MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

THRU: 

BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Fenpyroximate 

(129131) 

Mallampalli, Nikhil, Ph.D., Entomologist ML (;) 

Biological Analysis Branch :..:.----

Don Atwood, Ph.D., Entomologist fr J 

Science Information and Analysis Branch 

Stephen Smearman, Economist M 

Economic Analysis Branch 

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) 

Arnet Jones, Chief 

Biological Analysis Branch 

Diann Sims, Chief . 

Science Informatio an Analysis Branch 

Timothy Kiely, Chief Q Economic Analysis Branch 

Biological and Economic Analysis 1vision (750 

TO: Miguel Zavala, Chemical Review Manager 

Patricia Parrott, Chief Risk Management and Implementation Branch III 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

Peer Review Panel date: September 3, 2014 

Page 1 ofll 
The major agricultural use sites include almonds, oranges, pecans, grapefruit, apples, and cotton. 

The registered non-agricultural use sites include; lawns, ornamentals, and recreational areas. 

According to available proprietary information, the highest usage of this pesticide, in terms of 

both total pounds applied and total acres treated, was on almonds. 

Fenpyroximate use has generally been increasing since 2004, both in terms of pounds used and 

acres treated. Notable recent increases can be seen in some citrus crops, such as grapefruit. This 

may be partly due to the comparatively good efficacy of fenpyroximate against both mites and 

psyllids, and a general lack of widespread resistance to this pesticide in spider mites in the U.S. 

Fenpyroximate is a good choice for growers targeting mite populations consisting mainly of 

motile immature and mature life stages, and may also be an increasingly frequent choice of 

growers seeking to use multiple types of pesticides to get season-long control the Asian citrus 

psyllid in citrus (where this insect is a vector ofthe incurable greening disease). 

INTRODUCTION 

The Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) Chemical Profile (BCP) provides an 

overview of the pest management roles and quantitative usage information for fenpyroximate. 

The BCP includes available public and/or private use and usage data for fenpyroximate and a general discussion of biological aspects, intended to describe the role ofthis chemical in pest 

management. Additional information on use is available in the Fenpyroximate Label Data 

Report provided in the public docket for this chemical. Information provided in this BEAD 

Chemical Profile (BCP) may be used by stakeholders (e.g., users and registrants), OPP risk and 

benefit assessors, and OPP risk managers, and the general public during the Registration Review 

process of this pesticide. 

AGRICULTURAL USE SITES 

Fenpyroximate is registered for use on avocado, tropical/subtropical fruits, citrus fruits, cotton, 

cucumber, field com, popcorn, silage com, seed com, fruiting vegetables, grapes, small fruit vine 

climbing (except fuzzy kiwifruit), hops, low growing berry (except cranberries), melons, mint, 

nonbearing deciduous fruit trees/nut trees/vines, pome fruit, tree nuts, tuberous and corm 

vegetables, snap bean, stone fruit, greenhouse cucumber, and greenhouse tomatoes. 

Page 2 ofll 
FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS 

Fenpyroximate is formulated as an emulsifiable concentrate. Application may be made using 

either ground or air equipment. 

IDSTORY OF BEAD ASSESSMENTS FOR FENPYROXIMATE 

Fenpyroximate was first registered for use in the U.S. in 2000. 

A search of the BEAD databases for previous analyses for fenpyroximate indicates that there are 

no records of prior BEAD benefits assessments. However, there is one emergency exemption 

request for fenpyroximate. 

In 2006, Nebraska requested the use of fenpyroximate to control V arroa mite in beehives 

because of resistance to available alternatives (fluvalinate and coumaphos). BEAD concurred 

with the assessment, indicating that fenpyroximate would be one of very few alternatives for 

control of a serious pest in bees (Brassard and Lee 2006). 

FENPYROXIMATE USAGE 

Agricultural Usage 

Usage of fenpyroximate and number of acres treated both showed a steady increase from 2004 to 

2012 (Figure 1). However, since 2010, there has been a decrease in totallbs applied but a 

continued increase in total area treated (acres). This is largely the result of increased use in 

cotton at an average rate of0.05 lb/a.i./acre with a declining use on almonds in 2012 (0.134 

lb/a.i./acre) and oranges since 2008 (0.128lb/a.i./acre) (Table 4). The steady increase in the 

number of acres treated even with relatively low percent crop treated suggests that growers are 

finding benefits for using fenpyroximate. 

Page 3 ofll 
0 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Year 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2004-2012 

Fi re 2. National Fen yroximate Usa e Acres Treated from 2004 to 2012. 

250,000 

0 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Year 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2004-2012 

A review of total fenpyroximate usage data for the last 5 years indicates that the primary use site 

is almonds, accounting for approximately 40.2% ofboth totallbs applied and 33.3% oftotal 

acres treated (Table 1). Of the major use sites, as shown in the Screening Level Usage Analysis 

(SLUA) (BEAD, 2014), all but cotton have an average of5% crop treated (Table 2). 

Page 4 ofll 
g

,

Pecans 1,900 

Grapefruit 900 

A les 700 

Cotton 700 

20 27,900 

11 21,200 

5 14,600 

4 8,600 4 7,600 

18 

14 

3 

6 

9 

*Total Acres Treated sums all acres treated for a crop, including those acres that receive multiple treatments. 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012 

T a bl e 2 . P ercent C T rop reate d . Wit hF enp yrox1mate. 

Crop Treated. 

' . Lbs. A.I. Av.enJ,ge Maximum 

Almonds 5,000 5 10 

Oranges 3,000 5 10 

Pecans 2,000 5 10 

Grapefruit 1,000 5 15 

Apples 1,000 5 10 

Cotton 1,000 <1 <2.5 

Source: BEAD 2014 SLUA 

Table 3 (below) indicates states with the highest usage of fenpyroximate in terms of lbs a.i. 

applied and acres treated. California is by far the state with the highest fenpyroximate usage at 

64.1% of total fenpyroximate lbs applied and 60.3% of total acres treated. This is primarily a 

result of the dominance of California in the production of citrus and almonds. 

Table 3. States with hest Use ofFenpyroximate (2008-2012). 

State %.ofTotal • % of Total Acres 

1--

FenpYJ"Dxim.ate Lbs Treated with 

Applied '• Fe:Qp:Y.m.ximate-"* 

California 64 California 60 

Florida 14 Georgia 14 

Georgia 11 Florida 9 

Louisiana 4 Louisiana 8 

New York 2 New York 3 

Washington 2 Washington 3 

*Total Acres Treated sums all acres treated, mcludmg those acres that rece1ve multiple treatments. 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012 

Page 5 ofll 
Crop 

Acres Treated* (lbs a.i./acres) 

Almonds 7,100 52,900 0.134 

Oranges 3,600 27,900 0.128 

Pecans 1,900 21,200 0.091 

Grapefruit 900 14,600 0.196 

Apples 700 8,600 0.086 

Cotton 700 7,600 0.050 

*Total Acres Treated sums all acres treated for a crop, mcludmg those acres that receive multiple treatments. 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012 

Table 5 provides average fenpyroximate application rates by state. Highest application rate, 

0.179 lbs a.i./acre, is used in Florida and primarily related to citrus production. Lowest 

application rate is for cotton in Louisiana, 0.050 lbs a.i./acre. 

Table 5. 

California 

Florida 

Georgia 

Louisiana 

New York 

Washin on 

*Total Acres Treated sums all acres treated, including those acres that receive multiple treatments. 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012 

[;

 

According to proprietary data, ground application accounts for 99% of fenpyroximate pounds 

applied, and 97% of total acres treated. Fenpyroximate applications are all foliar, with maximum 

seasonal application rate and number of applications dependent upon crop, pest and bearing/nonbearing crop status. 

Page 6 ofll 
Please refer to Appendix A (below) for additional details on the scope and context of this map. 

Pounds Active Ingredient 

per 1,000 Crop Acres Grown 

0 No Data 

0<0.01 

D o.o1 -o.1o 

-0.10-0.50 

->0.50 

Figure 3. Annual average agricultural use intensity offenpyroximate (2008-2012). · 

Non-Agricultural Usage 

BEAD's data for fenpyroximate use on non-agricultural sites are limited. The only available 

estimate of use is 10 lbs a.i. on nursery I greenhouse turf and ornamentals (Proprietary Data, 

2012). 

Page 7 ofll 
g

(

)

g

p

, p

y 

almonds, seem to be increasing their use of fenpyroximate. For web-spinning mite pests of 

almonds, fenpyroximate is one of several options recommended by the University of California 

(California is by far the largest source of almonds in the U.S.). Recent guidance has the 

following to say about its effect on mites: "Contact toxin to juveniles and adults with long 

residual activity. Residues are toxic to both pest and predator mites for several weeks. A good 

choice under extreme mite pressure in the absence ofbeneficials." (UCIPM 2014). Pyridaben 

(another acaricide with the same Mode of Action as fenpyroximate) does not have any such 

description, though it is also mentioned as a spider mite control option for this crop. This 

suggests that fenpyroximate is more effective than pyridaben if mite populations have high 

numbers of all motile life stages of mites. 

A survey of internet accessible news reports and extension service publications did not identify 

clear reasons as to why fenpyroximate usage is increasing in recent years. However, it is well 

established that mites (particularly spider mites, a major target of such use) develop resistance 

rapidly to most acaricides once they are used widely and with little rotation of chemistries. 

BEAD did not locate reports of widespread pest resistance to fenpyroximate in the U.S. 

However, the Arthropod Pesticide Resistance database, maintained by Michigan State 

University, does list several reports of resistance in mite populations in Brazil, Turkey, Europe, 

and northeast Asia (see http://www.pesticideresistance.com for public access to the database). In 

addition, at least one recent news item mentions anecdotal reports of reduced susceptibility to 

fenpyroximate in spider mite populations in pears grown in Washington (Warner 2014). 

Warner (2014) also mentions that growers may be using materials such as fenpyroximate in 

greater amounts (and with less attention to rotating with other chemistries) because it is one of a 

few options that can control both mites and psyllids (insects that suck plant sap and that are 

sometimes vectors of serious plant diseases). It is not clear if this issue is specific to pears or is 

applicable to the other crops that show recent use of fenpyroximate. However, given the high 

concern among citrus growers that has been created by the spread of the Asian citrus psyllid (the 

vector of the incurable greening disease), it may be a factor underlying use in oranges. 

BEAD notes that fenpyroximate has not received a full (Section 3) registration for use against 

Varroa mites in beehives. The emergency exemption for this use in Nebrasaka that was reviewed 

by BEAD (Brassard and Lee 2006) also appears not to have been renewed since 2006. However, 

the Section 18 database maintained by the Registration Division indicates that several other 

states, including California, Illinois, Missouri, and North Dakota, have requested (and received) 

this use (occasionally also for use against the small hive beetle, another pest of commercial 

beekeeping) for various years between 2008 and 2010 (see 

http://cfuub.epa.gov/oppref/section18/search.cfm for additional details). It is not clear why 

Page 8 ofll 
g

y 

y 

p

py

g 

following information for all registered non-agricultural sites may improve future assessments 

conducted by the Agency related to the use and importance of fenpyroximate. 

• Total pounds active ingredient applied 

• Percent crop/site treated 

• Application rates: typical and maximum • Frequency of application 

• Application Intervals • Methods of application 

• Target or niche pests 

• Efficacy information/product performance 

In addition, obtaining the following usage information may improve future assessments 

conducted by the Agency related to the use and importance of fenpyroximate in agricultural 

settings: 

1) Typical application timing in each registered crop. 

2) If more than one application is typically made, the typical re-application interval (per 

crop). 

3) Recent resistance reports for fenpyroximate in populations of important target pests, in 

particular cases of cross-resistance to other acaricides. 

REFERENCES 

Brassard, D. and A. Lee. 2006. BEAD Review ofNebraska Emergency Exemption Request for 

Fenproximate to Control Varroa Mites in Beehives (07NE01; DP # 333436). 

BEAD. 2014. Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) for fenpyroximate. [Accessible in the 

fenpyroximate registration review docket at www.regulations.gov] 

Proprietary Data. 2004-2012. 

UCIPM. 2014. UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Almonds. Publication# 3431 ofthe 

University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources Statewide IPM Program. 

Available on the web at http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PDF/PMG/pmgalmond.pdf 

Accessed August 2014]. 

Page 9 ofll 
Page 10 ofll 
The data used to make these maps have several limitations. Any interpretation of the maps 

should consider the underlying data and the associated limitations carefully. 

The numerator (annual average pounds applied) is based on private market surveys of pesticide 

use in agriculture averaged over the last five years (Proprietary Data, 2008-2012). 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 

several limitations to these surveys. 

• States with minor production of a surveyed crop are not sampled 

• Not all types of pesticides are surveyed in every crop in every year 

• Many specialty crops with very small acreages are not included in the survey 

The result of these limitations 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 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 "Crop Acres Grown" variable represents the total acres grown in a given 

state of all of the s'urveyed crops. This value is independent of pesticide usage and pesticide 

registration. It is important to note that the surveyed crops (about 60) are sampled 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 11 ofll