### Sulfoxaflor: E PA Re s ponse to Comment s ; Rece i pt of Application- Texas Department of A g ric u lture Emerg ency E xemption , (Docket# EPA

- H Q

- OPP- 2 014-0643) In acco rdan ce w it h 40 CFR 166

. 24(a)( 8 ), a no t ice of receipt was p ub li shed i n the Federa l R egiste r so li c iti ng pu b l i c co m men t s on the Texas D epartme nt of Ag r icu l ture's (T D A ' s) request fo r an emergency exemp t ion for the use of su l foxaflor on sorgh um to co nt rol s u garcane a p hids in Texas. D uring the public comment per i od , th e docket received ove r 300 com m ents , which closed on Febr u ary 11 , 20 1 6. Th e m a j o ri ty of th e co mm e n ts rece ive d were i n favo r of the E P A grant i ng the emergency exempt i o n . T hese comm e n ts were f ro m farme r s, e nto m o log i sts, cons ultant s , and organizations re p resenting nume rous sorghu m p roduce r s . The g r o u ps incl u ded t he Nat io n al Sorghum Prod u cers (0139), T exas Farm Bureau (0007), Pl a i ns Cotto n G rowers (0140) , Texas A&M Agr i L ife I ntegrated Pest Management Ex tens i on ( # 0 142) , T exas Gra i n Sorg hum Pro du ce r s Assoc ia ti o n (0 143), Cotton and Gra i n Prod u cers of the Lower Rio G rande Va ll ey, Inc
. (0 1 37), and ot hers as well as the Monsanto Co mpany (0008)

. In d iv id ua l growers also provided the i r comments. The commen t s on the be n efits of su l foxatlor incl uded res i stan ce management concerns and the n eed for an addi t ional tool to use i n ro t ation w i th the c urre nt ly ava il able reg i s te r e d a lternati ve , a n d for reha rves t interval flexibility in com b att i ng the s u ga r can e ap hi d at harvest. S u lfoxa fl o r i s a cr itical too l that g r owe r s n eed toward the end of the u se season rig h t before h arvest s i nce the reg i stered a lt e rn at ive h as a long 21

- day PHI th at precludes use right before sorghum is harvested. O n th e contr ary, the d ocket received a lim i te d number of comme n ts that were i n oppos it io n o f the EPA g ra nting a n eme rgency exemp ti on fo r the u se of sulfoxaflor on sorghum. T hese comm ents were from env iro nm e nt al gro u ps s u c h as Beyond Pest ici d es ( # 014 1) , Center for Biologica l Di ver sity ( #0138) , Ce nter for Food Safety , and the Po llin ato r S teward ship Counc i l ( #200) The general opposing themes of the s u lfoxaflo r emergency exempt i o n in c lu ded t he following : (1) sec t ion 1 8 e m erge n cy exemp t ion criter i a unmet , (2) lack of cons u ltat i o n wi th the U.S

. F i s h an d Wild li fe Serv ice on emerge n cy use o f s ul foxa fl o r , (3) hi g h toxicity to po ll inators i n the e n vi r onme n t. 

### 1) Section 18 Emergency E xemption C riteria Sec t io n 18 of F I F RA gives EPA the a uth o ri ty t o exempt State an d Federa l Agenc ies from a ny p rovis ions of the Act i f emergency co n ditio n s ex i st, whic h r equi re suc h exempt ions if th e benefit outwe ighs potentia l ecolog i cal risks. Benefits from this exempted u se of s u lfoxaflor are expec ted t o be ex tremely high fo r pro ducers of sorghum facing this new, i nvas i ve, an d damag in g pes t. Th e Texas D epart m e nt of Ag ri c ul ture ' s e m erge n cy exempt i on reques t for use of s ul foxaflor o n sorgh u m to contro l sugarcane a ph id underwe nt an e x te n s ive rev iew whe r e it was determined that the cri ter ia for an urgent and non - routine emerge n cy si t uat i o n in Texas was substant iate d , and th at so rg hum growers cou l d face significant econom i c l oss without the req u ested tool. The loss of sulfoxaflo r o n so rgh um to co ntrol severe a n d rap i dly growing a p hid populations for the 2016 growing season would potentially be eco n om ica ll y devastat in g and c ri pp le the sorghum industry in Texas. T he sugarcane aphid is an invasive pest that farme r s and so r g hum g r a in pro du cers areable to manage effect ively with sulfoxaflor in rotation w ith the reg i stere d alternative , flupyradifurone , which is u sed during bloom and is limited because of it s lengt h y 2 1

- PHI. EPA com p leted human h ealt h and ecological risk assess m ents for the e m ergen c y us e of sulfoxa fl o r to con trol sugarcane aphid o n sorg hum. EPA conclu d ed the use of su lfo x aflo r under the exemption will not ca u se unreasonab le adverse effects o n the env ironme nt. Further, a timelimited tole r an ce for residues of s ulfoxaflor , including it s metabolites an d degradates, 

### in support of thi s exe mpti o n h as been established in the 40 CF R at 180.668(b). 

### 2 ) Co n s ul t ati o n with the U
. S

. F i s h a nd Wildli fe Se rvi ce Under Sect i on 1 8 of FIFRA, the specific exemption s ubmitted by the T DA, was reviewed by the proc e dure s o ut li ned in 40 CFR Part 1 66 to a ll ow an emerge ncy u se of a pest icide to a d dress urg en t and non-routine emergency cond it ions. In thi s case , the sec tion 18 process addresses e m e r ge n cy pest pr ess ure from the sugarcane aph id. As a matt e r of polic y , and consistent w ith ag r ee m e nt s between E PA and the U.S. Fi s h and Wildli fe Se r v ice , f ull ex po s ure and risk eva luation s for en dan ge re d and threatened species from pesticide ex p os ure will generally be conducted in th e co nt ext of E PA ' s Regi strat ion Review Program a nd not under th e section 18 program due th e limited time allotted to mak e a sect io n 1 8 dec i s i on. 

### 3) Sa f ety & 

### E xp os ure t o Pollinator s Sorg hum is not a " blooming " plant 

### per se. Sorghum i s win d- pollinated (po ll e n o nl y) , and not inherently attract ive to bees. Bee s d o v i s it so rg hum , sorgh um i s a grass plant and not a source of nect a r which means it does not ha ve a traditional bloom. T he bloom restr ict ion on the section 18 a uth o ri zatio n precludes app lication of sulfoxaflor th ree days before bloom or before seed set. Bees are t yp ically only present when plants are in bloom. Exte n s ion specia li sts have reported that mo s t of the weeds in grain sorghum are g ra ssy weeds a nd ve ry few if an y attract bees. In addition , th e re are no managed bees i n sorghum. Thi s us e " fit s " an 

### TPM Program b e tt e r than the a l ternative organophosphates and pyrethroids which kill a ll in sec t s. Su lfoxaflor i s more targeted and works with th e natural aphid predators or beneficia l insects. Growers welcome beneficial in sec t s to work with th e in sec tic ide to combat aphid pest pressure a nd is a v ita l tool in IPM pro g r am s . Miti gat io n and advisory lan g ua ge on when to apply s ul foxa fl or (ea rl y morning o r l ate evening) i s requi red under the sect ion 18 a uth o rizati on to h e lp protect po llin ators and to minimi ze the potentia l for off-si t e s pray drift and subsequent exposure of bees foraging on plants adjacent to th e treated s it es. These added mitigation me asures w ill help t o limit exposu re to h oney bee s and native pollinators by p rohibiti n g application to blooming c rops and encour a ging the use of adju va nt s t o reduce drift to neighboring fields whe re native pollinators coul d be foraging.

Page 2 of 2