Information Requests Monitoring System

This data is maintained as an archive.

Request ID: 208
Request From: Steve Toth
Date Requested: Aug 24, 2011
Request: Contacts for Regulatory Information Network in Southern Region: See the information request regarding chloroneb (fungicide seed treatment) from Kent Smith of USDA's Office of Pest Management Policy below. Please circulate the information request to the stakeholders (i.e., university researchers and specialists, county agents, growers, industry officials, etc.) in your respective states and territories for their input. You can submit your responses via the Southern Region IPM Center's Information Requests Monitoring System (access from this e-mail message) or send them directly to me at steve_toth@ncsu.edu. The responses should be posted to the Information Requests Monitoring System or sent to me no later than FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, so that a coordinated response from the Southern region can be submitted to Kent Smith. It has been a while since we have received a regulatory information request from EPA or USDA OPMP. This should give us a chance to "exercise" our new regulatory network! Thanks for your participation in the network and your service of the stakeholders in your state/territory. Contact me (919-513-8189; steve_toth@ncsu.edu) or Mike Weaver (540-231-6543; mweaver@vt.edu) if you have questions or difficulty with the Information Requests Monitoring System. Steve Toth -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear IPM Center Directors, Chloroneb was effectively canceled last year and the tolerances for food uses on beans, sugar beets, cowpeas, and soybeans will be revoked next year. There are a few products registered for use on ornamental turf that are still available but they will be disappearing in the next few years. The registrant of the old chloroneb products is considering renewing the registration of chloroneb as a fungicide seed treatment on: cotton, beans (soy, snap, bush, garbanzo, etc.), peanuts, sugarbeets, and for certain ornamentals including turf. Questions: 1) Usefulness. Is a chloroneb seed treatment registration on these crops important to agriculture and worthy of our support? please give us a yes/no answer for each of the above crops. 2) Alternatives. What are the currently used alternatives to chloroneb on the above crops? 3) Efficacy data. Can you cite or send efficacy data for any of these uses of chloroneb and its alternatives? Please send responses to me, Sheryl Kunickis (sheryl.kunickis@ars.usda.gov), and Teung Chin (teung.f.chin@usda.gov). Thank you for consideration of this matter. Kent L. Smith, Ph.D. Plant Pathologist USDA, ARS, AO Office of Pest Management Policy Washington, DC Phone: (202)720-3186 E-mail: kent.smith@ars.usda.gov ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear IPM Center Directors, Timeline for responses. I failed to request that responses be sent to us in about a month. Of course, we would be interested in anything you have earlier than that. A little background. In 2005, EPA published a thorough Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for chloroneb which is summarized in the attached RED Fact Sheet for chloroneb. The regulatory conclusion was that chloroneb was eligible for reregistration provided certain data gaps and requirements were addressed. These data gaps were not adequately addressed so chloroneb was canceled and the last tolerances will be revoked next year. The registrant is now considering completing the testing required in the 2005 RED and applying for the canceled chloroneb uses. New chloroneb products will probably not be available until the required testing is complete. All the uses on food crops were seed treatments while the ornamental uses were primarily soil and foliage treatments. I hope this is helpful. Kent Kent L. Smith, Ph.D. Plant Pathologist USDA, ARS, AO Office of Pest Management Policy Washington, DC Phone: (202)720-3186 E-mail: kent.smith@ars.usda.gov

Responses
Responder: Mark Mossler
State: FL
Date Requested: Sep 15, 2011
Response: Response from Deep South and Caribbean sub-region is being sent to Mike Weaver for a coordinated response.

Responder: Mark Matocha
State: OK,TX
Date Requested: Sep 16, 2011
Response: Response from Dr. Tom Isakeit – Professor and Extension Plant Pathologist, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, College Station, TX Questions: 1) Usefulness. Is a chloroneb seed treatment registration on these crops important to agriculture and worthy of our support? please give us a yes/no answer for each of the above crops. No. Not on cotton. 2) Alternatives. What are the currently used alternatives to chloroneb on the above crops? Many on cotton. See attached list. 3) Efficacy data. Can you cite or send efficacy data for any of these uses of chloroneb and its alternatives? See two attached reports from 2003 and 2005. Chloroneb works, but I don’t think it is essential for Texas. It may be useful for resistance management, but fungicide resistance in cotton seedling problems has not been a problem so far.

Return to Other Requests