Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0188-0011
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2016-07-22T04:00Z

Sulfoxaflor: EPA Response to comments; Receipt of Application-Idaho State Department of Agriculture Emergency Exemption, (Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0188)
In accordance with 40 CFR 166.24(a)(8), a notice of receipt was published in the Federal Register soliciting public comments on the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) request for emergency exemption for the use of sulfoxaflor on alfalfa grown for seed to control lygus bugs. During the public comment period, the docket received 8 comments, which closed on May 24, 2016.
The majority of the comments received were in favor of the EPA granting the emergency exemption. These comments were all from individual growers and consultants. The comments on the benefits of sulfoxaflor included resistance management, reduced lygus bug populations, significant alfalfa yield increases and minimal impact on beneficial insects and pollinators. 
On the contrary, the docket received a limited number of comments that were in opposition of the EPA granting the emergency exemption requests for the use of sulfoxaflor on alfalfa grown for seed to control lygus bugs. These comments were from environmental groups such as the Center for food Safety (0008), the Center for Biological Diversity (0009), and the Pollinator Stewardship Council (0010). The general opposing themes of the sulfoxaflor emergency exemptions on alfalfa grown for seed included the following: (1) Section 18 emergency exemption criteria inconsistency, (2) likely adverse effects on endangered species and (3) high toxicity to pollinators in the environment. 
 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 the emergency condition exists, which require such exemptions if the benefit outweighs the potential ecological risks. EPA completed human health and ecological risk assessments for the emergency use of sulfoxaflor to lygus bugs on alfalfa grown for seed. EPA concluded the use of sulfoxaflor under the exemption will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. Further, the ISDA emergency exemption request underwent extensive biological and economic analysis review. A favorable finding by the EPA was not supported because the criteria for an urgent and non-routine emergency situation was not substantiated. 
 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services on Endangered Species
Under the Section 18 of FIFRA, the specific exemption submitted by the ISDA was reviewed by the procedures outline 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 application submitted by ISDA did not address an emergency pest pressure from lygus bugs. As a matter of policy and consistent 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 contexts of EPA's Registration Review Program and not under the Section 18 program due to the limited time allotted to make Section 18 decisions. 

 Safety and Exposure to Pollinators
In the USDA document, "Attractiveness of Agricultural Crops to Pollinating Bees for the Collection of Nectar and/or Pollen," alfalfa grown for seed is listed as a crop that uses managed bees for pollination. The document indicates that honey bees are attracted under certain conditions to alfalfa pollen. The Section 18 application indicates that the alfalfa leafcutter bee is used for commercial pollination of alfalfa grown for seed. The proposed restriction of sulfoxaflor spray application at night is expected to result in a low likelihood of bees coming into direct contact with pesticide spray droplets since bees do not forage at night. Some individual bees may reside overnight in or on flowers, but this is not likely to be a dominate route of exposure for the vast majority of bees. Based on ISDA's proposed label restriction, the potential exposure via direct interception of spray droplets is considered low. The Agency would have required restrictions and advisory language on the authorization letters and state's use such as spray coverage and drift to 10 mph, applications made before 7:00 am and or after 7:00 pm local time to minimize residues on alfalfa, identifying known beekeepers within 1 mile of the treatment area 48 hours before the product is applied, to limit exposure to honey bees and native pollinators.