Comment submitted by James Scarborough

I request a more complete public explanation before EPA finalizes any increase in the afidopyropen tolerance for Orange, subgroup 10-10A, from 0.15 ppm to 0.30 ppm. The notice says EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data and that additional data may be needed before final action. That is a reasonable posture for a petition notice, but it also means the final rule should not adopt the petitioner’s requested number without showing the analytical bridge from the residue record to the proposed tolerance. Before finalizing the tolerance, EPA should place in the public record, or clearly summarize, the residue-trial data and statistical treatment supporting the 0.30 ppm level. The public should be able to discern whether 0.30 ppm is the least tolerance level supported by the field data, a conservative upper bound, or simply the petitioner’s preferred endpoint. EPA should identify any alternative tolerance levels or commodity definitions it considered. The notice states that EPA may vary the tolerance level or commodity wording from the petition request. If lower, narrower, higher, or differently scoped alternatives are under consideration, commenters need enough information to address those options before the agency makes a final determination. The notice’s reservation of authority to vary tolerance levels or commodity wording is understandable under FFDCA section 408, but it should not be treated as a blank check to finalize materially different commodities, residue definitions, or tolerance levels without meaningful public notice. EPA should identify any such alternatives in the docket before final action, or explain in the final rule why any change is a logical outgrowth of the petition and comments. EPA should also address related commodities and residue pathways. The notice states that EPA will consider how use on the requested crop may result in residues on related commodities. For this petition, EPA should explain whether the orange subgroup use has implications for other citrus commodities, processed commodities, feed items, or other related commodity categories. Finally, EPA should connect the residue definition with the enforcement method. The supporting summary indicates that existing methods and independent method validations are sufficient to support afidopyropen tolerances and refers to detection of parent afidopyropen and M440I007. EPA should state whether the enforcement method is validated for every analyte and matrix needed for routine compliance testing under the residue definition EPA intends to use. If any metabolites or degradates are relevant to the tolerance decision but not routine enforcement, EPA should explain that distinction. These requests are not objections to EPA considering the petition. They are requests for a complete and reviewable record. A final tolerance decision would be stronger if it shows the residue-trial tables and statistical basis for 0.30 ppm, the exposure or risk rationale connected to that level, alternatives considered, related-commodity analysis, and the method-validation basis for routine enforcement. EPA should provide these materials before final action or address them directly in the final rule so that the tolerance, if finalized, rests on a transparent and administrable record.