UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D

.C

. 20460


## DEC 10 2012

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: Indoxacarb (067710) 

### FROM:

THRU:

TO: Monisha Kaul, Biologist

## {YI~**~ ~**  Biological Analysis Branch Jihad Alsadek, Economist

# ~A- A-

# .):1-~--.Ple~ie_ Science Information and Analysis Branch Stephen Smearman, Economist 

## L

_ J

. .**~** Economic Analysis Branch

### ·~ Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branc Diann Sims, Chief

# ~ Science Information and Analysis Branch TimothyKiely,Chief

# ~ \,.

# ~ Economic Analysis Branch "\J'-.: Biological and Economic Ana fysi Division (750 ) Katie Weyrauch, Chemical Review Manager Risk Management and Implementation Branch 5 Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

### Product Review Panel date: November 28,2012 INTRODUCTION 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 ofthe team ofEPA staffcurrently evaluating the registration status ofindoxacarb and eventuallythe general public. This document builds uponthe data already provided inthe "Usage and Label Use Datapackages"that are also provided to Registration


### 1Reviewteams byBEAD. The document is based oninformation and data available to BEAD as ofNovember 16, 2012. The year ofinitial registration for indoxacarb is 2000. Indoxacarb is a broad-spectrum insecticide that is inthe oxadiazine class ofchemistry, which blocks the voltage-dependent sodium-channel ofinsects. The Insecticide Resistance Action Committee lists indoxacarb in group 22. lndoxacarb is used primarily to control lepidopteran insects (e.g., caterpillars). Itis also used to control some coleopteran (e.g. beetles) and homopteran (e.g. leafhoppers) pests. Indoxacarb is also used inbait formulations for several species ofants, cockroaches, and mole crickets. 

### HISTORY OFBEAD ASSESSMENTS FORINDOXACARB
BEAD found three Section 18s inthe BEAD document database. One was an application request from 2007 from Californiato control beet armyworm on Swiss chard whichwas withdrawn. The othertwo were from 2003 which were issued, one from Georgiato control diamondback moth on collards and one from Massachusetts to control cranberry weevil in cranberries. Bothhave both expired. Benefits Assessments There were several benefits assessments (2003-2007) that included indoxacarb as an alternative. Assessments for methyl bromide, metam-sodium, chloropicrin, azinphos-methyl, phosmet, and carbofuran included indoxacarb inthe list ofalternatives for these chemicals across several sites. Because indoxacarb was a relatively new, reduced risk alternative at the time ofthe assessments, there were very little data rating indoxacarb as an alternative. However, for the AZMbenefits assessments, indoxacarb was rated as having excellent control for plum curculio and cherry fruit fly in sweet and tart cherries and was the only alternative rated as excellent for control ofplum curculio in apples as an alternative to AZM. ExtensionofExclusive Use Review
In 2008, BEAD conducted a review ofthe exclusive use period for indoxacarb for 19 minor crops: cabbage, bro

_ ccoli, peppers, head lettuce, leaflettuce, pears, mint, southernpea, cranberry, mustard greens, plum, peach, cherry (sweet and sour), summer squash, cucumber, cantaloupe, spinach, and celery. (Brassard, 2008). BEAD concluded that the registrant's request for a three year extension for the exclusive use ofindoxacarb was warranted because itwas found to be a valuabletool for integrated pestmanagementprograms, a potential tool for resistance management and because there were few efficacious alternatives available for cranberries and collards. 

### COMMON FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATIONMETHODS Indoxacarb is formulated as granular, impregnated materials, water dispersible granules,**~·** emulsifiable, flowable, soluble concentrates, and solution-ready-to-use. Application method**~** types include broadcast, mound treatment, chemigation, spot-on, bait application, spottreatment, 9.**~** 2outdoor general surface spray, perimetertreatment, foliar treatment, dilute, and soil broadcast treatment. 

### USE SITES Agricultural Use Sites Indoxacarb is aninsecticide registered for use onbushberries, cane berries, grapes, nut crops, stone fruits, pome fruits, spice crops, cucurbits, fruiting vegetables, leafy and stems vegetables (grown for greens and salads), root crop vegetables, com, peas, forage grasses, alfalfa, cotton, soybeans and peanuts. Non-Agricultural Use Sites Indoxacarb is an insecticide registered for use onherbaceous and ornamental plants, ornamental lawns andturf, ornamental woody shrubs and vines, ornamental trees, pets and animals in enclosures, households including private or commercial domestic dwellings and/or their contents, uncultivated non-agricultural areas, schools andbuildings, commercial transportation facilities, food and feed processing plants and areas, eating establishments, food marketing, storage and distribution facilities, hospitals and related institutions, bathrooms, refuse and solid waste sites, and crack/crevice treatments. 

### AgriculturalUsage Figure 1 shows the use ofindoxacarb inpounds active ingredient (a.i.) on all crops for the time frame of2000-2011. The total use summed across all crops fluctuated from 2000 to 2011. 

### Figure 1. 

### Agricultural Usage Data for Indoxacarb in Pounds A.I. on all Crops (2000-2011).
80,000

0 0 0 N .-I 0 0 N N 0 0 N

Source: Proprietary Data, 2000 -2011. !'I') 0 0 N 

### ..,. 0 0 N 1./"1 0 0 N Years 1.0 0 0 N r-. 0 0 N 00 0 0 N 0"1 0 0 N 0 .-I 0 N

Figure 2 belowprovides usage data for the crops with the mostuse inpounds a.i. (broccoli, cotton, peanuts, soybeans, and tomatoes) for the period 2007-2011. .-I .-I 0 N

3

### Figure2. Agricultural Usage Data for Indoxacarb Top Crops (2007-2011).**Broccoli** <ti. Cll "D c ::I 0 a. -.- Peanuts**Soybeans Tomatoes** 

I" 0 0 N 00 0 0 N en 0 0 N Years 0 rl 0 N
Other crops include: apples and peppers (5% each), lettuce and cabbage (4% each), cucumbers/cauliflower/alfalfa (2% each), and potatoes/watermelons/squash (1% each), and the remainder ofthecrops with available data account for less than 4% ofthe total for Other

. Source: Proprietary Data, 2007-2011. From 2007-2011, the annual total agricultural usage averaged approximately 39,000 pounds a.i. for 558,000 treated acres with an overall average application rate of 0.07 lbs. a.i. per acre. Table 1, for the same time frame (2007-2011), shows the crops withthe most use in terms of total pounds ofactive ingredient applied and total acres treated in acres. 

### Table 

### 1. Indoxacarb's Percent ofTop Crops in

### Terms ofPounds Applied, TAT in Acres, and Application Rates in Pounds A.I. perAcre (2007-2011)**Cmp ~**  

### -**--~** % Pounds A · lied %TotalAreaTreated A licationRates



### Tomatoes 20 22 0

.06



### Cotton 14 14 0.09 

### Broccoli 13 14 0.06 

### So beans 11 11 0.05 

### Peanuts 11 

### 8 0.10 

### Source: Proprietary Data, 

### 2007-2011
4

### On average, the states with the most agricultural usage interms ofpounds a.i. applied are California (46%), Florida (17%), and Georgia (11 %), (Proprietary Data, 2007-2011). The available non-agricultural usage data sources did notreport any usage for the nonagricultural use sites.
Agricultural Usage by Crop Reporting District Another measure ofusage is the use intensity. In this analysis, the use intensity is expressed as the average (2007-2011) 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. applied pertreated area. The average application rate of0.07 pounds per acre implies a rate of70 pounds a.i. per 1,000 treated acres. In contrast, the maximumuse intensity is less than 2 pounds per 1,000 acres offarmland. Figure 3 spatially represents indoxacarb use intensity inthe U.S. Red areas ofthe map indicate higher use intensity in California, Arkansas, Florida, and parts ofVirginia. Figure 3. Indoxacarb Usage by Crop Reporting District (2007- 2011)

Average Pounds Per 1,000 Acres of Fanntand

- <0.07 0.07-0.16 

### [=:J 0

.17-0.48 

## CJ 0

.49- 1.06 1

.07-2



### 5This is a map ofagricultural pesticide usage atthe 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 of counties. Pesticide usage is displayed as average pounds (for the years 2007-2011) 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 as follows: The acreage designated as "land in farms" consists primarily ofagricultural 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 1• 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 ofa 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 nonNative Americans was reported in the name ofthe cooperative group that used the land. In many instances, an entire American Indian reservation was reported as one farm (USDA, 2007). Usage is based on private market surveys of pesticide use in agriculture (Proprietary Data, 2007- 2011). The survey data are limited to the states that represent the top 80-90% of acreage 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 nonparticipation 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. This map displays ratio data (i.e., average pounds per 1,000 acres of farmland) 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 ingredient 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 between maps.


### BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT TO INDOXACARB Indoxacarb is in a relatively new chemical class, oxadiazine. It

### is a reduced risk pesticide and is considered an organophosphate replacement. This insecticide was initially registered for agricultural use on cotton along with a few fruit and vegetable crops butthe number and variety

1CRP: Conservation Reserve Program; WRP: Wetland Reserve Program; FWP: Farmable Wetlands Program; CREP: Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

### 6

### ofcrops quickly expanded. Indoxacarb appears to be an important method ofinsect control in certain crops based on findings from previous emergency exemption and extension ofexclusive use ofdata reviews. In addition, previously conducted benefits assessments found indoxacarb to be an alternative to several highriskpesticides (e.g. azinphos-methyl and methyl bromide). lndoxacarb is relatively safe for beneficial insects, which makes it an importantpart ofintegrated pestmanagementprograms (Brassard, 2008). Resistance studies including indoxacarb have had mixed results. There are a few cases listed on the Arthropod Pesticide Resistance Database (IRAC, 2012) indicating resistance issues with the oblique banded leafroller and diamond-back moth. Other studies found either variable results or no resistance or cross-resistance (Pest Management Science, 2007; Zhoa, 

### etal., 2006; Dunley 

### et al., 2006). Past BEAD reviews have found indoxacarb to be potentially valuable for resistance management (Brassard, 2008). Overall, there is little evidence ofa current widespread or an emerging resistance problem. 

### DATA NEEDS RELEVANT TO BEAD'S FUTURE WORKON INDOXACARB Additional information, interms ofpounds a.i. applied, average application rate, regional application, time ofapplication, number ofapplication peryear on non-agricultural sites from the registrant would improve future BEAD assessments ofthe importance ofindoxacarb and may be required as part ofthe registration review ofthis pesticide. Specifically, usage data is needed for pets and crack/crevice. 

### CONCLUSION There has been a modest decline in the use ofindoxacarb for the years 2000 through 2011. Use ontomatoes, broccoli, cotton and other crops has declined since 2007 while use onpeanuts and soybeans has generally increased since 2007. This suggests thatthere are benefits for peanut and soybeanproduces and thatthe use ofindoxacarb for tomato, broccoli, cotton and other crops has less benefit for producers ofthese crops.

7

### REFERENCES: 

### Brassard, D.W., 2008. Review of justification ofextension ofexclusive use period for indoxacarb. Unpublished EPA document. Dunley JE, Brunner JF, Doerr MD, Beers EH. 2006. Resistance and cross-resistance in populations ofthe leafrollers, Choristoneura rosaceana and Pandemis pyrusana, in Washington apples. 7pp. Journal ofInsect Science 6:14. Available Online: insectscience.org/6.14 IRAC, 2012. Verified:November 21, 2012. IRAC, 2012. Arthropod pesticide resistance database. Online: http://www.pesticideresistance.com/index.php

. Verified: December 5, 2012. Pest Management Science, 2007. Lack ofcross-resistance to indoxacarb in insecticide-resistant Spodopterafrugiperda 

### (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and Plutellaxylostella 

### (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae). PestinfoWild 

### 63, 63-67. Available Online: http://wiki.pestinfo.org/w/index.php?title=Pest Management Science (2007) 63, 63- 67&oldid=l08702

. Verified: November 21, 2012. Proprietary Data, 2000-2011. USDA, 2006-2010. NASS Crop Reporting Districts. Online: http://www.ers.usda

.gov/briefing/arms/resourceregions/resourceregions.htm#nass

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

. Zhao J-Z, Collins HL, Li YX, Mau RF, Thompson GD, Hertlein M, Andaloro JT, Boykin R, SheltonAM , 2006. Monitoring ofdiamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) resistance to spinosad, indoxacarb, and emamectin benzoate. J Econ Entomol 99:176-181. Available Online: http://web.entomology.cornell.edu/shelton/publications/

. Verified: November 21, 2012.



### 8