UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C

. 20460 

## DEC 16 2014

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### :MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: 

### FROM:



### THRU:

TO: /J ,C\
. . . - ( 

### Cynthia Doucoure, Environmental Protection Specialist 

### t:**~** 

### Science Information and Analysis Branch Monisha Kaul, Environmental Protection Specialist 

# (J1**~ ~** **~** Economic Analysis Branch Biological and EconomicAnalysis Division (7503P) Arnet Jones, Chief /) A()

# J

# ~ Biological Analysis Br<ll!-ch

# ~U Diann Sims, Chief

# ,:_Ut~~-'"'---**1** Science Information and Analysis Branch

# ~ Timothy Kiely, Chief 

# fj1;- 1/v\,

# l· Economic Analysis Branch '"J 

## j Biological and EconomicAnalysis Division (7 P) Julia Stokes, Chemical Review Manager Risk Management and ImplementationBranch V Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)


### ProductReview Panel date: April16, 2014

Page 1 of10INTRODUCTION The purpose ofthis document is to convey usage information and a broad overview ofthe pest management roles ofpesticides that are beginning to undergo registration review. The anticipated audience consists oftheteam ofEPA staffcurrently evaluating the registration status ofetoxazole, and eventually the general public. This document builds upon the data BEAD provides in the Label Use Information System (LUIS) reports and the Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) to Registration Review teams. The document is based on information and data available to BEAD as ofJanuary 2014. Etoxazole was conditionally registered in August 2002 as a miticide/ovicide. The Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC), a group ofindustry technical experts, classifies etoxazole in Group 1 OB, with a mode ofaction that is described as ''mite growth inhibition". Hollingworth and Treacy (2006) describe etoxazole's activity on mites as follows:"
... primarily active against tetranychid mites in the egg and larval stages, but ithas no effect on adults and is rather slow acting
. It has translaminar but no systemic activity
.The half-life for dissipation in the field is a few days to a few weeks".
HISTORY OF BEAD ASSESSMENTS FOR ETOXAZOLE ln 2011, BEAD conducted a review oftheregistrant's request to extend exclusive use of registration data. In that assessment, BEAD concludedthat etoxazole metbenefits-related criterion IV for a three year extension ofexclusive use ofdata by the registrant, in that it played a useful role in managing mites as part ofan integrated pest management (lPM) program for nine minor crops included in the registrant's exclusive use request (pear, cherries, plums, peaches, strawberry, hops, walnuts, mint, and muskmelons). In addition, BEAD concluded that etoxazole met the requirement for Criterion III (compelling evidence that etoxazole can be used to manage resistance to acaricides with different Modes ofAction) for muskmelon, because this crop did not have the very similar acaricides clofentezine and hexythiazox registered (Mallampalli, 2011 ).
COMMON FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS Etoxazole is commonly formulated as water dispersible granules, emulsifiable concentrates, and wettable powders. Itis applied aerially orby ground applications using compressed air sprays, hydraulic sprayers, or ground boom sprayers.

USE SITES Agricultural Use Sites: Etoxazole is registered for use onthe 8-1OB Pepper/Eggplant subgroup, Cucurbit Crop Group 9, Pome Fruit Group 11, 13-07A Caneberry subgroup, 13-07F Small fruit vine climbing subgroup, except fuzzy kiwifruit, and 13-070Low growing berry subgroup. Etoxazole is also used on Page 2 of 10

### alfalfa grown for seed, carrots grown for seed, com grownfor seed (field and popcorn), cotton, non-bearing fruit trees, hops, mint, stone fruits, subtropical/tropical fruit, tomato, tree nuts and Christmas tree plantings. Non-Agricultural Use Sites: Etoxazole is registered for use on ornamentals and in greenhouses.


### ETOXAZOLEUSAGE

·BEAD prepared a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) inMay 2013 that provided data on use ofetoxazole onnuts (almond and walnuts), pome fruit, stone fruit, grapes, melons, strawberries, and cotton in the U.S. during the 2004-2011 timeframe. The crops with the highest average percent crop treated include strawberries (15%) and pears (10%). The crops with the highest average pounds a.i. applied include almonds (6,000 lbs a.i.), grapes (5,000 lbs a.i.), and cotton (2,000 lbs a.i.). Agricultural Usage Trend Accordingto proprietary marketresearch surveys, reported use ofetoxazole inthe U.S., in terms ofpounds a.i. applied and total area treated, has continuedto increase following a sharp decrease in

### use in the middle ofthe period shown in Figures 1 and 2. The overall average a.i. rate of application during this period was 0.09 lbs a.i. per acre. Figure 1. 

### Etoxazole Usage: Pounds AI Applied, 2004-2012

"C .!!! 1i. a. <( 

## < "' "C c ::s 0 D.. 40,000 

# l I

0 

# I 

# I i 

# I I i i I 

# I

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year 

### Page 3 of 

### 10 2009 2010 2011 2012Figure 2: Etoxazole Usage: Total AreaTreated Applied, 2004-2012 400,000

0 2004 lOOS 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Source: EPA Proprietary Data, 2004-2012
Agricultural Usage Trend: Top Crops. 2008-2012 Following a sharp decline in at the beginning ofthe period, reported use ofetoxazole increased steadily during the remainder ofthe 2008-2012 time frame. The crops with the highest proportion oftotal pounds a.i. applied were almonds (37%), wine grapes (19%) and cotton 

### (13,, followed by table grapes (8%), strawberries (7%), and pears (6%), as shown in Table 1. The average annual pounds a.i. applied during this period was 23,000 and the overall average a.i. application rate was 0.09 lbs a.i. per acre. Etoxazole was applied at higher than overall average application rates on all crops except cotton and table grapes.

Page 

### 4 oflO

### T bl I E a e I U 

### toxazo e se on T C**~** 

### rops, 2008 2012 

## - 2008-lOll 

### Average=23, 128 lbs/ yr 

### Crop %ofTotal Lbs 

### A.l. %ofTotal Area A vg. A.I. 

### Rate of A

pplied Treated A pplication (lb 

### a.i./acre) Almonds 37 31 0.11 

### Wine Grapes 19 14 0.13 

### Cotton 13 29 0.04 

### Table Grap es 8 9 0.08 

### Strawberries 7 5 0.13 

### Pears 6 4 0.12 

### Other* 10 8 0.09-0.14 

### *Othercrops include apples. apricots,cantaloupes, cherries, com, raisin grapes, peaches, walnuts, and watermelons
. Source:Propnetary Data, 2008-20 12


### Agricultural Usage Trend: Top States. 2008-2012 

### The state
. s with the highest proportion ofpounds a.i. applied during the 2008-2012 

### timeframe were California (80%), 

### Louisiana (5%) 

### and Washington (5%). 

### Etoxazole was applied at higher than overall average application rates in all states except Louisiana.
T 

### bl 2 E

a e I U . T S 

### toxazo e se tn 

### op tates, 2008 2012


## - 2008-lOU 

### Average= 23,000 lbs/yr 

### State %ofTotal Lbs A.l. %ofTotal Area Treated Avg. A.l. Rate of Applied Application 

### Ob a.i./acre) California 80 69 0.10 

### Louisiana 5 10 0
.04 

### Washington 5 4 0.12 

### Other* 10 17 0.03-0.14 

### •Otherstates include AZ, AR, FL, 

### Ml, MS, MO, NY,NC, OH,OR, PA, TN, TX, VA,

### and WV Source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012


### Agricultural Use lntensitv ofEtoxazoleUse in the U.S. Anothermeasure ofusage is the use intensity. In this analysis, the use intensity is expressed as the average annual amount (in pounds) ofthe active ingredient applied per 1,000 

### acres ofcrop acres grown. This differs from the application rate, which isexpressed as the pounds a.i. applied per treated 

### area Figure 3 spatially represents etoxazole's use intensity in California on several 

### crops including almonds and wine grapes. Formore information about this map, see Appendix A. 

### Page 5 of

### tOFigure3. Annual AverageAgricultural Use Intensity ofEtoxazole (2008-2012).

POWMis Active Ingredient per 1.000 CropAcres Grown c:JNoOIII**o** 11 011·023

- 02•·032

- >032 (Source: Proprietary Data,l008-l01l)
Non-Agricultural Usage BEAD reviewed available data sources and found two years ofreported use ofetoxazole in nursery and floriculture as shown in Table 

### 3 below. While national-level use in nursery and floriculture is relatively low (Table 3), use in California on ornamentals (in terms ofarea treated) appears quite high, based on CDPR data (Table 4). ·


### T bl 

### 3 E

a e 

### I U
. N toxazo e sem 

### ursery &FI . I oncuture Year Total LbsA.I. Avg. A.l. Rateof Applied Application (lb a.i./acre) 

### 2006 800 0.06 

### 2009 200 0.04 Source: USDA NASS Agncultural Chemtcal Usage Reports, 2006 and 2009 Page 6 of10Table 4. Etoxazole Use in California on Ornamental Plants, 2010-2012 Commodity 2010 2011 Lbs Area Lbs Area A.I. Treated A.I. Treated Applied (Acres) Applied (Acres) Greenhouse Flowers & 

### 34 

### 76 32 13 Plants in Containers Outdoor Flowers & 

### 33 6 

### 14 11 Plants in Containers Total 

### 67 82 46 139



### .. Source: Cahfom1a DPR, Annual Statewide Pest1c1de Use Reports, 2010-2012


### BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT TO ETOXAWLE Lbs A.I. Applied 

### 67 140 

### 207 2012• 

# . ..

Area Treated (Acres)



### 125 ' 

### 35 160

The publicly accessible database ofpublished scientific literature on arthropod resistance that is maintained by Michigan State University (available at http://www.pesticideresistance.com/index.php) lists only one publication documenting resistance to etoxazole. This item reports reduced susceptibility to etoxazole in two-spotted spider mites in Korea (KiSu et al. 2004). However, other studies have provided some evidencethat resistance to clofentezine can lead to cross-resistance to etoxazole in European red mite (Pree et al. 2005), and that resistance to hexythiazox and etoxazole are genetically linked in spider mites (Asahara etal. 2008). Both clofentezine and hexythiazox are classified in the Mode ofAction Group 1 OA, and are mite growth inhibitors similarto etoxazole. The extent ofsuch cross-resistance in U.S. crops is not clearto BEAD. Pree et al. (2005) obtained theirresults using laboratory colonies established from mites collected in Canadian apples andpeaches; Asahara et al. (2008) used spider mites collected in Japan. As mentioned earlier in this document, for at least some minor crops etoxazole appears to be a useful component in IPM programs, largely because its efficacy appears to ·be very mite-specific, and thus has lower toxicity to some non-mite beneficial insects than alternatives such as some synthetic pyrethroids, propargite, dicofol, and pyridaben. Forexample, Ashley et al. (2006) found that etoxazole did not affect minute pirate bugs as much as either fenpropathrin or propargite. Pirate bugs are commonpredators oftheeggs andlarvae ofmany agricultural pests, including mites and aphids.


### ROLE OF ETOXAZOLE IN PEST MANAGEMENT Based on the available usage data, etoxazole appears to play an important role in the production ofmajor crops in California, including strawberries, pears, almonds, and wine grapes. The available data also shows considerable use ofetoxazole inCalifornia on greenhouse, containerized, and outdoorplants and flowers (Table 4). Etoxazole appears to be aneffective 

### mite growth inhibitor and has lowertoxicity to some non-mite beneficial insects such as the
Page 7 of

### 10

# \ \
pirate bugs, which are predators ofagricultural pests. It is also a useful component in IPM programs. BEAD is unsure why there is greateruse ofetoxazole in California ornamental production as compared to national-level data. Quinn et al. (2009) mention etoxazole and hexythiazox ( a very similar insecticide) among several options useful in nursery and greenhouse IPM programs that target spider mites. However. hexythiazox is limited to one application in California production ofthese crops, while etoxazole can be applied up to two times per season. This may be a factor in its greater use. Otherfactors. such as lower product cost, product availability, or localized resistance, may be driving factors as well.
INFORMATION THAT MAY BE USEFUL FOR BEAD'S FUTURE WORK ON ETOXAZOLE Obtaining the following usage information may improve future assessments conductedby the Agency related to the use and importance ofetoxazole: 1) Typical application timing ineach registered crop. 2) Details on the pest management importance ofetoxazole in California ornamental production. 3) Ifmore than one application is typically made, the typical re-application interval (per crop). 4) Recent resistance reports for etoxazole in populations ofimportant target pests, in particular cases ofcross-resistaJ?-Ce to both hexythiazox, clofentezine, and etoxazole.

REFERENCES Asahara, M., R. Uesugi, and M.H. Osakabe. 2008. Linkage between one ofthe polygenic hexythiazox resistance genes and an etoxazole resistance gene in the two spotted spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 101(5): 1704-1710. Ashley, J.A.• D.A. Herbert, E.E. Lewis, C.C. Brewster, and R. Huckaba. 2006. Toxicity ofthree acaricides to 

### Tetranychus urticae (Tetranychidae: Acari) and 

### Orius insidiosus (Anthocoridae: Hemiptera). 

### J. Econ. Entomol. 99(1): 54-59. EPA Proprietary Data, 2004-2012 EPA, Etoxazole Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA), May 2013 Hollingworth, R. M. and M.F. Treacy. 2006. Classification and Properties ofCommercial Insecticides and Acaricdes. Pp 36-67 In: Use and Management ofInsecticides. Acaricdes, and Transgenic Crops. J.N. All and M.F. Treacy (eds). Joint publication ofthe Entomology Society ofAmerica and the American Phytopathological Society. Page 8 oflOKiSu, A., K. Gilhah, L. Soyoung, K. Chulsu, and S
. Sangchul. 2004
. Inheritance and stability of etoxazole resistance in two-spotted spidermite, Tetranychus urticae, and its crossresistance. Korean J. Appl. Entomol. 43: 43-48. Mallampalli, N. 2011. Review ofa Request for Extension ofthe Exclusive Use Period for Etoxazole (DP # 384053). BEAD Official Record. Pree, D.J., K.J. Whitty, and L. Van Oriel. 2005. Baseline susceptibility and cross resistances of some newacaricides in the Europeanred mite,Panonychus ulmi. Experimental and Applied Acarology (2005) 37: 165-171. Quinn, J., D. Trinklein, and R.A. Cloyd
. 2009. Integrated Pest Managementin Greenhouses and Herbaceous Nurseries. Publication IPM0126 from the University ofMissouri Extension Service. Available onthe web at http://extension.missouri.edu/p/IPM1026. [Accessed April 2014]. USDA NASS Agricultural Chemical Usage Reports, 2006 and 2009.

Page 9 oflO

### APPENDIX A The map included herein is primarily for the use ofthe risk assessors in the Environmental Fate and Effects Division. The map provides a very broad geographical view ofthe average annual amount (in pounds) ofthe active ingredient applied per I,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 equivalent to an application rate (lb a.i./ A). The data used to make these maps have several limitations. Any interpretation ofthe maps should consider the underlying data and the associated limitations carefully. The numerator (annual average pounds applied) is based on private market surveys ofpesticide use in agriculture averaged overthe last five years (Proprietary Data, 2008-2012). These surveys coverabout 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 represent the actual pesticide usage on the crops produced in the state. The denominator (l,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 importantto note that the surveyed crops (about 60) are sampled from states that are majorproducers ofeach 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 eitherthat state and/or crop was not included in the survey. The reader should pay particular attentionto the figure legends and realize that a map prepared for a particularchemical is not directly comparable to a map prepared for a different chemical as the legend bins will likely be different.

Page 10 

### of10