UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D

.C

. 20460 

### OCT 

## 3 0 2014

MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

SUBJECT: BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Spiromesifen (PC Code: 024875) FROM: Nikhil Mallampalli, Ph.D., Entomologist 

# /ItL 

# lJ.**M~** Biological Analysis Branch

THRU: Don Atwood, Ph.D., Entomologist

## ~ 

## owzt.ft'Jr1;

## ~ Science Information and Analysis Branch

Diann Sims, Chief Science Informatio an Analysis Branch

.. Timothy Kiely, Chief (,\__ 

### \f'J\._

# (~ Economic Analysis Branch '-.J

# J Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 03P) TO: Julia Stokes, Chemical Review Manager Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

PeerReview Panel date: October 15, 2014

Page 1 of 10

### SUMMARY Spiromesifen is a miticide/insecticide currentlyundergoing registration review. Since 

### itwas first registered in 2005, ithas notundergone such a review inthe past. This pesticide is active against many species ofphytophagous mites, as well as some whitefly and Psyllid species that are serious plantpests. It acts by interfering with growthregulation and lipid biosynthesis. Itis currently registered as a "reduced-risk" pesticide for use in a variety ofcrops, including com, cotton, vegetables, berries, and leafy greens. Itis also registered on ornamentals. National level use ofspiromesifen has increased significantlybetween 2005 and 2012. The reasons for the increase are not fully clearbutprobably include factors such as increasedpest resistance to other miticides and growers' needto simultaneously control multiple pests such as psyllids, whiteflies and mites. Crops that showmajor uses ofspiromesifen are com, potatoes, and strawberries, all of whichhave various significant mite pests inmost growing regions. Details ofusage, the chemical's role inpestmanagement, and current BEAD dataneeds relevantto registration review are presented below.


### INTRODUCTION The Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) Chemical Profile (BCP) provides an overview ofthe pestmanagement roles and quantitative usage information for spiromesifen. The BCP includes summaries ofprevious BEADproducts and available public and/or private use and usage data for spiromesifento describe the role ofthis chemical inpestmanagement. Additional information onuse is available inthe Spiromesifen Label DataReport provided inthe public docket for this chemical. Informationprovided in this documentmay be used by stakeholders (e.g., users and registrants), OPP risk assessors, and OPP risk managers, andthe general public during the Registration Reviewprocess ofthis pesticide.


### AGRICULTURAL USE SITES Spiromesifen is registered for use onlow growing berries (subgroup 13-07G), tuberous and corm vegetables (subgroup 1 C), leafy greens (subgroup 4A), fruiting vegetables, brassica vegetables (subgroup SA), celery, com, cotton, and cucurbits.


### NON-AGRICULTURAL USE SITES Spiromesifen is labeled for use on one non-agricultural use site: ornamentals.


### FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS Spiromesifen is formulated as a suspension concentrate and emulsifiable concentrate. Application may be made using either ground or aerial equipment.

Page 2 of10IDSTORY OF SPIROMESIFEN AND BEAD PRODUCTS Spiromesifen was first registered by the U.S. EPA in 2005. Since then, EPAhas approved two Section 18 emergency exemption requests for use ofspiromesifen to control spider mites on soybeans in Delaware, one in 2008 and one in 2009. BEAD reviewed the first ofthese two requests and determined that there was an emergency situation due to drought conditions which had caused spider mite populations to increase (Chiri and Lee, 2008). In 2014, BEAD prepared a screening level usage analysis (SLUA) which showed that, over a period ofeight years, the crops withthe highest percent crop treated (Pen were strawberries (55%), eggplant (45%), and cantaloupes (30%) (Table 2). BEAD has not conducted any other assessments for this chemical.

SPIROMESIFEN USAGE Agricultural Usage Usage of spiromesifen interms ofpounds applied and number ofacres treated both showed a steady increase from 2005 to 2012 (Figure 1 ). Usage ofspiromesifen was noted to decrease in terms ofacres treated and pounds applied between 2011 and 2012. However, this mostly likely only reflects yearly variation inusage as has previously been observed between 2006 and 2007 and between 2009 and 2010. Overall, there is still a positive usage trend for spiromesifen.
900,000

0 ...,._Total Area Treated

- ..- Pounds AI

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year 130,000

0 "CI .!!! 

### a. Cl. < :cc VI "CI c ::I Q f:l.

Figure 1. National Spiromesifen Usage (Lbs 

### A.I. and Total Area Treated), 2005-2012 Source: Proprietary Data, 2005-2012 A review oftotal spiromesifenusage data for the last 5 years indicates thatthe major use sites are corn, potatoes, and strawberries, accounting for 86% oftotal usage relative to pounds applied and 85% ofacres treated (Table 1 ).
Page 3 of 10T 

### bl 1 

### C 'th H' h t U f S

. 'fi 2008 2012 

### a e 

# . rops w1 121 es se o ,p1romes1 en, 

# - Crop Average %of Total Average Total %ofTotal LbsAI Spiromesifen Acres Spiromesifen Lbs Applied Treated* Treated Acres Com 43,100 57% 365,800 65% Potatoes 13,600 18% 70,700 13% Strawberries 8,600 11% 34,900 6% *Total Acres Treated sums all acres treated for a crop, mcludmg those acres thatreceive multiple treatments. Source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012

While com, potatoes, and strawberries have the highestpercentage oflbs applied and total acres treated, the crop withthe highestpercent crop treated is eggplant at 45% (Table 2). This indicates that spiromesifenplays an importantrole inpest control for some crops withrelative lowtotal pounds applied.


### Table 2. 

### Percent Crop Treatedwith Spiromesifen for crops with most usage and crops

'th t th 5 

### t t t d 2004 2012 WI 

### grea er an percen crop rea e , 

# - Crop Percent Crop Treated Avg. Lbs. A.I.* Average Maximum Com 30,000 <1 <2.5 Potatoes 10,000 5 10 Strawberries 6,000 35 55 Peppers 2,000 10 25 Sweet com 2,000 5 10 Cantaloupes 1,000 10 30 Watermelons 1,000 5 10

Cucumbers <500 10 20

Eggplant <500 45 45 *Lbs A.I. may differ from Table 1 as Percent Crop Treated estimates encompass an extended time frame, 2004-2012 Source: Spiromesifen SLUA (EPA, 2014)

Table 3 indicates states with highest usage ofspiromesifeninterms ofpercent oftotal spiromesifen lbs a.i. applied andpercent oftotal acres treated with spiromesifen. Texas is the state withhighest usage interms ofbothtotal pounds ofspiromesifen applied and total acres treated withit. California is close to Texas interms ofpercent oftotal spiromesifen lbs applied butno state is close to Texas relative to the percent oftotal acres treated with spiromesifen.

Page 4 of 10

### T bl 3 

### St t 'thH" h t U f S

. 'f, 2008 2012 

### a e 

# . a esw1**I~J** 

### es se o ipiromesi en, 

# - State %ofTotal State % ofTotalAcres Spiromesifen Lbs Treatedwith Applied Spiromesifen* Texas 27 Texas 30 California 22 California 18 Washington 15 Kansas 11 Kansas 9 Washington 12 Colorado 8 Colorado 9 NewMexico 8 New Mexico 9 Idaho 5 Idaho 5 *Total Acres Treated sums all acres treated, mcludmg those acres that receive multiple treatments. ·source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012 Application Rates and Methods Spiromesifen average applicationrates across all crops from 2008 to 2012 range from a low of 0.094lbs a.i./acre for artichokes to a high of0.246lbs a.i./acre for strawberries. Average application rates for the major use sites based on average totallbs applied in the United States are provided inTable 4.
T 

### bl 4 S

. 

### ·r, 

# u

a e 

# . ip1romes1 en se on

### T C op rops: A

### verage AIR t 2008 2012 

# .. a e, 

# - Crop Average TotalLbs Average Total Avg. A.I. Rate Acres Treated* (lbs a.i./acres) Corn 43,100 365,800 0.118 Potatoes 13,600 70,700 0.193 Strawberries 8,600 34,900 0.246 *Total Acres Treated sums all acres treated for a crop, mcludmg those acres that receive multiple treatments. Source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012

Table 5 provides average spiromesifen application rates by state. The highest application rate, 0.174 lbs a.i./acre, is used in Washington and is primarily related to higher application rates in potato production. The lowest application rate is 0.105 lbs a.i./acre in Kansas on corn.

Page 5 of 10

### Table 5. Spiromesifen Use in Top States: Average A.I. Rate, 2008-2012 State Average Total Lbs Average Total Applied Acres Treated* Texas 20,000 168,400 California 16,800 100,900 Washington 11,100 63,600 Kansas 6,900 65,700 Colorado 6,100 50,500 New Mexico 5,700 47,900 Idaho 4,100 29,000 

### Avg. A.I. Rate (lbs a.i./acres) 0.119 0.167 0.174 0.105 0.121 0.120 0.141 *Total Acres Treated sums all acres treated, mcludmg those acres thatreceive multiple treatments. Source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012 According to proprietary data, ground applications account for 55% ofspiromesifen lbs applied and 50% oftotal acres treated. Broadcast applications account for 98% ofspiromesifen lbs applied and 97% oftotal acres treated. Custom application, not farmer, represents 69% of spiromesifen lbs applied and 73% oftotal acres treated. Inthe database, "custom application" refers to treatments made by professional pesticide applicators hired bythe grower. Geographic Distribution ofSpiromesifenUse Spiromesifen has wide usage inthe United States (Figure 1 ). States with highest pounds per 1,000 crop acres grown include New Mexico, California, and Washington (Figure 2). However, while NewMexico appears to have the greatest use intensity, this is largely an artifact ofthe low crop acres grown within the state. The high use intensity in Californiais associated withthe high number ofcrop acres within the state and the use ofspiromesifen on 14 crops within the state. In addition, the intensity in California is driven by use ontwo ofthe major spiromesifen crops, com and strawberries. The high use intensity in Washingtonresults from use onpotatoes, another ofthe major spiromesifen crops. Use intensity in Texas, Colorado, and Idaho are related to comproduction whereas use in Arizonais linked to cantaloupe and watermelon production.

Page 6 of 10

### Figure 2. Annual average agricultural use intensity ofspiromesifen (2008-2012).

Pounds Active Ingredient per 1,000 Crop Acres Grown 

## D No Data 0 <0.1 

## D o.1-o.4 0.4-0.8

. 0.8-2 

# - >2

More information about this map is available in Appendix A.

Page 7 of 10

### Non-Agricultural Usage Non-agricultural usage ofspiromesifen is minor in comparison to agricultural usage with less than 6.5 thousand pounds applied in 2012. Proprietary data indicates use on landscapes, lawns, and innursery/greenhouses (Table 6). 

### Table 6. Non-agriculturaluse ofspiromesifen. Lbs A.I Applied Use Site (1,000) Landscape 0.07 Lawn Care Nursery/Greenhouse Source: Proprietary data, 2012 5.99 0.33



### ROLE OF SPIROMESIFEN IN PEST MANAGEMENT Spiromesifen is categorized in Mode ofAction group 23 by the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (anindustry group oftechnical experts). Other members ofthis group, spirodiclofen and spirotetramat, are also registered inthe U.S. These pesticides are all toxic to target arthropods byinterfering with growth regulation and lipid production. Both spiromesifen and spirotetramathave reduced-risk status, while spirodiclofen does not (EPA, 2013). Spiromesifen has contacttoxicity mainly to mite eggs and immatures, as well as contacttoxicity to psyllids and whiteflies (which also feed onplantphloem, as do mites). Thought it is not fully clear why there has been a general increase in spiromesifenusage in recent years, underlying factors may include increasedpestresistance to other miticides and growers' need to simultaneously control multiple pests by using a broader spectrum chemical, relative to otherpopular· miticides. Another factor may be the extended drought conditions experienced inTexas and Californiain at least the pasttwo years. Hot and dry weather frequently fosters highpopulations ofphytophagous mites, particularlythe two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae, which is a pest on virtually all ofthe crops that spiromesifen is registered for.



### DATA NEEDS The Agency currently does not have important information on spiromesifen. Obtaining the following information onusage for any or all registered non-agricultural sites may improve future assessments conducted bythe Agency related to the use and importance ofspiromesifen:

• Total pounds active ingredient applied • Percent crop/site treated • Applicationrates: typical and maximum • Frequency ofapplication • Application Intervals Page 8 of 10• Efficacy information/productperformance • Recent reports ofpest resistance.

REFERENCES Bynum E.D., G. 

### J. Michels, 

### Jr. and 

### J. B. Bible. 2009. Evaluation ofBanks Grass Mite and TwoSpotted Spider Mite Response to SpiromesifenFieldApplication and Potential Changes in Spiromesifen Tolerance: A report to the Texas ComProducers Board. Available onthe web at: http:/ /amarillo.tamu.edu/files/2013/04/2009-0beron-TCPB.pdf [Accessed Sept 2014]. EPA. 2014. Spiromesifen Screening Level Usage Analysis. Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office ofPesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chiri, A. and A. Lee. 2008. Review ofEmergency Exemption Request for the Use of Spiromesifen for Control ofSpider Mites on Soybeans in Delaware (08DE03) (DP #354193). Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office ofPesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. Proprietary Data. 2004-2012 Proprietary Data. 2008-2012 Proprietary Data. 2012

Page 9 of 10APPENDIX A The map included herein (Figure 2) is primarily for the use ofthe risk assessors inthe Environmental Fate and Effects Division. The map provides a verybroad geographical view of the average annual amount (inpounds) ofthe active ingredient applied per 1,000 acres ofcrop acres grown. These data are included inthe maps because risk assessors are interested inthe amount ofa pesticide used across agricultural land. The calculated values presented inthe map are not equivalentto an application rate (lb ail 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 onprivate market surveys ofpesticide use in agriculture averaged overthe last five years (Proprietary Data, 2008-2012). These surveys cover about 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 showno 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 inthe 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 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 thanthat reported by crop acres grown inthe survey because either that state and/or crop was not included in the survey. 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 as the legendbins will likely be different. ·

Page 10 of 10