UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO N AGEN CY WASHINGTON , D
. C
. 20460 

### NOV 17 

### 2014

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY A ND PO LL U T I O N PREVE NT I O N MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:

THRU: BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Spirodiclofen (PC Code : 124871) Nikhil Mallampalli, Biologist Biologica l Analysis Branch Claire Pa i s ley-Jones, Biologist (}

# ~L Science Information and Analysis

## Branch**~** {Y-' · 1 Michelle Ranville, Economist 

# f.\- V\A...**~** Economic Analys i s Branch 

# ':! V. Biological and Economic Anal sis Division (7503 Arnet Jones , Chi ef Biological Analysis BrancH Diann Sims,

# Chief~ Science Information and Analysis Branch Timothy Kiely , Chief

# n101AAAJ~**,** 

# fo-r 7/mofhy**J((~l~** Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analys i s D i vision (7503P) TO: Julia Stokes, Chemi cal Review Manager Pesticide Re-evaluati on Division (7508P)


### Peer Review Panel date: October 15,2014

Page 

### 1 of8SUMMARY

· Spirodic lof en is a miticide (acaricide) currently undergoing registration review. Since it was first registered in 2005, it has not undergone such a review in the past. This pesticide is mite-specific and acts by interfering with growth regulation and lipid biosynthesis. It is currently registered for use in a variety of fruits and nuts, as well as hops and Christmas tree plantations. National level use of spirodiclofen increased steadily after registration, but this trend peaked in 2010. Availa ble data indicate a noticeable decline in usage since then. The reasons for this decline are not fully clear but probably include factors such as the need to control mites alon g with other similar pests
- such as whitefl ies- against which spirodiclofen has little activity, and locali zed pest resistance. Crops that sh owed major use of spirodiclofen include citrus fruits, grapes, and almonds, all of which have various significant mite pests in most growing regions. Details of usage, the chemical's role in pest management, and current BEAD data needs re le vant to registration review are presented below. INTRODUCTION The Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) Chemical Profile (BCP) provides an overview of the pest management roles and quantitative usage info rm ation for spirodiclofen (brand name Envidor®). This BCP includes summaries ofprevious BEAD products and available public and/or private use and usage data for spirodiclofen to describe the role of this chemical in pest management. Additional information on use is available in the spirodiclofen PRD Label Data Report
. Information provided in this document may be used by stakeholders (e.g., users and registrants), OPP risk assessors and risk managers, and the general pub li c during the Registration Review process of this pesticide.
HISTORY OF BEAD ASSESSMENTS FOR SPIRODICLOFEN Spirodiclofen is relatively new to the U.S. market; it was first registered conditionally in 2005. A Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) was prepared for this chemical for the first time in 2014, which provides the average percent crop treated for agricultu ra l crops between 2004 and 2011.
. A p relim inary impact anal ys i s for a ldi carb in citrus crops, conducted by BEAD in 2006, noted that spirodiclofen is one of three effective alternatives fo r control of citrus rust mites in Florida (Kaul and Berwald 2006). U SE SITES Agricultural Use S ites Spirodiclofen is registered for use on a number of agricultural crops including citrus, grapes, pome fruit, stone fru it, tree nuts, tropical fru its, berries, hops, and chris tm as tree plantations.

Page 

### 2 of8Non

- Agric ul tural Use Sites Spirodiclofen is not registered for any non-agricultural uses . FORMULATIONS Spi rodiclofen currently has only two acti ve registrations: a technical chemical and a suspension concentrate.
APPLICATION METHODS Spirodiclofen i s app li ed once per crop season us ing ground equipment, inc luding airblast. Aerial application is also allowed , but only for avocadoes and Christmas tre es. Applications through any type of irrigati on system or in any enclosed struc ture are prohibited. USAGE Agricultural Usage Based o n private market usage data, us e of spirodiclofen increased stead il y from 2005 whe n the product was firs t reg is tered, until2010 when usage peaked in terms of bo th total pounds a.i app li ed and total surveyed acres treated. Since 20 10 , usage has markedly decreased (Table 1) (Proprietary Data 2005-2012).
150,000

Total Lbs A I

Applied

0 U"l 0 0 N 

# I 

# I

1.0 ,.... 00 0"1 0 ..-< 0 0 0 0 ..-< ..-< 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N

- P ounds A I - Total Acres Treated N ..-< 0 N 500, 000

T

otal Acres Treated

0
Figure 1. Spirodiclofen Total Acres Treated and Total Pounds A.I. Appl ied, 2005-2012 So urce: Proprietary Data, 2005-2012

Page 

### 3 of8Between 2008 and 20 12 , an average of85,000 lbs ofspirodiclofen were applied annually to 315 , 000 acres. T he majority of spirodiclofen was applied to o ranges (30% of total pounds app li ed), fo ll owed b y grapefrui t (20%), grapes ( 18 %), and a lm onds (15%)
. The remaining 17% of total pounds of spirodiclofen were ap pli ed in sma ll er quan tities to eleven other crop s (Tabl e 1 ). 

### T bl 1 S
. d' I**~** 

### U

a e 

# . 1p1ro IC 

### o en se on 

### T C op rops: A

### verage AIR ate, 

# . 

# . 2008 2012 

### - Crop Average Pounds Average Total Acres Average A.I. Rate A.I./year Treated /vear 

### * (lbs a.i./acre) Oranges 25,000 105,000 0.24 Grapefr uit 17,000 6 1 , 000 0.27 Grapes 16,000 56 000 0.28 Almonds 13,000 36,000 0.35 Other** 5,000-50 • 2 0 , 000

- 250 · 8 0.40

- O.J9b *To ta l Acres Treated s u m s all acres treated for a crop, mcludmg tho se ac res that receive multiple treatments. ** O th e r c rops: Apples , Pecans, Wa lnuts, Peache s, Pe ars, Cherri es, Plums/ Prune s, Apricots , P is tach ios , Hazelnuts , Lemons. a Other average pounds and ave rage total acres treated are th e s um of the average values for " other" crops. bOther Avg
. AI Rate is the average of the average rates u sed on "o ther " crops. Source : EPA Proprietary Data, 2008

- 2012 Another measure of pesticide usage, percent crop treated , indicates the potential importance of a chemical to a c rop. Of the top crops , a con s iderabl e portion of grapefruit (50%) were treated w ith spirod icl ofen. S imilarly, a s izable percentage of several crops (listed as " O t her" in Tabl e 1 ) , includin g tangelos (30%) and tange rines (20%), were treated with spirodiclofen . The percent crop treated of all observed crops from 2004 to 20 12 can be found in the SLUA. T ab le 2 shows usage in terms ofperce nt of total pounds a.i app li ed by sta t e during the same time period represe nted in Table I (2008

- 2012). During thi s t ime peri od , the majority of s pirodi c lo fe n was app li e d in Florida (45% oftota l pound s applied) and California (40%)
. The remaining 15% of total pound s app li ed of spirodicl o f en was app li ed in nine other states (T able 2). 

### T ab le 2. C omparison of States with Highest Us e of Spirodiclofen- Percent of Total Pounds A.I. Applied Between the 2003

- 2007 

### and 2008-2012. 2008-2012 Average Annual = 85 ,000 lbs S tate %Lbs Florida 45 Cal ifornia 40 O ther** 15 **Other States : Texas, Georg 1a, Wasbmgton , M 1 cbigan , Oregon , Penn sylvania , Virginia , Ohio , and West Virginia
. Source: Proprietar y Data, 2008

-2012

Page 4 of8Geographic D i stribution of Spirodiclofen Usage T h e map in Figure 2 shows spirodiclofen use intensity in terms of pounds 

### A.I. applied per 1,000 acres of crop area grown in each s tate. Just as with use in terms of total pounds applied , use intens ity of spirodiclofen is highest in Florida and California where the majority of the citrus crops in the U.S
. are grown. Use 

### in the mid

- Atlantic and Great Lakes regions may reflect the need to contro l several mites species in grapes and pome fruit, both of which have relatively large acreages . in these parts of the country.

Pounds Active Ingred i ent per 1 ,000 Crop Acres Grown 0No0ata CJ < 0
. 1 c::J o . 1 -0
.2

. 0. 2

- 1



### - 1

- 5


# - >5 Figure 2. Annual average agricultural use intensity of spirodiclofen (2008-2012). Source: Proprietary Data More information about this map is presented in Appendix A.


### ROLE OF SPIRODICLOFEN IN PEST MANAGEMENT Spirodiclofen is categorized in Mode of Action group 23 by the Insecticide Resistance Actio n Committee (an industry group of technical experts). O ther members ofthis group (all also registered in the U.S
. ) are spiromesifen and spirotetramat. T hese pesticides are all tox ic to these arthropods by interfering with growth regulatio n an d lipid production
. While spirodiclofen has not been granted reduced risk status by the EPA, the closely related spiromes ifen and Page 5 of8spirotetramat do h ave this designation (EPA 2013)
. Spiromesifen is not currently registered on citrus fruit, the group of crops that shows highest use of spirodiclofen. The current l abels for spirodiclofen list a wide variety of phytophagous mites, as we ll as t he San Jose scale, as target pests. Spiromesifen and spirotet r amat, though identical in Mode
. of Acti on , have many other types ofpests on their labels, including psyllids, thrips, and whitefl ies. T hi s suggests that sp irodiclofen has a comparatively narrow spectrum of activity. There is evidence that sp irodiclofen is comparatively low in toxicity to at least one predatory mite , Galendromus occidentalis, common in tree fruits (Bostanian et al. 2009). This study did not compare spirodiclofen to sp iromesifen or sp irotetramat. However, this data suggests that spirodiclofen may have particular benefits in IPM programs where predatory mites are an important component , and target pest selectivity i s a hi gh priority. It i s not clear at thi s t ime why there has been a noticeable drop in use of sp irodiclofen since 2010. 

### It may be that this material is comparatively more expensive than the many other options available in most of t he registered crops, o r that there are localized increases in pest resistance to sp irodiclofen
. It is also poss ible that growers prefer to use spirotetramat or other materials with a broader pest spectrum to include pests such as San Jose scale, which can be serious pes ts in some tree fruits and nuts. BEAD notes also that spirodiclofen has a limit of one application per year in ci trus crops, while spirotetramat has a lim it expressed in total amount used per season that trans l ates into two applications per year in these crops (Rogers et al. 2014).
DATA NEEDS Obtaining the fo ll owing information may improve futu re assessments co n ducted by the Agency related to the use and importance of spi rodiclofen
. Recent reports of pest resistance Information on comparative product performance or other aspects that underlie the drop in total spirodiclofen use since 201 0
.
REFERENCES BEAD. 2014. Spirodiclofen Screening Level Osage Analys i s. B i ological and Economic Analys i s D ivision, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Pro tection Agency.
Page 

### 6 of8Bostanian , N.J. , H. A. Thistlewood , J.M. Hardman , M-C. Laurina and G. Racettea 2009. Effect of seven new orchard pesticides on Gale ndromus occident a/is in laboratory studies
. Pest Manag Sci 65: 635-639. EPA. 2005. Fact Sheet for Spirodiclofen. Kaul , M. and D. Berwald. 2006. Preliminary Impact Analysis for Aldicarb on Major Citrus Crops (DP 299884 ). Bio logical and Economic Anal y sis Division , Office of Pesticide Programs , U .S. En v ironmental Protection Ag enc y . Proprietary Data. 200 2 -2012. (pesticide usage data) Rogers, M.E., P.A. Stan s ly , C
. C. Childers , C .W. McCoy, and H.N. Nigg. 2014 Florida Citrus Pest Management Guide: Rust Mites , Spider Mites, and Other Phytophagous Mites
. Available on the w eb at: https: //edis.ifas.ufl.edu/topic book florida citrus pest management guide [Accessed September 2014]

Page 7 of8APPENDIX A The map included herein (Figure 2) is primarily for the use of the risk assessors in the Environmental Fate and Effec ts Division. The map provides a very broad geographical view of the average annual amount (in pounds) of the active ingredient applied per 1,000 acres of crop acres grown. These data are included in the maps because risk assessors are interested in the amount of a pesticide used across agricultural land. The calculated values presented in the map are not equivalent to an application rate (lb ai/ A). 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 las t five years (Proprietary Data, 2008-2012). These surveys cover about 60 crops and are targeted in states that produce th e majority of the crop. Although the surveys capture most of th e 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 • No t all types of pesticides are surveyed in every crop in every year • Many specialty crops with very sma ll acreages are not included in the survey The result ofthese 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 th e 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 to tal acres grown in a given state of all of the surveyed crops. This value is independent of pesticide usage and pesticide registration. It is important to note that the surveyed crops (abo ut 60) are sampled from states that are major producers of each crop. Therefore , there are cases where the actual crop acreage in a s tate is higher than that reported by crop acres grown in the survey because either that state and/or crop was not i ncluded in the survey . The reader s hould 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 8 of8