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 POLLUTION PREVENTION 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division /)/ . j /] J_;J/ 

Kevin 

Risk Management 

Costello, Branch 

and Implementation 

Chief 

Branch 

J. f'VW\ 

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 of the rule, 

gather and submit use information to the Agency, and review the forthcoming revised drinking 

water assessment. In addition, DAS has also provided justification 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 of the 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 of the impact of the proposed rule, given previous comments received as well as 

Agency analysis, including the recent Analysis (?lthe Small Business Impacts of Revoking 

Chlorpyri(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 of chlorpyrifos 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 of this 

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 of the 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 of chlorpyrifos 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 of data availability.