Many of the original Section 18 labels for soybean rust fungicides will expire in November 2007, and fungicides that were granted Section 18 labels in 2004 are now going through EPA for consideration to get a full label for soybean. As of March 2, 2007, soybean residue tolerances were issued for myclobutanil, propiconazole, and trifloxystrobin products, so products with these active ingredients will most likely receive a Section 3 label in 2007. These products include Laredo®, Quilt®, Tilt®, Propimax®, Bumper®, and Stratego®. See the table for a complete list of products and targeted dates for EPA action.
Specifically for soybean rust, new fungicides are still being approved with Section 18 labels. Alto® and Quadris® Xtra were granted Section 18 labels in 2006, and Topguard™ was granted a Section 18 label a few weeks ago for Iowa. Other fungicides still may be issued Section 18 labels for Iowa in 2007. These fungicides include Caramba™, Headline-Caramba™ CoPack, and Punch™, which have already been approved in South Dakota and Minnesota but are still pending for Iowa. Eventually, these products will be submitted to the EPA for getting a full label but not during the 2007 growing season.
What should growers do with Section 18 products that remain unused?
The first wave of Section 18 authorizations has a November 10, 2007, expiration date. Pesticides in the hands of the user that will not be used according to label will either have to be returned to the dealer, if they will accept it, or disposed of according to solid waste or hazardous waste regulations. Of these fungicides, Topguard™, Domark®, and Headline® SBR are the only three that are not currently registered pesticides, so Section 18 authorizations for these products instruct the user to return all unused product to the dealer after November 10, 2007.
The remainder of the first wave of Section 18 authorizations issued for soybean rust management carry Section 3 labels for application to crops other than soybean. If these products remain in inventory or are not used by November 10, 2007, they still may be used for the crops listed on their Section 3 label. Also, if these products are in the hands of the end user, the dealer is under no obligation to accept their return as they would with either Domark® or Headline® SBR.
Subsequent Section 18 authorizations for products like Alto® and Topguard™ will not expire in 2007.
What should growers do if they want to use a former Section 18 product that receives a Section 3 label?
If the Section 3 label includes application for soybean rust management, then the applicator would need to have a copy of the supplemental label in their possession to cover application to soybean. Use of any pesticide needs to be covered by a current label.
What if the Section 3 label does not match the Section 18 label?
The simple answer is the pesticide may only be used according to the label that accompanies the product. If a pesticide currently under a Section 18 receives a Section 3 label that is different from the Section 18 label, the applicator is still limited to the label on the container. A supplemental label may work, but again, the applicator has to have a label in their possession that covers the way it is applied. It is currently not known how Section 3 labels issued this year to replace Section 18 labels match up with the corresponding Section 18 labels.
What if a Section 3 label is not issued before the Section 18 expires?
For Domark® and Headline® SBR, if full registration is not achieved by November 10, 2007, then applying for a new Section 18 may be considered at that time. Unless a Section 3 label or another Section 18 is issued for these products, they are not legal for any use.
For 2007, be sure you have the most recent label and spend extra time to be sure applications of fungicides will follow legal guidelines.
Fungicides approved (Section 18) or registered (Section 3) for soybean rust management (updated March 3, 2007).
|Active Ingredient||Product |
|Section 18 Expiration |
|Section 3 Projected EPA Action|
|chlorothalonil||Bravo®, Echo®, Equus®||none||registered|
|cyproconazole||Alto®||4/19/09||no action for 2007|
|cyproconazole + azoxystrobin||Quadris® Xtra||4/19/09||no action for 2007|
|flusilazole||Punch™||pending for Iowa||no action for 2007|
|flusilazole + famoxadone||Charisma®||pending for all states||no action for 2007|
|flutriafol||Topguard™||3/1/10||no action for 2007|
|metconazole||Caramba™||pending for Iowa||no action for 2007|
|metconazole + pyraclostrobin||Headline Caramba™ co-pack||pending for Iowa||no action for 2007|
|myclobutanila||Laredo® EC||11/10/07||tolerance approved;
full registration expected
|propiconazole||Tilt®, PropiMax®, Bumper®||11/10/07||tolerance approved;
full registration expected;
Section 3 is pending label wording
|propiconazole + azoxystrobin||Quilt®||11/10/07||tied to propiconazole|
|propiconazole + trifloxystrobin||Stratego®||11/10/07||tolerance approved;
full registration expected
|tebuconazole||Folicur®, Orius®, Uppercut®||11/10/07||expected in March 2007|
|tebuconazole + pyraclostrobin||Headline® SBR||11/10/07||registrant has not made a decision
on the fate of this product
|tebuconazole + trifloxystrobin||Absolute®||see footnoteb||tied to tebuconazole, could be later|
|tetraconazole||Domark®||11/10/07||expected in 2007|
aLaredo® EW withdrawn by registrant (DOW) but Laredo® EC still available.
bEPA will not act on this submission since the active ingredients are both near full registration.
Source: Marty Draper: National Program Leader--Plant Pathology of CSREES
Section 18 labels are available on the pesticide bureau's Web site .
Daren Mueller is an extension plant pathologist with the Iowa State University Corn and Soybean Initiative and the Pest Management and the Environment Program. Chuck Eckermann is chief of the pesticide bureau of the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship.
This article originally appeared on pages 59-60 of the IC-498 (3) -- March 26, 2007 issue.