-1- SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is entered into by and between the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (“NRDC”) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). WHEREAS, EPA issued an order de nying NRDC’s objections to pesticide tolerances for residues of dichlorovinyl di methyl phosphate (“DDVP” or “dichlorvos”) in foods, which were established by EPA pursuan t to section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FFDCA”), 21 U.S.C. § 346a. See Order Denying NRDC’s Objections on Remand, 77 Fed. Reg. 54,402 (S ept. 5, 2012) (“Denial Order”); WHEREAS, NRDC filed a pe tition for review of the De nial Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the S econd Circuit, Case No. 12-3671-ag; WHEREAS, the Parties wish to sett le NRDC’s pending petition for review; WHEREAS, settlement of NRDC’s petition is in the public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, without admission of any issues of fact or law, or waiver of any claim or defense, either factual or legal, the Parties agree as follows:1. EPA agrees to re-examine the Reference Doses (RfDs) and PopulationAdjusted Doses (PADs) for dichlorvos for the following risk assessment scenarios –

short-term incidental oral e xposure; short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term dermal exposure; and short-term and intermediate-term inhalation exposure – and to revise those

RfDs and PADs if EPA determines that such revision is appropriate. If EPA determines that there are no pesticide uses that produce e xposures associated with one or more of the risk assessment scenarios described in the prior sentence, EPA will rescind the existing

RfD and PAD for that risk assessment scenario rather than re-examine and revise, if-2- appropriate, that existing RfD and PAD. EPA will document its re-examination and revision, if appropriate, of the dichlorvos RfDs and PADs as specified in Paragraph 3. This documentation will include any EPA dete rminations to rescind existing RfDs and PADs for risk assessment scenarios for which there are no longer pesticide uses. 2. In re-examining the RfDs and PADs described in Paragraph 1, EPA agrees that, if it identifies the st udy titled Gledhill, A. J. (1997) Dichlorvos: A Single-Blind, Placebo Controlled, Randomised Study to Invest igate the Effects of Multiple Oral Dosing on Erythrocyte Cholinesterase Inhibition in Healthy Male Volunteers (MRID 44248801) (“Gledhill study”) as appropriate to support th e derivation of any of the RfDs and PADs described in Paragraph 1, EPA will determin e whether it may rely on the Gledhill study under the provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part26 as amended in 2013 by 78 Fed. Reg. 10,538 (Feb. 14, 2013), applicable to the study. If in making the determination described in the previous sentence, EPA preliminarily decides that EPA is permitted to rely on the Gledhill study under the applicable provi sions in 40 CFR Part 26, as amended, EPA agrees to submit its review of the Gledhill study to the Hu man Studies Review Board for

review and comment under 40 C.F.R. § 26.1604(b). 3. No later than May 31, 2014, EPA will make publicly available a memorandum explaining the results of its re-examination a nd revision, if appropriate , of the dichlorvos RfDs and PADs described in Paragraph 1. Such memorandum will include a discussion of any comments on the Gledhill study ma de by the Human Studies Review Board, if EPA submits the study to the Board under Paragraph 2 and then EPA subsequently decides to rely on the Gledhill study for th e dichlorvos RfDs and PADs described in-3- Paragraph 1. EPA agrees to notify NRDC of the availability of this memorandum on the day it is made publicly available. 4. No later than 30 days following EPA’s notice to NRDC of th e public release of the memorandum described in Paragraph 3, a nd only if EPA has comp lied with the terms of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 by the deadline specified in Paragraph 3, NRDC and EPA will,

in accordance with Rule 42 of the Federal Ru les of Appellate Pro cedure, file a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sec ond Circuit, requesting th at the court dismiss with prejudice Case No. 12-3671-ag, each party to bear its own costs.

5. If EPA fails to take the actions described in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, by the deadline specified in Paragraph 3, then NRDC’s sole remedy for EPA’s failure to take the actions described in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, by the deadline specified in Paragraph 3 will be to reinstate Case No. 12-3671-ag. NRDC agrees not to reinstate Case No. 12-3671-ag for any reason other than EPA’s failure to ta ke the actions describe d in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, by the deadline specified in Paragraph 3. 6. The Parties agree that the memorandum described in Paragraph 3 is not a response by EPA to NRDC’s petition to revoke dichlorvos tolerances filed with EPA in

June 2006. See Petition to Revoke Tolerances Established for Dichlorvos, 71 Fed. Reg. 59,784 (Oct. 11, 2006). The Parties further agree that NRDC’s sole remaining judicial remedy to contest EPA’s response to that pe tition is Case No. 12-3671-ag in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 7. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to limit NRDC’s ability to file a new petition with EPA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 346a(d) or the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., concerning the matters described in-4- Paragraph 1 subsequent to EPA’s public release of the memorandum described in Paragraph 3 or May 31, 2014, whichever comes first. 8. Other than EPA’s agreement in Paragraph 2 to determine whether EPA may rely on the Gledhill study unde r 40 CFR Part 26, as revised, if EPA decides the Gledhill study should be relied upon in derivation of the RfDs and PADs described in Paragraph 1, nothing in this Settlement Agreement sh all be construed to limit EPA’s discretion under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 346a, 40 CFR Part 26, or general principles of administrative law. 9. This is the entire Settlement Agreem ent between the Parties with respect to the NRDC’s petition for review in Case No. 12- 3671-ag (2d Cir.). A ll prior conversations, meetings, discussions, drafts, and writings of any kind are specifically superseded by this Settlement Agreement and may not be used by th e Parties to vary or contest the terms of this Settlement Agreement, or as evidence of the Parties’ intent in entering into this Settlement Agreement. 10. The Parties may agree in writing to modify any provision of this Settlement Agreement. 11. Nothing in this Settlement Agreemen t shall be construed to constitute an admission of any issue of fact, law, or liability by any of the Parties. Except as expressly provided in this Settlement Agreement, none of the Parties waives or relinquishes any legal rights, claims, or defenses it may have. 12. The undersigned representatives of each Party certify that they are fully authorized by the Party or Parties they re present to bind the respective Parties to the terms of this Settlement Agreement. This Settlement Agreement may be signed in