UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C

. 20460 

## JUN 012015

MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION



### SUBJECT: BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: Acequinocyl (006329) FROM: Nikhil Mallampalli 

# ffeLC(**~** Biological Analysis Branch



### THRU: Cynthia Doucoure, Environmental Protection Specialist

## ~ Science Information and Analysis Branch

Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Br Diann Sims, Chief Science Information and Analysis Branch



### . J/ ,,,_ -0 [,/

-

### fU..q__,~ Timothy Kiely, Chief 

# !110t1A.o**/v:A-J~** TUY /I

# mo-WJ d Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) TO: Margaret Hathaway, Chemical Review Manager Risk Management and Implementation BranchII Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)
ProductReview Panel date: April 29, 2015

Page 1of10SUMMARY Acequinocyl, a miticide (synonymous with "acaricide"), was first registered in the U.S. in2003. Itis one ofa group ofpesticides that act by disrupting mitochondrial electrontransport, and is a member ofthe Mode ofAction (MoA) Group 20B, as defined by the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee, a group ofindustry experts. Other EPAregistered members ofthis MoA group are hydramethylnon and fluacypyrim (which is not currently marketed inthe U.S.). Since acequinocyl is a relatively newregistration, it has not undergone registration review ofany kind until now. Major agricultural use occurs on apples, almonds, oranges, and strawberries. The states with the highest overall use are California andNew York (major producers ofstrawberries and apples, respectively).
INTRODUCTION The purpose ofthis document is to convey general usage information and a broad overview of the pestmanagement role ofthis pesticide as itbegins to undergo registration review. The anticipated audience consists ofthe team ofEPA staffcurrently evaluating the registration status ofacequinocyl, and eventually the general public. This document builds upon the data BEAD provides in the Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) to Registration Review teams. The document is based on information and data available to BEAD as ofApril 2015. Acequinocyl is an acaricide (i.e., its toxicity is mainly against mites; these are the only pests listed on its label). Itwas registered in the U.S. in 2003, and has "reduced-risk" status in currently registered crops.
HISTORY OF BEAD ASSESSMENTS FORACEQUINOCYL BEADprepared a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) in October 2014 that provided average percent crop treated (PCT) values and pounds a.i. applied for 10 crops (EPA 2014). There is no official record ofother earlier BEAD work products (e.g., emergency exemption reviews, benefits assessments) that focused on acequinocyl. An emergency exemptionrequest may indicate a need for a particular chemical thatis

- notregistered for use on a particular site, and may yield information about a particularchemical'simportance orvalue that is not found in other EPArecords. However, a lack ofsuch reviews by BEAD does not specifically indicate the relative importance ofthe chemical.
COMMON FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS Acequinocyl is formulated as a soluble concentrate and appliedto crop orplant foliage via a ground-based sprayer. No aerial applications are allowed.

Page 2of10

### USE SITES Agricultural Use Sites Acequinocyl, per label, is registered for use onpome fruit, citrus, caneberry (crop subgroup 13- 07A), cherry, cucumber (field and commercial greenhouse grown), small fruit vine climbing subgroup except fuzzy kiwifruit (subgroup 13-07F), low growing berries (subgroup 13-07G), melon (subgroup 9A), succulent shelled bean, succulent soybean vegetable, tree nuts (including almonds and pistachios), fruiting vegetables except cucurbits (field grown and commercial greenhouse grown), edible poddedbeans, hops, and okra

. Non-Agricultural Use Sites: Acequinocyl is registered for use in commercial greenhouses and shade houses on ornamental, floral, foliage, and ornamental nursery crops; on ornamentals in outdoorlandscapes around the perimeterofresidences, businesses, schools, and public property, and on ornamentals in residential and non-residential interior settings. 

### ACEQUINOCYL USAGE Agricultural Usage Trends Based onthe available private and public market research, acequinocyl use in the U.S. appears to be low during the 2005-2012 time frame. In terms ofpounds a.i. applied, acequinocyl use fluctuated during this reporting period, with a marked increase in 2006 and a marked decrease in 2007, followed by increases inuse but belowthe level obtained in 2006. Similartrends were found for total areatreated, as shown inFigure 2. During the 2005-2012 time frame, approximately 1,900 pounds a.i. were applied on average annually to 7,000 acres at an overall average a.i. application rate of0.26 lbs a.i. per acre.

Page 3of10Figure 1. Acequinocyl Pounds A.I. Applied, 2005-2012

"O .!!:! Ci. c. < <i. 

### .,, "O c: ::::J 0 0... 4,500

0 2005 2006

Source: Proprietary Data, 2005-2012 

### - -

2007 2008 2009 Year

Figure 2. Acequinocyl Total Area Treated in Acres, 2005-2012 20,000

0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year Source:· Proprietary Data, 2005-2012 Page 

### 4of10 2010 2011 2012

2010 2011 2012Crops Showing Relatively High Use, 2005-2012 Duringthe 2008-2012 time frame, acequinocyl had reported usage on 10 crops: almonds, apples, grapefruit, grapes, lemons, oranges, pears, strawberries, tangerines, and walnuts. However, in terms ofproportion oftotal pounds a.i. applied, acequinocyl is used mainly on oranges (35%), strawberries (25%), apples (22%), and almonds (15%) as shown inTable 1. Together, these crops constitute a little more than 95% ofthe total acequinocyl use during this period.

Table 1. Acequinocyl Top Crops, 2008-2012

Top Crops % ofTotal Proportion AvgA.I. Rate LabeledMaxApp PoundsA.I. ofTotal (lb a.i./acre) Rate per

Applied Area r Application ' Treated (lb a.i./acre) Oranges 35% 33% 0.3 0.3 Strawberries 25% 21% 0.3 0.3 Aooles 22% 26% 0.2 0.3 Almonds 15% 16% 0.2 0.3 Other* 3% 4% 0.2 0.3 *Othercrops include wine grapes, lemons, pears, and walnuts. Source: Proprietary Data, 2005-2012

States Showing Relatively HighUse. 2008-2012 Duringthe 2008-2012 time frames, acequinocyl was reportedto be used in 5 states. However, in terms ofthe percent oftotal pounds a.i. applied, acequinocyl is used predominantly in the states ofCalifornia (77%) and New York (12%) as shown inTable 2. Together, these states constitute nearly 90% ofthe total acequinocyl use during this period.

Table 2. Acequinocyl Top States, 2008-2012

Top States % ofTotal Proportion of AvgA.I. Rate Pounds A.I. TotalArea (lb a.i./acre)

Applied Treated California 77% 74% 0.3 NewYork 12% 15% 0.2 Other* 11% 11% 0.3 *Otherstates include MI, PA, and WA. Source: Proprietary Data, 2005-2012

Page 5of10Agricultural Use Intensity ofAcequinocyl Use inthe U.S. Another measure ofusage is the use intensity. Inthis analysis, the use intensity is expressed as the average annual amount (in pounds) ofthe active ingredient applied per 1,000 acres ofcrop acres grown in a particular state. This differs from the application rate, which is expressed as the pounds a.i. applied pertreated area. Figure 3 spatiallyrepresents acequinocyl's use intensity in the U.S. Intensity is highestin California, probably as a result ofhighproduction oforanges and strawberries. Use in apples probably underlies the intensity depicted in Washington and New York. For more information on Figure 3, see Appendix A. Figure 3. Annual Average Agricultural Use Intensity ofAcequinocyl (2008-2012).

Pounds Active Ingredient per 1,000 Crop Acres Grown LJNOData LJ <0

.10 ->0.10 Source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012

Page 6 oflONon-agricultural Usage BEAD reviewed available data on acequinocyl and found reported use inthe nursery and floriculture market in 2006 (100 lbs a.i) and 2009 (300 lbs a.i.), as shown in Table 3.



### Sector

- Nursery & Floriculture 2006 2009 & Floriculture 

### Total amount

applied (lbs a.i.) 100 300 

### Average application

rate (lbs a.i./acre

0.193 0.177 Source: USDA NASS, Ag Chemical Usage Reports, 2006 and 2009


### BIOLOGICALASPECTS RELEVANT TO ACEQUINOCYL The Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (a group ofindustry technical experts) classifies acequinocyl as a member ofthe Mode ofAction Group 20B (!RAC 2014). This group of insecticides acts by disrupting mitochondrial electron transport, thus interfering with energy metabolism. Other insecticides in this group include hydramethylnon and fluacrypyrim. In the U.S. hydramethylnon is only marketed for the control ofants and cockroaches; fluacrypyrim is not yet commercially available. Thus, acequinocyl is the only currently available miticide in its Mode ofAction group, which may make itrelatively valuable interm ofrotating chemistries to delay resistance development intarget mite populations. Acequinocyl is described in some extensionpublications as having comparatively low acute honeybee toxicity, and is one ofa small group ofmiticides that are listed by suchpublications as being safe for bees when applied at any time (e.g., Pfeiffer 2015, Grafton-Cardwell etal. 2014). BEAD presumes that these descriptions refer only to the acute, immediate toxicity to bees. Acequinocyl is toxic to all labeled mite life stages, and acts only through direct contact. Itis also considered by crop experts to be relatively low in toxicity (again, presumably interms ofacute effects) to natural enemies of mite and insectpests, such as parasitic wasps and predatory mites (Grafton-Cardwell et al. 2014, Abraham etal. 2013). 

### ROLE OFACEQUINOCYL IN PEST MANAGEMENT Acequinocyl is marketed by the registrant (Arysta) for control ofseveral species ofmites in the phylogenetic families Tetranychidae and Tarsonemidae. These include the twospotted spider mite (TSSM), Tetranychus urticae, and the Europeanred mite (ERM), Panonychus ulmae. TSSM is a generalist phytophagous mite that can be a serious pest in a variety ofagricultural and ornamental crops; ERM is mainly a pest oftree fruit such as apples and pears. In citrus, both TSSM and the citrus red mite (Panonychus citri) canbe serious pests, and acequinocyl is one of the recommended control materials (Grafton-Cardwell etal

. 2014)

. Page 7of10In addition, acequinocyl is one ofa group ofrecommended miticides for California growers of strawberries who need to control the cyclamen mite (Zalom et al. 2014). These mites may also be a major targetpestin greenhouse ornamental production as well, since they are commonpests in that setting. A publicly accessible database ofpublished scientific literature on arthropod resistance that is maintained by Michigan State University (http://www

.pesticideresistance

.com/index.php) shows no publishedreports offield pestpopulations showing resistance to acequinocyl. This is noteworthy because TSSM, inparticular, is well known for developing resistance to many different chemistries. This lack ofresistance, along with its relatively lownegative impact on bees and beneficial natural enemies ofa variety ofpests, may help explainthe higher use of acequinocyl in oranges, apples, strawberries, and almonds, as compared to otherregistered sites. These crops oftenrequire simultaneous management ofmultiple pests, including TSSM and other labeled mites, and some are attractive to pollinators. However, BEAD notes that the database available from Michigan State may not reflect very recent reports ofpestresistance.


### INFORMATION THATMAY BE USEFUL FORBEAD'S FUTURE WORKON ACEQUINOCYL The Agency currently does not have important information on acequinocyl. Obtaining the following usage information may improve future assessments conducted bythe Agency related to the use and importance ofacequinocyl: Obtaining the following usage information may improve future assessments conducted by the Agency related to the use and importance ofacequinocyl: · 1) Typical application timing in eachregistered crop. 2) Details on the pestmanagement importance ofacequinocyl in ornamental production. 3) Ifmore than one application is typically made, the typical re-application interval (per crop). 4) Recent (2006-present) data onpounds used in non-agricultural sites. 5) Recentresistance reports for acequinocyl inpopulations ofimportant target pests.


### REFERENCES Abraham, C.M., S.K. Braman, R.D. Oetting, and N.C. Hinkle. 2013. Pesticide compatibility with natural enemies for pestmanagement in greenhouse Gerberadaisies. J. Econ. Entomol. 106(4): 1590-1601. EPA. 2014. Acequinocyl Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA), October 2014 Grafton-Cardwell, E.E., J.G. Morse, N.V. O'Connell, C.E. Kallsen, and D.R. Haviland. 2014. UC IPM PestManagement Guidelines

- Citrus: Insects and Mites Page 8of10Available onthe web at: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PDF/PMG/pmgcitrus.pdf[Accessed January 2015] IRAC. 2014. IRAC MoA Classification Scheme, Version 7.3. Prepared by the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) International MoA Working Group. Available onthe web at www.irac-online.org [Accessed March 2015] Pfeiffer, D.G. 2015. Spray Bulletin for Commercial Tree Fruit Growers: Virginia,West Virginia and University ofMaryland Extension. Available onthe web at: https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/456/456- 419/456-419.html. Proprietary Data, 2005-2012 USDA NASS, Ag Chemical Usage Reports, 2006 and 2009. Zalom, F.G., 

### 0. Daugovish, S.T. Koike, K.D. Larson, and P.A. Phillips. 2014. UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines

- Strawberry: Insects and Mites. Available onthe web at: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.strawberry.html. [Accessed January 2015]

Page 9of10APPENDIX 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 (in pounds) 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 equivalentto an application rate (lb ai/A). The data used to make these maps have several limitations

. Any interpretation ofthe maps should considerthe underlying data and the associated limitations carefully. The numerator (annual average pounds applied) is based onprivate 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 minorproduction 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 in the survey The result ofthese limitations is that states that show no 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 representthe actual pesticide usage onthe 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 ofall ofthe surveyed crops. This value is independent ofpesticide usage and pesticide registration. It is important to note that the surveyed crops (about 60) are sampled from states that are major producers ofeach crop. Therefore, there are cases where the actual crop acreage in a state is higherthan that reported by crop acres grown in the survey because either that state and/orcrop was not included in the survey. The reader should pay particular attentionto 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 10of10