UN ITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASH I NGTON , D
. C

. 20460 

### MAR 12 

### 2014

OFFICE OF CHE M ICAL SAFETY A N D POLLUnON PREV E NTIO N MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: Bispyribac-sodium (078906) FROM:

THRU:

TO: Monisha Kaul , Biologist 

# I : 1 0J1.h,J

## ~**~** Biological Analysis Branch Cynthia Doucoure, Environmenta l Protection Specialist 

## C
.**~~~** 

## .. c' Science Information and Analysis Branch Andrew Lee, Economist

# t (? j Economic Analysis Branch ·

## ~ Biologi cal and Economic Analysis Divis n (7503P) Arnet Jones , Chief /)

# --**"' ~**  Biological Analysis Branch 

# rr-· (;.
. Diann Sims, Chief

# J{]~ Science Information and Analysis Branch Timothy Kiely , Chief 

# Q:**lA/l~** Economic Analys is Brancn
. Biological and Economic Anal sis Di vis io n (75 ) Moana Appleyard, Chemical Review Manager Risk Management and Implementation Branch V Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7 508 P)
Product Review Panel date: November 27, 2013

Page 

### 1 o f8INTRODUCTION The purpose ofthis document is to convey usage information and a broad overview of the pest management roles of pesticides that are beginning to undergo registration review. The anticipated audienc e consists of the team of EPA staff cur rentl y evaluating the registration s tatus of bispyribac

- sodium, and eventually the general public. This document builds upon the data BEAD provide s in the Labe l Use Information System ( LUIS) reports and the Screeni ng Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) to Registration Review teams. The document is based on information and data available to BEAD as of October 2013. Bispyribac-sodium i s a post-emergence herbicide formulated as a wettabl e power or water soluble granule used to control grasses and weeds. This herbicide is in the Weed Science Society (WSSA) group 2 and has a mode of action of inhibiting acetolactate sy nthase (ALS inhibitor). Bispyribac-sodium is an herbicide that was reg i stered in th e U .S. on September 24, 200 1
. HISTORY OF BEAD ASSESSMENTS FOR BISPYRIBAC-SODIUM BEAD prepared a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) in April 2013 that provided data on use ofbispyribac-sodium on rice in the U.S. during the 2004-2011 timeframe , which showed that an average of4 , 000 pounds a.i. was applied annually to rice and that the average percent crop treated was 5%. COMMON FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS Bispyribac

- sodium is commonly formulated as a wettable powder or water soluble granule , packaged in water soluble bags , and applied as broadcast or surface sprays using ground o r aerial sprayers . USE SITES Agricultural Use Sites: Bispyribac-sodium is reg i stered for use on rice. Non-Agricultural Use Sites: Bispyribac-sodium is registered for use on golf course turfgrass and sod farms, as well as aquatic sites such as canals , drainage ditches, marshes , lakes, ponds, and reservoirs.

Page 

### 2 of8BISPYRIBAC-SODIUM USAGE Agricultural Usage on Rice According to proprietary market research surveys , bispyribac-sodium use on rice fluctuated in t erms of pounds a.i. applied and total area treated throu ghout the 2002

- 2012 timefrarne as shown in Figures 1 and 2 below. The overa ll average a.i. rate of application during this period was 0.026 lbs a.i. per acre. However, there was a slight increase in the average a.i. rate of application (0.029 lb s ai per acre) during the second half of the period (2008-20 12) due to a nearly 50% increase in pound s a.i.applied and a nearly 20% increase in total area treated as shown in Table 1. Figure 1. Bispyribac-sodium Use on Rice: Pounds AI App li e d , 2002-20 1 2

...: <i 

### "' "0 c :I 0 Q. 8,000 ....--------- -- ---------- -- --

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Source: EPA Proprietary Data, 2002 -2012

Page 3 of8Figure 2: Bispyribac-sodium Use on Rice: Total Area Treated Applied, 2002-2012 300,000 ..,..--- --- ---- -- --- ---- - -

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Source: EPA Proprietary Da ta, 2002

- 2012

T ab l e 1. Bispyribac-Sodium Use on Rice: Comparison of Usage between the 2003-2007 and 2008-2012 Ti me frames Timeframe Av2 Lbs AI Total Area Treated A V2. A.I. Rate 2003-2007 3,510 147,188 0.024 2008-2012 5,196 180 ,492 0.029 Source: Propnetary Data, 2003-20 12
Agric ul tural Usage: Top States, 2003-2012 B i spyribac-sodium was used predominantly in th e states of Cal ifornia and Arkansas during the 2003

- 2012 timeframe. During 2008

- 2012, Louisiana accounted for a smaller proportion of national use than in 2003

- 2007 (Tab le 2). The proportion of national use increased in Arkansas and Texas as shown in Table 2. Although the proportion ofuse in California has decreased s li ghtly in 2008

- 2012 as shown in Table 2 the total pounds app li ed actuall y increased from a li ttle o ver 9,000 lbs a.i. dur ing the 2003-2007 period to nearly 12 ,000 lbs a.i
. during the 2008- 20 1 2 period. The a.i. rate of application in California was also above average in the second half while the rates of application in other states were below average.

Page 4 of8Table 2
. Comparison of States with Highest Use ofB ispyribac-Sod iu m- Percent of Total Lbs. Applied between the 2003-2007 and 2008

- 2012 Timeframes 2003-2007 2008-2012 Average= 3,510 lbs/yr Average= 5,196lbs/yr State %Lbs A.I. Rate of State %Lbs A.l. Rate of Applicaton Applicaton Ca lifornia 52 0.052 Californi a 46 0.038 Ar kansas 21 0.021 Arkansa s 32 0.026 Lou is ia na 13 0 .0 12 T exas 14 0.011

Other* 14 0.020 Other** 8 0.023 *Other States in the 2003

-2007 timeframe include MS , MO , and TX *Ot he r States in the 200 8-2012 timeframe include LA , MS , and M O Source : Propnctary Data, 2003-2012 Agricultural Use Intensity of Bispyribac-Sodium on Ric e in th e U.S. Ano t h er measure of usage is the use intensity
. In this analy s is , the u se inten s ity is expressed as the average annual amount (in pounds) of the active in gredient applied per 1 , 000 acres of crop acres grown. This differs fro m the application rate , which is expresse d as th e pounds a.i. applied per treated area. Figure 3 spatially represents bispyribac-sodium ' s use intensity in the U.S. on rice , which is relati ve ly greater in California and Arka n sas during the 2008

- 20 1 2 timeframe. For more information about this map , see Appendi x A.

Page 5 of8Figure 3. Annual Average Agricultural Use Intensity ofBispyribac-Sodium (2008-2012).

Pounds Active Ingredient per 1.000 Crop Acres G rown 

## c=J No Data 

## c=J < 0.002

..0.003- 0
.025

..0.026

- 0.055

..>0.056 (Source: Proprietary Data , 2008-2012)
Non

- Agricultural Usage BEAD reviewed available data sources but did not find any data on non-agricultural uses of bispyri bac -so di urn.
BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT TO BISPYRIBAC-SODIUM Bispyribac-sodium i s selective, postemergence herbicide. Although most ALS inhibitors are systemic, bispyribac-sodium can be used as a contact herbicide. Acco rding to the product label Reg iment®, bispyribac -sodium may be applied 

### in single or split application and alone or in a tank mix. Most applications require th e use of a surfactant. Bispyribac-sodium is used to control many weeds 

### in rice such as bamyardgrass/junglerice (Echinochloa crus-galli /E chinochloa colonum), watergrass (Echinochloa oryzoides) , and momingglory (Ipomoea hederacea and Ipomoea Jacunosa) (Proprietary data, 2008-2012)
. There Page 6 of8are two weed spec ies w ith reported resistance to bispyribac-sodium: annual bluegrass (Poa annua) and rice flatsedge (Cyperus iria) (Heap , 2013). In addi ti on , th ere are many more report s of weed resistance to WSSA group 2 herbi c ides. Careful stewards hi p of this herbicide and other Group 2 herbi c ides i s needed to delay herbicide resistance.
ROL E OF BISPYRIBAC-SODIUM IN PEST MANAGEMEN T Bi spyrib ac-sodium pro vides late , postemerg enc e weed control in ri ce production. Because of known res i stance i ssues the use of this herbicide mu st be managed carefully. However, th e u se ofbispyribac-sodium has increased in rice producti o n despite the documented weed re sis tanc e. Calif ornia and Arkansas account for the majority of the bispyribac-sodium pounds applied to rice and are also the top two rice producing states in the U.S. (USDA NASS, 2013). Although use has increase d overa ll (Tab le 1 ) , only 5% ofric e is treate d nationall y on average with this herbicide , which ind icate s low importance to rice produ ction nationally.
IN FORMATION THAT MAY BE USEFUL FOR BEAD'S FUTURE WORK ON BISPYRIBAC-SODIUM The Agency currentl y does no t ha ve important information on bispyribac-sodium. Obtaining the following inf ormatio n may impro v e future assessment s conducted by the Agency related to the use and imp ortance o f bispyribac-sodium:
• Information on ornamental lawns and turf, including golf courses and sod farms, as well as aquatic sites such as canals, drainage ditches , mashes , lakes, ponds, and reservoirs , including pounds a.i. applied, application timing , application rate , application method , application frequency. • Importance ofbispyribac-sodium for fungal p ests s uch as dollar spot. • Resis tan ce management information related to the u se a nd importance ofbispyribacso dium in rice production. REFERENCES EPA Proprietary Dat a, 20 02-2012 EPA , Bispyribac-sodium Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) , J anuary 2013 Heap , I. T he International Survey ofHerbicide Resistant Weeds. Avai lable at: www.weedscience.org
. Verified: Nove mber 12 , 2 0 13. USDA NASS , 20 1 3. Acreage. Online : http: // usdaOl.l ibrary.cornell.edu/usda/current/Acre /Acre06

- 28-2013.pdf. Verifi ed : February 28, 201 4.

Page 7 of8APPENDIX A The map included herein is primarily for the use of the risk assessors in the Enviro nmental Fate and Effects Division. The map provides a very broad geographical view of the average annual amount (in pounds) of the active ingredient applied per 1,000 acres of crop acres grown. These data are included in the maps becau se risk assessors are interested in the amount of a pesticide used across agricultural land. The calculated values presented in the map are not equivalent to an application rate (lb 

### ail A). The data used to make th ese maps have several li mitations. Any interpretation of the maps should consider the underlying data and the assoc iated limitations carefully. The numerator (annual average pounds applied) is based on private market surveys of pesticide use in agriculture averaged over the las t five years (P roprietary Data, 2008-20 12). These surveys cover about 60 crops and are targeted in states that produce the majority of the crop. Although the surveys capture most of the use of a particular active ingredient in agriculture, there are severa l limitations to t h ese surveys . • States with minor production of a 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 in the survey The result ofthese limi tatio ns is that states that show no usage may actually have a small amount of the 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 accuratel y 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. T h e "Crop Acres Grown " variab le represents the total acres grown in a given sta te of all of th e surveyed crops. This value is independent ofpesticide usage and pesticide registration. It is important to note that the surveyed crops (about 60) are samp led from states that are major producers of each crop. Therefore , there are cases where the actual crop acreage in a state is higher than that reported by crop acres grown in the survey because either that state and/or crop was not included in the survey. The reader should pay particular 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.

Page 8 of8