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-2013-0081-0010

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 products containing a particular 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 Holdings (D&D) in EPA-HQ-OPP-2013- 0011

Royal Pest Solutions (Royal) in EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0081-0013

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 and Supply, Inc. (FSS) in EPA-HQ-2013-0081-0024 and –0026
3

1. Comment: D&D, Royal, NPMA, ABA, Action, Rose, FSS, and Cardinal provided comments 

stated the use of phosphine fumigants plays a critical role in U.S. post-harvest commodity 

treatment and treatment 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.

Response: 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 extensively 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-2013-0081-0018

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 pesticides 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 process. 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 looking 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 information. 

Comments submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) in EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-

0081-0019

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 phosphine 
4

and approval of all phosphine end-use product labels. In addition, the EPA must make 

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 habitat.

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 2013 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. Department 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 risk 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 presented the joint Interim 

Approaches 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 intend 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 engagement 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 initiation 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-OPP2012-0442-0038, 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 consultation, if 

necessary, at the final decision stage in the registration review process. Consulting later in the 
5

process allows the EPA to develop more refined ecological risk assessments and to engage 

stakeholders in discussions that should result in more focused consultation packages that may 

include risk mitigation for listed species.