UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

NOV 1 'l ll1\4 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

THRU: 

TO: 

BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Flonicamid (128016) 

Colwell Cook, Entomologist6~tf Biological Analysis B~~ch fJ ~ 

Rafael A. Prieto, En'j(Jpit::;t froteJ.it~ Specialist 

Science Information an~~~~~i~ Branch 

Elizabeth Hill, Economist (\ 

Economic 

Biological 

Analysis 

and Economic 

Branch 

Analysis 

~~ 

Division (7503P) 

Arnet Jones, Chief 

Biological Analysis Branc 

Diann Sims, Chief~ Science Information and Analysis Branch 

(}1 ,-- y-/), .. !! Cv-[lrno~ /(..telvf Timothy Kiely, Chief (}t&WJ/P.J f.._l:fU;<A Tv' f 

Economic Analysis Branch 

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) 

Ricardo Jones, Chemical Review Manager 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch 1 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

Peer Review Panel date: October 15,2014 
INTRODUCTION 

The Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) Chemical Profile (BCP) provides an 

overview of the pest management roles and quantitative usage information for flonicamid. The 

BCP includes summaries of previous BEAD products and available public and/or private use and 

usage data for flonicamid to describe the role of this chemical in pest management. Additional 

information on use is available in the flonicamid Label Data Report. Information provided in 

this BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) may be used by stakeholders (e.g., users and registrants), 

OPP risk assessors and OPP risk managers, and the general public during the Registration 

Review process of this pesticide. 

Flonicamid was first registered in the U.S. on September 26, 2003 and was granted its first food 

crop use on August 31, 2005. It has a unique mode of action that targets sucking insects on 

numerous crops. The predominant use in terms of pounds active ingredient (a.i.) applied is 

cotton, with an average of 10,000 pounds applied annually from 2004-2012 (Screening Level 

Usage Analysis, April 2014). 

USE SITES 

Agricultural uses 

Flonicamid is registered for use on: pome fruits, stone fruits, tree nuts, subtropical/tropical fruits, 

berries, citrus, grapes, hops, cotton, vegetables (including leafy, fruiting, and root/tubers), 

legumes, and crops grown for oil. 

Non-agricultural uses 

Flonicamid is registered for use on golf course turf and ornamentals. 

FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS 

Flonicamid is formulated as a dry flowable, flowable concentrate, pressurized liquid, and 

emulsifiable concentrate. It may be applied as aerosol application, band treatment, broadcast, 

chemigation, dip treatment, directed spray, high volume spray (dilute), root treatment, seed 

treatment, soil drench treatment, soil in-furrow treatment, spot treatment, and spray. 

HISTORY OF FLONICAMID AND BEAD PRODUCTS 

BEAD conducted a benefits assessment for a Section 18 Emergency Exemption Request in 2012 

for the use of flonicamid to control Lygus bugs on strawberries in California. Lygus bugs are a 

major pest of strawberries grown in coastal areas in California. BEAD found this situation to be 

non-routine because 1) the registrant of methomyl, which was an important method of Lygus bug 

control, voluntarily cancelled strawberries as a use site for methomyl in 2009 and 2) at the time 

2 
of the analysis there were documented instances of increased resistance when using other 

registered alternatives for controlling Lygus bugs. 

In 2014, BEAD reviewed data submitted by the registrant to determine if flonicamid met criteria 

for extension of exclusive use of data. The information demonstrated that the unique mode of 

action is used in rotation with other insecticides for various sap-feeding pests to delay or prevent 

resistance as well as several states recommended flonicamid as part of their Integrated Pest 

Management strategies. 

USAGE 

Usage Trends 

For the years 2006-2012, flonicamid annual agricultural usage averaged 19,000 pounds a.i. 

treating an average of 260,000 acres, for an overall average application rate of 0.073 pounds a.i. 

per acre. (Proprietary data, 2006-2012). 

Figure 1 presents flonicamid usage in pounds a.i. applied, and Figure 2 shows total area treated 

in acres over the 2006-2012 timeframe (Proprietary Data, 2006-2012). Figures 1 and 2 show that 

over this time period there has been increase in use in terms of both pounds applied and acres 

treated. 

Figure 1. Total Pounds of Flonicamid Applied (2006-2012) 

40,000 

0 

2006 2007 2008 2009 

Year 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2006-2012 

2010 2011 2012 

3 
Figure 2. Total Area Treated (TAT) of Flonicamid in Acres (2006-2012) 

Total Area Treated (acres) 

500,000 

2006 2007 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2006-2012 

2008 2009 

Year 

2010 2011 2012 

Table 1. Crops with Highest Use of Flonicamid in Terms of Percent of Pounds Applied 

(2006-2012) 

Crop % Lbs 

Cotton 70 

Potatoes 12 

Lettuce 6 

Celery 3 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2006-2012 

Table 2. States with Highest Use of Flonicamid in Terms of Percent of Pounds AI (2006-

2012) 

State % Lbs 

California 51 

Arizona 19 

Mississippi 7 

Washington 5 

Arkansas 4 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2006-2012 

4 
Application Rates 

T a bl e 3 . Fl omcam1 "dU se on T op C rops: A.I. Rate, 2006-2012 

Crop Total Total Average Annual AI 

Pounds Applied Acres Treated* Rate (lbs Allacres) 

Cotton 93,000 1,300,000 0.070 

Potatoes 16,000 220,000 0.075 

Lettuce 8,000 100,000 0.082 

Celery 4,000 53,000 0.074 

*Total Acres Treated sums all acres treated for a crop, mcludmg those acres that receive multiple 

treatments .. 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2006-2012 

Non-agricultural usage 

Proprietary data available to EPA reported about 50 pounds of flonicamid used on US 

ornamental and turf in 2012. 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2012 

Geographic Distribution of Flonicamid Use 

Figure 3 provides a very broad geographical view of the average annual amount (in pounds) of 

flonicamid applied per 1,000 acres of crop acres grown. The calculated values presented in the 

map are not equivalent to an application rate (lb ai/ A), therefore, the map may show areas of 

high use intensity that do not correspond to the states listed in Table 2 since those are the states 

with the highest use of flonicamid based on pounds active ingredient applied. Please see 

Appendix A for a more detailed explanation of the information presented on the map. 

5 
Figure 3. Annual average agricultural use intensity of flonicamid (2008-2012). 

Pounds Active Ingredient 

per 1,000 Crop Acres Grown 

0No 0ata 

<0.05 

005 . 0 1 

- 0 1 ·2 

- >2 

More information about this map is presented in Appendix A. 

CHEMICAL AND USE CHARACTERISTICS 

Flonicamid is a systemic, foliar, pyridinecarboxamide insecticide that is registered for use on a 

broad range of crops. It targets many sap-feeding insect pests (e.g. aphids, whiteflies, 

fleahoppers, leafhoppers, plant bugs, and thrips). Flonicamid kills both immature and adult 

stages of susceptible insect pests via both ingestion and contact routes of exposure. It is a 

selective feeding blocker and is the only member of the Insecticide Resistance Action 

Committee's (IRAC) Group 9C (modulators of chordotonal organs- nerve action) (IRAC, 2014) . 

. While IRAC's Group 9 insecticides have similar activity and target essentially the same pest 

spectrum, flonicamid is unique· in its biochemical activity. Flonicamid was first registered in the 

U.S. on September 26, 2003 and was granted its first food crop use on August 31 , 2005. 

ROLE OF FLONICAMID IN PEST MANAGEMENT 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an important strategy for growers to maintain the 

productivity of crop land while potentially reducing the overall input and environmental impact 

of pest management tools such as pesticides. Among other things, IPM strategies can help 

6 
prevent pests from developing resistance to some pesticides and minimize the impact of 

pesticides on beneficial organisms (such as pollinating insects, predators, and parasites). 

Flonicamid has a unique mode of action that can be used in rotation with other insecticides to 

prevent or delay resistance from developing in the target insect pests. Flonicamid is used in 

rotation with other insecticides to manage aphids and thrips, especially in specialty crops, such as 

fruiting vegetables, leafy vegetables, celery, and carrots. In addition it plays a role in managing 

these sap-feeding insects in cotton and potatoes. Aphids and thrips are known to develop 

resistance quickly, and flonicamid in rotation is an important player in managing resistance in 

these insects. 

Maintaining predaceous arthropods in crops is an important component of IPM as well. Some 

studies have demonstrated that flonicamid has little to no effect on beneficial arthropods (Morita, 

2003; Jalai et al., 2009; Cloyd and Dickinson, 2006; Colomer et al., 2011; and Frewin et al., 

2012). Therefore, since flonicamid is considered "soft" on beneficial, predaceous, arthropods, it 

allows growers to take advantage of natural biological control agents in the field. Maintaining 

these predaceous arthropods may keep pest populations low and eliminate the need for additional 

insecticide applications. 

DATA NEEDS 

The Agency currently does not have important information on flonicamid. Obtaining the 

following information may improve future assessments conducted by the Agency related to the 

use and importance of flonicamid. 

Since flonicamid is registered for many minor crops as well as non-agricultural uses, the 

following information would be helpful for future impact analyses: 

1. Site/crop specific infonnation on the target pests, damage, economic thresholds, best time to 

treat, as well as alternatives to flonicamid. 

2. Site/crop specific information on the formulation, application method, application rates, 

frequency of application, and timing of applications. 

3. Site/crop specific information on barriers of adopting chemical and non-chemical alternatives 

to flonicamid (e.g. price, efficacy, application methods, use restrictions, etc.). 

APPENDIX A 

The map included herein (Figure 3) is primarily for the use of the risk assessors in the 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division. The map provides a very broad geographical view of 

the amount (in pounds) of the active ingredient applied per 1,000 acres of "land in farms". These 

data are included in the maps because risk assessors are interested in the amount of a pesticide 

7 
used across farmland. Because of the definition of Land in Farms, as discussed below, the 

calculated values presented in the map are not equivalent to an application rate (lbs ail A). 

The data used to make these maps have many limitations. Any interpretation of the maps should 

consider the underlying data and the associated limitations carefully. 

The smallest areas shown on the maps within each state are Crop Reporting Districts (CRD). 

CRDs are defined by USDA and each consists of multiple counties that have similar soils, 

growing conditions. and farming practices. The CRDs within many states have roughly the same 

area. Because it is not feasible to conduct an agricultural survey that samples every county in the 

United States, the use of CRDs allow for a sample to be collected that represent a much larger 

area with relatively homogeneous agricultural characteristics. 

The numerator (annual average pounds applied) is based on private market surveys of pesticide 

use in agriculture averaged over the last five years (Proprietary Data, 2007-2011). These surveys 

cover about 60 crops and are targeted in states that produce the majority of the crop. Although 

the surveys capture most of the 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 

• Not all types of pesticides are surveyed in every crop in every year 

• Many specialty crops with very small acreages are not induded in the survey 

The result of these limitations is that CRDs that show no usage may actually have a small 

amount of the active ingredient being used. 

The denominator ( 1 ,000 Acres of land in farms) was selected from the Census of Agriculture 

(USDA, 2007) to represent agricultural acreage that is actively managed and includes most of the 

areas treated with pesticides. The category "Land in Farms" is defined by the Census of 

Agriculture as being made up of four components: 

• Total cropland 

• Permanent pasture 

• Total woodland 

• Land in farmsteads, buildings, livestock facilities, ponds, roads, wasteland, etc. 

This category includes land in the various USDA conservation programs. It should be noted that 

the Census of Agriculture does not include grazing land rented (on a per-animal basis) from the 

Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service, thus it is an underestimate of the land being 

managed for agricultural purposes. 

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 of measurement do matter and may be different between maps. 

8 
REFERENCES 

Cloyd, R. A. and Dickinson, A. 2006. Effect of Insecticides on Mealybug Destroyer (Coleoptera: 

Coccinellidae) and Parasitoid Leptomastix dactylopii (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), Natural 

Enemies of Citrus Mealybug (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 99: 1596-

1604. 

Colomer, I., Aguado, P., Medina, P., Heredia, R. M., Fereres A., Beida, J. E. and Vinuela, E. 

2011. Field trial measuring the compatibility of methoxyfenozide and flonicamid with Orius 

Laevigatus Fieber (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and Amblyseius swirskii (Athias-Henriot) 

(Acari: Phytoseiidae) in a commercial pepper greenhouse. Pest Management Sci. 67: 1237-

1244. 

Frewin, A. J., Schaafsma, A. W, and Hallett, R. H. 2012. Susceptibility of Aphelinus certus to 

foliar-applied insecticides currently or potentially registered for soybean aphid control. 

Pest Management Sci. 68: 202- 208. 

IRAC. 2014. lRAC MoA Classification Scheme v 7.3, February 2014. Insecticide Resistance 

Action Committee. http://www. irac-onli ne.org/ documents/moa-classification/? ext=pdf 

Jalai, M.A., van Leeuwen, T., Tirry, L. and DeClercq, P. 2009. Toxicity of selected insecticide 

to the two-spot ladybird Adalia bipunctata. Phytoparasitica 35: 323-326. 

Morita, M. 2003. Side Effects of Flonicamid 50WG on Beneficial Arthropods, Harmonia 

axyridis, Phytoseiulus persimilis and Bombyx mori in the Laboratory. Report No. 

AL0301-I-04 Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha,Ltd. 

Proprietary Data. 2006-2012. 

9