2 metal phosphides and phosphine , please see the registration review docket for that chemical , located at www.regulations.gov. Comments submitted by the Cytec Industries (Cytec ) in EPA - HQ - OPP - 2013 - 008 1 - 001 0 1. Comment: Cytec provided corrections on chemical facts, use and usage information, and recent actions . Response: The Agency appreciates the information provided and will make these corrections in future registration review documents . 2 . Comment: Cytec requested that if a phosphine registrant comes to the Agency with a new use for consideration, that any new, more restrictive labeling should not be imposed upon only that product, but on all phosphine products simultaneously, either at that time or at the end of the registration review process. Response: The Agency understands the marketing disadvantage that may occur when additional label changes are warranted at a time when the full universe of active ingredient labels is not being reviewed . In these situations, the Agency may ask registrants to voluntarily amend their labels, and many registrants make these changes as good stewards of their products. If the changes have important risk reduction measures that should be required across all produ cts containing a particula r active ingredient, Agency - initiated amendments may be required. The Agency anticipates conducting and/or updating its phosphine and metal phosphide risk assessments during registration review. The Agency anticipates the availability of draft risk assessments in the fall of 2018. Any mitigation that is warranted from risk conclusions in the registration review risk assessments will be determined after the risk assessment is completed . Comments submitted by the following entities were made in support of the use of phosphine and/or metal phosphide products: D&D Holding s (D&D) in EPA - HQ - OPP - 2013 - 0011 Royal Pest Solutions ( Royal ) in EPA - HQ - OPP - 2013 - 008 1 - 001 3 National Pest Management Association (NPMA) in EPA - HQ - OPP - 2013 - 0081 - 0014 American Bakers Association (ABA) in EPA - HQ - OPP - 2013 - 0081 - 0015 Action Pest Control (Action ) in EPA - HQ - OPP - 2013 - 0081 - 0016 Rose Pest Solutions (Rose) in EPA - HQ - OPP - 2013 - 0081 - 0017 Cardinal Professional Products (Cardinal) in EPA - HQ - OPP - 2013 - 0081 - 0023 Rentokil North American Pest Control (Rentokil NAPC) in EPA - HQ - OPP - 2013 - 0025 Fumigation Service an d Supply, Inc. (FSS) in EPA - HQ - 2013 - 0081 - 0024 and

– 00263 1. Comment: D&D, Royal, NPMA, ABA, Action, Rose, FSS, and Cardinal provided comments stated t he use of phosphine fumigants plays a critical role in U.S. post - harvest commodity treatment and treat ment of food processing facilities . Many of these entities also cited the role of the phase - out of methyl bromide as adding pressure for finding alternatives, such as phosphine and the metal phosphides, for post - harvest commodity treatment and treatment of food processing facilities . Response: The Agency acknowledges the role of the phase - out of methyl bromide in moving towards alternatives, and appreciates the information provided on the role of phosphine in the treatment of U.S. post - harvest commodities and food storage, processing, and transport. This information will be taken into consideration moving forward in registration review. Comments submitted by the Industrial Fumigant Company (IFC) in EPA - HQ - OPP - 2013 - 0081 - 0012 1. Comment : IPC supports product labeling that allows the safe, effective, and legal use of the product, and encourages the Agency to take into consideration real - world solutions and work with stakeholders on label changes during the registration review process. Respon se: The Agency agrees that working with stakeholders on risk mitigation, and throughout the process, is important so that current best practices can be identified and serve as a foundation for any mitigation options employed. The Agency worked extensivel y with fumigant stakeholders during the reregistration of the soil fumigants, and intends to follow through with this process with all of the fumigants during registration review. Comments submitted by the American Farm Bureau (AFB) in EPA - HQ - OPP - 2013 - 008 1 - 001 8 1. Comment: The EPA should base its implementation of FIFRA on credible scientific information; test pesticides based on realistic levels of exposure or consumption; consider the risks and benefits when determining whether to cancel or restrict p esticides or chemicals used in agricultural production; and consider actual use data in the risk assessment process and not make decisions based on worst - case assumptions. Response: The Agency thanks AFB for its comment on the registration review proces s. The Agency uses the best available data in making its decisions, which includes actual use and usage information, field studies, monitoring data, modeling, and information from incidents. During registration review of the fumigants, the Agency is look ing at what has changed since the last assessments, how significant these changes are, if there is a need any new information or studies to conduct the risk assessments, and if the Agency’s regulatory position likely to change as a result of any new inform ation. C omments submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) in EPA - HQ - OPP - 2013 - 008 1 - 0019 1 . Comment: Under the Endangered Species Act, it is EPA’s duty to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service on the reregistration of phosphine4 and approval of all phosphine end - use product labels. In addition, the EPA must m ake defensible “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” and “Likely to Adversely Affect” determinations as a prerequisite for defensible “Jeopardy” and “No Jeopardy” determinations. EPA and the services must assess the adverse impacts of phosphine in critical hab itat. Response: EPA plans to address many of the concerns raised in the comments from Center for Biological Diversity as part of the implementation plan for assessing the risks of pesticides to listed species based on the recommendations of the April 20 13 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report. EPA will address concerns specific to phosphine in connection with the development of its registration review decision for phosphine . The NAS report, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18344 , outlines recommendations on specific scientific and technical issues related to the development of pesticide risk assessments that are compliant with the Endangered Species Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. In November, the EPA, along with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services), and the U.S. Dep artment of Agriculture (USDA), released a summary of their joint Interim Approaches for assessing risks to listed species from pesticides. The Interim Approaches were developed in response to the NAS' recommendations and reflect a common approach to ris k assessment shared by the Agencies as a way of addressing scientific differences between EPA and the Services. The joint Interim Approaches were released prior to the stakeholder workshop held on November 15, 2013. EPA present ed the joint Interim Approac hes at the December 2013 PPDC and SFIREG meetings, allowing additional opportunities for stakeholders to comment on the Interim Approaches. The Agencies will consider public comments on the Interim Approaches prior to implementing them. The Agencies inte nd to jointly implement these approaches as part of a phased iterative process. EPA will refine its listed species risk assessments based on these interim approaches. The details of the joint Interim Approaches are contained in the white paper "Interim Approaches for National - Level Pesticide Endangered Species Act Assessments Based on the Recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences April 2013 Report," dated November 1, 2013, available at http:// www.epa.gov/espp/2013/nas.html . Regarding the Center for Biological Diversity's request for EPA to begin informal consultation with the Services immediately after the workplan for phosphine is finalized, EPA plans to follow the March 2013 stakeholder eng agement paper ("Enhancing Stakeholder Input in the Pesticide Registration Review and ESA Consultation Processes and Development of Economically and Technologically Feasible Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives") to identify the appropriate time for initiati on of consultation, either formal or informal, with the Services. The stakeholder engagement paper, jointly developed by the EPA, USDA, and the Services and available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA - HQ - OPP 2012 - 0442 - 0038 , allows for early interaction with the Services under informal consultation. EPA and the Services acknowledge that early interaction as part of informal consultation may result in refinements to EPA's effects determinations that can improve the efficiency of the ESA compliance process. For example, EPA may involve the Services at the earliest stages of registration review. In general, EPA plans to initiate formal ESA consultati on, if necessary, at the final decision stage in the registration review process. Consulting later in the5 process allows the EPA to develop more refined ecological risk assessments and to engage stakeholders in discussions that should result in more focus ed consultation packages that may include risk mitigation for listed species.