Sulfoxaflor: EPA Response to Comments; Receipt of Application- Texas Department of 

Agriculture Emergency Exemption, (Docket# EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0643) 

In accordance with 40 CFR 166.24(a)(8), a notice of receipt was published in the Federal 

Register soliciting public comments on the Texas Department of Agriculture's (TDA's) request 

for an emergency exemption for the use of sulfoxaflor on sorghum to control sugarcane aphids in 

Texas. During the public comment period, the docket received over 300 comments, which 

closed on February 11, 2016. 

The majority of the comments received were in favor of the EPA granting the emergency 

exemption. These comments were from farmers, entomologists, consultants, and organizations 

representing numerous sorghum producers. The groups included the National Sorghum 

Producers (0139), Texas Farm Bureau (0007), Plains Cotton Growers (0140), Texas A&M 

AgriLife Integrated Pest Management Extension (#0 142), Texas Grain Sorghum Producers 

Association (0 143), Cotton and Grain Producers ofthe Lower Rio Grande Valley, Inc. (0 137), and 

others as well as the Monsanto Company (0008). Individual growers also provided their 

comments. The comments on the benefits of sulfoxatlor included resistance management 

concerns and the need for an additional tool to use in rotation with the currently available 

registered alternative, and for reharvest interval flexibility in combatting the sugarcane aphid at 

harvest. Sulfoxaflor is a critical tool that growers need toward the end of the use season right 

before harvest since the registered alternative has a long 21 -day PHI that precludes use right 

before sorghum is harvested. 

On the contrary, the docket received a limited number of comments that were in opposition of 

the EPA granting an emergency exemption for the use of sulfoxaflor on sorghum. These 

comments were from environmental groups such as Beyond Pesticides (#0141), Center for 

Biological Diversity (#0138), Center for Food Safety, and the Pollinator Stewardship Council (#200) 

The general opposing themes of the sulfoxaflor emergency exemption included the following: 

(1) section 18 emergency exemption criteria unmet, (2) lack of consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service on emergency use of sulfoxaflor, (3) high toxicity to pollinators in the 

environment. 

1) Section 18 Emergency Exemption Criteria 

Section 18 of FIFRA gives EPA the authority to exempt State and Federal Agencies from any 

provisions of the Act if emergency conditions exist, which require such exemptions if the benefit 

outweighs potential ecological risks. Benefits from this exempted use of sulfoxaflor are expected 

to be extremely high for producers of sorghum facing this new, invasive, and damaging pest. 

The Texas Department of Agriculture's emergency exemption request for use of sulfoxaflor on 

sorghum to control sugarcane aphid underwent an extensive review where it was determined that 

the criteria for an urgent and non-routine emergency situation in Texas was substantiated, and 

that sorghum growers could face significant economic loss without the requested tool. The loss 

of sulfoxaflor on sorghum to control severe and rapidly growing aphid populations for the 2016 

growing season would potentially be economically devastating and cripple the sorghum industry 

in Texas. The sugarcane aphid is an invasive pest that farmers and sorghum grain producers are 
able to manage effectively with sulfoxaflor in rotation with the registered alternative, 

flupyradifurone, which is used during bloom and is limited because of its lengthy 2 1-PHI. 

EPA completed human health and ecological risk assessments for the emergency use of 

sulfoxaflor to control sugarcane aphid on sorghum. EPA concluded the use of sulfoxaflor under 

the exemption will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. Further, a timelimited tolerance for residues of sulfoxaflor, including its metabolites and degradates, in support 

of this exemption has been established in the 40 CFR at 180.668(b). 

2) Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Under Section 18 of FIFRA, the specific exemption submitted by the TDA, was reviewed by the 

procedures outli ned in 40 CFR Part 166 to allow an emergency use of a pesticide to address 

urgent and non-routine emergency conditions. In this case, the section 18 process addresses 

emergency pest pressure from the sugarcane aphid. As a matter of policy, and consistent with 

agreements between EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, full exposure and risk 

evaluations for endangered and threatened species from pesticide exposure will generally be 

conducted in the context of EPA's Registration Review Program and not under the section 18 

program due the limited time allotted to make a section 18 decision. 

3) Safety & Exposure to Pollinators 

Sorghum is not a "blooming" plant per se. Sorghum is wind-pollinated (pollen only), and not 

inherently attractive to bees. Bees do visit sorghum, sorghum is a grass plant and not a source of 

nectar which means it does not have a traditional bloom. The bloom restriction on the section 18 

authorization precludes application of sulfoxaflor three days before bloom or before seed set. 

Bees are typically only present when plants are in bloom. Extension specialists have reported 

that most of the weeds in grain sorghum are grassy weeds and very few if any attract bees. In 

addition, there are no managed bees in sorghum. 

This use " fits" an TPM Program better than the alternative organophosphates and pyrethroids 

which kill all insects. Sulfoxaflor is more targeted and works with the natural aphid predators or 

beneficial insects. Growers welcome beneficial insects to work with the insecticide to combat 

aphid pest pressure and is a vital tool in IPM programs. 

Mitigation and advisory language on when to apply sulfoxaflor (earl y morning or late evening) is 

required under the section 18 authorization to help protect pollinators and to minimize the 

potential for off-site spray drift and subsequent exposure of bees foraging on plants adjacent to 

the treated sites. These added mitigation measures will help to limit exposure to honey bees and 

native pollinators by prohibiting application to blooming crops and encouraging the use of 

adjuvants to reduce drift to neighboring fields where native pollinators could be foraging. 

Page 2 of 2