UNITED STATES ENVIRONMEN TAL PROTE C TION AGE N C Y WAS H INGTON, D.C. 20460



## MAY 3 0 

## 2013

MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

SUBJECT: 

### BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Quinoxyfen (055459) FROM:

THRU: 

### Tara Chandgoya l , Ph. D. , Plant Pathologist 

# d**~ ~** **~** 

# t:- t::r"'**C~Jq -~**  

# _ 1 

### Biological Analysis Branch 

# /v

- / • ,**~** 

### Jihad A lsadek , Ph. D., Economist
.. 

# :r**~** )1

# ./t~ Science Information and Analysis Branch Andrew Lee, Ph. D., Economist 

# a ts (! 

# J Economic Analysis Branch

### ~ Biological and Economic Analysis Division 503P) Arnet Jones, Chief
. / 

## _4 

# &A- ,c;_, 

# /JY**~ ~~**  Biological Analysis

## Bran**/'-** 

# A A--

## (),~ kv 

# D
.**yYI,,_.** Diann Sims, Chief

### /c-1~~" 

## · 0 Science In formation and Analysis Branch

TO: Kaitherine S t. Claire, Chemical Review Manager Risk Management and Implementation Branch 2 

### Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)


### Product Review Panel date: May 

### 2, 2013

Page 1 of 1 0INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to convey usage information and a broad overview of the pest management roles of quinoxyfen which is beginning to undergo registration review. The anticipated audience consists of the team of EPA staff currently evaluating the registration status of quinoxyfen, and eventual ly the general public. Thi s document builds upon the Label Use Information System (LUIS) reports and the Screening Le vel Usage Analysis (SLUA) that BEAD also provides to the Registration Review teams. The do cument i s based on information and data available to BEAD as of May , 2013. Quinoxyfen is a systemic fungicide and considered as medium ri sk for resistance. It is effective against powdery mildew fungal pests on many crops. Res istance in many fungi has been reported and FRAC (2010) recommends resistance management. COMMON FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS Quinoxyfen is formulated as emulsifiable and suspe n sion concentrates. App lic ation methods include ground and/or aerial spray application. USE SITES Agricultural Use Sites: Quinoxyfen is a fungicide registered for use on apricots , artichokes , cucurbits (gourds, melons , pumpkins, squash, and winter squash), lettuce , peppers , pumpkin , stone fruits, strawberries, grapes , and hops. Non-Agricu ltural Use Sites Quinoxyfen is not registered for non- agricultural use site s. USAGE 

### Agricultural Use Trend, 2004-2011 Quinoxyfen was registered in 1989 and there was no reported usage from 1989 to 2004. Quinoxyfen usage s h owed a steady increase from 2004-201 1 for all crops for both pounds a.i. and total area treated (See Figures 1 and 2). The use of quinoxyfen, both in pounds and total area treated, decreased during the most recent three years, 2009-2011. Approximately 24,000 pounds of quinoxyfen were applied on average annually to 274,000 acres at an overall average application rate of 0.1 lbs. a. i./acre during the 2004-20 11 time frame .

Page 2 oflOFigure 1: Quinoxyfen: Pounds A.I. Applied, 2004-2011 50,000

Pounds A.l .

0 I 1.(') 0 0 N \0 0 0 N

Source: EPA Propri etary Data, 2004

- 2011 

## " 0 0 N Years 00 0 0 N C'\ 0 0 N

Figure 2. Quinoxyfen: Total Area (Acres) Treated , 2004-201 1 600,000

TAT

0 

# "" 0 0 N U"l 0 0 N 1.0 0 0 N 

### ,._ 0 0 N Years
So urce: EPA Proprietary Data, 2004-2011

Page 

### 3 oflO 00 0 0 N 0 .-4 0 N

C' 0 0 N 0

...... 0 N ...... ...... 0 NAgricultural 

### Use 2007-2011 During the 2007-2011 timeframe , approximately 33 , 000 pounds of quinoxyfen were applied on average annually to treat 372 , 000 acres at an overall average application rate of 0.1 lbs. a.i ./ acre. The top crops in terms of pounds a.i. applied and total area treated during this period were wine grapes, cherries , tabEe grapes, raisin grapes, strawberries , peppers , watermelons, and cantaloupes , as shown in Figures 3 and 4. The crops with the highest average percent crop treated are not · different from the top crops in terms of pounds applied and acres treated with quinoxyfen, except for apricots with 15 percent treated and squash with 5 percent treated. Figure 3. Quinoxyfen Use: Top Crops, in Pounds a.i. Applied (Lbs. A.I.), 2007

- 201 1 Peppers Watermelo J ns Cantaloupe/Other 3%

### ~ 3% r2%/

_ 3% Strawberries

### ~ 5%

So urce: EPA Proprietary Data, 2007-2011 Other crops include pumpkins , squash, apricots , peaches , plums/prunes , and c ucu mb ers .

Page 4 oflOFigure 4. Quinoxyf e n Use: Top Crops , in Total Acres Treated (TAT), 2007-2011

St r awber rie s 5%

Sou rce : EPA Proprie tar y Data, 2007-2011 Other crops include pe ppers, watermelons , cantaloupes , pumpkins, s qua sh, apricot s, peaches , plum s/ prunes , and cucumb e rs . T bl 1 

### Q

. fl 

# u T C A A I R 2007 20 11

a e umox y : en se o n op rop s : ve rage 

### .. ate, 

## - Crop Avg. AI Rate (lbs a.i./acre) Wine Grapes 0.09 C herries 0.11 Table Grapes 0.08 Raisin Grapes 0.09 S trawberries 0.09 Peppers 0.06 Watermelons 0.09 Cantaloupes 0.09 Source: EPA Propri etary Data, 2007-2 011 The top states in term s of pounds a.i. applied and total area treated during thi s period were Cal ifornia , Washington , and New York, as sh own in Figures 5 and 6. Th e five

- year average application rate for grapes (wi ne, and raisin), st rawberries , watermelons , and cantaloupes are presented in table 

### 1
. T he average application rates for the crops as shown in Table 

### 1 are almo s t th e same 

### as the overall average application rate of 0.1 lb. a.i. per acre.

Page 5 

### of 10Figure 5. Quinoxyfen Use: Top States, in Pounds A.I. Applied (Lbs. A.l. ), 2007-201 1

NEW YORK

Source: EPA Proprietary Data, 2007

-20 1 1 Other states includ e Oregon , Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Ohio , Indiana , Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Virginia, Mas sachusetts , North Carolina , Michigan, Maryland , New Jersey, Illinois , and Alabama. Figure 6. Quinoxyf e n Use: Top States , in Total A cres T reated (TAT), 2007- 2 01 1

NEW YORK

Source : EPA Proprietary Data , 2007-2011 Page 6 of 

### 10Other states include Oregon, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Virginia , Massachusetts, North Carolina, Michigan, Mary l and , New Jersey, Illinois , and A labama. 

### Agricultural Usage by 

### Crop Reporting District Another measure of usage is the use intensity. In this analysis, the use intensity is expressed as the pounds a.i. applied per 1000 acres ofland in farms. This differs from the application rate, which is expressed as the pounds a.i. applied per treated area. The average application rate of 0.1 lb a.i. per acre implies a rate of 100 lbs. a .i
. per 1000 treated acres. The maximum use intensity observed is about 1.25-1.96lbs. a.i. per 1000 acres ofland in farms. Figure 7 spatially represents quinoxyfen usage by crop reporting district for 2007-2011. The highest use intensity is i n California where grapes are grown. 

### Figure 7. Quinoxyfen Use Intensity by Crop Reporting District (2007-2011)

Average Pounds Per 1,000 Acres of Farmland

- <0
. 09

- 0
. 09-0
. 24 

## D o.25-o
. 46

- 0.47-1.24

- 1.25-1.96

Page 7 of 10This is a map of agricultural pesticide usage at the Crop Reporting District (C RD ) level prepared by BEAD for use in the Environmental Fate and Effects Division documents
. Th ese maps are used to help visual ize where the pesticide being considered is most l ike ly to be used and can b e h elpfu l in sce nario se l ection and p laci ng the exposure assess ment in context. C RD s are boundaries created by USDA N ASS which are aggregates of counties . P esticide u sage is display ed as ave rage pounds ( for the year s 2007-2 011) per 1 , 000 ac re s of farm land in a CRD to normalize for the variation in farm land between CRDs. Farml and acreage was obtained from USDA (2007). Farmland or " land in farms" is defined as follows: The acreage designated as "land in farms " consists p rimarily of agricultural land used for crops , pasture, or grazing
. It also includes wood land and wasteland not actu ally und er cultivation or used for pasture or g razing , provided it was part of the farm operator ' s total operation
. Large acreages of woodland or waste land held for nonagricultural purp oses were deleted from individual reports during the ed it process. Lan d in farms includes CRP , WRP, FWP, and C REP 1 acres. Land in farms is an operating uni t conce pt and includes land o wn ed and op erated as well as land rented from o th ers. Land used rent free was repo rted as land ren ted from others. All grazi n g la nd , except land used under govern ment permits on a per-head basis , was included as " land in farms" provided it was part of a farm or ranch. Land under the exclusive use of a grazing association was re p orted by the grazing assoc iation and included as land in farms
. All land in Amer ican In dian reservations used for growi ng crop s , grazing livestock, or t he potential of grazing livestock was included as land in farms. Land in reservation s not reported by reservation , individual American Indians or nonNative Ameri cans was reported in the name of the cooperative group that u se d the land. In many instances, a n entire A merican Indian r eservation was reported as one f a rm (USDA, 2007). Usage is base d on private ma rket su rveys of pestic id e u se in agriculture ( Propri etary Data, 2007-20 ll). Th e survey data are l im ited to the s tates th at represen t the top 80-90% of acreage for the in div idual crops; therefore, use may b e occurring in regions outside the sco pe of the survey. CRDs s howing no usage of pesticides may be due to either the lack of pesticide use in th e region or non-partici p ation in the agricultural surveys. I n addition , across the years, there may be variations in t he specific crops included in the CRD su rve y. This may result in a lowe r annual average for the CRD. This m ap displays rati o data ( i.e. , average pound s per I , 000 acre s of farmland) summarized at a very highlevel. R ead ers are s trongly cautioned against trying t o over in t erpret th e map wi thout exa min a tion of the und erl y ing data . The un derly in g data may expl ai n so me of the many reasons that a C rop Reporting Di s tri ct m ay hav e a high value fo r a particular activ e ingredient such as sign ificant acreage (compared wi th th e CRD as a w hole) of a cro p o r crops with a high appl icatio n r ate and frequency of app l icat ion. The reader should pay particular attention to the figure legends and realize that a map prepared for a particu lar chemical is not directly co mparable to a map prepared for a different chemical. Scale and units o f measurement do matter and may be d ifferent between maps.
Sources : Proprietary Da ta. 2007-20 I I. US DA , 2007
. Census of Agriculture . Onlin e : http: //www . agcensus.usda.gov/ Publications / 2007 / index.asp
.

1 CRP: Conservation Reserve Program ; WRP: Wetland Re serve Pr ogram; FWP : Farmabl e Wet l ands Program ; CRE P : Conse r vation Re serve Enhancement Program Pag e 8 of 10

### BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT TO QUINOXYFEN Quinoxyfen is a systemic fungicide that belongs to Fungicide Resistance Action Committee mode of action code 13 of fungicide (FRAC, 20 13). It is considered as medium risk for res i stance. It is effective against powdery mildew fungal pests on many crops (CDMS, 20 I 0). Resistance in many fungi h as been reported and FRAC (201 0) recommends resistance management. The resistance can be managed by mixing fungicides with different modes of action or alternating them. Grapes, cherry and cucurbit crops are suscep tible to powdery mildew pests. Quinoxyfen and other fungicides (such as myclobutanil, triflumizole , and Pristine, a mixture ofboscalid and pyraclostrobin) are also used on grapes, cherries and cucurbi t s for the control of powdery mildew pests. HISTORY OF BEAD ASSESSMENTS FOR QUINOXYFEN
SECTION 18: Gilbert and Michell. 2003. Idaho , Oregon, and Washington Request for Emergency Exemption Use ofMyclobutanil and Qu i noxyfen to Control Powdery Mildew on Hops (03WA05, 03WA07, DP Barcodes 0288237 and D288238). BEAD concluded t hat the situation was urgent and nonroutine because of lack of registered alternatives for full season control of this new pest problem on hops. Chandgoyal and Fau lkner. 2004. Evaluation of Emergency Exemption Request from New York (04-NY

- 12 , DB Barcodes: 302201) For the Use ofQuinoxyfen (Qu i ntec) Fungicide on NonEdible-Peel Cucurbits (Melons , Winter Squash , Gourds, and Pumpkins) to Contro l Powdery Mildew (Podosphaera xanthii and Erysiphae cichoracearum). BEAD concluded that under high disease pressure and disease favorable weather conditions 20-30 percent yield losses are highly likely without the use of the requested fungicide. In addition , the development of resistance in the pest agains t regis tered systemic fungicides (strobilurins and myclobutanil) was a non-routine and emergency event and therefore the emergency use of quinoxyfen on cucurbits was justified. Chandgoyal. 2006. E valuation of E mergency E xemption Request from New York (07

- NY -0 6, DP Barcodes 339124) and Indiana (07-IN

- 07 , DP Barcode 339773) for the Use ofQuinoxyfen (Qu intec) Fungicide on Non- Edible-Peel Cucurb it s (Me lon s, Winter Squash, Go urds , and Pumpkins) to Contro l Powdery Mi ldew (Podosphaeva xanthii and Erysiphae cichoracearum). B E AD did not recommend this emergency exemption because two new fungic ide s [trifl umizole (an imidazole) and Pristine (a mixture of boscalid and pyraclostrobin)] were registered since 2004 for use on these crops for the contro l of powdery mildew and the State did not provide data showing that the disease could not be managed using regist ered alternatives. Chandgoyal and Faul kner. 2006. Evaluation of Emergency Exemption Request from Ohio (06- 0H-06, DP Barcodes: 330972) For the Use of Quinoxyfen (Quintec) Fungicide on Non-EdiblePeel Cucurbits (Melons, Winter Squash, Gourds, and Pumpkins) to Control Powdery Mildew Caused by Podosphaera xanthii, Previously Known as Sphaerothecafuliginea
. BEAD did not Page 9 oflOrecommend this emergency exemption because registered alternatives , two newly registered fungicides [triflumizole (an imidazole) and Pri stine (a mixture ofboscalid and pyraclostrobin)] were registered since 2004 for use on these crops for the control of powdery mildew and the State did not provide d ata showing that the disease could not be managed using regist ered alternatives. ROLE OF QUINOXYFEN IN PEST MANAGEMENT Quinoxyfen fungic ide is efficacious against powdery mildew fungi on different crops. It is a valuab le fung icide for the control of powdery mildew pests on apricots, artichokes, cucurbits (gourds , melons , pumpkins, squash, and winter squash), le ttuce , peaches, plums, peppers , pumpkin, stone fruits, strawberries, cherry, grapes, and hops
. It has different mode of action than the other registered a lternatives and therefore may play an important role in pest resi s tance management.
INFORMATION THAT MAY BE USEFUL FOR BEAD'S FUTURE WORK ON QUINOXYFEN No additional information i s needed. REFERENCES: CDMS. 20 I 0. Labe l Search. http: // premier.cdm s . ne t/webapl s/Fo rm s Lo gin.asp ?/ webapls / Accessed April 6

- 9 , 2013. FRAC. 2013. FRAC Code List 2013: Fungic id es sorted by mode of action (includ ing FRAC Code numbering). http: //www.frac
.info/p u bl icat ion/anhang/FRA C % 20Code%20List%2020 13

- update%20Apri l-2013.pdf Proprietary Data, 2004-2011 USDA , 2007. Ce ns u s of Agriculture. Online: http: //www.agcens u s . usda. gov / Publications/ 2007/ index.as p . USDA , 2007-2010. NASS Crop Reporting Districts. Online: http: //www.ers .us da.gov/briefin g/arms/reso urceregions/re s ourceregion s .htm#nass .

Page 10 oflO