FROM:

THRU:
TO: 

### RE: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , D

.C

. 20460

Dana L. Friedman Chemical Review Manager Risk Management and Implementation Branch II OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTI ON PREV ENTI ON

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division /)/
. 

## j /] 

# J_;J/
Kevin Costello, Branch Chief 

### J.f'VW\ / {



# ~ Risk Management and Implementation Branch II Pesticide Re-evaluation Division Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Division Director Pesticide Re-evaluation Division Chlorpyrifos Tolerance Rulemaking Public Docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653) Response to Extension Request for the Public Comment Period on Chlorpyrifos ; Tolerance Proposed Revocation; Proposed Rule (EPA-HQ-OPP-20 15-0653)

On November 15 , 2015 , the primary technical product registrant and data owner for the pesticide active ingredient chlorpyrifos, Dow Agrosciences LLC (DAS), submitted a request for EPA to extend the public comment period on the proposed chlorpyrifos tolerance revocation

. The 60-day public comment period is scheduled to end January 5, 2016. DAS requested 90 additional days ; citing that stakeholders need additional time to comment on the economic impact ofthe rule, gather and submit use information to the Agency, and review the forthcoming revised drinking water assessment. In addition, DAS has also providedjustification for the 90-day extension citing that the Agency has not formally responded to all comments on the Revised Human Health Risk Assessment, the comment period window falls over three significant holidays, and the EPA has extended the comment period on other significant decisions

. Extension requests were also submitted by Gharda Chemicals Limited, ADAMA, and a group of 30 commodity organizations citing similar concerns. These requests for an extension are located the chlorpyrifos tolerance rulemaking public docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-20 15-0653). The EPA is denying the requests for extensions on the comment period on the proposed chlorpyrifos tolerance revocation because the proposal is based entirely on the Revised Human Health Risk Assessment (RHHRA) for chlorpyrifos , for which EPA has already provided and extended a public comment period.The 60-day public comment period on the chlorpyrifos RHHRA opened on January 14, 2015 and was scheduled to close on March 16,2015. EPA received extensive comments from Dow and others on the RHHRA, including requests for an extension ofthe comment period. EPA granted the request, extending the comment period for 45-days. The comment period on the RHHA closed on April30, 2015. As a result, interested stakeholders had over 100 days to provide comments on the RHHRA

. Coupled with the 60-day comment period on the proposed rule, commenters will have had over 5 months to comment on the scientific findings underlying the proposed rule

. 

### It is also important to note that on December 10, 2015, the 9th Circuit in 

### PANNA v. 

### EPA issued an order requiring the EPA to issue any final rule by December 30, 2016, which effectively limits EPA's ability to extend comment periods associated with this rulemaking

. EPA is aware ofthe impact ofthe proposed rule, given previous comments received as well as Agency analysis , including the recent Anal ysi s (?lthe Small Business Impacts of Revoking Chlorp yri(os Food Tolerances located in the chlorpyrifos tolerance rulemaking public docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-20 15-0653)

. It is important to stress, however, that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) is a risk-only standard, and based on the Rl !l

- IRA , the Agency is unable to conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure from the use ofchlorpyrifos meets the safety standard of section 408(b)(2). EPA believes the proposed rule is clear that persons wishing to have their issues considered in the rulemaking must submit comments on the proposal addressing those issues

. EPA also specified it will consider earlier comments on the RHHRA in connection with this rulemaking provided the commenter identifies their earlier comments on the RHHRA and indicates that he or she would like those comments to be considered in connection with the proposal. In light ofthis process , the extended timeframe already provided for commenting on the underlying analysis , and the 9th Circuit December 10 order, EPA believes 60 days is a sufficient period for public comment. The timing for the proposed rule was the result ofthe 9th Circuit's August 10,20 15 order in 

### PANNA v. EPA that compelled EPA to respond to the PANNA-NRDC petition by October 31, 2015

. As a result, EPA was unable to complete its refined drinking water assessment and additional analysis regarding the effects ofchlorpyrifos that it is currently conducting. EPA inade clear in the proposal that when those assessments are complete, it will provide an additional opportunity for public input on those additional analyses at that time. Thus, to the extent EPA 's basis for the proposed revocation differs from the RHHRA that EPA issued for comment earlier this year, stakeholders will have an opportunity to comment on that additional evaluation once the EPA completes these assessments and issues its notice ofdata availability.