides. Itbelongs to group 3 ofFungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC) based on mode ofaction offungicides. Itis registered for use on berries, grapes, nuttrees, pome fruit, stone fruit, tropical fruit, flavoring and spice crops, cucurbits, fruiting vegetables, leafy and stem vegetables, beans, okra, asparagus, and cotton to control and/or manage fungal disease. In recent years (2008-2012) approximately 120,000 lbs ofmyclobutanil were applied annually to 2,000,000 acres. The vast majority ofmyclobutanil was applied to grapes (45% oftotalpounds applied), and apples (20% oftotal pounds applied). The remaining 35% oftotal pounds of myclobutanil were applied inmuch smaller quantities to over25 other crops. 

### INTRODUCTION The Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) Chemical Profile (BCP) provides an overview ofthe pest management roles and quantitative usage information for myclobutanil. The BCP includes summaries ofprevious BEAD products and available public and/orprivate use and usage data for myclobutanil to describe the role ofthis chemical in pest management. Additional information onuse is available inthe myclobutanil PRD Label Data Report. Informationprovided in this BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) may be used by stakeholders (e.g., users and registrants), OPP risk assessors, and OPP risk managers, and the general public during the Registration Reviewprocess ofthis pesticide. 

### HISTORY OFMyclobutanil and BEAD PRODUCTS No Section 18 requests have been submitted for myclobutanil inthe past ten years. Note that a lack ofrecent Section 18 requests should notbe interpreted as a lack ofbenefits associated with this chemical. 

### COMMONFORMULATIONS AND APPLICATIONMETHODS Myclobutanil is formulated as a granular, dry flowable, wettablepowder, emulsifiable concentrate, soluble concentrate, pressurized liquid, and ready to use. This chemical is formulated as a granular, dry flowable, wettable powder, emulsifiable concentrate, soluble concentrate, pressurized liquid, and ready to use. 

### USE SITES Agricultural Use Sites Agricultural use sites ofmyclobutanil include: berries, grapes, nut trees, pome fruit, stone fruit, tropical fruit, flavoring and spice crops, cucurbits, fruiting vegetables, leafy and stem vegetables, beans, okra, asparagus, and cotton.

2Non·Agricultural Use Sites Non·agricultural uses ofmyclobutanil include: various trees, grasses, and ornamentals. MYCLOBUTANIL USAGE Agricultural Usage Between 1998 and 2012 an average ofapproximately 145,000 pounds ofmyclobutanil were applied annually over an average of 1,610,000 acres (Fig. 1 ). During this time period both the total acres treated and total pounds applied have fluctuated somewhat from yearto year, overall yearly pounds AI applied has decreased slightly, while total acres treated has slightly increased.
250,000

Total Pounds

AI Applied

0 0 0 0 N 

### .... 0 0 N N 0 0 N m 0 0 N 

### g 0 N LJ') 0 0 N 0.0 0 0 N 

### " 0 0 N 00 0 0 N

- Pounds AI

- Total Area Treated Ol 0 0 N 0



### .... 0 N N



### .... 0 N 4,000,000

Total Acres

Treated

0



### Figure 1. 

### MyclobutanilTotalAcres Treated and Total Pounds A.I. Applied (2002-2012). Source: Proprietary Data, 2002-2012 Between 2008 and 2012 approximately 120,000 lbs ofmyclobutanil were applied annually to 2,000,000 acres. The vast majority ofmyclobutanil was applied to grapes (45% oftotalpounds applied), and apples (20% oftotal pounds applied). The remaining 35% oftotal pounds of myclobutanil were applied in much smaller quantities ( < 8,000 average lbs AI per year) to over 25 other crops (Table 1). In 2011, there was a spike inacres treated with myclobutanil. This was due to cotton seed treatment inTexas that was used from a weather-induced fungal disease. The rate for myclobutanil seed treatments oncotton seed was 0.0003 lbs ofactive ingredientper acre, whereas for foliar applications it is 0.09lbs active ingredient per acre (1998-2012).



### 3

### T bl 1 

### M I b t 'I U a e 

# . tyc o uam se on 

### T C op rops: A

### verage 

# .. a e, 

# - A I R 

### t 2008 2012 Crop Average Pounds AverageTotalAcres AverageA.L Rate A.L/yeaF Treated/year

### * Obs a.i./acre) Grapes 52,000 502,000 0.104 Apples 24,000 210,000 0.116 Other** 3-8,000. 25

- 880,000" 0.004- 0.500" **Other crops: Apricots, Artichoke, Asparagus, Beans, Caneberries, Cantaloupes, Cauliflower, Cherries, Cotton, Cucumbers, Dry Beans/Peas, Lettuce, Peaches, Pears, Pecans, Peppers, Pistachios, Plums/Prunes, Pumpkins, Soybeans, Spinach, Squash, Strawberries, Sugar Beets, Tomatoes, Walnuts, Watermelons. *Total Acres Treated sums all acres treated for a crop, mcludmgthose acres thatreceive multiple treatments. • For Other crops: Avg. Lbs., Avg. TAT, and Avg. AI Rate show the range ofaverage annual values for all "other'' crops. Source: EPAProprietary Data, 2008-2012 Anothermeasure ofpesticide usage, percent crop treated, indicates the potential importance ofa chemical to a crop. Ofthetop crops uses a considerable portion ofgrapes (30%) and apples (35%) are treated with myclobutanil. Similarly, a sizable percentage ofseveral crops (listed as "Other" in Table 1, above) including artichokes (65%), apricots (40%), strawberries 30%), and cherries (25%) are treated with myclobutanil. The percent crop treated ofall observed crops from 2004 to 2012 can be found inthe SLUA. Table 2 shows usage interms ofpercent oftotal pounds a.i applied by state during the same time periodrepresented inTable 1 (2008-2012). Duringthis time period, the majority of myclobutanil (65% oftotalpounds AI) was applied in California. California's usage is followed distantlyby Washington (10%), Michigan (5%), and 29 other states (Table 2). 

### Table 2. States with Highest Use of Myclobutanil- Percent ofTotalPounds AI A 

## r dB tw 

### 2008 2012



# . . "pp11e e een 

# - 

# . 2008-2012 Average Annual= 120,000 lbs

### A.J. State o/o Lbs California 65 Washington 10

Michigan 5

Other* 20 *Other states: NY, TX, NC, AK, VA, FL, OR, JK, OH, GA, NM, IN, MI, MD, CT, WV, AL, TN, MO, SC, AZ, IL, OK, lA, MA, LA, WI, ID, KS Source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012 Non-Agricultural Usage Myclobutanil is used in small quantities by lawn care operators, and on golfcourses, institutional turffacilities, and turffarms. Its use by landscape contractors, onthe other, is far more significant. In 2011, myclobutanil was the leading active ingredient inthe segment, accounting

4for 65 percent ofpoundage applied, or nearly 70,000 pounds ofactive ingredient (Proprietary Data2011). Geographic Distribution ofMyclobutanil Usage The map below shows myclobutanil use intensity interms ofpounds A.I. applied per 1,000 acres ofcrop area grown in each state. While the majority ofmyclobutanil is applied in California, Washington, and Michigan (Table 2), use intensity is higher inthe north eastern states Connecticut, New Jersey, and Massachusetts where there are fewer total agricultural acres.

PoundsActive Ingredient per 1,000 Crop Acres Grown c:::J No Data 0<0

.1 c:::Jo

.1-1 1-10

- >10 Figure 1. Annual average agricultural use intensity ofmyclobutanil (2008-2012).

More information about this map is presented in Appendix A.

5BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT TO MYCLOBUTANIL Myclobutanil fungicide belongs to the triazoles chemical group ofDe-Methylation Inhibitors (DMI) fungicides. It belongs to group 3 ofFungicide Resistance Action Committee based on mode ofaction offungicides (FRAC, 2013). There are big differences inthe activity spectra of DMI fungicides (FRAC 2013). Resistance in many fungi against DMI fungicides is known and it is generally accepted that cross resistance is presentbetweenDMI fungicides active againstthe same fungus (FRAC, 2013). Thesefungicides have medium risk ofresistance development in fungi (FRAC, 2013) and resistance managementis recommended (FRAC, 2013). Theresistance in fungi against a fungicide canbepreventedbypremixing it with a fungicide having a different mode ofaction or alternating itwith fungicides with different modes ofaction. ROLE OF MYCLOBUTANIL IN PEST MANAGEMENT Myclobutanil is registered for the control ofmany fungal diseases on various crops. On grapes, it is labeled for controlling anthracnose, blackrot and powdery mildewdiseases. On apples, it is labeled for controlling powdery mildew, rust and scab (pre-bloom, bloom and post-infection) diseases. Myclobutanil appears to be effective in controlling fungal diseases onthe registered crops. California is the largest producer ofgrapes and accounts for 65% oftotal usage of myclobutanil inthe United States. Based onuse and usage it appears to play an important role in the control offungal diseases inthe production ofgrapes, apples, almonds, tomatoes, cherries and many other crops. REFERENCES BEAD. 2014. Myclobutanil Screening Level Usage Analysis. Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office ofPesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency. FRAC. 2013. Accessed on October 11,2014. http:/ /www.frac.info/publication/ anhang/FRAC%20Code%20List%202013-final.pdf Proprietary Data. 1998-2012. (pesticide usage data) Proprietary Data. 2011. (pesticide usage data)

6APPENDIX A The map included herein is primarily for the use ofthe risk assessors in the Environmental Fate and Effects Division. The mapprovides a very broad geographical view ofthe average annual amount (inpounds) ofthe active ingredient applied per 1,000 acres ofcrop acres grown. These data are included in the maps because risk assessors are interested in the amount ofa pesticide used across agricultural land. The calculated values presented in the map are not equivalent to an application rate (lb ai/A). The dataused to make these maps have several limitations. Any interpretation ofthe maps should consider the underlying data and the associated limitations carefully. The numerator (annual average pounds applied) is based on- private market surveys ofpesticide use in agriculture averaged overthe last five years (Proprietary Data, 2008-2012). These surveys cover about 60 crops and are targeted in states that produce the majority ofthe crop. Although the surveys capture most ofthe use ofa particular active ingredient in agriculture, there are several limitations to these surveys.

• States with minor production ofa surveyed crop are not sampled • Not all types ofpesticides are surveyed in every crop in every year • Many specialty crops with very small acreages are not included inthe survey The result ofthese limitations is that states that showno usage may actually have a small amount ofthe active ingredient being used. In some cases the displayed use intensity may be distorted because the surveyed crops and the reported pesticide usage may not accurately represent the actual pesticide usage on the crops produced in the state. The denominator (1,000 crop acres grown) was also obtained from the same private market survey database. The "CropAcres Grown" variable represents the total acres grown in a given state ofall ofthe surveyed crops. This value is independent ofpesticide usage and pesticide registration. Itis importantto note that the surveyed crops (about 60) are sampled from states that are majorproducers ofeach crop. Therefore, there are cases where the actual crop acreage in a state is higher than that reported by crop acres grown inthe survey because either that state and/or crop was not included in the survey. The reader should payparticular attention to the figure legends and realize that a map prepared for a particular chemical is not directly comparable to a map prepared for a different chemical as the legend bins will likely be different.



### 7