Proposed Registration of Sulfoxaflor for Use on 

Agricultural Crops, Ornamentals and Turf 

k E. H senger, Director 

ffice of Pesticide Programs 

Date: s-fnltfo 

{ 
Proposed Registration Decision for Sulfoxaflor 

Proposed Regulatory Decision 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to unconditionally grant, under 

section 3(c)(5) ofthe Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), registrations 

for the active ingredient sulfoxaflor, formu lated as a technical product and two end-use products. 

The proposed formulation for manufacturing, "Sulfoxaflor Technical," contains 97.9% 

sulfoxaflor (EPA Reg. No. 62719-631 ). Transform® WG, (EPA Reg. No. 62719-625) is a 

water-dispersible granule formulation and contains 50% sulfoxaflor. An aqueous suspension 

concentrate, "Closer® SC" containing 21.8% sulfoxaflor is also proposed (EPA. Reg. No. 

62719-623). 

Background 

On August 19, 2010, EPA received the application for registration of sulfoxaflor, a new active 

ingredient, submitted by Dow AgroSciences (DAS). In collaboration with counterpart agencies 

in Canada and Australia, EPA conducted a "Global Joint Review" (GJR) of sulfoxaflor. In order 

for a compound to be considered eligible for evaluation as an international project initiated as a 

GJR, all the data requirements of all participating regulatory authorities must be addressed. The 

sulfoxaflor dossier was determined to contain all the data required by the Australian Pesticides 

and Veterinary Medicine Authority, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Authority and 

the U.S. EPA. Scientists from the three authorities reviewed the full dossier, peer reviewed the 

primary evaluations conducted by their international colleagues, and communicated extensively 

on specific disciplines and issues. Upon completion ofthe GJR and after public comment, EPA 

granted an unconditional registration of sulfoxaflor on May 6, 2013. 

On July 2, 2013, the Pollinator Stewardship Council and others, petitioned for review ofthe 

sulfoxaflor registration in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 10, 2015, the Court 

issued its opinion, finding that the registration was not supported by substantial evidence to 

demonstrate no unreasonable adverse effects to honey bees resulting from the registration of 

sulfoxaflor. Although the initial sulfoxaflor submission contained all the data required by EPA 

regulations for registration of a new agricultural insecticide, the Court vacated the registrations 

and remanded them to EPA to "obtain further studies and data regarding the effects of 

sulfoxaflor on bees as required by EPA regulations." The vacatur of the sulfoxaflor registrations 

became effective November 12, 2015. As the registrations were no longer in effect under 

FIFRA, on the same date EPA issued a cancellation order to address existing stocks. Although 

the product registrations were vacated, the tolerances for sulfoxaflor residues on treated 

commodities that were established under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, remain in 

place. 

Following the remand, EPA has re-evaluated the sulfoxaflor application that was amended by 

DAS to further reduce/eliminate exposure to pollinators by restricting applications to post-bloom 

only for all proposed crops that are attractive to bees. Additionally, indeterminate blooming 

2 
crops that had been registered (citrus, cotton, cucurbits, soybeans and strawberry) are not 

included in this proposed registration. 

The crops proposed for registration, designated by their attractiveness to bees, are: 

Not Bee Attractive: 

• Barley, triticale, wheat 

• Turf grass 

Harvested Before Bloom: 

• Brassica leafy vegetables 

• Bulb vegetables 

• Leafy vegetables (non-Brassica) and watercress 

• Leaves of root and tuber vegetables 

• Root and tuber vegetables 

Bee Attractive but Applications Post-Bloom Only: 

• Berries (Grape, Blueberry, Cranberry) 

• Canola 

• Fruiting Vegetables (Tomato, Pepper, Eggplant) and Okra 

• Pome fruit 

• Ornamentals 

• Potato 

• Stone Fruit 

• Succulent and Dry Beans 

• Tree nuts and pistachio 

Limiting the use of sulfoxaflor to the above listed crops, and restricting the timing of applications 

results in essentially no exposure to bees on the treated field. 

Evaluation 

Potential Risks 

The toxicological effects and end points used in the human health risk assessment 1 are 

unchanged from the original evaluation and no additional data were required. All of the risk 

estimates are well below EPA's level of concern (LOC). The aggregate dietary risk assessment 

(food + drinking water exposure) without any refinement to adjust for over-estimation of risk 

resulted in an acute dietary risk estimate range from 4% to 16% ofthe acute population-adjusted 

dose (aPAD), with the highest risk estimates being for children 1-2 years old and females 13-49 

years old. The chronic dietary risk estimates range from 5% to 18% of the chronic populationadjusted dose (cPA D) with the highest risk estimate estimated for infants. Handler exposure and 

1 Sulfoxaflor: New Active Ingredient Human Health Risk Assessment of Uses on Numerous Crops; Sept. 26, 201 2 

3 
occupational post-application exposure are also not of concern. 2 The conclusions from the 

human health risk assessment were based on a broader set of uses than what is currently 

proposed for registration since the five indeterminate-blooming crops are not included. The risk 

assessment was not redone since no risks were identified. 

The ecological characterization of sulfoxaflor integrates conservative exposure and toxicity 

estimates to generate a risk quotient (RQ) for non-target organisms.3 Because the risks to nontarget organisms were found to be low in the previous ecological risk assessment, EPA has not 

conducted another comprehensive assessment based on the application restrictions in DAS's 

amended application. The RQs are compared to the LOCs to evaluate the potential of adverse 

ecological effects. An RQ is not a bright line that is clearly defined and interpreted; rather, it 

provides an indication of potential risk that may need to be mitigated. If potential risk remains 

after mitigation measures are applied, EPA evaluates those remaining risks against the benefits 

provided by the pesticide. 

The ecological assessment concluded that sulfoxaflor poses a low potential for acute risk to listed 

(endangered) and non-listed fresh and saltwater fish (acute RQs <0.01 for both compared to 

listed and non-listed LOCs of0.05 and 0.5, respectively). The maximum chronic RQ was 0.08 

for freshwater fish and 0.04 for saltwater fish, both are below the LOC of 1. The acute risk to 

freshwater and saltwater invertebrates is below the listed and non-listed LOCs (RQs <0.0 1 for 

both). The chronic risk LOC is not exceeded for either fresh or saltwater invertebrates 

(maximum RQ of 0.5). No risks were identified for vascular and non-vascular aquatic plants. 

The LOCs for terrestrial vertebrate animals are 0.1 for acute risk to listed species, 0.5 for acute 

risk to non-listed species and 1 for chronic risk (listed and non-listed species). The acute risk to 

mammals is below the listed and non-listed LOCs (maximum RQ of 0.02), while the chronic risk 

slightly exceeds the LOC with a maximum RQ of3.8. There is low potential for acute and 

chronic risk to birds based on the maximum acute RQ of 0.0 I and a maximum chronic RQ of 

0.3. Risks to terrestrial plants were also not indicated in the ecological risk assessment. 

In the proposed label for sulfoxaflor, no exposure (and no risk) is expected on the treated field to 

bees because, for crops that are bee-attractive and not harvested before bloom, all applications 

will be restricted only to periods post-bloom for bee-attractive crops. For crops that are harvested 

prior to bloom (ex. lettuce, onions), the label will prohibit application to these crops that are 

grown for seed production. 

All foliar spray applications (regardless of pesticide) are subject to potential drift to areas 

adjacent to the treated field where bees may be present. With sulfoxaflor, the following label 

restrictions have been required to minimize spray drift and potential exposure of bees foraging 

on plants adjacent to treated fields: 

• Applications are prohibited above wind speeds of I 0 mph 

2 Sulfoxaflor. Occupational and Residential Exposure and Risk Assessment to Support the Registration of the New 

Active Ingredient on a Variety of Food Crops, Turfgrass (Sod Farms) and Ornamentals; Sept. 18, 2012 

3 Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Sulfoxaflor Registration; November 19, 2012 

4 
• Applications must be made with medium to coarse spray nozzles 

Given there is essentially no exposure to bees on the field and the restrictions imposed to 

minimize spray drift will reduce exposure to bees off the field, EPA does not think a screeninglevel risk assessment would have been necessary to make a finding of no unreasonable adverse 

effects. Nevertheless, EPA has a significant amount of data on sulfoxaflor' s effects to bees so 

the Agency conducted a spray drift analysis to better characterize the potential risks off the field. 

A spray drift analysis indicates that the spatial extent of acute risks beyond the treated field is 

very limited ( <1 - 12 feet beyond the treated field). Therefore, a spray drift buffer of 12 feet 

would be expected to eliminate acute risk to bees that may be foraging in this zone adjacent to 

treated fields. For chronic risks to individual bees, a bounding analysis suggests that estimated 

chronic risks are also spatially limited beyond the treated field (2-49 feet, depending on 

modeling and toxicity assumptions). In addition to being spatially limited, available data suggest 

that the temporal extent of acute and chronic risks beyond the treated field is also limited to 

relatively short periods of time (e.g., half of sulfoxaflor degrades in pollen and nectar within 9 

days or less based on the vast majority of data). The acute and chronic drift analyses rely on 

several assumptions that collectively are to likely overestimate off-site exposure (and risk) to 

bees. These include assuming that: 1) plants in the spray drift zone are blooming at the time of 

application, 2) 100% of the bee's diet comes from the blooming plants inhabiting the spray drift 

zone, and 3) residues in pollen and nectar of plants in the spray drift zone equate to the 

maximum residues observed in submitted studies. From a colony perspective, honey bees are 

known to forage over long distances from the hive (up to 5 miles) and from a wide variety of 

floral resources. Given these assumptions, off-site risks to bees appear limited both spatially and 

temporally. 

Benefits 

Sulfoxaflor has a novel mode of action that is distinct from all registered alternative insecticides. 

According to the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee, sulfoxaflor is a sulfoximine and the 

only member of a new subclass (Group 4C) that targets the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor in 

insects. The structure of sulfoxaflor makes it stable in the presence of a monooxygenase enzyme 

that was shown to degrade a variety of neonicotinoids (Group 4A). The stability results in a 

broad lack of cross-resistance to neonicotinoids and other insecticide families. Although the 

target receptor is the same site as Group 4A chemicals such as acetamiprid and imidacloprid, the 

mode of action is different and unique to sulfoxaflor. As a result, sulfoxaflor will work on target 

pests that insecticides in Groups 1 A and 1 B ( carbamates and organophosphates), Group 3 A 

(pyrethroids) and the Group 4A neonicotinoids, fail to control, unless used as tank mixes and/or 

with multiple applications. 

The ecological risk profile of sulfoxaflor is very favorable compared to its alternatives. 

Organophosphates such as chlorpyrifos, acephate and dimethoate are toxic to fish, aquatic 

invertebrates, small mammals, wildlife and/or birds. Carbamates are also very toxic to nontarget organisms. For example, the label for carbaryl, a carbamate, states: "this product is 

extremely toxic to aquatic invertebrates" and another carbamate, oxamyl, is labeled with ·'This 

5 
pesticide is toxic to aquatic organisms (fish & invertebrates) and extremely toxic to birds and 

mammals." 

Pyrethroids such as lambda-cyhalothrin and bifenthrin are extremely toxic to fish and aquatic 

invertebrates." Clothianidin, a neonicotinoid, is toxic to aquatic invertebrates and thiamethoxam, 

also a neonicotinoid, is toxic to wildlife and highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates. Sulfoxaflor, 

however, is not toxic to fish or aquatic invertebrates, and has low potential for risk to mammals 

or birds. Since there is no hazard to these non-target organisms, there is no requirement for 

toxicity statements regarding fish, aquatic invertebrates, mammals or birds on sulfoxaflor 

products. 

Although not available for most formulations, including the chemical classes listed above, DAS 

provided "RT2s" data on both of the sulfoxaflor end-use products, Transform and Closer. The 

RT2s refers to the residual time to 25% mortality that is derived from a study of honey bee 

toxicity of residues on foliage and reflects acute toxicity to bees via direct contact with treated 

foliage. 4 This information provides farmers and beekeepers with a means of gauging the lengths 

of time that specific pesticide products may remain toxic to bees and other pollinators following 

application of these products to plants. For the proposed sulfoxaflor products, EPA determined 

that an RT2s value could not be calculated for either the Transform or Closer formulations 

because the toxicity was too low, indicating that the toxicity of these formulations is short-lived 

in the field. 

Sulfoxaflor specifically targets piercing/sucking insects such as aphids, mealybugs, psyllids, 

plant bugs and whiteflies. These insects are often vectors of viral and bacterial diseases, 

infections of which can result in complete crop loss. EPA has heard from many growers that 

believe sulfoxaflor is an important tool for control of resistant pests, as well as invasive species. 

Growers of cole crops, leafy vegetables and fruiting vegetables want to use sulfoxaflor against 

whiteflies, which produce honeydew that causes difficulty in harvest and reduces the quality of 

the produce. Whiteflies also transmit plant viruses which can seriously affect yield and quality 

ofthe crop. 5 Apple growers in Washington are concerned about the woolly apple aphid which 

causes chronic debilitation of the tree, with fruit contamination that results in rejection or 

fumigation of apples grown for export. 6 Sulfoxaflor controls woolly apple aphid while 

neonicotinoids show weak performance. Other crops for which growers requested the 

registration of sulfoxaflor for specific target pests include potatoes (psyllid), canola (aphids), and 

grapes (vine mealybug). 7 Pecan growers have communicated to EPA that imidacloprid is no 

longer effective on black margined pecan aphid and black pecan aphid. These aphid species 

reduce pecan quality and yield. 8 Sulfoxaflor controls these aphid species. 

4 https :/ /www .epa.gov /pollinator-protection/residual-time-25-bee-morta I ity-rt25-data 

5 EPA-HQ-OPP-20 I 0-0889, comment 362 

6 EPA-HQ-OPP-20 I 0-0889, comment 266 

7 EPA-HQ-OPP-20 I 0-0889; comment 275, 279, 305, 312, 345 

8 EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889, comment 265 

6 
Nearly all of the crops that sulfoxaflor is proposed for use on are minor crops. These include the 

bulb vegetable crop group (ex. garlic, leeks, shallots), the fruiting vegetable crop group (ex. 

eggplant, pimento, tomatillo), the root and tuber crop group (ex. daikon, ginseng, horseradish), 

the small vine and low growing berry crop group (ex. gooseberry, maypop, lingonberry) and the 

succulent, edible podded and dry bean crop group (ex. chickpea, cowpea, wax bean), as well as 

crops not included in crop groupings, for example, okra, pistachio and watercress. EPA presumes 

that it is in the public interest to register sulfoxaflor for these minor uses. 

For the proposed non-minor uses; potatoes, non-residential turfgrass and wheat, EPA considered 

whether registering sulfoxaflor is in the public interest because it is less risky comparatively to 

currently registered pesticides or whether the benefits provided by sulfoxaflor exceed those of 

registered alternatives or non-pesticide methods. For greenbug infestations ofturfgrass, 

chlorpyrifos and another organophosphate, acephate, have been recommended treatments. 9 10 

The registered insecticides for aphid infestations of wheat, notably the Russian Wheat Aphid are 

pyrethroids such as cyfluthrin, zeta-cypermethrin and lambda-cyhalothrin. 11 Pyrethroids, are 

known to have a harsh effect on aquatic invertebrates and are labeled as extremely toxic. As 

mentioned, sulfoxaflor will be helpful to potato farmers against potato psyllid which vectors 

zebra chip disease. 

Sulfoxaflor fits well as a critical tool in Integrated Pest Management programs, replacing 

multiple applications of compounds with a higher risk to humans and/or non-target organisms. 

Due to its unique chemistry and lack of cross-resistance to the neonicotinoid and other classes of 

insecticides, sulfoxaflor can be a valuable tool in managing pesticide resistance. Its' labeling 

displays the Mode of Action identifier and best management practice statements designed to help 

mitigate pest resistance that is consistent with EPA's Pesticide Registration Notice on pest 

resistance management. 12 Furthermore, researchers and crop consultants have commented that 

not only is sulfoxaflor efficacious against difficult target pests but it does not "flare" spider mites 

as some organophosphates like acephate does, nor does it flare aphids as pyrethroids are known 

to do. Researchers have observed that it is has low impact on lady beetle larvae and other 

beneficial insects.

13 Protecting biocontrol efforts by using a compound like sulfoxaflor that has 

less impact on beneficial predatory beetles and mites, and parasitic wasps, helps to reduce 

treatment needs for later season damaging pests such as armyworms, spider mites and aphids. 

Sulfoxaflor is expected to become a valuable tool in Integrated Pest Management programs for 

both major and minor crops. It will replace applications older chemistries which present a 

greater risk to human health and also may pose a higher ecological risk to non-target organisms, 

including pollinators. For these reasons, EPA believes it is in the public interest to register 

sulfoxaflor. 

11 http://cropwatch.unl.edu/insect/wheataphids 12 l:l.l.l.Ds~ \\ .qm,gov ite ~ rroduction lfj lcs '20 14-04 documenh pr200 l-5.pdj' 

13 EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889, comment 59, 62,266, 278 

7 
Proposed Registration Decision 

EPA is proposing to grant unconditional registrations for sulfoxaflor under section 3(c)(5) of 

FIFRA. EPA evaluates whether a pesticide will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on man 

or the environment by taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and 

benefits of the use of the pesticide. EPA is charged with balancing the uncertainties and risks 

posed by a pesticide against its benefits. 

In the case for the proposed use of sulfoxaflor on crops, turfgrass and ornamentals, and in 

consideration of all best available data and assessment methods, EPA believes this proposed 

decision to register these uses meets the requirements of FIFRA described above. 

The database submitted to support the assessment of human health risk is sufficient for a full 

hazard evaluation and is considered adequate to evaluate risks to infants and children. The 

Agency has not identified any risks of concern in regards to human health, including all 

population subgroups, or for occupational handlers. The assessment is conservative and 

unrefined. 

The ecological risk assessment is conservative and overall presents a low risk to aquatic and 

terrestrial organisms. The formulated products are short-lived in the field, and present low 

residual toxicity to beneficial insects. There is no on-field exposure expected to bees for all use 

patterns since applications will only be made after bloom is completed for bee-attractive crops. 

All other proposed crops are either not attractive or are harvested before bloom. Off-site 

exposure and risks to bees appear limited both spatially and temporally. While EPA's "Guidance 

for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees" suggests submission of chronic Tier 1 data on bees is 

beneficial to a comprehensive risk assessment for bees, such data are not currently required 

under EPA's regulations. Given the application restrictions on the uses being proposed, the 

limited exposure to bees associated with them, and a bounding analysis of potential chronic risks 

to individual bees, EPA has determined these data are not necessary at this time. 

As described above, EPA believes registering sulfoxaflor is beneficial because it is being 

proposed for use on numerous minor use crops and will offer those growers a tool with less 

toxicity to replace chemicals that are of continuing concern to the Agency. It will support 

production of many vulnerable crops and the industries that rely on them. With the novel mode 

of action, sulfoxaflor would become an important part of resistance management strategies for 

target pests that pose significant threats to many high value crops. Finally, the chemical profile 

has favorable attributes (i.e., the chemical is not persistent in the field, it's soft on beneficial 

insects, and has a narrow target pest spectrum) for integration into IPM programs. Sulfoxaflor 

does not share a common mechanism of toxicity with other chemicals and therefore does not 

present a cumulative risk to human health unlike alternative organophosphates and carbamates. 

Another alternative pesticide group, pyrethroids, are widely used and known to have effects on 

aquatic invertebrates, they are labeled as extremely toxic. In comparison, the acute and chronic 

risk of sulfoxaflor on aquatic invertebrates is below the level of concern. 

8 
The minimal risks of concern have been weighed against the benefits of the proposed uses of 

sulfoxaflor. EPA finds that registering these uses will not generally cause unreasonable adverse 

effects on human health or the environment. EPA concludes that the available data and scientific 

assessments as well as the overall considerations for benefits for protection of high value and 

important crops support a FIFRA Section 3(c)(5) registration finding for the proposed uses on 

barley, triticale and wheat; leafy vegetables and watercress; bulb vegetables; canola; fruiting 

vegetables; root and tuber vegetables; pome and stone fruit; berries; succulent and dry beans; tree 

nuts; ornamentals and turfgrass (commercial sod farms). 

Specifically addressing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' direction to "obtain further studies 

and data regarding the effects of sulfoxaflor on bees as required by EPA regulations," EPA finds 

that given the parameters of this proposed decision, there is no need for additional data to be 

submitted. Further the data requirements found in 40 CFR 158.630 pertaining to insect 

pollinator testing have been fulfilled. With the amended labels, the use pattern essentially results 

in no on-field exposure. Indeterminate-blooming crops are not proposed for registration. The 

remaining sites are either not attractive, harvested before bloom or only receive applications 

when bloom is over. This mitigation is protective of bees because they would not be foraging on 

the treated fields. Furthermore, the limited exposure expected from spray drift does not trigger 

any additional data requirements. 

The risk assessments and other background documents for this proposed decision, including 

cited comments, can be found in docket #EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889 at 

http: i/\\WW. rc!.!.ulations.gov/# ! home. 

Public Comment Requested 

In addition to requesting comment on the proposed registration of sulfoxaflor, EPA is also 

seeking public comment on two additional restrictions: 

1. Off-site Risk to Pollinators 

Although the proposed Transform and Closer labels include mitigation measures that will reduce 

spray drift, there is a potential for acute risks to bees foraging adjacent to the treated fields if 

there is blooming vegetation bordering the field downwind. The acute risk is limited to I - 12 

feet beyond the treated field. The risk finding conservatively assumes that bees are foraging 

immediately adjacent to the treated field and that they would obtain 100% of their diet from 

these areas, which is highly unlikely. Estimating off-site chronic risk is somewhat uncertain, but 

a bounding analysis indicates a potential for chronic risks from 2-49 feet downwind of the 

treated field. However, this bounding analysis conservatively assumes that bees would obtain 

100% of their diet from blooming plants inhabiting this narrow spray drift zone during the time 

of pesticide application. From a colony perspective, honey bees are known to forage over long 

distances from the hive (up to 5 miles) and from a wide variety of floral resources. The duration 

of the estimated chronic risk to bees also appears limited since sulfoxaflor is not persistent in 

pollen and nectar. If an individual bee is subjected to chronic exposure in this scenario, EPA 

9 
believes the benefits of sulfoxaflor outweigh the potential risks. Nevertheless, in order to further 

protect these foragers from acute exposures, an in-field buffer is proposed to be required. EPA is 

seeking comment on the following proposed restriction: 

• A downwind 12-foot on-field buffer when there is blooming vegetation bordering the 

field 

2. Uncertuinty in Potentiol SynerRistic Effects related to Tank-mixes 

A common agricultural practice involves tank mixing of pesticides, resulting in the cooccurrence of multiple chemical stressors to target pests. The practice of tank mixing can 

result in significant economic benefits to the grower by allowing control of a wider variety of 

pests in a single application without incurring the expense of sequential applications. 

Additionally, by reducing the number of visits to the agricultural field , the grower is also 

reducing fossil fuel use and emissions from large agricultural equipment, as well as the 

potential exposure to pesticides that can result from multiple visits to the same area being 

treated. It is also widely accepted that the practice of mixing products with different modes 

of action is essential to the management of insect resistance. Because insect resistance is 

known to have a very costly impact to overall crop yields, which in turn negatively impacts 

growers' harvests and the price of commodities to the consumer, tools that aid in the 

prevention of resistance are considered to be a very important benefit to agriculture. 

Recently, in some cases, chemical companies have made claims that certain mixtures elicit 

enhanced activity or synergistic effects, meaning that when the chemicals interact, the overall 

effect is greater than the sum of the individual effects of each chemical. In EPA's risk 

assessments, the Agency uses Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines to determine 

potential toxicity of individual active ingredients to non-target organisms. EPA believes this 

approach is very reliable for these purposes. Currently EPA does not require GLP studies for 

tank mixes suggested on the proposed product label, under the assumption that synergism is 

not occurring and that following the most restrictive limitations of each product in 

combination 

However

is adequate to mitigate any potential risks associated with the tank mixture. 

, if there is evidence to suggest that there are potential synergistic effects, EPA may 

require such data since the current database for the individual chemicals may not provide 

adequate information on the risk to non-target organisms from such combinations. 

with 

At this time, the topic of synergy and multiple stressors is an uncertainty in assessing risk 

tank-mix combinations. EPA must weigh this uncertainty against the benefits of 

applying tank mixes when considering a regulatory decision. Therefore, EPA is considering 

whether restrictions on tank-mixing sulfoxaflor are necessary to prevent unreasonable 

adverse 

mix 

effects, and is inviting comments on the issue of synergism and the potential for tank 

restrictions, which will be taken into further consideration for the final risk-benefit 

analysis of sulfoxaflor. 

10