### MEMORANDUM UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460



## MAY 15 2013

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION



### SUBJECT: BEAD Chemical Profile for RegistrationReview: Pymetrozine (PC Code 101103) 

### FROM: Nikhil Mallampalli, Entomologist 

## u/q ,.;**fVt~** Biological Analysis Branch 

# /Itk**~**

THRU:

TO: Jihad Alsadek, Economist

# .,f~**~~** Science Information and Analysis Branch Stephen Smearman, Economist },_ ..J

.._ 1 _. . -· _ Economic Analysis Branch**~ ~**  Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branch Diann Sims, Chief 

# ;<{].· 1 '-'J"--"' Science Information and Analysis Branch Timothy Kiely, Chief 

# a VV\J:;Q.
Economic Analysis Branch! Biological and Economic Anal is Division (75 3P) Steven Snyderman, Chemical ReviewManager Risk Management and ImplementationBranch 3 Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

### ProductReview Panel date: November 14,2012 Revised May3, 2013 INTRODUCTION The purpose ofthis document is to convey usage information and a broad overviewofthe pest managementroles ofpesticides that are beginning to undergo registrationreview. The Page 

### 1 of9anticipated audience consists ofthe team ofEPA staffcurrently evaluating the registration status ofpymetrozine andeventually the general public. This documentbuilds uponthe dataalready provided inthe "usage and label use datapackages" that are also provided to Registration Review teams by BEAD. The document is based on information and data available to BEAD as ofMarch 2013. Pymetrozine was first registered inthe U.S. in 1999 (EPA 2000). This is the first registration review ofthis insecticide. It is marketed by Syngentaunder two products: Fulfill® and Endeavor®

. The Insecticide Resistance Action Committee classifies pymetrozine as a member of the Mode ofAction (MOA) Group 9, subgroup B (IRAC 2012). This group ofinsecticides acts through nerve action to block feeding behavior, mainly ininsects inthe order Homoptera (includes aphids, whiteflies, and leafhoppers, which are oftenmajor agricultural pests and vectors ofplant diseases). These are the only insects listed as being controlled onpymetrozine labels. While pymetrozine is most effective in suppressing feeding (and subsequently causing mortality) in these insects, BEAD located a few research articles indicating neurological impacts in other insects, such as locusts. These studies are briefly described in the "Biological Aspects" section below. Details ofpymetrozine nervous system action have notbeen fully elucidated, but it is thought to work by affecting serotonin inthe insect nervous system (Chang and Snyder 2008). The only other commercially available insecticide included inthe same MOA is flonicamid. 

### IDSTORY OFBEAD ASSESSMENTS FORPYMETROZINE
BEAD did not find any assessments specifically for pymetrozine inthe BEAD Official Records. Ofthe documents that included pymetrozine that were found, all ofthem were relatively old and the mostrecent dated from 2009.
BEAD did not find any Section 18 (emergency exemption) requests for pymetrozine submitted to BEAD for analysis in the last 5 years. However, there were 10 suchrequests between the years 1998 and 2001 in the OPP Section 18 database for potatoes, pecans, lettuce and hops (see http://cfpubl.epa.gov/oppref/section18/search.cfin). One request (forpecans) was issued in 2000 for control ofaphids in Georgia. Two more Section 18s from Washington and Idaho went crisis for control ofaphids in hops in2003. 

### COMMONFORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS Pymetrozine is formulated only as water dispersible granules. Application methods include tractor mounted spray equipment, chemigation, aerial equipments, and handheld equipments. 

### USE SITES Agricultural Use Sites Pymetrozine is registered for use onmany crops, including widelyplanted such as lettuce and potatoes, and minor specialty crops such as nuttrees, potatoes, turmeric, melons, gourds, cucurbits, cotton, chayote, vegetables, asparagus, celery, mustard spinach, and fruit trees. Page 2 of9Non-Agricultural Use Sites Pyrnetrozine is registered for use on Christmas tree plantations, outdoor ornamentals and greenhouse crops.

USAGE Figure 1 (below) shows the use ofpyrnetrozine inpounds active ingredient (a.i.) for the time period of2000-2011. The use is increasing during this time period. This is representedby an annual average of9,000 pounds active ingredient (lbs. a.i.) used to treat an annual average of 106,000 acres, for an overall average applicationrate of0.1 lb. a.i. per acre during this time period. 

### Figure 1. Agricultural Usage Datafor Pymetrozine in Pounds A.I. (2000-2011).

0 0 0 N ...-4 0 0 N N 0 0 N

Source: Proprietary Data, 2000 -2011. ("(') 0 0 N 

### g 0 N II') 0 0 N Years**~** 0 0 N

Page 3 of9 ,.... 0 0 N 00 

### 8 N O'l 0 0 N 0 ...-4 0 N ...-4 ...-4 0 Nr-. 0 0 N CXl 0 0 N

Source: Proprietary Data, 2007-2011. en 0 0 N Years .-4 .-4 0 N**Cantaloupes**

- Lettuce

--.-Pecans**Potatoes**

From 2007-2011, the annual total agricultural usage averaged approximately 10,000 pounds active ingredient (lbs. a.i.) for 116,000 treated acres with an overall average application rate of 0.1 lbs. a.i. per acre. During this time frame, the crops withthe most use in terms oftotal pounds ofpymetrozine active ingredientused, total areatreated, and crop applicationrate are potatoes, pecans, lettuce, and cantaloupes, as showninTable 1. The states withthe most agricultural usage interms of pymetrozine pounds active ingredient applied, total areatreated, and state applicationrate are California, Georgia, Florida, Colorado, and Montana, as described in Table 2. 

### Table 1. 

### Percent ofPymetrozine used on Top Crops in Terms ofTotal Pounds (a.i.), and Total Area Treated, 2007-2011 Crop %ofTotal Pounds A.I. %ofTotal AreaTreated Potatoes 41 39 Pecans 16 15 Lettuce 12 13 Cantaloupes 6 6 Source: EPA Propnetary Data, 2007-2011. 

### Table 2. Percent ofPymetrozineused in States in Terms ofTotal Pounds (a.i.) and Total Area Treated, 2007-2011 Crop %ofTotal Pounds A.l. % ofTotal Area Treated California 26 28 Georgia 16 16 Florida 11 12 Colorado 11 7 Montana 7 8 Source: EPA Propnetary Data, 2007-2011. Page 4 of9Agricultural Usage by Crop Reporting District Another measure ofusage is the use intensity. In this analysis, the use intensity is expressed as the pounds a.i. applied per 1,000 acres ofland in farms

. This differs from the application rate, which is expressed as the pounds a.i. appliedpertreated area. An average application rate of0.1 lbs a.i. per acre is equivalent to 100 lbs a.i

.per 1000 treated acres. In contrast, the maximum use intensity ranges from 0.41-1.02lbs. a.i. per 1,000 acres offarm land. Figure 3 spatially represents pymetrozine use intensity in potatoes in the northernpart ofMaine inthe USA. Figure 3. Pymetrozine Usage by Crop Reporting District (2006- 2010)

Average Pounds Per 1,000Acres of Farmland

- <0

.05 0

.05-0.10 0 0

.11-0

.21 0.22- 0.40 0.41- 1

.02

Page 5 of9

### This is a map of agricultural pesticide usage at the Crop Reporting District (CRD) level prepared by BEAD for use in the Environmental Fate and Effects Division documents. These maps are used to help visualize where the pesticide being considered is most likely to be used and can be helpful in scenario selection and placing the exposure assessment in context. CRDs are boundaries created by USDA NASS which are aggregates ofcounties (USDA, 2010). Pesticide usage is displayed as average pounds (for the years 2006-2010) per 1,000 acres offarmland in a CRD to normalize for the variation in farmland between CRDs. Farmland acreage was obtained from USDA (2007). Farmland or "land in farms" is defined by USDA as follows: The acreage designated as "land in farms" consists primarily of agricultural land used for crops, pasture, or grazing. It 

### also includes woodland and wasteland not actually under cultivation or used for pasture or grazing, provided it was part of the farm operator's total operation. Large acreages of woodland or wasteland held for nonagricultural purposes were deleted from individual reports during the edit process. Land in farms includes CRP, WRP, FWP, and CREP acres. Land in farms is an operating unit concept and includes land owned and operated as well as land rented from others. Land used rent free was reported as land rented from others. All grazing land, except land used under government permits on a per-head basis, was included as "land in farms" provided it was part ofa farm or ranch. Land under the exclusive use of a grazing association was reported by the grazing association and included as land in farms. All land in American Indian reservations used for growing crops, grazing livestock, or the potential of grazing livestock was included as land in farms. Land in reservations not reported by reservation, individual American Indians or non-Native Americans was reported in the name of the cooperative group that used the land. In many instances, an entire American Indian reservation was reported as one farm (2007 Census ofAgriculture, USDA). Usage is based on private market surveys of pesticide use in agriculture (Proprietary Data, 2006-2010). The survey data are limited to the states that represent the top 80-90% ofacreage for the individual crops; therefore, use may be occurring in regions outside the scope ofthe survey. CRDs showing no usage ofpesticides may be due to either the lack ofpesticide use in the region or non-participation in the agricultural surveys. In 

### addition, across the years, there may be variations in the specific crops included in the CRD survey. This may result in a lower annual average for the CRD. Figure 3 displays ratio data (i.e., average pounds per 1,000 acres offarmland) summarized at a very high-level. Readers are strongly cautioned against trying to over interpret the map without examination ofthe underlying data. The underlying data may explain some ofthe many reasons that a Crop Reporting District may have a high value for a particular active

Page 6 of9ingredient such as significant acreage (compared with the CRD as a whole) ofa crop or crops with a high application rate and frequency ofapplication. 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. Scale and units ofmeasurement do matter and may be different betweenmaps. The geographical depiction ofpymetrozine use indicates thatthe highestuse ofthis insecticide (orange orred shading) occurs in the coastal, central, and southern regions of California, Arizona, in parts ofthe southeastern U.S. and Maine (Figure 3). This suggests that pymetrozine use is relatively high in crops such as tree fruits and vegetables (widely grown in the relevantregions ofCalifornia and Arizona, and also comparatively high in potatoes, a major crop in Maine. Non-Agricultural Use Sites
In 2002, 2004, and 2006, the mostrecent years for which non-agricultural data are available, less than 500 lbs. a.i. ofpymetrozinewere used in the nursery/greenhouse sector. (Kline, and Co., Inc., 2002, 2004, and 2006)

BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT TO PYMETROZINE Resistance to pymetrozine has been reported for two species ofwhitefly, butno aphid or leafhopperpests appears to have developed resistance as yet, according to a publicly accessible, large database ofpublished scientific literature on arthropod resistance that is maintained by Michigan State University (available at http://www.pesticideresistance.com/index.php). According to the database, in 1994 resistance was documented in Spanish populations ofthe sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci. In 2008 and 2009, resistance developed inpopulations of the greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporarium, in China, Germany, and Spain. No reports were found for whitefly populations in the U.S. Pymetrozine has some unusual attributes that may make it a valuable option for crop growers interested in managing Homopteranpests with integrated pest management (IPM) principles in mind. Ithas translaminar systemic activity, and is thus available to pests through plant sap as well as direct contact (Harrewijn and Kayser 1997). Some studies have reported that pymetrozine has little to no harmful impact on natural enemies ofpests such as parasitic wasps (e.g., Liu eta/. 2012; see references in Harrewijn and Kayser 1994 and Chang and Snyder 2008). Interestingly, at least one study found thatpymetrozine hadthe unexpected benefit ofcausing a non-targetpest, the Colorado potato beetle, to leave treated potato plants (Chang and Snyder 2008). BEAD also located one study that found some effects ofpymetrozine on locusts (Kaufman etal. 2004). The authors injected pymetrozine into the grasshopperLocusta migratoria and found that it caused them to extend theirhindlegs for considerable lengths of time. This effect was not seen in sap-sucking insects such as aphids. Feeding immature locusts
Page 7 of9pymetrozine treated wheat inhibited food intake and reduced weight gain; however, this effect was reversible. The larger implications ofthis laboratory study remain unclear.

DATA NEEDS RELEVANT TO BEAD'S FUTURE WORK ON PYMETROZINE Obtaining additional information onthe following items would improve BEAD's assessment of the importance ofpymetrozine as a pest managementtool. This assessment is likelyto be required as part ofthe registration review ofthis pesticide.
1. Fornon-agricultural uses, information ontargetpests and treatment costs. 2. Recent resistance reports for pymetrozine inpopulations ofimportanttarget pests. 3. For all uses, recent comparative efficacy data for pymetrozine vs. likely alternatives for majortarget pests. REFERENCES: Chang, G.C. and W.E. Snyder. 2008. Pymetrozine causes a nontargetpest, the Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), to leave potato plants. 

### J. Econ. Entomol. 101(1): 74- 80. EPA. 2000. Pesticide Fact Sheet: Pymetrozine. Available onthe web at http://nepis.epa.gov/ Adobe/PDF/P1 OOBIBS.PDF

. EPA Proprietary Data, 2000-2011. Harrewijn, P. and H. Kayser. 1997. Pymetrozine, a fast acting and selective inhibitor ofaphid feeding. In situ studies with electronic monitoring offeeding behavior. Pestic. Sci. 49: 130-140. Kaufman, L., Schurmann, M. Yiallourosa, P.Harrewijn, H. Kayser. 2004. The serotonergic system is involved in feeding inhibition bypymetrozine. Comparative studies on a locust (Locusta migratoria) and an aphid (Myzuspersicae). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part C 138 (2004) 469--483

. Kline and Co., Inc

. 2002, 2004, and 2006. Krupke, C.H., G. Hunt, and R.E. Foster. 2012. Protecting Honeybees from Pesticides. PublicationE-53W ofthe Purdue University Extension Service

. Available onthe web at: http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/publications/E-53.pdf

. Liu, T-X, Y-M Zhang, L-NPeng, P. Rojas, and J.T. Trumble. 2012. Risk assessment ofselected insecticides on Tamarixia triozae (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), a parasitoid ofBactericera cockerelli (Hemiptera: Trizoidae)

. J. Econ. Entomol. 105(2): 490-496. USDA, 2006-2010. NASS Crop Reporting Districts.
Page 8 of9http:/ /www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/anns/resourceregions/resourceregions.htm#nass

. USDA, 2007. Census ofAgriculture. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/index.asp

.

Page9of9