From: Periis, Robert Location: Alm Conference Room Importance: Normal Subject: Accepted: Meeting Re: Chlorpyrifos Start DatelTime: Fri 3/17/2017 6:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/17/2017 7:00:00 PM From: Davis, Patrick Location: Alm Conference Room Importance: Normal Subject: Accepted: Meeting Re: Chlorpyrifos Start DatelTime: Fri 3/17/2017 6:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/17/2017 7:00:00 PM From: CIeiand-Hamnett, Wendy Location: Alm Conference Room Importance: Normal Subject: Accepted: Meeting Re: Chlorpyrifos Start DatelTime: Fri 3/17/2017 6:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/17/2017 7:00:00 PM From: Burden, Susan Location: Alm Conference Room Importance: Normal Subject: Accepted: Meeting Re: Chlorpyrifos Start DatelTime: Fri 3/17/2017 6:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/17/2017 7:00:00 PM From: Keigwin, Richard Location: Alm Conference Room Importance: Normal Subject: Accepted: Meeting Re: Chlorpyrifos Start DatelTime: Fri 3/17/2017 6:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/17/2017 7:00:00 PM From: Anderson, Denise Location: Alm Conference Room Importance: Normal Subject: Accepted: Meeting Re: Chlorpyrifos Start DatelTime: Fri 3/17/2017 6:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/17/2017 7:00:00 PM From: Schwab, Justin Location: Alm Conference Room Importance: Normal Subject: Accepted: Meeting Re: Chlorpyrifos Start DatelTime: Fri 3/17/2017 6:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/17/2017 7:00:00 PM From: Microsoft Outtook Location: Aim Conference Room Importance: Normal Subject: Meeting Forward Notification: Meeting Re: Chlorpyrifos Start DatelTime: Fri 3/17/2017 6:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/17/2017 7:00:00 PM Your meeting was forwarded Andersen ?enise has forwarded your meeting request to additionai recipients. deities; Meeting Re: Chlorpyrifos Meeting Wine Friday, March 17, 2017 2:00 PM. Cieiand?Hamnett, Wendv Wise Louise Magical Andree Keigwinl Richard Guitaran: Yu~Ting Vogei: Daria Lcwitf Anna Friedman Dana Echeverrie Mariette MW Penis: Robert Dyner? Mark Mme.? mm mm Burden: Susan ?tiE times iistriid are in ttirii ?timrii (timmt?j?'?m Eastern Timtii (W it marinade) tiit-r-rit Microsoft Exchange To: AO-OCIR Jakob, Campbell, Carleton, Daguiilard, Dlnkins, Gude, Loop, Miibourn, Mojica, Orvin, Parsons, Peck, Pierce, Scheifele, Schmit, Sisco, Strauss, Waish, From: Kaiser, Sven-Erik Sent: Thur 3/30/2017 8:44:40 PM Subject: Water, Pesticides and Toxics Team Weekly Report 4,3.2017,docx Please take a look at our weekly report and let us know if any questions. Thanks, Sven Sven-Erik Kaiser US. EPA Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 1200 Ave., NW (1305A) Washington, DC 20460 202-566-2753 Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations Water, Pesticides and Toxics Team Week of April 3, 2017 HOT ISSUES: - (Matt) 0 1- 4, dioxane in drinking water and under TSCA (Matt/Sven) TSCA reform implementation (Sven) 0 Lead in drinking water (Matt) 0 implementation (Matt) 0 Waters ofthe U.S., Executive Order, litigation, replacement rulemaking (Denis) 0 Bristol Bay/Pebble Mine (Denis) 0 National Estuary Program (Denis) 0 integrated planning (Kevin) Mar 30 Congressional Estuary Caucus staff briefing on estuary management and research OCM, and (Denis) Mar 30 Notification of chlorpyrifos petition denial (Sven) Mar 30 Notification of TSCA Reform mercury report (Sven) Mar 31 HEC TA request on asset management for drinking water systems OECA (Kevin) Mar 30 Sen. Collins (ME) and King (ME) staff briefing on ME Water Quality Standards (Denis) Week of Apr 3 Hill notifications on FY17 American lron Steel memo (Matt) April 19 Cong. Peters (CA) and Cong. Vargas (CA) invited to meeting in San Francisco Regional Office to Discuss Tijuana River and New River w/R9 (Kevin) TBD House T&l bipartisan staff briefing on implementation (Matt) TBD House and Senate staff briefing on TSCA reform progress (Sven) TBD SEPW minority staff briefing on TSCA section 5 new chemicals program OGC (Sven) Topic: Legislative Hearing on: S. 518, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for technical assistance for small treatment works; 5. 692, the ?Water infrastructure Flexibility Act of 2017;? and S. 675, the ?Long island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act" Committee: Senate Committee Environment Public Works Date: March 28, 2017 Witness: No EPA Witness (Statement requested) Contacts: Kevin Kuhn, Denis Borum 115th CONGRESS HR ?65 Gibbs (OH), codifies integrated wastewater and stormwater planning (Kevin) HR 953 Gibbs (OH), stops NPDES pesticide general permit, Passed House Ag Feb 16 (Kevin) HR 1329 Davis reauthorizes pesticide registration fees, Passed the House March 20 (Sven) HR 1668 Pallone (NJ)/Tonko (NY), comprehensive update to SDWA, also incorporates the text of H.R. 1071 below (Matt) HR 1971? Tonko (NY)/Pallone (NJ), increases and aids lead service line replacement (Matt) HR 1155i Hunter (CA), addresses ballast water discharges (Kevin) I-illi 126E. ?Thornberry (TX), revises navigable waters definition and limits CWA jurisdiction (Denis) HR 1579 Peters (CA)/Pallone (NJ), requires source water vulnerability assessments from pollution, climate and terrorism' creates EPA grant program 15% Wicker (MS), addresses ballast water discharges, Passed Senate Commerce Jan 24 (Kevin) 181 Brown (OH), broadens Buy America use in infrastructure projects (Matt) 8 34% Crapo stops NPDES pesticide general permit (Kevin) 513 Wicker (MS), technical assistance for small treatment works (Kevin) 51% Gillibrand/Schumer (NY), requires SDWA MCLG and MCL for PFOA, PFOS, 1,4-dioxane, and erchlorate within two ears (Matt) To: Davis, Wagner, Bangerter, Cc: Osinski, Bowles, Ferris, From: Nitsch, Chad Sent: Thur 3/30/2017 3:49:28 PM Subject: FW: NASDA Meeting/Call Request HTF Member States? Transition Letter?Secretary Nertnevredf Following up further from yesterdayis meeting with NASDA. Britt sent the Hypoxia Task Force letter that Patrick requested. I?ll continue to werk with the greup en the ether items mentioned below. Thank. yeu. Chad Nitsch State and Regionai Partnerships i Gttice otthe Administrator Environmentai Protection Agency 2026644714 From: Britt Aasmundstad [mailtozbritt@nasda.org] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 11:36 AM To: Nitsch, Chad Cc: Nathan Bowen Dudley Hoskins Subject: RE: NASDA Meeting/Call Request SPF validation failed] Thanks so much, Chad! I know Dudley forwarded you a note on chlorpyrifos, but wanted to close out the meeting overall. We really appreciated your time yesterday and helping connect everyone. We look forward to working with you as the agriculture liaison. A few notes of follow-up: - I?ve included the letter (attached) Secretary Northey and the other agriculture departments from the Hypoxia Task Force sent to the EPA transition team. I know Patrick speci?cally mentioned seeing this letter, if you could potentially forward it - We look forward to hearing an update on our April meeting request - Please let us know how we can be helpful with the Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities FACA, regional administrators and ag counselor. - Finally, we would be interested in learning more about the agency?s regulatory reform task force and how we can be helpful in that effort. Many thanks, we look forward to working with you all! Britt Britt Aasmundstadl Manager, Public Policy National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 4350 North Fairfax Drive Suite 910 Arlington, VA 22203 (202) 296-9680 (EDNA From: Nitsch Chad Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 5:35 PM To: Dudley Hoskins; Nathan Bowen, Britt Subject: RE: NASDA Meeting/Call Request Dudley, Nathan, and Britt, Thanks again for coming into EPA. Nice to meet you all in person (and nice to see you again Nathan), Here are the names and titles of the EPA folks in the meeting. Chad Nitsch Ag Partnerships Liaison Mike Osinski - Director of State and Regional Partnerships Jack Bowles Director of State and Local Government Lena Ferris Special Assistant to the Ag Counselor Layne Bangerter Deputy Associate Administrator for Office of Intergovernmental Relations Patrick Davis Special Assistant to the Administrator (Of?ce of Land and Emergency Management, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, and Homeland Security) Ken Wagner Senior Advisor to the Administrator for State and Regional Affairs and Director of Regional Operations Talk to you soon, Chad Nitsch State and Regional Partnerships 5 Of?ce of the Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 202w564~4714 From: Dudley Hoskins [mailto:Dudlcv?hnasdaora] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 1:49 PM To: Nitsch, Chad Cc: Nathan Bowen Britt Aasmundstad Subject: Re: NASDA Meeting/Call Request SPF validation failed] Hi Chad -- thanks so much for the note and follow-up. We knew calendars were going to be a challenge, and there is no way we can be available on Thur. However, we will make whatever time works best for you all on Wed or Fri of next week. Please let me know if you want to touch base further at any point on logistics. Many thanks - dudley Sent from my iPhone On Mar 22, 2017, at 11:21 AM, Nitsch, Chad wrote: Dudley, It was nice to talk te yeu yesterday, Fellowing up, here are same eptions fer the meetmandw greet next week: Wednesday, 11am Thursday, (preferred) Thursday, 4pm Friday, 11am Please let me know which time werks best fer yeur team as seen as pessihle, se 1 can reserve the time en eur calendars. Thank yeu, Chad State and Regional Partnerships Of?ce of the Administrator Environmentai Protection Agency 202-564-4714 From: Dudley Hoskins Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 9:54 PM To: Barbery, Andrea Bowles, Jack Cc: Nathan Bowen Britt Aasrnundstad ; Nitsch, Chad had@ eea, aev>; Dexter, Michael Osinski, Michael Subject: RE: NASDA Meeting/Call Request SPF validation failed] Hi Andrea; Thanks se much for yeur follow?up and fer putting ferward a couple ef eptiens. We are still werking through our respective calendars en this end. Hope to have a reply/con?rmation back te yen seen. In the interim; please let me knew if yeu want te tench base at any peint. Mere seen many thanks. - dudley Dudley W. Hoskins . Public Policy Counsel 0 National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 4350 North Fairfax Drive Suite 910 Arlington, VA 22203 (P) 202.296.9680 0 (C) 832.771.7442 . From: Barbery, Andrea imaiiteBarberyAndreac?zenanevi Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 2:13 PM To: Dudley Hoskins; Bowies, Jack Cc: Nathan Bowen; Britt Aasmundstad; Nitsch, Chad; Dexter, Michael; Osinski, Michael Subject: RE: NASDA Meeting/Call Request SPF validation failed] Hi Dudley Here are seine eptions this week: .. Wait/22""d after l:00 pin. - Any time Friday If next week works better for you, i can offer more dates/times. Thanks. Andrea Barbery Office of Intergovernmental Relations US. Environmental Protection Agency 2026644397 From: Dudley Hoskins {mailto:IDudlevchnasdaorgl Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 5:21 PM To: Bowles, Jack Barbery, Andrea Cc: Nathan Bowen Britt Aasmundstad Subject: NASDA Meeting/Call Request SPF validation failed] Hi Jack Andrea, I know there is always a lot going on (can?t imagine everything on your plate right now). Wanted to see if you had a few minutes for a quick call this week or next? I could always come by your office as well if that is easier. Many thanks and hope all is well on your end. - dudley Dudley W. Hoskins . Public Policy Counsel 0 National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 4350 North Fairfax Drive Suite 910 Arlington, VA 22203 (P) 202.296.9680 0 (C) 832.771.7442 . HTF Member State Representatives Secretary Bill Northey, Chair iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship J. Ryan Benefieid, Deputy Director Arkansas Natural Resources Commission Raymond Poe, Acting DirECtor illinois Department of Agriculture Ted McKinney, Director indiana Department of Agriculture Peter Goodmann, Director Kentucky Division of Water Johnny Bradberry Louisiana Governors Executive Assistant for Coastal Activities Rebecca Flood, Assistant Commissioner MinnESota Pollution Control Agency Gary Rickard, Executive Director Mississippi Department of Environmentai Quality Kurt Boeckman, Agriculture Liaison Missouri Department of Natural Resources John Schiichter, Deputy Director Dhio Department of Agricuiture Larry Maxweii, Assistant Commissioner Tennessee Department of Agriculture Russeil Rasmussen, Administrator Division of Water Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources January 5, 2016 Myron Ebeil Director, Center for Energy and Environment Presidenthlect Trump Transition Team, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1310 Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Via e?mail to mebeii@cei.org, info@cei.org Subject: Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force: issues for Transition Teams Dear Director Ebeli, We are writing to you as the member states of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force herein referred to as the HTF) to bring your attention to the coliaborative and innovative efforts underway by the states and federai agencies to address the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. The HTF is a partnership of tweive states and five federal agencies that works coliaboratively to reduce nutrient loading to the Mississippi River Basin and the extent of the hypoxic zone in the northern Gulf of Mexico. The partnership is led by the tates, providing a cooperative federalism where states lead and are making significant progress towards the objectives set forth. Through the HTF, EPA has recognized states are best positioned to effectively iead this iarge scale effort. The members of the HTF continue to work collaboratively to implement the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan 2008. The HTF strives to reduce nutrient loading to the Gulf by 45% (compared to the 1980 ~1996 baseline), with the expected response to limit the average extent of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone to less than 5,000 square kilometers by 2035. Reaching this goai wili require a significant commitment of state and federal resources to acceierate implementation of actions that reduce nutrient loading from major sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in the Mississippi River Basin. The HTF states serve as the iead on the implementation of HTF initiatives and projects, with the federal agencies serving as supportive coliaborators. ach HTF state has devel oped a nutrient reduction strategy through stakeholder participation that serves as a road map for implementing nutrient reductions in its state . These strategies serve as the cornerstone for reaching the HTF goals. The federal members ofthe HTF issued a unified federal strategy in September 2013, to guide assistance to states and continued science support. To further its goals, the HTF has 3150 expanded partnerships with organizations with similar goals. in May 2014, the HTF entered into an agreement with 12 land grant universities from the representative states, to reduce gaps in research and outreach/extension needs in the Mississippi River Basin. Page )2 Current approaches to achieve the goal of reducing nutrient loading across the Mississippi basin inciude: 1) implementing individual HTF State Nutrient Reduction Strategies led by the states with support of federal and other partners; 2) integrating, strengthening and quantifying the nutrient load reductions at the basin level from all sources 3) implementing effective actions to reduce nutrient loadings using improved tracking, watershed monitoring, and modeling tools supported by the HTF and partners 4) identifying funding needs and sources associated with specific nutrient reduction actions, as weli as pursuing additional funding; 5) supporting research as a means for creating and improving effective actions; and 6) reporting to Congress on the progress made by the HTF toward nutrient load reductions. The HTF states believe this effort is a model of good government, focusing on collaboration between states, and between federal an state agencies, stakeholders landowners, commodity groups, land - grant universities) and the private sector. These partnerships are fundamental to improving water quality and reducing the hypoxia zone in the Gulf 12/documents/federai strategy updates These coliaborative, state~led implementation efforts wiil require significant additional support and resources from iocal, state, federal, and private sources to scale ~up implementation that achieves measureabie and lasting nutrient reductions. These resources support projects that are prioritized and targeted to reduce significant nutrient loading while also informing the process to scale ~up implementation. Working, together, the efforts of the HTF create an opportunity for investments in infrastruct ure and jobs while advancing the connection between environment and public health, and improve resilience and sustainability of the water resources, businesses, agriculture, and communities in the Mississippi River basin. The HTF states want to thank the new administration for its consideration of these efforts and are asking the new administration to continue the collaborative efforts between states and federal agencies to reduce excess nutrients in the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico. The HTF has ade significant progress and will continue to build on these efforts to meet the established goals. We look forward to working with the new administration and our federal partners to everage state resource commitments to improve federal investment in this coilaborative effort. Sincerely, Bill Northey, Eowa Secretary of Agriculture States Co ~chair - Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force To: Nitsch, Cc: Wagner, Bangerter, From: Davis, Patrick Sent: Thur 3/30/2017 11:52:54 AM Subject: Re: NASDA Commends EPA Decision on Chiorpyrifos Petition SPF validation failed] Thank you Sent from my iPhone On Mar 30, 2017, at 7:41 AM, Nitsch, Chad wrote: Patrick, Ken, and Layne, Please see attached statement en chierpyrifes frem NASDA. Thank yen, Chad Nitsch State and Regionai Partnerships 1 Of?ce ofthe Administrator Environmentat Protection Agency 2626844714 From: Dudley Hoskins [mailte:Dudley?bnasdaerg] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 9:06 PM To: Nitsch, Chad Osinski, Michael Dexter, Michael Bowles, Jack ; Barbery, Andrea Subject: Fwd: NASDA Commends EPA Decision on Chlorpyn'fos Petition SPF validation failed] Chad -- wanted to thank you again for today's meeting (more soon from our end on that front). In the interim, we wanted to share the below NASDA press release supporting science-based decision to deny petitioner?s request to revoke chlorpyrifos tolerances (please share with Layne, Patrick, Ken and others from today's meeting who I may have inadvertently left off or not have email contact in front of me). Please let us know if you all have any questions or would like to discuss further at any points. Many thanks for all that you do! - dudley Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Amanda Culp Date: March 29, 2017 at 8:06:20 PM EDT Subject: NASDA Commends EPA Decision on Chlorpyrifos Petition FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 29, 2017 Contact: Amanda Culp Director, Communications (202) 296-9680 am anda@nasda.org NASDA Commends EPA Decision on Chlorpyrifos Petition The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) today applauded the US. Environmental Protection Agency?s (EPA) decision to decline a petition to revoke tolerances for chlorpyrifos, which is integral for crop protection, including resistance management and integrated pest management (1PM) in more than 100 countries. NASDA President and Louisiana Commissioner of Agriculture Forestry Dr. Mike Strain praised the EPA for sticking to its rigorous, scienti?c risk assessment and registration review process for crop protection tools. ?We commend the EPA for its decision today that keeps an important insecticide available for farmers. By maintaining the Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for chlorpyrifos, agricultural use of this important tool will continue, signi?cant disruption of international trade is avoided, and harmonization efforts may continue globally. As state regulatory partners with EPA, we look forward to continuing to work with the Agency to ensure current and future tools are reviewed in a rigorous, scientifically sound, and transparent manner.? NASDA submitted comments to EPA in January 2016 requesting the Agency reevaluate its proposed tolerance revocations in compliance with the law and regulations that mandate a science-based review. NASDA is a nonpartisan, nonpro?t association which represents the elected and appointed commissioners, secretaries, and directors of the departments of agriculture in all fifty states and four US. territories. NASDA grows and enhances agriculture by forging partnerships and creating consensus to achieve sound policy outcomes between state departments of agriculture, the federal government, and stakeholders. Learn more about NASDA at To: Davis, Wagner, Bangerter, From: Nitsch, Chad Sent: Thur 3/30/2017 11:41 :48 AM Subject: FW: NASDA Commends EPA Decision on Chiorpyrifos Petition SPF validation failed] Chiernvritns EPA {33292517.ntif Patricky Ken, and Layne, Please see attached statement en chlerpyrifes frem NASDA. Thank you, Chad Nitsch State and Regionai Partnerships i (fifties: of the Administrator Environmentai Protection Agency 202-56447 ?i 4 From: Dudley Hoskins [mailtozDudley@nasda.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 9:06 PM To: Nitsch, Chad Osinski, Michael Dexter, Michael Bowles, Jack Barbery, Andrea Cc: Nathan Bowen Britt Aasmundstad Subject: Fwd: NASDA Commends EPA Decision on Chlorpyrifos Petition SPF validation failed] Chad -- wanted to thank you again for today?s meeting (more soon from our end on that front). In the interim, we wanted to share the below NASDA press release supporting science- based decision to deny petitioner?s request to revoke chlorpyrifos tolerances (please share with Layne, Patrick, Ken and others from today's meeting who I may have inadvertently left off or not have email contact in front of me). Please let us know if you all have any questions or would like to discuss further at any points. Many thanks for all that you do! - dudley Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Amanda Culp Date: March 29, 2017 at 8:06:20 PM EDT Subject: NASDA Commends EPA Decision on Chlorpyrifos Petition FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 29, 2017 Contact: Amanda Culp Director, Communications (202) 296-9680 amanda??nasdaor I NASDA Commends EPA Decision on Chlorpyrifos Petition The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) today applauded the US. Environmental Protection Agency?s (EPA) decision to decline. a etition to revoke tolerances for chlorpyrifos, which is integral for crop protection, including resistance management and integrated pest management (1PM) in more than 100 countries. NASDA President and Louisiana Commissioner of Agriculture Forestry Dr. Mike Strain praised the EPA for sticking to its rigorous, scienti?c risk assessment and registration review process for crop protection tools. ?We commend the EPA for its decision today that keeps an important insecticide available for farmers. By maintaining the Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for chlorpyrifos, agricultural use of this important tool will continue, signi?cant disruption of international trade is avoided, and harmonization efforts may continue globally. As state regulatory partners with EPA, we look forward to continuing to work with the Agency to ensure current and future tools are reviewed in a rigorous, scientifically sound, and transparent manner.? NASDA submitted comments to EPA in January 2016 requesting the Agency reevaluate its proposed tolerance revocations in compliance with the law and regulations that mandate a science-based review. NASDA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit association which represents the elected and appointed commissioners, secretaries, and directors of the departments of agriculture in all fifty states and four US. territories. NASDA grows and enhances agriculture by forging partnerships and creating consensus to achieve sound policy outcomes between state departments of agriculture, the federal government, and stakeholders. Learn more about NASDA at Contact: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Amanda Culp March 29, 2017 Director, Communications (202) 296-9680 amandagcignasdaorg NASDA Commends EPA Decision on Chlorpyrifos Petition The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) today appiauded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?s (EPA) decision to a to revoke tolerances for chiorpyrifos, which is integral for crop protection, inciuding resistance management and integrated pest management (IPM) in more than 100 countries. NASDA President and Louisiana Commissioner of Agricuiture Forestry Dr. Mike Strain praised the EPA for sticking to its rigorous, scientific risk assessment and registration review process for crop protection tools. "We commend the EPA for its decision today that keeps an important insecticide available for farmers. By maintaining the Maximum Residue imits (MRLs) for chiorpyrifos, agriculturai use of this important tool wiil continue, significant disruption of international trade is avoided, and harmonization efforts may continue globally. As state regulatory partners with EPA, we look forward to continuing to work with the Agency to ensure current and future tools are review ed in a rigorous, scientifically sound and transparent manner.? NASDA submitted comments to EPA in January 2016 requesting the Agency reevaluate its proposed tolerance revocations in compiiance with the iaw and regulations that mandate a science-based review. NASDA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit association which represents the eiected and appointed commissioners, secretaries, and directors of the departments of agriculture in ail fifty states and four U.S. territories. NASDA grows and enhances agriculture by forging partnerships and creating consensus to achieve sound poiicy outcomes between state departments of agriculture, the federal government, and stakeholders. Learn more about NASDA at National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 4350 North Fairfax Drive #910 WW Arlington, VA 22203 2 Tel: 202?296?9680 To: Bangerter, From: US. EPA Media Relations Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 10:35:49 PM Subject: EPA Administrator Pruitt Denies Petition to Ban Widely Used Pesticide CONTACT: press@epa.gov FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 29, 2017 EPA Administrator Pruitt Denies Petition to Ban Widely Used Pesticide Today, US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt signed an order denying a petition that sought to ban chiorpyrifos, a pesticide crucial to US. agriculture. ?We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos, while protecting human health and the environment,? said EPA Administrator Pruitt. ?By reversing the previous Administration?s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making rather than predetermined results.? ?This is a welcome decision grounded in evidence and science,? said Sheryl Kunickis, director of the Office of Pest Management Poiicy at the US. Department of Agriculture (USDA). ?it means that this important pest management tool remain availabie to growers, helping to ensure an abundant and affordable food supply for this nation and the worid. This frees American farmers from significant trade disruptions that couid have been caused by an unnecessary, unilateral revocation of chlorpyrifos tolerances in the United States. it is also great news for consumers, who will continue to have access to a full range of both domestic and imported fruits and vegetables. We thank our colleagues at EPA for their hard work.? in October 2015, under the previous Administration, EPA proposed to revoke all food residue tolerances for chlorpyrifos, an active ingredient in insecticides. This proposai was issued in response to a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Councii and Pesticide Action Network North America. The October 2015 proposal largely relied on certain epidemiological study outcomes, whose application is novel and uncertain, to reach its conclusions. The public record lays out serious scientific concerns and substantive process gaps in the proposai. Reliabie data, overwhelming in both quantity and quaiity, contradicts the reliance on and misappiication of? studies to estabiish the end points and conciusions used to rationaiize the proposai. The USDA disagrees with the methodology used by the previous Administration. Similariy, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture aiso objected to methodology. The Federai insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panei (SAP) also expressed concerns with regard to previous reliance on certain data the Agency had used to support its proposal to ban the pesticide. The SAP is a federal advisory committee operating in accordance with the Federai Advisory Committee Act and established under the provisions of FEFRA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. It provides scientific advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-reiated issues regarding the impact of regulatory decisions on health and the environment. To view the petition: R044 If you would rather not receive future communications from Environmental Protection Agency, let us know by clicking here. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460 United States To: From: Haman, Patricia Sent: Thur 3/9/2017 8:36:57 PM Subject: Air Team Weekiy_3-13-2017 regionaidocx Air Team Weekiv 3434517 reqignai?acx Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations Air Team Report Week of March 13, 2017 Hearings/Mark Ups March 9: House Agriculture Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit held a hearing entitled ?The Next Farm Bill: Rural Development and Energy Programs.? Witnesses included representatives from business associations and cooperatives representing local government and telecommunications, electric, agriculture, and biotechnology groups. Statements from the Subcommittee Chair and Ranking Member focused on the importance of ensuring quality services to rural American residents and businesses which support a strong economy. Topics of particular interest before the Subcommittee were increasing funding to rural businesses, increasing broadband internet service, and maintaining the Renewable Fuel Standard program as is. March 9: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management held a hearing entitled ?Agency Use of Science in the Rulemaking Process: Proposals for Improving Transparency and Accountability.? Witnesses included GWU professor and former Bush administration OMB Director, and representatives from the Union of Concerned Scientists and American Chemistry Council. Discussion touched upon whether legislating what should be ?best available science? is helpful or too rigid and restrictive for policymaking and science innovation, what should be the process for peer review, and how much uncertainty should limit policymakers from taking action. EPA was speci?cally mentioned in regard to percieved problems with using science in the regulatory process on Clean Air Act rules, recently-released TSCA-related risk evaluations, chlorpyrifos registration review, and in discussion on the certainty of climate change and taking action. There are no new hearings with EPA witnesses on the horizon. Meetings/Briefings/Roll-outs Marc-h 8: We had a phone call with a staffer from Sen. Corker?s (TN) of?ce with Region 4 and the Of?ce of Transportation and Air Quality to brief him on the processes and timelines for the two regulations necessary to approve Tennessee?s request to change their 2008 ozone NAAQS State Implementation Plan to use regular gasoline during the summer ozone season. Their of?ce is anxious to see the two rulemakings move quickly ahead so that fuel providers can switch to the cheaper, regular gasoline, from the previously-required reduced evaporation gasoline. March 9: Rep. Goodlatte?s (VA) staff requested a meeting to discuss the underpinnings of the Clean Air Act E15 partial waivers and related technical questions. A phone call was held to answer background questions about the waivers as well as about the classi?cation of E15 as gasoline. In between the request for the call and having the call, Rep. Goodlatte introduced a bill (HR 1315) which would institute certain Renewable Fuel Standard program reforms including revoking the partial waivers which allow for the sale of E15. To: Benton, Cc: Bangerter, Davis, From: Ferris, Lena Sent: Thur 3/2/2017 8:01 :50 PM Subject: RE: Farm Bureau Meeting w?th WA State Members efthe American Farm Bureau Federatiendecx Don here is the meeting summary from yesterday?s Farm Bureau Meeting. The synopsis of participant concerns is on page three so can act as a stand-a-lone document should you prefer that. Happy to follow up on any of the issues or set up meetings for you on speci?c topics that you would like to know more about with the program of?ce?s. Lena Ferris Special Assistant to the Agricultural Advisor Of?ce of the Administrator From: Benton, Donald Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 5:02 PM To: Ferris, Lena Subject: Farm Bureau Lena, Could you please provide me with a synopsis of the concerns from the group as we went around the table. Thanks, Don Senator Don Benton Senior White House Advisor Of?ce of the Administrator 202.564.4711 Meeting with WA State Members of the American Farm Bureau Federation Wednesday March 1 2017 Al Alm Conference Room EPA Headquarters EPA Staff from the Office of the Administrator: Don Benton Layne Bangerter Patrick Davis Lena Ferris WA State Farm Bureau Participants: rags Mama- tar-st mam Michaei tart-"aar- aarea ES ?at-tartar- Eradtaa Wr??ram rah-a mastagsaar Etch-twitter tar-ah tars-sari Maraarrt Marmara seats mg @aaria was? Kresge- Masts? framers gig-agg- armrest tea ?erce-tit Wars-s Sam Low Don Benton began the meeting with a series of opening remarks focused on the below themes: The new Administration is committed to a transparent and inclusive way of moving forward. The new Administration recognizes that farmers are stewards and conservationists as their livelihood is based on a healthy environment and therefore farmers and ranchers already come with an understanding and an inherit desire to protect the environment. The new Administration is committed to developing new relationships between EPA and the agricultural community; a relationship based on partnerships not on regulations and enforcement. The new Administration will be appointing many new political appointees to help implement this new relationship between EPA and the agricultural community. 10 new will be appointed and thousands of other positions across the Administration. Our goal is to help farmers comply with the law in a way that make sense. Discussed the role of Farm Ranch and Rural Communities FACA Committee and opportunities for new membership in the next few months. Don also indicated that he has already talked to the Dairy Federation regarding issues related to the Yakima Valley nitrates and understands this is a real concern for the WA State Dairies. Administrator Pruitt joined the group for brief remarks. His remarks focused on the following themes: Stressed that this is a new day, a new future, for a common sense approach to environmental protection. President Trump signed Executive Order for EPA to reconsider and rewrite the WOTUS regulation and Administrator Pruitt wasted no time signing a FR Notice to begin implementation of that process. Regulations must be regular and provide the impacted communities with certainty about how to comply so that businesses can plan for necessary changes and resources. Regulations need to be written based on language speci?c-ally addressed within the environmental statutes and not have the statutes interrupted to meet broader goals they were not speci?cally designed to meet. The new Administration understands the tremendous economic impact agriculture plays in our economy and is looking forward to working closely with the agricultural community. The meeting then proceeded by allowing for each of the participants to go around the room and make an observation or raise a concern. Topics were not resolved rather it was designed as a listening session for EPA to hear the concerns of the participants. Observations/Concerns raised by participating members of the WA State Farm Bureau: ?What ?s Upstream All the participants raised concern regarding the ?What?s Upstream? campaign that was funded through a subgrant awarded through Region 10 Of?ce. Regulatory Overreaclt: Members expressed concern that farmers and ranchers need for EPA to go back to what our statutes are designed to do. Farmers are trying to feed the world and EPA is making that mission harder and harder. EPA needs to be a partner in this mission not a barrier. Con?icting Science: Outstanding issues regarding con?icts between EPA science and NRCS science. WA Section 319 Grants: The CWA 319 program has too many requirements that many farmers don?t even consider applying for the grants any longer; which is just another example of EPA making is so dif?cult for farmers to want to be involved in EPA programs. Matrix of Regulations: For small land owners and farmers it is usually the wife or a member of the family that is trying to navigate through the web of regulations and with more and more complicated requirements small farmers are being pushed out of business. The vulnerability of being prosecuted isn?t worth the risk to keep farming. Pesticide Availability: The huge reduction in the number of pesticides available is a large concern. When a pesticide is taken off the market farmers need more than one alternative to choose from. Farmers are always dealing with new invasive species and need more options not less for selecting pesticides to deal with those challenge. Worker Protection Standards: Concern regarding the lOO-foot exclusion zone (buffer zone) around the application equipment for the spraying of pesticides. Con?icts: Concern regarding the often con?icting and confusing and mounting requirements between DA. HF ?s Phase-Out: Concern regarding the phase-out of HF Cs and the impact on smaller farms that use cold storage warehouses and dif?culties/cost impacts to transitioning to other options. Dairy Industry: Concern that EPA does not understand enough about how the dairy industry works in real life and is hoping for better partnership with EPA in the coming months. Chlorpyrifos: Need a reasonable approach to regulating this pesticide and would like the farming community to be more involved in the process. Opportunities for Change: Members were excited about the new goals of the Administration, excited to be part of the change to WOTUS and expressed optimism and joy to have opportunities to partner with an EPA that is trying to help them succeed. To: Benton, From: Weekly Report Group Sent: Fri 3/31/2017 12:09:39 PM Subject: FW: 3 30 17 Weekly Update for OCIR 3 30 17 Weekly Update for GCleocx Mike Acting Deputy Administrator US. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-4 71] From: Richardson, RobinH Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:28 PM To: Weekly Report Group Subject: 3 3O 17 Weekly Update for OCIR Hi all Please ?nd Weekly attached. If you have any questions please let me know. Best, Robin Robin Richardson Principal Deputy Associate Administrator Office of Congressional and intergovernmental Relations US. Environmental Protection Agency 202?564-3358 (desk) richardsontrobinh?eoanov Weekly Update for OCIR Week of April 3, 2017 April 14, 2017 - Upcoming Hot Issues and Important Deadlines 0 Monday, April 3, 2017- Brie?ng for House Energy and Commerce Committee staff on the role and functions of Of?ce of Homeland Security - Upcoming Major Public Events 0 Wednesday, April 5, 2017 Of?ce of Water will join OIR in a meeting with Mayor Susan Rohan, and others from the City of Roseville, CA to discuss an array of water issues. Wednesday, April 6? 8 Over 45 state environmental agency directors are slated to attend The Environmental Council of the States' (ECOS) 2017 Spring meeting The theme for the Spring meeting is New Administration, New Congress: States Path Ahead with keynotes by Misael Cabrera of Arizona on building a change-receptive organization and by US. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Senate Environment Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso of Wyoming on their respective prlorltles. - Past week accomplishments 0 Tuesday, March 28, 2017 - Senate Committee Environment Public Works Legislative Hearing on: S. 518, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for technical assistance for small treatment works; S. 692, the ?Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act of 2017;? and S. 675, the ?Long Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act? No EPA Witness (Statement requested) Thursday, March 30, 2017 - Congressional Estuary Caucus staff brie?ng on estuary management and research OCM, and Currently 27 Members of the Estuary Caucus Thursday, March 30, 2017 Noti?cation of Chlorpyrifos petition denial Thursday, March 30, 2017 In follow up to the Executive Order signed on Tuesday, March 28, 2017, Administrator Pruitt sent a letter to all Governors indicating that states have no obligation to spend resources to comply with the Supreme Court-stayed Clean Power Plan (CPP) Wednesday, March 29, 2017- Hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on ?Cleanup of Cold War legacy sites under the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) program, the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Witness: Barry Breen, Acting Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management - Ongoing activities 0 OCIR and Region 4 continue to provide updates to Sen. Corker?s of?ce on the progress of the two rules under development, one each at the regional and headquarters of?ces, to approve the TN request to use standard gasoline, as opposed to less volatile and lower Reid vapor pressure (RVP) gasoline, during the summer months. The of?ce and the state agency would like the rules to move as quickly as possible, and so far, EPA has successfully expedited their development. The proposed rule at headquarters is nearing signature To: Benton, From: Weekly Report Group Sent: Fri 3/31/2017 12:02:27 PM Subject: FW: OGC's Weekly Report OGC Weekly Report 3.30.17docx Mike Acting Deputy Administrator U. 8. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-471 1 From: Minoli, Kevin Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 10:14 PM To: Weekly Report Group Cc: Knapp, Kristien Packard, Elise Schwab, Justin Fotouhi, David Dunham, Sarah Shapiro, Mike CIeIand?Hamnett, Wendy Greenwalt, Sarah Dravis, Samantha Gunasekara, Mandy Subject: OGC's Weekly Report All- Attached is Weekly Report for March 30th. For any items listed, please feel free to contact me, Elise, Justin, or David for more information. Kevin Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsel Office of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Office Line: 202-564-8040 225_00000039-00001 Direct Dial: 202-564-5551 OGC Weekly Report for 3/30/17 ISSUES Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Upcoming Public Events in the Next Two Weeks 4/6-7 Acting Generai Counsei to attend the ECOS meeting Upcoming Major Deadlines in the Next Two Weeks Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Last Week Highlights 0 Alternative Dispute Resoiution Program chosen by the Kennedy Business Schooi at Harvard University as one of the Top 25 Innovations in Government (currentiy embargoed from pubiic reiease) To: Benton, From: Weekly Report Group Sent: Fri 3/24/2017 12:19:32 PM Subject: FW: OGC Weekly Report OGC Weekly Report 3.23.17docx Mike Acting Deputy Administrator U. 8. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-471 1 From: Minoli, Kevin Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 8:59 PM To: Weekly Report Group Cc: Schwab, Justin Greenwalt, Sarah Gunasekara, Amanda Brown, Byron Packard, Elise Knapp, Kristien Albores, Richard Trudeau, Shaun Prabhu, Aditi CIeIand?Hamnett, Wendy Dunham, Sarah Dravis, Samantha Breen, Barry Shapiro, Mike Thomas, Deb Nishida, Jane Subject: OGC Weekly Report Attached is 0603 Weekly Report. Also available upon request are the following: 1. List of litigation deadlines for the next 90 days 2. Detailed list of litigation and similar deadlines over the next two weeks 3. Court ordered, settlement, and consent decree deadlines through 2017 Thanks, Kevin Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsel Office of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Office Line: 202-564-8040 Direct Dial: 202-564-5551 OGC Weekly Report Upcoming Public Events in the Next Two Weeks 3/27 COS Jackson, OGC, OP, and OAR meeting with representatives from Murray Energy Upcoming Major Deadlines in the Next Two Weeks Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Last Week Highiights 0 Thirty OGC empioyees voiunteered to answer main line in response to increased caii volume 0 The Federai Laboratory Consortium seiected scientists from ORD and attorneys from OGC to receive an award for their efforts to invent, patent, and then make avaiiable ?NoMonia,? which removes ammonia and other poliutants from water 0 Court order requiring EPA to compiete 13 risk and technoiogy reviews, seven by 12/31/18 and six by 6/30/20 issued in Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League v. Pruitt 0 Supreme Court rejected US position and further iimited President?s to nominate an individuai for a PAS position and have that individuai serve in that position on an acting basis To: Dravis, From: Benton, Donald Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 2:34:47 PM Subject: Re: Checking in Weird, was responding to your emaii about the 3pm. We meet everyday to boil down the hot issues into what is most important for Scott to get decisions from him the next morning at the 8am. Love to have you instead of Shannon. She was asked yesterday to prepare a chronological list of issues based on deadline dates due to bring to each meeting. See you at 3 today. Don Sent from my iPad On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:22 AM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: didn't get a message here. Original Message From: Benton, Donald Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 8:02 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: Re: Checking in Sent from my iPad On Mar 8, 2017, at 6:55 AM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: Good morning gentlemen! E'm not sure what the 3pm meeting Shannon is referring to is, but from now on would like to attend that going forward instead of Shannon. Could you forward me calendar invitations? Thank you! Original Message From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daiiy meeting with David and Don today. We may want to talk more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent from my iPhone To: Dravis, From: Benton, Donald Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 1:01 :32 PM Subject: Re: Checking in Sent from my iPad On Mar 8, 2017, at 6:55 AM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: Good morning gentlemen! E'm not sure what the 3pm meeting Shannon is referring to is, but from now on I would iike to attend that going forward instead of Shannon. Could you forward me calendar invitations? Thank you! Original Message From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daiiy meeting with David and Don today. We may want to talk more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent from my iPhone From: Dravis, Samantha Location: 3513A Importance: Normal Subject: Chiorpyrifos Start Date/Time: Mon 3/6/2017 9:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Mon 3/6/2017 9:30:00 PM To: Bowman, Jackson, Freire, Konkus, Brown, Ferguson, Gunasekara, Bennett, Greenwait, Wagner, Boien, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Thur 3/30/2017 3:06:53 PM Subject: Fwd: News release - Farm Bureau Praises EPA Chiorpyrifos Decision Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Paul Schlegel ants fb?l? r> Date: March 30, 2017 at 10:56:26 AM EDT To: "David Kreutzer (kreutzerdavidC??epataev)" Subject: News release - Farm Bureau Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision Bat/id 8.. Samantha i wanted yeu te the press statement we have issued. We?re very ef the Administrator?s deeisien yesterday. Paul Paut Schleget Bireetdr, Energy and Envirenment Team Street: (282) 406-3687 Cd?: Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy ?l Contacts: Wiil Rodger Kari Barbic (202) 406-3642 (202) 406-3672 wiilr@fb.org Farm Bureau Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision WASHINGTON, D.C., March 30, 2017 ?American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall today applauded Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt for rejecting a petition that would have eliminated the use of Chlorpyrifos in agriculture. ?Farmers nationwide depend on Chlorpyrifos in managing their crops,? Duvall said. ?it is widely and safely used for a wide range of crops, including alfalfa, citrus, vegetables, soybeans, almonds and others. it also protects hundreds of thousands of acres of grass seed production, where it controls aphids, cutworms and other pests. As USDA has noted, Chlorpyrifos has been used as a part of environmentally friendly (integrated pest management) programs for nearly 50 years.? Duvall noted that the chemical is still subject to registration review and any concerns about its safe use can be addressed in that process. AFBF earlier filed comments with EPA expressing concern over the agency?s approach. The agency had apparently relied on epidemiological studies even though researchers had failed to share raw data with the agency. own Scientific Advisory Panel, as well as USDA, had expressed caution about how the agency used the epidemiological study. -30- To: Jackson, Fiynn, Brown, Dravis, Hale, Hun, Richardson, Bennett, Greenwalt, Wagner, Gunasekara, Schwab, Freire, John Hupp, Cc: Gaines, From: Hope, Brian Sent: Thur 3/23/2017 8:12:56 PM Subject: Daiiy Reading Fiie - March 23, 2017 Being Reading Fiie.3:23.17.pdf in? may!? Correspondence Management System Control Number: AX-17-000-6638 Printing Date: March 23, 2017 11:41:52 Citizen Information Citizen/Originator: Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Organization: Address: Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Constituent: Committee: Sub-Committee: Control Information Control Number: AX-17-000-6638 Alternate Number: Status: Pending Closed Date: Due Date: Apr 6, 2017' of Extensions: 0 Letter Date: Mar 23,2017 Received Date: Mar 23, 2017' Addressee: AD-Administrator Addressee Org: EPA Contact Type: EML (E-Mail) Priority Code: Normai Signature: DX-Direct Reply Signature Date: File Code: Subject: Instructions: Instruction Note: General Notes: CC: Copy of Controiied and Major Correspondence Record of the EPA Administrator and other senior officials - Eiectronic. DRF -Urge EPA to keep Chiorpyrifos in our inventory. The court-ordered deadline for the decision is March 31, leaving us insufficient time to adjust for this growing season. DX-Respond directly to this citizen's questions, statements, or concerns OGC - Of?ce of General Counsei -- Immediate Office OHS - Of?ce of Homeiand Security OPA - Of?ce of Public Affairs R5 - Region 5 Immediate Of?ce Susan Burden - AO-IO Lead Information Lead Author: Lead Assignments: :Breadaifsalvladqrt .. . .. .. . .. .. . cmzaa?shues-ions; . . Supporting Information Supporting Author: History Page 1 of 2 Thu Mar 23 09:22:18 EDT 2017 Hope.Brian@epamail.epa.gov FW: Farmers need Chlorpyrifos To: CMS.OEX@epamail.epa.gov Daily Reading File Ex- 6 - Personal Privacy Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 2:23 AM To: Pruitt, Scott Subject: Farmers need Chlorpyrifos Dear Adminstrator fo the US. EPA Scott Pruitt, The news that EPA plans to move forward with the Chlorpyrifos; Tolerance Revocation process is disappointing. As a Minnesota soybean farmer, there are fewer and fewer options for us to control soybean aphids and spider mites, two of the major pests threatening soybean yields in the state. A major outbreak of soybean aphids can cut down my yield by 40 percent. A major outbreak of spider mites could do even more damage to soybean yields. We used to rely on Organophosphates (Chlorpyrifos), Pyrethroids and Neonicotinoids. These days, we?re seeing resistance to pyrethroids in our state, namely to bifenthrin and lambda?cyhalothrin. Additionally, neonicotinoids are also under attack in Minnesota, with Gov. Mark Dayton essentially banning the use ofthese chemicals due to concerns with its effect on pollinators. Additionally, Sufloxa?or was denied a label for use on soybeans due to pollinator concerns. We?re losing options to combat these pests, and there are a limited number of varieties available to plant in Minnesota. Currently, the University of Minnesota is developing multiple levels of genetic resistance to be used in all maturity groups grown in the state, but it will be several years before these will be available. Furthermore, biological control using insect diseases and insect predators is inconsistent at best. The court-ordered deadline for the decision is March 31, leaving us insufficient time to adjust for this year?s growing season. lfthe EPA recommends revocation of the Chlorpyrifos, Minnesota farmers will be left to battle soybean aphids and spider mites with little more than a feather. urge you to keep Chlorpyrifos in our inventory and give farmers the best chance to protect our crops. Regards, Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy From: Kime, Robin Location: Importance: Normal Subject: Chiorpyrifos - invitees Only Start DatelTime: Fri 3/3/2017 3:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/3/2017 3:30:00 PM Contact Robin with questions 564-6587. From: Kime, Robin Location: Importance: Normal Subject: Chiorpyrifos - invitees Only Start DatelTime: Fri 3/3/2017 3:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/3/2017 3:30:00 PM Contact Robin with questions 564-6587. From: Kime, Robin Location: Importance: Normal Subject: Chiorpyrifos Start DatelTime: Fri 3/3/2017 3:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/3/2017 3:30:00 PM Topic: Chlorpyrifos Time: 10:00-10:30 Location: 3500 WJCN Required: Rees, Sarah Cwa00V> From: Dravis, Samantha Location: Importance: Normal Subject: Canceled: Chlorpyrifos - lnvitees Only Start DateITime: Fri 3/3/2017 3:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/3/2017 3:30:00 PM Contact Robin with questions 564-6587. To: Minoll, Packard, Jackson, Dravis, Huii, Grantham, Brown, Konkus, Freire, From: Doiph, Becky Sent: Fri 3/31/2017 9:48:55 PM Subject: Selected Incoming FOEAS week of 3/27/2017 Selected Requests. general. 03:27.2517eocx Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Selected FOIA Requests Week of 3/27/2017 Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process To: Dravis, Jackson, Cc: Brown, Boien, Bennett, From: Freire, JP Sent: Fri 3/31/2017 8:07:50 PM Subject: RE: pesticide Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: DraVis, Samantha Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 4:02 PM To: Jackson, Ryan Cc: Freire, JP Brown, Byron Bolen, Brittany Subject: Re: pesticide Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Sent from my iPhone On Mar 31, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Jackson, Ryan wrote: i Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. Environmental Protection Agency (202) 564-6999 To: Jackson, RyanLiackson.ryan@epa.gov] Cc: Freire, Brown, Bolen, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Fri 3/31/2017 8:01 :48 PM Subject: Re: pesticide Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Sent from my iPhone On Mar 31, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Jackson, Ryan wrote: httfos i 7/ ornvri foshtm?mrz? Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. Environmental Protection Agency (202) 564-6999 To: Freire, Brown, Dravis, Bolen, From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Fri 3/31/2017 7:54:19 PM Subject: pesticide httne .eomx?ZU) i foehtml?rm? Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. Environmental Protection Agency (202) 564-6999 Cc: Jackson, i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy 5 Brown, i Brian Klippenstern Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy :8 To: Rebeckah From: Sheryl Kunickis Sent: Fri 3/31/2017 7:17:18 PM Subject: Re: FYE Pesticide Policy Coalition Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision Thank you! It is a great week for our growers and the decision is much appreciated. Sheryl Sent from my iPhone On Mar 31, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Rebeckah Adcock wrote: PESTICIDE POLICY COALITION A Coalition Working for Sound Pest Management Policies NEWS RELEASE For more information, contact: Ethan Mathews, mathews??bncoacom Work: (202) 326-0647 Cell: (202) 374-9566 Pesticide Policy Coalition Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision WASHINGTON (March 30, 2017) Members ofthe Pesticide Policy Coalition (PPC) today praised the US. Environmental Protection Agency decision to deny a petition to remove the crop protection tool Chlorpyrifos from the market. ?We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farmers that rely on Chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment,? EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stated in the announcement. ?By reversing the previous administration?s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision- making.? PPC is a coalition of food, agriculture, pest management, and related organizations that support transparent, fair, and science-based regulation of pest management. PPC members heralded the announcement. ?The National Corn Growers Association supports transparent, science-based oversight of pesticides. We are encouraged by the decision because it signals a return to those standards and procedures. Farmers need access to many crop protection tools to ensure all tools can remain effective,? said NCGA President Wesiev Seurieck, a farmer from Stratford, Texas. ?As USDA has noted, chlorpyrifos has been used as part of environmentaiiy-friendly integrated pest management programs for nearly 50 years. it is widely and safety used for a range of crops, inciuding alfalfa, citrus, vegetabies, soybeans, [and] [and] also protects hundreds of thousands of acres ofgrass seed production,? said American Farm Bureau Federation President ?Farmers count on the continual advancement of crop protection technology to stay ahead of crop threats, and that advancement hinges on a predictable regulatory process. EPA heeded the concerns laid out by stakeholders, state reguiators, trading partners and even USDA in the public record. Today?s decision reinforces the strength, objectivity and consistency of pesticide registration and registration-review process,? stated Ja Vroom eresident and CECE) of CroeLife America About the Pesticide Policy Coalition PPC is a coalition of food, agricuiture, pest management, and related organizations that support transparent, fair and science-based regulation of pest management. PPC members inciude nationwide and regional farm, commodity, specialty crop, and siiviculture organizations; cooperatives; food processors and marketers; pesticide manufacturers, formulators and distributors; pest? and vector-control operators; research organizations; and other interested parties. PPC serves as a forum for the review, discussion, development, and advocacy of pest management policies and issues important to its members. _To: Jackson, Ryaniiackson.rvan@epa.qovl; . Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Brown, Sheryl Kunickisi Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy iBrian Klippenstein l: Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy From: Rebeckah Adcock Sent: Fri 3/31/2017 7:05:21 PM Subject: FYI Pesticide Policy Coalition Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision PESTICIDE POLICY COALITION A Coalition Working for Sound Pest Management Policies NEWS RELEASE For more information, contact: Ethan Mathews, mathewsi?lncnacom Work: (202) 326-0647 Cell: (202) 374-9566 Pesticide Policy Coalition Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision WASHINGTON (March 30, 2017) Members of the Pesticide Policy Coalition (PPC) today praised the US. Environmental Protection Agency decision to deny a petition to remove the crop protection tool Chlorpyrifos from the market. ?We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farmers that rely on Chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment,? EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stated in the announcement. ?By reversing the previous administration?s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making.? PPC is a coalition of food, agriculture, pest management, and related organizations that support transparent, fair, and science-based regulation of pest management. PPC members heralded the announcement. ?The National Corn Growers Association supports transparent, science-based oversight of pesticides. We are encouraged by the decision because it signals a return to those standards and procedures. Farmers need access to many crop protection tools to ensure all tools can remain effective,? said NCGA President Wesley Snuriock, a farmer from Stratford, Texas. ?As USDA has noted, Chlorpyrifos has been used as part of environmentally-friendly integrated pest management programs for nearly 50 years. It is widely and safely used for a range of crops, including alfalfa, citrus, vegetables, soybeans, [and] [and] also protects hundreds of thousands of acres ofgrass seed production,? said American Farm Bureau Federatien President Zinnv Duvaii. ?Farmers count on the continual advancement of crop protection technology to stay ahead of crop threats, and that advancement hinges on a predictable regulatory process. EPA heeded the concerns laid out by stakeholders, state regulators, trading partners and even USDA in the public record. Today?s decision reinforces the strength, objectivity and consistency of pesticide registration and registration-review process,? stated Jay Vreem president and CECE of CrepLife America About the Pesticide Policy Coalition PPC is a coalition of food, agriculture, pest management, and related organizations that support transparent, fair and science-based regulation of pest management. PPC members include nationwide and regional farm, commodity, specialty crop, and silviculture organizations; cooperatives; food processors and marketers; pesticide manufacturers, formulators and distributors; pest- and vector-control operators; research organizations; and other interested parties. PPC serves as a forum for the review, discussion, development, and advocacy of pest management policies and issues important to its members. To: Greenwalt, Dravis, Brown, Wagner, From: Hupp, Sydney Sent: Thur 3/30/2017 5:1 1 :34 PM Subject: FW: FINAL Meeting Agenda and Materials Pruitt Meeting Materiaispdf FYI. Sydney Hupp Of?ce of the Administrator- Scheduling 202.816.1659 From: Mary Jo Tomalewski Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 11:22 AM To: Hupp, Sydney Cc: Jay Vroom Subject: FINAL Meeting Agenda and Materials Sydney, We have re?ned our proposed topics for today?s CEO Council meeting with the administrator. Attached, please ?nd: Revised ?Final Proposed Agenda Topics,? which includes the list of those CEO Council members who will attend our meeting today, and their short bios Introduction Mission Overview of the CEO Council CEO Council Letter to President Trump, dated February 9, 2017 We assume we can skip a formal ?round table of introductions? at the beginning of the meeting as our time is short and we want to maximize time spent talking about issues. MJ Mary Jo Tamalewski Executive Assistant to the President 82; CEO CropLife America 1156 15th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Direct Dial (202) 872-3 849 Main Switchboard (202) 296-1585 Fax (202) 466-5832 Email mitomaiewskj roniifeameric 21. erg ?Web ummricroniifeamerica.org How can I serve you today? Future Meetings 2017 Spring Regulator Conference m- April 6?7, Ar1ington, VA 2017 Annuai Meeting September 22-27, Dana Point, CA 2018 Winter Board of Directors Meeting m- March 5-7, Washington, DC 2018 Annual Meeting September 21-26, The Ritz-Canton Ameha Island FINAL AGENDA TGPECS Meeting Information: Office of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt 1200 Avenue, NW Washington, DC Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:45-4:30 PM Topic a. b. 1. Thanks to Trump Administration and Administrator Pruitt for eariy decisive actions: WOTUS Chlorpyrifos Petition a. b. i. j. 2. Top Priority issues Ag Advisor Position We recommend adding additionai title of ?Assistant Deputy Administrator? as a title Water i. Next steps to refine ciarify beyond WOTUS ii. NPDES permits (CAFO Program needs work; iegislation to fix water permits NOT needed for lawful use of pesticides) Pesticides Poiicy i. Endangered Species Act conflicts with Pesticide Regulation and Biotech Regulation ii. Epidemiology Study Policy (as aftermath from Chlorpyrifos matter) Reform Certification Training and Worker Protection Rules Suspend implementation and revise Renewable Fueis Standard current program kept consistent Communication I Messaging I Opinion vitai to parties? ability to advance sound poiicy EPA and USDA Cooperation and Coordination Already vast progress; moan be done! Environmental Justice, Research Deveiopment, and Children?s Health Offices Better integration with and reform of EPA program offices; sound science Reguiation of Manufacturing Mining Facilities for Ag Inputs Restore science and process Pubiic and Science Advisory Paneis at EPA Baiance, strategic agendas ?Air Emissions" from farming operations CEO Attendees American Seed Trade Association Andrew ?Andy? LaVigne, President and CEO American Soybean Association Steve Censky, Chief Executive Of?cer (Co-Chair) Biotechnology Innovation Organization Dana O?Brien, Executive Vice President CropLife America Jay Vroom, President and CEO (Co-Chair) The Fertilizer institute Chris Jahn, President National Association of Wheat Growers Chandler Goule, CEO National Corn Growers Association Chris Novak, CEO (Co-Chair) National Cotton Council Gary Adams, President and CEO National Council of Farmer Cooperatives Chuck Conner, President and CEO National Pork Producers Councii Neil Dierks, CEO United Fresh Produce Association Tom Stenzel, President and CEO USA Rice Federation Betsy Ward, President CEO National Association of State Barb Glenn, CEO, ex-officio Departments of Agriculture Others American Farm Bureau Federation Dale Moore, Deputy Executive Director Corn Refiners Association John Bode, President CEO National Farmers Union Rob Larew, Senior VP Production Agriculture?s CEO Council Introduction/Mission Statement: The production agriculture Council? coordinates alignment on core issues of modern agricultural systems through telling our story, sharing information and ieveraging our while serving as a resource for government decision makers and others interested in USA food, ?ber and renewable fuels. Core Focus of Interest - Research and innovation - Technoiogy access - Science and risk-based regulation - Sustainability, environment, and weather - Marketability, trade, and economic prosperity - Government ieadership and partnership with private sector - Food access and food safety - Piant and animal health - Ag labor The Council supports (principles/themes): Accelerating rural economic growth and improving productivity through innovation and technology 0 Promoting research and innovation that enables deveiopment oftools and techniques necessary for discovering new products that hoid tremendous potential forfarmers and society at iarge Enabling a regulatory and commercial environment in which agricultural products are marketable, both domesticaiiy and internationaiiy 0 Appropriate balance between Federal and State Governments and a cooperative regulatory approach 0 Access to essential labor in balance with an effective Federal immigration policy and adequate worker safety protections 0 Support for all methods of agricultural production 0 Transparency and dialogue with consumers Members of the CEO Council (see reversed) March 30, 2017 050 Council Members American Farm Bureau American Seed Trade Association American Soybean Association Biotechnoiogy innovation Organization CropLife America The Fertilizer Institute National Association of Wheat Growers National Cattlemen?s Beef Association National Chicken Council National Com Growers Association National Cotton Council National Council of Farmer Cooperatives National Farmers Union National ilk Producers Federation National Pork Producers Council United Fresh Produce Association USA Rice Federation National Association of State Departments of Agriculture March 2017 Vincent "Zippy? Duvali, President Andrew "Andy? LaVigne, President and CEO Steve Censky, Chief Executive Officer (Co-Chair) Dana O?Brien, Executive Vice President Jay Vroom, President and CEO (Co-Chair) Chris Jahn, President Chandler Gouie, CEO Kendai Frazier, CEO Michaei Brown, President Chris Novak, CEO (Co-Owair) Gary Adams, President and CEO Chuck Conner, President and CEO Roger Johnson, President Jim Muihern, President and CEO Neii Dierks, CEO Tom Stenzel, President and CEO Betsy Ward, President CEO Barb Gienn, CEO, ex-officio February 9, 2017 The President The White House Washington, DC. 20500 Dear Mr. President, We, the CEO Council (undersigned herein), representing the production agricuitural vaiue chain, inciuding many agricuiturai producers and farm input developers and suppiiers, iook forward to working with you and your Administration on matters of importance to American agricuiture. The chalienges we face in agricuiture are significant. Many experts emphasize that producers must grow as much food in the next 50 years as was produced over ail previous history to meet the demands of our expanding giobai popuiation. A ?rm commitment by the U.S. government to aggressively support agricuiturai innovation and science-based reguiatory decisions be necessary to ensure farmers have the tools they need to produce a safe and abundant suppiy of nutritious food, in addition to feed, fuel and fiber, in an environmentaily sound and sustainable manner. The policy and regulatory environment your Administration establishes can ensure that agricuitural innovation fiourishes and American farmers are able to meet the food production goais necessary to feed billions more people. We are ready to provide the White House and the Executive Branch Departments and Agencies, as weli as Congress, with policy concepts that foster in the U.S. agricuiture economy with a strong and predictabie farm safety net and promotes American competitiveness through research; marketability and trade of agricultural commodities; rural economic growth; and piant, animai, and environmentai heaith, among many other things. We appreciate your attention to these and other issues of value to American production agricuiture and food consumers everywhere. Sincerely, American Farm Bureau Foundation, Zippy Duvall American Seed Trade Association, Andy LaVigne American Soybean Association, Steve Censky Biotechnoiogy Innovation Organization Dana O?Brien CropLife America, Jay Vroom The Fertilizer Institute, Chris Jahn National Association of Wheat Growers, Chandler Gouie National Cattlemen?s Beef Association, Kendal Frazier National Corn Growers Asociation, Chris Novak National Cotton Council, Gary Adams National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Chuck Conner National Farmers Union, Roger Johnson National ilk Producers Federation, Jim Muihern National Pork ProducersCouncil, Neii Dierks United Fresh Produce Association, Tom Stenzel USA Rice Federation, Betsy Ward Gary M. Adams President and Chief Executive Of?cer National Cotton Council of America Gary Adams assumed the position of President and Chief Executive Of?cer of the National Cotton Council in February 2015. He plays a key role in guiding the industry?s seven segments to reach consensus on critical policies affecting US. cotton, with the mission of helping all US. cotton industry segments compete effectively and pro?tably in global markets. Prior to that, Gary served the Council for 13 years as the Vice President of Economic and Policy Analysis. As the Council?s chief economist, he provided economic outlooks for global cotton markets, as well as analyzing the impacts of farm and trade policies. Gary also represents the US. cotton industry as a member of Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee. Previously, Gary served on Advisory Committee on Trade from 2005 through 2011 and the NASS Advisory Committee on Agricultural Statistics from 2003 through 2009. Prior to joining the Council, Gary was a Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Missouri. During his 13-year tenure at the university, Gary?s primary responsibilities included policy analysis and market outlook for the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, also known as FAPRI. While at FAPRI, Gary and his colleagues were recognized by the American Agricultural Economics Association for their distinguished policy contributions. Gary has 35. and MA. degrees in Applied Mathematics from the University of Alabama and a in Agricultural Economics from the University of Missouri. Gary and his wife, Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy America-n. ,Seybeari Association 6., Stephen Censky Chief Executive Officer Stephen L. Censky is the American Soybean Association?s (ASA) hief Executive Officer, a staff position he accepted in Aprii 1996. As top executive, Ce sky is in charge of ma naging iegislative, trade poiicy, membership and education and training programs. The American Soybean Association is a nationai, not-for-profit commodity organization with over 22,000 members. ASA works as the domestic and internationai poiicy advocate for soybean producer members. Prior to joining ASA, Censky worked in Washington, DC. for ove a decade. He began his career on Capitol Hili as a legislative assistant for agricuitural and transportation matters to Senator Jim Abdnor (R-SD). Later he served in both the Reagan and Bush Administrations at the US. Department of Agriculture, helping to craft the 1990 Farm Bili and eventualiy serving as Administrator of the Foreign Agricuiturai Service where he was invoived in globai trade negotiations and running our nation?s export programs. Censky received his Bachelor?s of Science degree of Agricuiture from South Dakota State University and his Master?s Diploma in Agriculture Stuhisidahiifnemsityof Melbourne, Australia. Mimi cw . ?WWi-im Charles F. (Chuck) Conner President and CEO National Council of Farmer Cooperatives Charles F. (Chuck) Conner became president CEO of the Nationai Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) on January 22, 2009. As president of NCFC, Conner wili oversee the organization?s work to promote and protect the business and public policy interests of America?s farmer-owned cooperatives. He will also provide the strategic vision for the trade association as it continues to seek new ways in which to add value for its membership. Prior to joining NCFC, Conner had served as the Deputy Secretary at the US. Department of Agricuiture since mid-2005. in this capacity, he was the Chief Operating Officer (COO) overseeing day-to-day operations of the department. Conner interacted directiy with P?esident George W. Bush and his senior staff to formulate domestic and international food, trade, security and energy poiicy. He led development of the Bush Administration?s $300 billion Farm Bili proposal and the strategy to educate and inform industry, constituents and Congress. From August 2007 to January 2008, Conner served as both USDA Secretary and Deputy Secretary. He piayed a key role in deveioping the Administration?s immigration policy including important changes to the H2A program. Conner?s experience also includes the assignment of Special Assistant to the President, Executive Office of the President, from October 2001 to May 2005, working on the 2031/2 Farm Bill to develop the strategy behind the transfer of severai USDA agency functions to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. From May 1997 to October 2001 Conner served as President of theCorn Refiners Association. He also served for 17 years as an advisor to US. Senator Richard Lugar of indiana. Conner is a graduate of Purdue University, with a Bachelor?s ofScience degree and is the recipient of Purdue?s Distinguished Alumni Award. He and his wife: Ex_ 6 - Personal Privacy Neil Dierks, Chief Executive Officer Neil Dierks is Chief Executive Of?cer of the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). in this position. he is responsible for the overall implementation of all NPPC programs. Dierks? position requires him to spend time in both Des Moines, lowa, the national office of NPPC, and Washington, DC. Beginning in 1990, Dierks served NPPC in a series of senior executive positions, including Executive Director of Operations, Vice President for Research and Education and Senior Vice President for Programs. Prior to his service with NPPC, Dierks was the Special Activities Director for the lowa Pork Producers Association and Marketing Director for the lowa Corn Promotion Board. Neil grew up on a livestock farm in eastern Iowa and remains involved in a family farming operation. He is a graduate of lowa State University. Dr. Barbara Glenn recently joined the Nationai Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NAS DA) as CEO on August 18, 2014. NASDA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit association which represents the elected and appointed commissioners, secretaries, and directors of the departments of agriculture inail fifty states and four US. territories. Dr. Gienn is a scientist with decades of experience as a policy researcher and advocate for agriculture. She previously served as Senior Vice President of Science and Reguiatory Affairs for CropLife America, where she was responsible for deveioping policies and regulations to support agricuiture through crop protection. Prior to joining CropLife America, Dr. Gienn served as Managing Director of the Animal Biotechnology, Food and Agricuiture Section of the Biotechnology Industry Association in Washington, DC. Dr. Glenn holds a 3.5. in animal science and a in ruminan nutrition from the University of Kentucky. She previously worked for the US. Department of Agriculture, Agric uitural Research Service and the Federation of Animai Science Societies. Born in Lincoln, Nebraska and raised in Centerville, Ohio, Dr. Glenn deveioped a passion for agriculture from her parents and her involvement in 4-H. She lives; Ex. 6 - Personal privacy iand serves on various boards for farm bureau and 4-H. 0 Chandler Gouie CEO Chandier Gouie assumed his as CEO of the National Association of Wheat Growers on Juiy 5, 2016. in addition, he also serves as the executive director ofthe Nationai Wheat Foundation. Most recentiy, Gouie served as senior vice president of programs at the Nationai Farmers Union (NFU) where he was heaviiy invoived in farm bill iegisiation. Originaiiy from Texas, Gouie holds degrees from Texas and George Washington University and served as a subcommittee staff director for the House Agricuiture Committee before moving to the Nationai Farmers Union in 2009 as vice president of government reiations. He was appointed senior vice president of NFU programs in 2014. The a Nourish, iterate-nigh, Stow BIOGRAPHY OF CHRISTOPHER JAHN President The Fertilizer Institute and the Nutrients for Life Foundation Christopher L. ahn is president of The Fertilizer Institute (TF1), the fertilizer industry?s national trade association. As TF1 president, ahn works to represent, promote and protect a sound fertilizer industry through legislative and regulatory activities and to promote a favorable public image of the fertilizer industry and agriculture. ahn also serves as president of the Nutrients for Life Foundation (NFL). ahn comes to TF1 having served as president of the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) since 2006. Prior to leading NACD, ahn served as president of the Contract Services Association (CSA). Before joining CSA, Jahn had an active role in the United States Senate working for nearly 10 years for US. Senator Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) in a variety of roles, including legislative assistant, legislative director and Chief of Staff. After graduating from Columbia University with a BA. in Political Science, Jahn co-founded a book distribution business. He also earned an MBA from the University of Maryland. A native of Wyoming, Chris and his wife, Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Capitol View 202.962.0490 425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 950 202.962.0577 fax Washington, DC 20024 .. Mme ma: (Faijmeim Roger Johnson President Roger Johnson is president of the National Farmers Union (NFU), a grassroots organization that represents more than 200,000 family farmers, ranchers, fisherman and rurai communities across the Unites States. Johnson was elected to lead the famiiy farm organization at 107th anniversary convention in 2009. He has since expanded the education department by providing more programs for beginning, coliege-aged and women farmers, increased the number of Farmers Union state divisions, and developed a strategic plan for the organization. Johnson has also overseen a number of important policy initiatives important to famiiy farmers including: passage of the 2014 Farm maintaining a strong Renewabie Fuei Standard and Country-of?Origin Labeiing, promoting poiicies that aliow farmers to address the growing threat of climate change; and renewing the nation?s focus on eiiminating an overwhelming trade deficit that resuits in iost jobs and prosperity for rurai America. Prior to ieading Nationai Farmers Union, Johnson, a third-generation family farmer from Turtie Lake, N.D., served as North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner, a position he was first eiected to in 1996. Whiie Agricuiture Commissioner, Johnson served on the State Industrial Commission, the North Dakota Trade Office Advisory Board, and the State Board of Agricuiturai Research and Education, among many other boards and commissions. From 2007-2008, Johnson served as president of the Nationai Association of State Departments of Agricuiture (NASDA). He is a past president of the Midwestern Association of State Departments of Agricuiture (MASDA), past president of the Food Export Association of the Midwest and a former chairman of the Interstate Pest Control Compact. Johnson graduated from North Dakota State University with a degree in agricuiturai economics. Johnson and his wifeE Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy AMERICAN SEED TRADE ASSOCIATION Andrew W. ?Andy? LaVigne President CEO Andrew W. LaVigne is currently the President and CEO of the Ame rican Seed Trade Association. He joined ASTA in February, 2006. Andy has had a 30-year career i government relations, industry representation, public affairs advocacy, and management. His ore areas of expertise include agriculture, food policy and international trade. Prior to joining ASTA, Andy was Executive Vice President/CEO of Florida Citrus Mutual, representing citrus growers on issues affecting their business. Citrus Mutual, Andy spent four years as Florida Fertilizer ancl Agrichemical Associa tion?s (FFAA) President and Executive Director. FFAA is a non-profit, agricultural trade organization representing companies that specialize in crop protection and plant nutrition products. Before his position at FFAA, Andy spent eight years in Washingt on, D.C. working in the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He served as Legislative Director for Congressman Charles Canady, Agriculture Committee staffer for Congressman Tom Lewis a th staff of 5 DA Secretary Ed Madigan. Andy is a native of Florida with a BA degree in Political Scien ce, with a minor in economics, from the University of Florida. 1701 Duke Street Suite 275 ?Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: (703) 837-8140 Fax: (703) 837-9365 91000-29000000?933?100?03 11111113331112 g, 151131211113 21211121221212: 131% B?v?jg?j 3,13%: 111: 111211712121 23212222123121.1121 1.131112 12111221111111 1.112111111211121 311 21211-22221 21. 211.112 21121111121211; 121111212132; 11:2 2111111221 11 "2111122111 2111221 111211 11512111112 22111912111111.2112 11:: 1222311221 12 1111 111211212211221211111 512112 1111222 12112121111321 12111 111211112112222 {111111113} 115111221125; 11112 12112121111122.211211 111121 121121-111 22111131122312; 12121211122111 12211213 2:31.12 211121.12? 22,3132: 1112212212 111221311 11111111112113; 11122111212101; 12112-12 ?11.212222121'15212211121 112-2 1212 2121112111212. 11122111112212.1112 2121221 1 1 i_1_ 1 33? 14.1.1 5. 1 "111-112-123 22112213221211.1211; 12111.2 111.212.1121121-21211111112 21.1131211112212112 31211211 112111- 1112121112 1111111111 11112212111212 21111121111212 12111: 1112132211 12111111111 j31:1 1211160122111 .2131 11:11 121121121112112111 211'121111'221111111221111;1 1.1112 1221-13 112.} 21111211211111; 11112211 1211211132111? 1111 1111215311} 121112113 21111112121111212; 111212 1 21121211111223 21251-12 22111112121133 1135322111121} 11 21311153112211111 mg??mmu Tom Stenzel President and CEO United Fresh Produce Association 1901 Avenue NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202/303-3400 tstenzel?unitedfreshord Tom Stenzel is President and CEO of the United Fresh Produce Association, a position he has held since 1993. United Fresh is the pre-eminent trade association for the produce industry in shaping legislative and regulatory policies; providing scientific and technical leadership in food safety and nutrition; and developing educational programs for its members. Founded in 1904, United Fresh represents the interests of companies from small family businesses to the largest international corporations throughout the global fresh produce supply chain. United Fresh is widely known for its work in government affairs, agricultural policy, food safety and nutrition, working to promote political and environmental change to help the next generation of children double their consumption of fresh produce. The United Fresh Start Foundation is committed to increasing children?s access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and is a founding partner of the Let?s Move Salad Bars to Schools campaign. The campaign has donated salad bars to more than 6,000 schools across the country. Tom is a frequent speaker on industry issues and has been recognized often by the produce industry throughout his career. He was honored as the 2002 Produce Man of the Year by The Packer newspaper, and is the past Chairman of the International Federation for Produce Standards, a global body representing national produce associations around the world. He is a member of the US. Chamber of Commerce Committee of 100 leading association executives, the Advisory Board of the International Food Protection Training Institute, and the Key Industry Associations Committee of the American Society of Association Executives, from which he achieved the Certified Association Executive (CAE) designation in 1990. He has served in many government and industry leadership positions, including the first US. Department of Agriculture Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, President George W. Bush?s Transition Advisory Team for Agriculture, and as an advisor on the US. Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee for Trade. Tom was the founding President of the International Food Information Council (IFIC) in 1986, and was previously director of public affairs for the National Soft Drink Association. Tom is a 1977 graduate of the University of Richmond. as ofubnuary 17, 2017 Jay Vroom has served as President and CEO of the trade association known as CropLife America (CLA) since 1989. CLA is the leading U.S. trade group for the crop protection industry in the U.S. Vroom is a founding member ofthe CropLife Foundation, serving as chairman since its inception in 2001, and now serves as the Foundation?s Vice-Chair, since 2015. His sits of the Board of Directors for the Agricuitural Retailers Association, Asmark, National Wheat Foundation, the National Association of Manufacturers Council of Manufacturing Associations, and the Soil Heaith Institute. He is also a member of the Farm Foundation Roundtabie Steering Committee, and the North American Climate Smart Ag Alliance Steering Committee. - Vroom was a member of the youth organization, Future Farmers of America, and served as an eiected state officer in Today, he is a member ofthe FFA Foundation?s Individual Giving Councii and Board of Trustees. Vroom co-chairs the Coaiition for the Advancement of Precision Agriculture and the CEO Council. He is a member ofthe Friends of the National Arboretum (FONA) FONA Council. He graduated with honors from the College of Agriculture, Consumer and Environmentai Sciences at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Vroom was raised on a grain and iivestock farm in north-central lilinois and continues to own the farming operation. 7 Elizabeth Ward Betsy Ward was appointed President CEO of the USA Rice Federation in 2007. From 2003- 2005, Ward was the Vice President of International and Domestic Promotion at USA Rice where she was in charge of developing and implementing domestic and international promotion, and food aid programs. From 2005-2007, Ward served as the chief executive for the Hardwood Federation, a trade association representing over 15,000 hardwood producers across the United States. From 1995 to 2003, she ran the Wood Products International Group at the American Forest Paper Association directing the wood trade policy and global forestry agenda for. the industry. In 2011, Ward was elected Chairman of the S.Agr1cultural Export Development Counc1l (USAEDC) Which represents the interests of more than 80 commodity organizations who grow and process a wide variety of U. agricultural p_.roducts She currently serves as Past Chair. -- Since 2011-, Ward has. also served .on the Board of Directors of the Sustainable Fisheries 1"3 Partnership, an independent non- -_governmental organization (N GO) working to ensure healthy marine and. aquatic- secure seafood supplies; and a thriving, responsible seafood economy Ward served for six years as a cleared advisor on the Industry Trade Advisory Committee for forest and paper products (ITAC-7) and was appointed forest products representative to Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) in 2001. Ward holds a Bachelor?s degree in History and Political Science from the University of New Hampshire and a Master?s degree in International Security Affairs from the School of International Affairs at Columbia University. To: Brown, Jackson, From: Rebeckah Adcock Sent: Thur 3/30/2017 4:10:52 PM Subject: FW: FINAL CEO Councii Meeting Agenda and Materials Pruitt Meetine Materiaispdt .htm FYI ?nal materials for today?s meeting. Reb From: "Mary Jo Tomalewski? Jr> To: "Hupp, Sydney" Cc: "Jay Vroom" Subject: FINAL Meeting Agenda and Materials Sydney, We have re?ned our proposed topics for today?s CEO Council meeting with the administrator. Attached, please ?nd: - Revised ?Final Proposed Agenda Topics,? which includes the list of those CEO Council members who will attend our meeting today, and their short bios - Introduction Mission Overview of the CEO Council - CEO Council Letter to President Trump, dated February 9, 2017 We assume we can skip a formal ?round table of introductions? at the beginning of the meeting as our time is short and we want to maximize time spent talking about issues. MJ Mary Jo Tamalewski Executive Assistant to the President CEO CropLife America 1156 15th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Direct Dial (202) 872?3 849 Main Switchboard (202) 296-1585 Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy 5 Fax (202) 466-5 832 Email \Veb How can I serve you today? 2017' Spring Reguiator Conference April 6-7., Ariington, VA 2017' Annuai Meeting September 22-27, Dana Point, CA 2018 Winter Board of Directors Meeting March 5-7.) Washington, DC 2018 Annual Meeting m- September 21?26, The Ritz-Cariton Amelia Island FINAL AGENDA TGPECS Meeting Information: Office of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt 1200 Avenue, NW Washington, DC Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:45-4:30 PM Topic a. b. 1. Thanks to Trump Administration and Administrator Pruitt for eariy decisive actions: WOTUS Chlorpyrifos Petition a. b. i. j. 2. Top Priority issues Ag Advisor Position We recommend adding additionai title of ?Assistant Deputy Administrator? as a title Water i. Next steps to refine ciarify beyond WOTUS ii. NPDES permits (CAFO Program needs work; iegislation to fix water permits NOT needed for lawful use of pesticides) Pesticides Poiicy i. Endangered Species Act conflicts with Pesticide Regulation and Biotech Regulation ii. Epidemiology Study Policy (as aftermath from Chlorpyrifos matter) Reform Certification Training and Worker Protection Rules Suspend implementation and revise Renewable Fueis Standard current program kept consistent Communication I Messaging I Opinion vitai to parties? ability to advance sound poiicy EPA and USDA Cooperation and Coordination Already vast progress; moan be done! Environmental Justice, Research Deveiopment, and Children?s Health Offices Better integration with and reform of EPA program offices; sound science Reguiation of Manufacturing Mining Facilities for Ag Inputs Restore science and process Pubiic and Science Advisory Paneis at EPA Baiance, strategic agendas ?Air Emissions" from farming operations CEO Attendees American Seed Trade Association Andrew ?Andy? LaVigne, President and CEO American Soybean Association Steve Censky, Chief Executive Of?cer (Co-Chair) Biotechnology Innovation Organization Dana O?Brien, Executive Vice President CropLife America Jay Vroom, President and CEO (Co-Chair) The Fertilizer institute Chris Jahn, President National Association of Wheat Growers Chandler Goule, CEO National Corn Growers Association Chris Novak, CEO (Co-Chair) National Cotton Council Gary Adams, President and CEO National Council of Farmer Cooperatives Chuck Conner, President and CEO National Pork Producers Councii Neil Dierks, CEO United Fresh Produce Association Tom Stenzel, President and CEO USA Rice Federation Betsy Ward, President CEO National Association of State Barb Glenn, CEO, ex-officio Departments of Agriculture Others American Farm Bureau Federation Dale Moore, Deputy Executive Director Corn Refiners Association John Bode, President CEO National Farmers Union Rob Larew, Senior VP Production Agriculture?s CEO Council Introduction/Mission Statement: The production agriculture Council? coordinates alignment on core issues of modern agricultural systems through telling our story, sharing information and ieveraging our while serving as a resource for government decision makers and others interested in USA food, ?ber and renewable fuels. Core Focus of Interest - Research and innovation - Technoiogy access - Science and risk-based regulation - Sustainability, environment, and weather - Marketability, trade, and economic prosperity - Government ieadership and partnership with private sector - Food access and food safety - Piant and animal health - Ag labor The Council supports (principles/themes): Accelerating rural economic growth and improving productivity through innovation and technology 0 Promoting research and innovation that enables deveiopment oftools and techniques necessary for discovering new products that hoid tremendous potential forfarmers and society at iarge Enabling a regulatory and commercial environment in which agricultural products are marketable, both domesticaiiy and internationaiiy 0 Appropriate balance between Federal and State Governments and a cooperative regulatory approach 0 Access to essential labor in balance with an effective Federal immigration policy and adequate worker safety protections 0 Support for all methods of agricultural production 0 Transparency and dialogue with consumers Members of the CEO Council (see reversed) March 30, 2017 050 Council Members American Farm Bureau American Seed Trade Association American Soybean Association Biotechnoiogy innovation Organization CropLife America The Fertilizer Institute National Association of Wheat Growers National Cattlemen?s Beef Association National Chicken Council National Com Growers Association National Cotton Council National Council of Farmer Cooperatives National Farmers Union National ilk Producers Federation National Pork Producers Council United Fresh Produce Association USA Rice Federation National Association of State Departments of Agriculture March 2017 Vincent "Zippy? Duvali, President Andrew "Andy? LaVigne, President and CEO Steve Censky, Chief Executive Officer (Co-Chair) Dana O?Brien, Executive Vice President Jay Vroom, President and CEO (Co-Chair) Chris Jahn, President Chandler Gouie, CEO Kendai Frazier, CEO Michaei Brown, President Chris Novak, CEO (Co-Owair) Gary Adams, President and CEO Chuck Conner, President and CEO Roger Johnson, President Jim Muihern, President and CEO Neii Dierks, CEO Tom Stenzel, President and CEO Betsy Ward, President CEO Barb Gienn, CEO, ex-officio February 9, 2017 The President The White House Washington, DC. 20500 Dear Mr. President, We, the CEO Council (undersigned herein), representing the production agricuitural vaiue chain, inciuding many agricuiturai producers and farm input developers and suppiiers, iook forward to working with you and your Administration on matters of importance to American agricuiture. The chalienges we face in agricuiture are significant. Many experts emphasize that producers must grow as much food in the next 50 years as was produced over ail previous history to meet the demands of our expanding giobai popuiation. A ?rm commitment by the U.S. government to aggressively support agricuiturai innovation and science-based reguiatory decisions be necessary to ensure farmers have the tools they need to produce a safe and abundant suppiy of nutritious food, in addition to feed, fuel and fiber, in an environmentaily sound and sustainable manner. The policy and regulatory environment your Administration establishes can ensure that agricuitural innovation fiourishes and American farmers are able to meet the food production goais necessary to feed billions more people. We are ready to provide the White House and the Executive Branch Departments and Agencies, as weli as Congress, with policy concepts that foster in the U.S. agricuiture economy with a strong and predictabie farm safety net and promotes American competitiveness through research; marketability and trade of agricultural commodities; rural economic growth; and piant, animai, and environmentai heaith, among many other things. We appreciate your attention to these and other issues of value to American production agricuiture and food consumers everywhere. Sincerely, American Farm Bureau Foundation, Zippy Duvall American Seed Trade Association, Andy LaVigne American Soybean Association, Steve Censky Biotechnoiogy Innovation Organization Dana O?Brien CropLife America, Jay Vroom The Fertilizer Institute, Chris Jahn National Association of Wheat Growers, Chandler Gouie National Cattlemen?s Beef Association, Kendal Frazier National Corn Growers Asociation, Chris Novak National Cotton Council, Gary Adams National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Chuck Conner National Farmers Union, Roger Johnson National ilk Producers Federation, Jim Muihern National Pork ProducersCouncil, Neii Dierks United Fresh Produce Association, Tom Stenzel USA Rice Federation, Betsy Ward Gary M. Adams President and Chief Executive Of?cer National Cotton Council of America Gary Adams assumed the position of President and Chief Executive Of?cer of the National Cotton Council in February 2015. He plays a key role in guiding the industry?s seven segments to reach consensus on critical policies affecting US. cotton, with the mission of helping all US. cotton industry segments compete effectively and pro?tably in global markets. Prior to that, Gary served the Council for 13 years as the Vice President of Economic and Policy Analysis. As the Council?s chief economist, he provided economic outlooks for global cotton markets, as well as analyzing the impacts of farm and trade policies. Gary also represents the US. cotton industry as a member of Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee. Previously, Gary served on Advisory Committee on Trade from 2005 through 2011 and the NASS Advisory Committee on Agricultural Statistics from 2003 through 2009. Prior to joining the Council, Gary was a Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Missouri. During his 13-year tenure at the university, Gary?s primary responsibilities included policy analysis and market outlook for the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, also known as FAPRI. While at FAPRI, Gary and his colleagues were recognized by the American Agricultural Economics Association for their distinguished policy contributions. Gary has 35. and MA. degrees in Applied Mathematics from the University of Alab ma and a Economics from the University of Missouri. Gary and his wife, EX- 6 - Personal Privacy Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy America-n. ,Seybeari Association 6., Stephen Censky Chief Executive Officer Stephen L. Censky is the American Soybean Association?s (ASA) hief Executive Officer, a staff position he accepted in Aprii 1996. As top executive, Ce sky is in charge of ma naging iegislative, trade poiicy, membership and education and training programs. The American Soybean Association is a nationai, not-for-profit commodity organization with over 22,000 members. ASA works as the domestic and internationai poiicy advocate for soybean producer members. Prior to joining ASA, Censky worked in Washington, DC. for ove a decade. He began his career on Capitol Hili as a legislative assistant for agricuitural and transportation matters to Senator Jim Abdnor (R-SD). Later he served in both the Reagan and Bush Administrations at the US. Department of Agriculture, helping to craft the 1990 Farm Bili and eventualiy serving as Administrator of the Foreign Agricuiturai Service where he was invoived in globai trade negotiations and running our nation?s export programs. Censky received his Bachelor?s of Science degree of Agricuiture from South Dakota State University and his Master?s Diploma in Agriculture Stuhisidahiifnemsityof Melbourne, Australia. Mimi cw . ?WWi-im Charles F. (Chuck) Conner President and CEO National Council of Farmer Cooperatives Charles F. (Chuck) Conner became president CEO of the Nationai Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) on January 22, 2009. As president of NCFC, Conner wili oversee the organization?s work to promote and protect the business and public policy interests of America?s farmer-owned cooperatives. He will also provide the strategic vision for the trade association as it continues to seek new ways in which to add value for its membership. Prior to joining NCFC, Conner had served as the Deputy Secretary at the US. Department of Agricuiture since mid-2005. in this capacity, he was the Chief Operating Officer (COO) overseeing day-to-day operations of the department. Conner interacted directiy with P?esident George W. Bush and his senior staff to formulate domestic and international food, trade, security and energy poiicy. He led development of the Bush Administration?s $300 billion Farm Bili proposal and the strategy to educate and inform industry, constituents and Congress. From August 2007 to January 2008, Conner served as both USDA Secretary and Deputy Secretary. He piayed a key role in deveioping the Administration?s immigration policy including important changes to the H2A program. Conner?s experience also includes the assignment of Special Assistant to the President, Executive Office of the President, from October 2001 to May 2005, working on the 2031/2 Farm Bill to develop the strategy behind the transfer of severai USDA agency functions to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. From May 1997 to October 2001 Conner served as President of theCorn Refiners Association. He also served for 17 years as an advisor to US. Senator Richard Lugar of indiana. Conner is a graduate of Purdue University, with a Bachelor?s ofScience degree and is the recipient of Purdue?s Distinguished Alumni Award. He and his wife; Ex. 6 personal Privacy Neil Dierks, Chief Executive Officer Neil Dierks is Chief Executive Of?cer of the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). in this position. he is responsible for the overall implementation of all NPPC programs. Dierks? position requires him to spend time in both Des Moines, lowa, the national office of NPPC, and Washington, DC. Beginning in 1990, Dierks served NPPC in a series of senior executive positions, including Executive Director of Operations, Vice President for Research and Education and Senior Vice President for Programs. Prior to his service with NPPC, Dierks was the Special Activities Director for the lowa Pork Producers Association and Marketing Director for the lowa Corn Promotion Board. Neil grew up on a livestock farm in eastern Iowa and remains involved in a family farming operation. He is a graduate of lowa State University. Dr. Barbara Glenn recently joined the Nationai Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NAS DA) as CEO on August 18, 2014. NASDA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit association which represents the elected and appointed commissioners, secretaries, and directors of the departments of agriculture inail fifty states and four US. territories. Dr. Gienn is a scientist with decades of experience as a policy researcher and advocate for agriculture. She previously served as Senior Vice President of Science and Reguiatory Affairs for CropLife America, where she was responsible for deveioping policies and regulations to support agricuiture through crop protection. Prior to joining CropLife America, Dr. Gienn served as Managing Director of the Animal Biotechnology, Food and Agricuiture Section of the Biotechnology Industry Association in Washington, DC. Dr. Glenn holds a 3.5. in animal science and a in ruminan nutrition from the University of Kentucky. She previously worked for the US. Department of Agriculture, Agric uitural Research Service and the Federation of Animai Science Societies. Born in Lincoln, Nebraska and raised in Centerville, Ohio, Dr. Glenn deveioped a passion for agriculture from her serves on various boards for farm bureau and 4-H. Chandler Gouie CEO Chandier Gouie assumed his as CEO of the National Association of Wheat Growers on Juiy 5, 2016. in addition, he also serves as the executive director ofthe Nationai Wheat Foundation. Most recentiy, Gouie served as senior vice president of programs at the Nationai Farmers Union (NFU) where he was heaviiy invoived in farm bill iegisiation. Originaiiy from Texas, Gouie holds degrees from Texas and George Washington University and served as a subcommittee staff director for the House Agricuiture Committee before moving to the Nationai Farmers Union in 2009 as vice president of government reiations. He was appointed senior vice president of NFU programs in 2014. The a Nourish, iterate-nigh, Stow BIOGRAPHY OF CHRISTOPHER JAHN President The Fertilizer Institute and the Nutrients for Life Foundation Christopher L. ahn is president of The Fertilizer Institute (TF1), the fertilizer industry?s national trade association. As TF1 president, ahn works to represent, promote and protect a sound fertilizer industry through legislative and regulatory activities and to promote a favorable public image of the fertilizer industry and agriculture. ahn also serves as president of the Nutrients for Life Foundation (NFL). ahn comes to TF1 having served as president of the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) since 2006. Prior to leading NACD, ahn served as president of the Contract Services Association (CSA). Before joining CSA, Jahn had an active role in the United States Senate working for nearly 10 years for US. Senator Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) in a variety of roles, including legislative assistant, legislative director and Chief of Staff. After graduating from Columbia University with a BA. in Political Science, Jahn co-founded a book distribution business. He also earned an MBA from the University of Maryland. . A native of Wyoming, Chris and his wife, EX. 6 Personal Privacy 5 Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Capitol View 202.962.0490 425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 950 202.962.0577 fax Washington, DC 20024 .. Mme mm (Faijmeim Roger Johnson President Roger Johnson is president of the National Farmers Union (NFU), a grassroots organization that represents more than 200,000 family farmers, ranchers, fisherman and rurai communities across the Unites States. Johnson was elected to lead the famiiy farm organization at 107th anniversary convention in 2009. He has since expanded the education department by providing more programs for beginning, coliege-aged and women farmers, increased the number of Farmers Union state divisions, and developed a strategic plan for the organization. Johnson has also overseen a number of important policy initiatives important to famiiy farmers including: passage of the 2014 Farm maintaining a strong Renewabie Fuei Standard and Country-of?Origin Labeiing, promoting poiicies that aliow farmers to address the growing threat of climate change; and renewing the nation?s focus on eiiminating an overwhelming trade deficit that resuits in iost jobs and prosperity for rurai America. Prior to ieading Nationai Farmers Union, Johnson, a third-generation family farmer from Turtie Lake, N.D., served as North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner, a position he was first eiected to in 1996. Whiie Agricuiture Commissioner, Johnson served on the State Industrial Commission, the North Dakota Trade Office Advisory Board, and the State Board of Agricuiturai Research and Education, among many other boards and commissions. From 2007-2008, Johnson served as president of the Nationai Association of State Departments of Agricuiture (NASDA). He is a past president of the Midwestern Association of State Departments of Agricuiture (MASDA), past president of the Food Export Association of the Midwest and a former chairman of the Interstate Pest Control Compact. Johnson graduated from North Dakota State University with a degree in agricuiturai economics. Johnson and his wife,? Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy 5 5 Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy 5 AMERICAN SEED TRADE ASSOCIATION Andrew W. ?Andy? LaVigne President CEO Andrew W. LaVigne is currently the President and CEO of the Ame rican Seed Trade Association. He joined ASTA in February, 2006. Andy has had a 30-year career i government relations, industry representation, public affairs advocacy, and management. His ore areas of expertise include agriculture, food policy and international trade. Prior to joining ASTA, Andy was Executive Vice President/CEO of Florida Citrus Mutual, representing citrus growers on issues affecting their business. Citrus Mutual, Andy spent four years as Florida Fertilizer ancl Agrichemical Associa tion?s (FFAA) President and Executive Director. FFAA is a non-profit, agricultural trade organization representing companies that specialize in crop protection and plant nutrition products. Before his position at FFAA, Andy spent eight years in Washingt on, D.C. working in the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He served as Legislative Director for Congressman Charles Canady, Agriculture Committee staffer for Congressman Tom Lewis a th staff of 5 DA Secretary Ed Madigan. Andy is a native of Florida with a BA degree in Political Scien ce, with a minor in economics, from the University of Florida. 1701 Duke Street Suite 275 ?Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: (703) 837-8140 Fax: (703) 837-9365 91000-99000000?933100?03 11111113331112 g, 151131211113 21211121221212: 131% B?v?jg?j 3,13%: 111: 111211712121 23212222123121.1121 1.131112 12111221111111 1.112111111211121 311 21211-22221 21. 211.112 21121111121211; 121111212132; 11:2 2111111221 11 "2111122111 2111221 111211 11512111112 22111912111111.2112 11:: 1222311221 12 1111 111211212211221211111 512112 1111222 12112121111321 12111 111211112112222 {111111113} 115111221125; 11112 12112121111122.211211 111121 121121-111 22111131122312; 12121211122111 12211213 2:31.12 211121.12? 22,3132: 1112212212 111221311 11111111112113; 11122111212101; 12112-12 ?11.212222121'15212211121 112-2 1212 2121112111212. 11122111112212.1112 2121221 1 1 i_1_ 1 33? 14.1.1 5. 1 "111-112-123 22112213221211.1211; 12111.2 111.212.1121121-21211111112 21.1131211112212112 31211211 112111- 1112121112 1111111111 11112212111212 21111121111212 12111: 1112132211 12111111111 j31:1 1211160122111 .2131 11:11 121121121112112111 211'121111'221111111221111;1 1.1112 1221-13 112.} 21111211211111; 11112211 1211211132111? 1111 1111215311} 121112113 21111112121111212; 111212 1 21121211111223 21251-12 22111112121133 1135322111121} 11 21311153112211111 mg??mmu Tom Stenzel President and CEO United Fresh Produce Association 1901 Avenue NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202/303-3400 tstenzel?unitedfreshord Tom Stenzel is President and CEO of the United Fresh Produce Association, a position he has held since 1993. United Fresh is the pre-eminent trade association for the produce industry in shaping legislative and regulatory policies; providing scientific and technical leadership in food safety and nutrition; and developing educational programs for its members. Founded in 1904, United Fresh represents the interests of companies from small family businesses to the largest international corporations throughout the global fresh produce supply chain. United Fresh is widely known for its work in government affairs, agricultural policy, food safety and nutrition, working to promote political and environmental change to help the next generation of children double their consumption of fresh produce. The United Fresh Start Foundation is committed to increasing children?s access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and is a founding partner of the Let?s Move Salad Bars to Schools campaign. The campaign has donated salad bars to more than 6,000 schools across the country. Tom is a frequent speaker on industry issues and has been recognized often by the produce industry throughout his career. He was honored as the 2002 Produce Man of the Year by The Packer newspaper, and is the past Chairman of the International Federation for Produce Standards, a global body representing national produce associations around the world. He is a member of the US. Chamber of Commerce Committee of 100 leading association executives, the Advisory Board of the International Food Protection Training Institute, and the Key Industry Associations Committee of the American Society of Association Executives, from which he achieved the Certified Association Executive (CAE) designation in 1990. He has served in many government and industry leadership positions, including the first US. Department of Agriculture Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, President George W. Bush?s Transition Advisory Team for Agriculture, and as an advisor on the US. Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee for Trade. Tom was the founding President of the International Food Information Council (IFIC) in 1986, and was previously director of public affairs for the National Soft Drink Association. Tom is a 1977 graduate of the University of Richmond. as ofubnuary 17, 2017 Jay Vroom has served as President and CEO of the trade association known as CropLife America (CLA) since 1989. CLA is the leading U.S. trade group for the crop protection industry in the U.S. Vroom is a founding member ofthe CropLife Foundation, serving as chairman since its inception in 2001, and now serves as the Foundation?s Vice-Chair, since 2015. His sits of the Board of Directors for the Agricuitural Retailers Association, Asmark, National Wheat Foundation, the National Association of Manufacturers Council of Manufacturing Associations, and the Soil Heaith Institute. He is also a member of the Farm Foundation Roundtabie Steering Committee, and the North American Climate Smart Ag Alliance Steering Committee. - Vroom was a member of the youth organization, Future Farmers of America, and served as an eiected state officer in Today, he is a member ofthe FFA Foundation?s Individual Giving Councii and Board of Trustees. Vroom co-chairs the Coaiition for the Advancement of Precision Agriculture and the CEO Council. He is a member ofthe Friends of the National Arboretum (FONA) FONA Council. He graduated with honors from the College of Agriculture, Consumer and Environmentai Sciences at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Vroom was raised on a grain and iivestock farm in north-central lilinois and continues to own the farming operation. Elizabeth Ward Betsy Ward was appointed President CEO of the USA Rice Federation in 2007. From 2003- 2005, Ward was the Vice President of International and Domestic Promotion at USA Rice where she was in charge of developing and implementing domestic and international promotion, and food aid programs. From 2005-2007, Ward served as the chief executive for the Hardwood Federation, a trade association representing over 15,000 hardwood producers across the United States. From 1995 to 2003, she ran the Wood Products International Group at the American Forest Paper Association directing the wood trade policy and global forestry agenda for. the industry. In 2011, Ward was elected Chairman of the S.Agr1cultural Export Development Counc1l (USAEDC) Which represents the interests of more than 80 commodity organizations who grow and process a wide variety of U. agricultural p_.roducts She currently serves as Past Chair. -- Since 2011-, Ward has. also served .on the Board of Directors of the Sustainable Fisheries 1"3 Partnership, an independent non- -_governmental organization (N GO) working to ensure healthy marine and. aquatic- secure seafood supplies; and a thriving, responsible seafood economy Ward served for six years as a cleared advisor on the Industry Trade Advisory Committee for forest and paper products (ITAC-7) and was appointed forest products representative to Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) in 2001. Ward holds a Bachelor?s degree in History and Political Science from the University of New Hampshire and a Master?s degree in International Security Affairs from the School of International Affairs at Columbia University. To: Brown, Jackson, Cc: Bolen, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Thur 3/30/2017 2:52:38 PM Subject: RE: FYI. Epa's use of epidemiology Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: McGartland, A1 Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 10:43 AM To: DraVis, Samantha Brown, Byron Jackson, Ryan Subject: FYI. Epa?s use of epidemiology Samantha asked that I send you a note about ongoing activities on the use of epidemiology in risk assessment. (This came up in the chlorpyrifos discussions). Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Sent from my iPhone From: Flowers, Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:00 AM To: Axelrad, Daniel ; Dockins, Chris Klemick, Heather Cc: McQueen, Jacqueline Subject: cross-EPA epi discussion Hi all: Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Thanks I Flowers, DABT Associate Director for Science Of?ce of Science Policy US EPA Washington, DC 202-564-6293 To: Dravis, Brown, Jackson, From: McGartiand, Sent: Thur 3/30/2017 2:42:33 PM Subject: FYI. Epa's use of epidemiology Samantha asked that I send you a note about ongoing activities on the use of epidemiology in risk assessment. (This came up in the chlorpyrifos discussions). Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Sent from my iPhone From: Flowers, Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:00 AM To: Axelrad, Daniel ; Dockins, Chris Klemick, Heather Cc: McQueen, Jacqueline Subject: cross-EPA epi discussion Hi all: Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Thanks I Flowers, DABT Associate Director for Science Of?ce of Science Policy US EPA Washington, DC 202-564-6293 To: Brown, Cc: Bowman, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 8:47:16 PM Subject: FW: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Byron: This is ready to go. Any last minute changes? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:46 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote He said go with it, I think. Text him From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:44 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan <5acksonrvan?cbepagov> Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote It may not, I just was double checking. I think JP is editing it now, but we have it t-ed up and ready to go out, as soon as JP gives the go. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:43 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Why does this need legal approval? RJ are you good with this? From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:03 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Are you with him/JP? I hadn?t heard from him. Who is the legal person that I should run this by? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz ; Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: Dravis, Samantha Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Jackson, Gunasekara, Greenwait, Dravis, Brown, From: Schwab, Justin Sent: Sun 3/26/2017 10:23:36 PM Subject: 2017 Consent Decree table 2.16.17.docx 2617 Consent Decree tabie 2.15:1Teecx ATTOQQM ,txt 225_00000069-00001 2017 Consent Decree, Settlement Agreement and Court Ordered Deadlines February 16, 20] 7 Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Sent from my iPhone To: Weekly Report Cc: Schwab, Greenwalt, Gunasekara, Brown, Packard, Knapp, Aibores, Trudeau, Prabhu, Cleiand-Hamnett, Dunham, Dravis, Breen, Shapiro, Thomas, Nishida, From: Minoli, Kevin Sent: Fri 3/24/2017 12:58:52 AM Subject: OGC Weekly Report OGC Weekly Report 3.23.17docx Attached is OGC's Weekly Report. Also available upon request are the following: 1. List of litigation deadlines for the next 90 days 2. Detailed list of litigation and similar deadlines over the next two weeks 3. Court ordered, settlement, and consent decree deadlines through 2017 Thanks, Kevin Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsei Office of General Counsei US Environmental Protection Agency Office Line: 202-564?8040 Direct Dial: 202-564-5551 OGC Weekly Report Upcoming Public Events in the Next Two Weeks 3/27 COS Jackson, OGC, OP, and OAR meeting with representatives from Murray Energy Upcoming Major Deadlines in the Next Two Weeks Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney-Client Privilege Last Week Highiights 0 Thirty OGC empioyees voiunteered to answer main line in response to increased caii volume 0 The Federai Laboratory Consortium seiected scientists from ORD and attorneys from OGC to receive an award for their efforts to invent, patent, and then make avaiiable ?NoMonia,? which removes ammonia and other poliutants from water 0 Court order requiring EPA to compiete 13 risk and technoiogy reviews, seven by 12/31/18 and six by 6/30/20 issued in Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League v. Pruitt 0 Supreme Court rejected US position and further iimited President?s to nominate an individuai for a PAS position and have that individuai serve in that position on an acting basis To: Minoll, Packard, Jackson, Dravis, Huli, Grantham, Brown, From: Doiph, Becky Sent: Thur 3/16/2017 11:09:35 PM Subject: Selected Incoming FOEA Requests -- week of 3/13/2017 Selected Requests. general. 03:13.2517eocx Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client 8. Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Selected Incoming FOIA Requests Week of 3/13/2017 Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client Deliberative Process To: Dravis, Cc: Brown, Schwab, From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Tue 3/14/2017 9:36:43 AM Subject: Re: Regulatory Hot Topics for 3/14 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 14, 2017, at 5:31 AM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Sent from my iPhone On Mar 13, 2017, at 10:16 PM, Jackson, Ryan wrote: What?s a full denial? You either do or you don't. Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 13, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 6:23 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Kenny, Shannon Kime, Robin Nickerson, William Subject: Regulatory Hot Topics for 3/14 Hi Samantha here are the new regulatory hot topics for tomorrow. I haven?t brought up items already discussed and in need of follow-up. Also there are other items in queue for Administrator signature, but they are not immediately pressing, so I?m not raising here. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Chlorpyrifos Need to know that there is a ?nal decision on the petition OMB is asking and wants interagency review if we do anything other than a full denial on_nn_:n_ Need to know when OCSPP will have a revised package ready re?ective of this decision so we can meet the 3/31 deadline Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, Sarah Sarah L. Rees, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy Management US EPA Office of Policy (202) 564-1986 (0) Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy To: Jackson, Cc: Brown, Schwab, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Tue 3/14/2017 9:31 :33 AM Subject: Re: Regulatory Hot Topics for 3/14 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Sent from my iPhone On Mar 13, 2017, at 10: 16 PM, Jackson, Ryan wrote: What?s a full denial? You either do or you don?t. Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 13, 2017, at 8:50 PM, DraVis, Samantha wrote: Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 6:23 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Kenny, Shannon Kime, Robin Nickerson, William Subject: Regulatory Hot Topics for 3/ 14 Hi Samantha here are the new regulatory hot topics for tomorrow. I haven?t brought up items already discussed and in need of follow-up. Also there are other items in queue for Administrator signature, but they are not immediately pressing, so I?m not raising here. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Chlorpyrifos Need to know that there is a ?nal decision on the petition OMB is asking and wants interagency review if we do anything other than a full denial Need to know when OCSPP will have a revised package ready re?ective of this decision so we can meet the 3/31 deadline Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, Sarah Sarah L. Rees, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy Management US EPA Office of Policy (202) 564-1986 (0) Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy To: Dravis, Cc: Brown, Schwab, From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Tue 3/14/2017 2:16:48 AM Subject: Re: Regulatory Hot Topics for 3/14 What's a full denial? You either do or you don?t. Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 13, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 6:23 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Kenny, Shannon Kime, Robin Subject: Regulatory Hot Topics for 3/ 14 Hi Samantha here are the new regulatory hot topics for tomorrow. I haven?t brought up items already discussed and in need of follow-up. Also there are other items in queue for Administrator signature, but they are not immediately pressing, so I?m not raising here. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Chlorpyrifos Need to know that there is a ?nal decision on the petition OMB is asking and wants interagency review if we do anything other than a full denial Need to know when OCSPP will have a revised package ready re?ective of this decision so we can meet the 3/31 deadline Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, Sarah Sarah L. Rees, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy Management US EPA Office of Policy (202) 564-1986 (0) I Ex.6-Personal Privacy To: Jackson, Brown, Schwab, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Tue 3/14/201712:50:01 AM Subject: FW: Regulatory Hot Topics for 3/14 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 6:23 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Kenny, Shannon Kime, Robin Nickerson, William Subject: Regulatory Hot Topics for 3/14 Hi Samantha here are the new regulatory hot topics for tomorrow. I haven?t brought up items already discussed and in need of follow-up. Also there are other items in queue for Administrator signature, but they are not immediately pressing, so I?m not raising here. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Chlorpyrifos Need to know that there is a ?nal decision on the petition OMB is asking and wants interagency review if we do anything other than a full denial Need to know when OCSPP will have a revised package ready re?ective of this decision so we can meet the 3/31 deadline Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, Sarah Sarah L. Rees, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy Management US EPA Office of Policy (202) 564-1986 (0) I Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy m) To: Brown, Cc: Dravis, Kenny, Schwab, From: McGartland, Ai Sent: Thur 3/9/2017 2:36:30 PM Subject: Re: ACTEON: CBO questions on HONEST Act of 201 7 Hi. That would be very helpful. And agree about OGC involvement as well. There are also other science policy issues that EPA's previous comments raised, including the characterization of "best available science". One could make a case that if the data are not available so others can replicate and reproduce results then it doesn't qualify as "available". Chlorpyrifos is the latest example (Columbia Children's Center study) There are other studies where no one can have access to the underlying data. We just had a upsetting case where we could not reproduce the results of a well-used economic study and had to quickly change our Guidelines and tell program of?ces to stop using the study. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 9, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Brown, Byron wrote: Hi Al -- took a look at this and think it also needs to be sent to OGC because of the bill language concerning access to nonpublic information (privacy and CBl/trade secrets) through confidentiality agreements. will circle back with to ask that they give the new policy team a heads up about requests for technical assistance or CBO scoring so we are being consistent with the new administration's policy goals. Thanks. Original Message From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 6:40 PM To: McGartland, Al Cc: Kenny, Shannon Brown, Byron Schwab, Justin Subject: Re: CBO questions on HONEST Act of 2017 Byron and Justin: Can you review in my absence and approve? Sent from my iPhone On Mar 8, 2017, at 6:34 PM, McGartland, Al wrote: Dear Samantha, am uncertain about what issues you want me to elevate, and if this isn't one ofthem, please do not hesitate to let me know. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has submitted some questions they need answered to score a bill HR. the HONEST Act of 2017 -- Marked up in House Science and Technology Cmte on 3/9/2017. ljust received this with a deadline of noon tomorrow. The request for answers was sent to the Of?ce of Research and Development and several program offices. First, you may find this document of interest because it contains responses from the previous Administration about a similar bill, S. 544, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015. Responses in black in the attached CBO Questions file were provided by EPA on May 28, 2015. The HONEST Act of 2017 and S. 544 are substantially similar. CBO has highlighted the .pdf file of the HONEST Act to indicate language additions that were not in S. 544. CBO has prepared new questions in red (see CBO Questions for EPA in attached word file) below for the HONEST Act and left EPA's old responses in black regarding S. 544 for context. am happy to follow up with others (knowing you are on travel). Original Message From: Linkins, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 6:11 PM To: McGartland, Al Subject: FW: ACTION: CBO questions on HONEST Act of 2017 importance: High Hi Al, Apologies if you've already gotten this from your folks. Lou D'amico said that you were involved in discussions last year about language in the secret science bill, so ljust wanted to make sure that you were aware of CBO's questions about the HONEST Act. OCER is looking for responses by noon tomorrow. If you have input and would like me to include it in what ORD sends back to I'm happy to do that, but feel free to send any input you might have through whatever channels you usually go through - I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this. -Sam Samantha Linkins Science Communication Specialist and Congressional Lead Office of Research and Development, US EPA Washington, DC Of? e: 202-564-1834 09? Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Original Message From: Moody, Christina Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 2:57 PM To: Linkins, Samantha Zarba, Christopher Johnston, Khanna Peck, Gregory Mojica, Andrea Cc: Williams, Thea Richardson, RobinH Subject: ACTEON: CBO questions on HONEST Act of 2017 importance: High Good Afternoon, CBO has asked that the Agency provide feedback as they are in the process of scoring the HONEST Act of 2017. The House Science Cmte will be marking up the HONEST Act of science-treatment?act-2017> tomorrow. It's very similar to but contains some additions relative to S. which CBO reviewed in 2015 and for which EPA provide detailed feedback (thank you all for your efforts on that one! . Please find attached: Copy of HONEST Act, with additions compared to S. 544 highlighted in yellow If there are amendments in the markup, I'll send those along too. CBO's new questions for EPA (in red), which are embedded within the answers provided by EPA for S. 544 (remaining in black). Hopefully, this will provide some context. The House Science Cmte's report on S. 544, which contains the committee's intention for that legislation. EPA should assume that the committee's intention for how the HONEST Act will be implemented is the same as for S. 544. understand that this is a very broadly written bill that raises many thorny questions, and that there is great uncertainty, so thanks in advance to your teams for assisting with this request. Apologies for the tight deadline, but please have responses to no later than noon tomorrow. Again,many thanks in advance for your assistance! Christina J. Moody US Environmental Protection Agency Moody.Christina@epa.gov Questions for EPA, HONEST Act of 2017 3.8.2017.docx> Act SMETTX_010_xml.pdf> 544 Committee Report Background.pdf> To: Jackson, Cc: Brown, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 6:38:53 PM Subject: Reg Reform Officer and Task Force - Approval Needed Summary df Reduiatorv Effisdocx interim guidance on Reducind Final Version 2?2?17.deox EC) 13777.9(11? 1377igdf Presidentiai Memerandum Streamlinind Permitting and Reducind Reduiatorv Burdens for Domestic Manufacturingdoox Ryan, Per our discussion over the past few days, the Executive Order on Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda requires EPA to implement and enforce regulatory reform and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. As part of this Executive Order, EPA needs to designate an agency of?cial as its Regulatory Reform Of?cer. In past administrations, this person has typically been the OP director. We will also need to establish a ?Regulatory Reform Task Force.? Below are my suggestions for what we should send over to OMB, notifying them of these designations. Nothing else is required. On your green light, we will email OMB with the following. Regulatory Reform Of?cer: Samantha Dravis Regulatory Reform Task Force (subject to changes after new political appointees join): Byron Brown Brittany Bolen Samantha Dravis Ryan Jackson (Chairman) (you could change this if you like) Thank you, Ryan. From: Nickerson, William Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 3:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Kenny, Shannon Rees, Sarah Mc-Gartland, Al Shaw, Nena Subject: electronic copies of materials from today?s regulatory Executive Orders meeting Samantha, Please ?nd attached the documents from today?s meeting on the regulatory Executive Orders and the Presidential Memorandum. In answer to your question about who to notify when the Regulatory Reform Of?cer has been designated, the Executive Order does not require that we notify anyone. However, based on prior experience, we would suggest that we notify two senior career staff at OMB (Dominic Mancini and Jim Laity) so they are aware of who was selected. We can take care of that once the selection has been made. We would also suggest informing key political and career staff within EPA about the members of the Regulatory Reform Task Force. Let me know if you need anything else, or have additional questions. Thank you. Bill William (Bill) Nickerson Associate Of?ce Director Of?ce of Regulatory Policy and Management Of?ce of Policy Phone: (202) 566-0326 Regulatory Review Presidential Actions President Trump recentiy took three general regulatory review actions. He issued two Executive Orders, Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Cost and Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. He aiso issued a Presidentiai Memorandum on Streamlining Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing. Each of these requires related action on the part of EPA in identifying and reforming burdensome regulations; see the detaiied summaries that foiiow. OP has the iead for 3 initiatives. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Executive Order: Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda The President signed this Executive Order on February 24, 2017. The purpose of the Order is to impiement and enforce reguiatory reform and alieviate unnecessary reguiatory burdens. This Executive Order refers back to Executive Orders 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controiling Regulatory Costs, 12866: Reguiatory Planning and Review, and 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review as the "initiatives and policies? that must be considered in carrying out the February 24, 2017, Executive Order. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, issued January 30, 2017, is commonEy known as the "2-for-1? E.O since it directs federai executive branch agencies to remove 2 existing reguiations for each new regulation proposed or finaiized in FY-17 and thereafter. The intent is to measure reguiatory costs and offset new reguiations by repeating old ones, such that the net effect on the economy is zero. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 1 Executive Order 12866 (October 4, 1993) directs agencies to annualiy publish a Reguiatory Pian containing agency statements of regulatory priorities and additionai information about the most significant regulatory activities planned for the coming year. 2 The Regulatory Fiexibility Act of 1980 and ED. 12866 direct agencies, under direction, to reiease every spring and fall an agenda providing uniform data on reguiatory and deregulatory activities under deveiopment throughout the Federal Government. Presidential Memorandum: Streamlining Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing The purpose of this memorandum is to "support the expansion of manufacturing in the United States through expedited reviews of and approvals for proposals to construct or expand manufacturing facilities and through reductions in regulatory burdens affecting domestic manufacturing.? The President directs the Secretary of Commerce to "conduct outreach to stakeholders concerning the impact of Federai regulations on domestic manufacturing.? The Secretary of Commerce will solicit comments from the public for no more than 60 days on Federal actions to streamline permitting and reduce regulatory burdens for domestic manufacturers. As part of this process, Secretary of Commerce will coordinate with secretaries of other departments and agencies including the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Within 60 days of completion ofthis process, the Secretary of Commerce wili submit a Permit Streamlining Action Plan to the President identifying priority actions with deadiines inciuding recommendations for any necessary changes to existing regulations or statutes, as weli as actions to change policies, practices, or procedures that can be taken immediateiy. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Brown, From: Schwab, Justin Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 2:38:17 PM Subject: FW: CD List 2817 Coneenl Decree tabie 2.15e17decx From: Minoli, Kevin Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 4:53 PM To: Schwab, Justin Subject: CD List Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsel Of?ce of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Main Office Line: 292-564-8849 Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product To: Dravis, Cc: Brown, From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 1:59:18 AM Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos Options No they owe me some information. Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 7, 2017, at 8:46 PM, DraVis, Samantha wrote: RJ: does the administrator need to be briefed by Wendy et al? Not sure where this left off but just checking. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy" Date: March 7, 2017 at 8:43:34 PM EST To: ?DraVis, Samantha" Cc: "Kenny, Shannon? Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos Options Wendy, I'm not sure where things left off on getting on the Administrator's calendar. Can I help move that forward? Did you get that sorted out? Thanks for the briefing. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 7, 2017, at 8:31 PM, Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy wrote: We?re still working on a overall brie?ng which provides some background to this, and for which this would be the last slide. But here?s what we?ve developed with OGC on options. We would talk about impacts of different options in the brie?ng. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Wendy CIeIand-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Of?ce of Chemical Safety Pollution Prevention US. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-2910 cle1and~hamnettwendy?enaeov To: Jackson, Cc: Brown, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 1:46:47 AM Subject: Fwd: Chlorpyrifos Options RJ: does the administrator need to be briefed by Wendy et a1? Not sure where this left off but just checking. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy" Date: March 7, 2017 at 8:43:34 PM EST To: "DraVis, Samantha" Cc: "Kenny, Shannon? "McGaItland, Al" Subject: RE: Chlorpyrifos Options It hasn?t gotten on his calendar as far as I can tell, so help would be appreciated! I?d heard that it might be possible to have a short time tomorrow morning? If not, what?s the next opportunity? Wendy CIeIand-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Of?ce of Chemical Safety Pollution Prevention US. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-2910 clelandmhamnett.wendy@enagov 02-00001 From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:38 PM To: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Cc: Kenny, Shannon McGartland, Al Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos Options Wendy, I?m not sure where things left off on getting on the Administrator's calendar. Can I help move that forward? Did you get that sorted out? Thanks for the brie?ng. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 7, 2017, at 8:31 PM, Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy wrote: We?re still working on a short overall brie?ng which provides some background to this, and for which this would be the last slide. But here?s what we?ve developed with OGC on options. We would talk about impacts of different options in the briefing. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Wendy Cleland-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Of?ce of Chemical Safety Pollution Prevention US. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-2910 To: Dravis, Brown, Cc: Kenny, Kime, From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Tue 3/7/2017 11:21:54 PM Subject: Regulatory "hot" list and revised FR queue FR queue 3,8201? shortSortrevalsx FR Packet 3.8,2817rev2docx Hi Samantha I?ve attached the revised FR queue (current as of today) as well as an updated list of actions in the FR queue with near-term deadlines. Of the near-term deadlines, the ones that are most pressing are three that are highlighted; two are notices of upcoming meetings, another is extension of a comment period (which was requested by a trade association). I can run these through Byron or catch up with you if you have time tomorrow; these should not be considered controversial. I mentioned earlier today that there are 2 actions upcoming for Administrator signature in mid- March that is being driven by a consent decree deadline} Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process We are starting to get other actions in the queue for the Administrator?s signature that don?t have hard legal deadlines but are being driven by other issues. We should probably talk about what the process should look like for queuing items up for Administrator signature. Cheers, Sarah Sarah L. Rees, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy Management US EPA Office of Policy (202) 564-1986 (0) I Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy m) Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 FR Queue Active Master List Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 10 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 11 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 12 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 13 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 14 3/7/2017 To: Schnare, Dravis, Brown, Cc: From: Connors, Sandra Sent: Tue 3/7/2017 9:16:50 PM Subject: As requested - for your furtherjoint review and discussion: Compiled List of Briefings/Background Papers Prioritv Briefinqs?docx Priority Background Pacersrdocx Sandra Sandra L. Connors Senior Advisor Of?ce of the Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Avenue, Room 3317 Washington, DC 20460 (202)564-4231 connors.sandra@epa.gov RAFT 3/7/2017 GRQUPZ: ADMINISTRATOR PRIORITY REQUESTED BRIEFINGS Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Dyner, Brown, Cc: Minoli, Schwab, Periis, From: Mciean, Kevin Sent: Tue 3/7/2017 8:27:32 PM Subject: RE: Motion Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege From: Dyner, Mark Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 3:09 PM To: Brown, Byron Cc: Minoli, Kevin Schwab, Justin Mclean, Kevin Perlis, Robert Subject: RE: Motion Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege From: Brown, Byron Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 2:18 PM To: Dyner, Mark Cc: Minoli, Kevin ; Schwab, Justin Subject: RE: Motion Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege From: Dyner, Mark Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 1:12 PM To: Brown, Byron toy> Cc: Minoli, Kevin ; Perlis, Robert Subject: FW: Motion Hey Byron, Nice to have you back. Attached are (1) a short motion seeking an extension to the 3/3 1/ 17 deadline in the chlorpyrifos litigation; and (2) a declaration for Ryan Jackson?s signature in support of that motion. Last Friday we discussed this with Ryan and he instructed us to prepare the motion and was on board signing a supporting declaration. Could you get these to Ryan? I?m happy to walk you through them, but they are pretty short and straightforward. The basic Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege Thanks. Mark Mark Dyner Of?ce of General Counsel (202) 564-1754 To: Brown, Cc: Minoli, Schwab, Mciean, Perlis, From: Dyner, Mark Sent: Tue 3/7/2017 8:09:15 PM Subject: RE: Motion Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege From: Brown, Byron Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 2:18 PM To: Dyner, Mark Cc: Minoli, Kevin Schwab, Justin Mc-lean, Kevin Perlis, Robert Subject: RE: Motion Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege From: Dyner, Mark Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 1:12 PM To: Brown, Byron Cc: Minoli, Kevin ; Schwab, Justin ; Perlis, Robert Subject: FW: Motion Hey Byron, Nice to have you back. Attached are (1) a short motion seeking an extension to the 3/3 1/ 17 deadline in the chlorpyrifos litigation; and (2) a declaration for Ryan Jackson?s signature in support of that motion. Last Friday we discussed this with Ryan and he instructed us to prepare the motion and was on board signing a supporting declaration. Could you get these to Ryan? I?m happy to walk you through them, but they are pretty short and straightforward. The basic Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege Thanks. Mark Mark Dyner Of?ce of General Counsel (202) 564-1754 To: Brown, Cc: Minoli, Schwab, Meiean, Perlis, From: Dyner, Mark Sent: Tue 3/7/2017 6:12:28 PM Subject: FW: Motion Draft Jackson Declaration DGJ Edits?mdndocx Draft Motion for Extension PANNAoocrdoex Hey Byron, Nice to have you back. Attached are (1) a short motion seeking an extension to the 3/3 1/ 17 deadline in the chlorpyrifos litigation; and (2) a declaration for Ryan Jackson?s signature in support of that motion. Last Friday we discussed this with Ryan and he instructed us to prepare the motion and was on board signing a supporting declaration. Could you get these to Ryan? I?m happy to walk you through them, but they are pretty short and straightforward. The basic Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege Thanks. Mark Mark Dyner Of?ce of General Counsel (202) 564-1754 No. 14-727 94 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA and NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Petitioner, V. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. DECLARATION OF RYAN THOMAS JACKSON 18-00001 Ex. 5 - Attorney Client; Attorney Work Product; Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client; Attorney Work Product; Deliberative Process No. 14-727 94 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA and NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Petitioner, V. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MOTION FOR EXTENSION Ex. 5 - Attorney Client; Attorney Work Product; Deliberative Process 19-00001 Ex. 5 - Attorney Client; Attorney Work Product; Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client; Attorney Work Product; Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client; Attorney Work Product; Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client; Attorney Work Product; Deliberative Process To: Dravis, Brown, Cc: Kenny, Kime, From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Mon 3/6/2017 11:36:44 PM Subject: Regulatory actions for discussion - Hi Samantha our ?hot? regulatory items to discuss tomorrow are those we discussed at our 4pm namely Chlorpyrifos and decision making regarding extension of the effective data for the Risk Management Plan rule, which is currently slated to become effective 3/21 if we take no further action. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process As always let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, Sarah Sarah L. Rees, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy Management US EPA Office of Policy To: Dravis, Brown, Schnare, Cc: Kenny, Kime, From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Mon 3/6/2017 11:12:47 PM Subject: Revised FR Queue list FR Packet 3.8.2017rev1docx FR Queue 3.55.2517 shortSortrev1.xlsx Hi folks I?ve attached the following materials: A list of FR notices that have upcoming deadlines for action. There are 23 of them through the end of the month. Happy to discuss any of these; I would focus on the ones that are highlighted. Happy to provide further information as needed. Samantha, I?ve left a hard copy on Robin?s chair. Cheers, Sarah Sarah L. Rees, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy Management US EPA Office of Policy Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/6/2017 FR Queue Active Master List Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/6/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/6/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/6/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/6/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/6/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/6/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/6/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/6/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/6/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 10 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/6/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 11 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/6/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 12 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/6/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 13 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/6/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 14 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 15 3/6/2017 From: Kime, Robin Location: 3513A Importance: Normal Subject: Chiorpyrifos Start Date/Time: Mon 3/6/2017 9:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Mon 3/6/2017 9:30:00 PM From: Dravis, Samantha Location: Importance: Normal Subject: Canceled: Chlorpyrifos - lnvitees Only Start DateITime: Fri 3/3/2017 3:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/3/2017 3:30:00 PM Contact Robin with questions 564-6587. To: Burden, Cc: Jackson, Brown, CIeiand-Hamnett, Dravis, Minoii, Freire, Mojica, Keigwin, Strauss, Curry, Kime, Owens, Jutras, Knapp, Threet, Fonseca, From: Hofmann, Angela Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 10:53:20 PM Subject: Re: Signed - Chiorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances Thanks everyone! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 29, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Burden, Susan wrote: This afternoon, Administrator Pruitt signed an order denying PANNA and petition to revoke tolerances for chlorpyrifos. A copy of the signature page is attached. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Susan Susan Burden, Special Assistant (0RD, OCSPP, OCHP, SAB) Of?ce of the Administrator US. Environmental Protection Agency Of?ce: (202) 564-6308 Celli Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i To: Jackson, Brown, Cleland-Hamnett, Dravis, Minoli, Freire, Cc: Mojica, Keigwin, Strauss, Hofmann, Curry, Kime, Owens, Jutras, Mojica, Knapp, Threet, Fonseca, From: Burden, Susan Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 7:15:24 PM Subject: Signed - Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances Petition Deniai Chlorpyrifespdf This afternoon, Administrator Pruitt signed an order denying PANNA and petition to revoke tolerances for chlorpyrifos. A copy of the signature page is attached. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Susan Susan Burden, Special Assistant (0RD, OCSPP, OCHP, SAB) Of?ce of the Administrator US. Environmental Protection Agency Of?ce: (202) 564-6308 Cell: Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Administrater*s Signature'on page 45 of 45 pages; F.RL-- 996037: Chlomyrifos; Order?enying and: Patitidn- t0 Revoke Tolerances Authority: 7 1336 et seq. and 21 346a.? Dated:- Scott Pruitt, Administratm. To: Jackson, Dravis, Brown, From: Cleiand-Hamnett, Wendy Sent: Fri 3/24/2017 9:44:52 PM Subject: Fw: Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances Eiectronic Copy of Final Versions ChlorpyrifosActionMemo {ES?Zaiwzm'fdocx Petition Response Order 3%.docx Status of the order below, and copy attached. Hope you all have a good weekend. From: Hofmann, Angela Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 5:09 PM To: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy; Wise, Louise Cc: Mojica, Andrea; Friedman, Dana; Chun, Meiissa; Keigwin, Richard; Dyner, Mark; Guiiaran, Yu-Ting; Smith, Charies; Costeiio, Kevin; Strauss, Linda; Dunton, Cheryi Subject: Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and Petition to Revoke Toierances - Electronic Copy of FinaE Versions Hi Wendy, I just dropped off the final signature package with Andrea. Attached is an electronic copy in case you want another look or want to share it with others. have things lined up with OP to get the package to them in the morning on Monday, and they are ready to process it with deadline in mind. Susan is ready to track it once get it to OP and will coordinate getting it signed on time and back to us - Angela 32-00001 Deiibem?ve Kama] Doczm?rem 7777777 D0 Nor (fife, QM) 1? or Release 07 .3: 7' STATES ENVIRQNMENTAL PROTECTEQN AGENCY 20460 at PROTEG OF CHEMECAL SAFETY AND PREVENT-EON MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances - ACTION MEMORANDUM FROM: Wendy Cleland-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator (7 101M) THRU: Of?ce of Policy (1804A) Of?ce of Executive Secretariat (1105A) TO: B. Scott Pruitt EPA Administrator (1101A) Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process internet Address (URL) Recycied?Recyciable - Printed with Vegetab?e DEE Based inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chiorine Free Reeye?ed Paper A A A Deliberative Infernal D0 (fife, Quere 0r Reiease A A A Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process A A A Deliberative Infernal D0 (fife, Quete 0r Reiease A A A Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Page 4 of 4 A A A Deliberative Infernal D0 (fife, Quere 0r Reiease A A A Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Page 5 of 4 DOCUMENT ED_001225_00000134 HAS BEEN WITHHELD IN FULL UNDER FOIA EXEMPTION 5, DELIBERATIVE PROCESS ED_001225_00000134 To: Brown, From: Burden, Susan Sent: Fri 3/24/2017 6:28:53 PM Subject: FW: New draft chlorpyrifos petition response Response @3211? met di5smdecx .htm Hi Byron, FYI. . .It looks like Wendy meant to send this to you, but did not use the right email address. Thanks, Susan Susan Burden, Special Assistant (0RD, OCSPP, OCHP, SAB) Of?ce of the Administrator US. Environmental Protection Agency Of?ce: (202) 564-6308 Cell: Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy From: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 2:26 PM To: Jackson, Ryan Cc: Burden, Susan Mojica, Andrea Subject: Fwd: New draft chlorpyrifos petition response Ryan, Here's the latest version I have. There are a few references, etc to be ?lled in. Clean copy ready for signature will go to OP on Monday. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Of?ce of Chemical Safety Pollution Prevention US. EPA Begin forwarded message: From: "Mclean, Kevin? Iov> Date: March 21, 2017 at 5:12:01 PM EDT To: "Minoli, Kevin" Subject: New draft chlorpyrifos petition response Attached is the new draft of the chlorpyrifos petition response, re?ecting input from OPP and DOJ, as well as additional work by Mark. (Thanks, Mark, for doing such great and quick work on this.) While some clean up remains, and Bob and I will be reviewing it as well, I think it?s ready for you to look at. Wendy?Were you able to connect with Samantha about the timing for how this should proceed, when does the ?nished product need to get to OP for signature by the Administrator? Kevin and Justin?As I?m not sure what the date is for having a ?nal package I?m not sure what to tell you in terms of review time for a precise date, so I?m afraid I just need to ask that you review and send comments back to Mark, Bob and me as soon as possible. The other Kevin DOCUMENT ED_001225_00000137 HAS BEEN WITHHELD IN FULL UNDER FOIA EXEMPTION 5, DELIBERATIVE PROCESS ED_001225_00000137 To: Schwab, Minoli, Cc: Brown, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Mon 3/20/2017 2:46:17 PM Subject: FW: Chloropyrifos Responsemdalalldac Justin and Kevin, I have reviewed this but in case you have not, could you review the draft and submit your edits/changes to Wendy? We need to get this completed and teed up for signature by the Administrator by the end of this week in order to stay on track for a 3/31 delivery. Thanks to you both, and happy Monday. From: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:57 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: Chloropyrifos Samantha, Attached is our ?rst draft of the order denying the petition. As such, please be aware that we are still in the process of editing. If you see typos or citations, etc. to be ?lled in, folks are working on those. Also, it?s been reviewed at the Associate General Counsel level (Kevin McLean) but Kevin Minoli and Justin Schwab haven?t yet reviewed. But I think this version will allow you to see how we?re describing the basis for the denial. The most relevant sections, describing our basis for denying the petition at this time, are on pages 8-9 and 38-41. As you?ll read in the notice, the Agency previously provided 2 interim responses. In 2012 we denied one claim completely and, in 2014, expressed an intent to deny 6 38-00001 other claims. In this document, we?re also ?nalizing the denial of those 6 claims to completely close out the petition response. The description of the bases for those earlier denials are cut pasted from those earlier documents. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process In the meantime, we?ll also work with OPA on communications. I?ve asked my coms people to hold off on preparing anything until we?ve settled on the substance. Always happy to answer questions or come over to discuss. Wendy Wendy CIeIand-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Of?ce of Chemical Safety Pollution Prevention US. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564?29 0 clelandmliamnett.wendv?lena?ov From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 11:04 AM To: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy @cpa. Jrov> Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: Chloropyrifos Great, thanks much! From: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:48 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: Chloropyrifos Samantha, I received the ?rst draft late yesterday and am now working through the 40+ pages. Will meet with OGC and the pesticides program at 11:00. Will get back to you after that. Wendy CIeIand-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Of?ce of Chemical Safety Pollution Prevention US. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564?29 0 cle1andwhamnett.wendv?lenanov From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:31 AM To: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Cc: Jackson, Ryan ; Brown, Byron Subject: RE: Chloropyrifos Great, thanks much! From: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:48 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan ?iac?k1sonm Brown, Byron Subject: RE: Chloropyrifos Samantha, I received the first draft late yesterday and am now working through the 40+ pages. Will meet with OGC and the pesticides program at 11:00. Will get back to you after that. Wendy CIeIand-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Of?ce of Chemical Safety Pollution Prevention US. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-2910 cle1andwliamnett.wendv?lenagov From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:31 AM To: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: Chloropyrifos Wendy: I?m checking in on the draft of the petition denial for Chloropyrifos. I know we still have a bit of time before the 3/31 deadline, but I?d like to know where this is in the process as well as take a look at how the denial has been drafted given the record, to make sure we have time to ask any last minute questions. Could you send over an update? Thank you very much. Samantha Samantha Dravis Senior Counsel Associate Adminstrator for Policy US. Environmental Protection Agency DOCUMENT ED_001225_00000141 HAS BEEN WITHHELD IN FULL UNDER FOIA EXEMPTION 5, DELIBERATIVE PROCESS ED_001225_00000141 To: Freire, Dravis, Bennett, Cc: Jackson, RyanLiackson.ryan@epa.gov] From: Brown, Byron Sent: Fri 3/31/2017 8:17:31 PM Subject: FW: FYI Pesticide Policy Coalition Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision fyi From: Sheryl Kunickis [mailtoi Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 3:17 PM To: Rebeckah Adcock Brown, Cc: Jackson, Ryan EX- 6 - Personal ?rivacy Byron ;l Brian Klippenstein: 5 Ex 6- Personal Privacy Ex. 6- Personal Privacy Kunickis Subject: Re: Pesticide Policy Coalition Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision Thank you! It is a great week for our growers and the decision is much appreciated. Sheryl Sent from my iPhone On Mar 31, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Rebeckah Adcock Cc: Bowman, Liz Subject: FW: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Byron: This is ready to go. Any last minute changes? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:46 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan <5acksonryan?cbenanoy> Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote He said go with it, I think. Text him From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:44 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan <5acksonryan?cbenanoy> Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote It may not, I just was double checking. I think JP is editing it now, but we have it t-ed up and ready to go out, as soon as JP gives the go. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:43 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Why does this need legal approval? RJ are you good with this? From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:03 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Are you with him/JP? I hadn?t heard from him. Who is the legal person that I should run this by? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz ; Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: Dravis, Samantha ; Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Admin. . Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Jackson, Konkus, From: Brown, Byron Sent: Fri 3/10/2017 11:08:52 PM Subject: Monday Agriculture Meeting Aqricuiturai Leaders Meetinodocx Basic info for meeting. Purpose is to reset relationship with ag leaders Byron R. Brown Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Of?ce of the Administrator US. Environmental Protection Agency Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Minoli, From: Brown, Byron Sent: Thur 3/9/2017 5:54:00 PM Subject: RE: question Hi Kevin the issue I wanted to chat about relates to chlorpyrifos. Ryan asked me to follow up on something that came up in a recent discussion he had with Wendy. She advised there were a Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Brown, Byron Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 11:31 AM To: Minoli, Kevin Subject: question Hi Kevin I stopped by but you were in a meeting. Could you give me a call when you are next free? My number is 564-1456. To: Jackson, From: Brown, Byron Sent: Tue 3/7/2017 8:40:24 PM Subject: FW: Motion Draft Jackson Declaration DGJ Draft Motion for Extension PANNAoacrdocx Fyi I left you hard copies on your desk. I had one follow up question for OGC about whether Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege From: Dyner, Mark Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 1:12 PM To: Brown, Byron Cc: Minoli, Kevin Schwab, Justin Mclean, Kevin Perlis, Robert Subject: FW: Motion Hey Byron, Nice to have you back. Attached are (1) a short motion seeking an extension to the 3/3 1/ 17 deadline in the chlorpyrifos litigation; and (2) a declaration for Ryan Jackson?s signature in support of that motion. Last Friday we discussed this with Ryan and he instructed us to prepare the motion and was on board signing a supporting declaration. Could you get these to Ryan? I?m happy to walk you through them, but they are pretty short and straightforward. The basic Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege Thanks. Mark Mark Dyner Of?ce of General Counsel (202) 564-1754 No. 14-727 94 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA and NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Petitioner, V. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. DECLARATION OF RYAN THOMAS JACKSON Ex. 5 - Attorney Client; Attorney Work Product; Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client; Attorney Work Product; Deliberative Process No. 14-727 94 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA and NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Petitioner, V. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MOTION FOR EXTENSION Ex. 5 - Attorney Client; Attorney Work Product; Deliberative Process 52-00001 Ex. 5 - Attorney Client; Attorney Work Product; Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client; Attorney Work Product; Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client; Attorney Work Product; Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Attorney Client; Attorney Work Product; Deliberative Process To: Dyner, Cc: Minoli, Schwab, Mciean, Perlis, From: Brown, Byron Sent: Tue 3/7/2017 7:17:52 PM Subject: RE: Motion Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege From: Dyner, Mark Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 1:12 PM To: Brown, Byron Cc: Minoli, Kevin Schwab, Justin Mclean, Kevin Perlis, Robert Subject: FW: Motion Hey Byron, Nice to have you back. Attached are (1) a short motion seeking an extension to the 3/3 1/ 17 deadline in the chlorpyrifos litigation; and (2) a declaration for Ryan Jackson?s signature in support of that motion. Last Friday we discussed this with Ryan and he instructed us to prepare the motion and was on board signing a supporting declaration. Could you get these to Ryan? I?m happy to walk you through them, but they are pretty short and straightforward. The basic Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege Thanks. Mark Mark Dyner Of?ce of General Counsel (202) 564-1754 From: Kime, Robin Location: 3513A Importance: Normal Subject: Chiorpyrifos Start Date/Time: Mon 3/6/2017 9:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Mon 3/6/2017 9:30:00 PM To: Bowman, Wilcox, Ferguson, Konkus, Cc: Dravis, From: Freire, JP Sent: Fri 3/31/2017 8:04:58 PM Subject: RE: New York Times inquiry, on chlorpyrifos Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 4:00 PM To: Wilcox, Jahan Freire, JP Ferguson, Lincoln Konkus, John Subject: RE: New York Times inquiry, on chlorpyrifos Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Wilcox, Jahan Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 3:01 PM To: Freire, JP Bowman, Liz Ferguson, Lincoln Konkus, John Subject: FW: New York Times inquiry, on chlorpyrifos Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process American Farm Bureau praised the decision because chlorpyrifos is environmentally friendly and it protects citrus, vegetables, soybeans and many other crops. ?Farmers nationwide depend on chlorpyrifos in managing their crops. it is widely and safely used for a wide range of crops, including alfalfa, citrus, vegetables, soybeans, almonds and others. it also protects hundreds of thousands of acres of grass seed production, where it controls aphids, cutworms and other pests. As USDA has noted, chlorpyrifos has been used as a part of environmentally friendly (integrated pest management) programs for nearly 50 years.? [Press Release, American Farm Bureau Federatierr, 03/30/17] The Corn Growers Association applauded the EPA, because the scientific consensus is that it?s safe and our farmers can?t be too reliant on a single tool to protect their crops. ?The overwhelming scientific consensus is that chlorpyrifos is safe for use by farmers, and we are confident that the pesticide review process will reaffirm this. Effective pest management requires access to a variety of treatments, including chlorpyrifos. if we become too reliant on a single tool, it can start to lose its effectiveness, and that?s how resistance develops. Farmers need access to many crop protection tools to ensure all tools can remain effective.? [Press Release, Natier?rai Gerri Grewers Asseciatien, 03/30/17] The Department of Agriculture?s Office of Pest Management said the decision was based on science and means Americans will have access to a full range of fruits and vegetables. ?This is a welcome decision grounded in evidence and frees American farmers from significant trade disruptions that could have been caused by an unnecessary, unilateral revocation of chlorpyrifos tolerances in the United States. lt is also great news for consumers, who will continue to have access to a full range of both domestic and imported fruits and vegetables.? 03/30/17] From: Milbourn, Cathy Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 2:53 PM To: RONI Subject: RE: New York Times inquiry, on chlorpyrifos Hi Roni, Did you receive the news release and the link to the FR notice? From: RABIN, RONI Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 2:23 PM To: Milbourn, Cathy Press Subject: New York Times inquiry, on chlorpyrifos HI 3 I?m following up on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's 3/29 order regarding chlorpyrifos, and wanted to have some more information about the basis for the petition denial. Can I please see the scienti?c report and/or briefing materials or any other documentation that he and his staff used as the basis of this action? Thank you, Roni Caryn Rabin New York Times (212) 556-8314 Cell: i Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy To: Dravis, Rateike, Bradley A. Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy From: Bowman, Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 10:38:20 PM Subject: FW: EPA Administrator Pruitt Denies Petition to Ban Wideiy Used Pesticide CONTACT: press@epa.gcv FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 29, 2017 EPA Administrator Pruitt Denies Petition to Ban Widely Used Pesticide Today, US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt signed an order denying a petition that sought to ban chlorpyrifos, a pesticide crucial to US. agriculture. ?We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos, while protecting human health and the environment,? said EPA Administrator Pruitt. ?By reversing the previous Administration?s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making rather than predetermined results.? ?This is a welcome decision grounded in evidence and science,? said Sheryl Kunickis, director of the Office of Pest Management Poiicy at the US. Department of Agriculture (USDA). ?it means that this important pest management tooi remain available to growers, helping to ensure an abundant and affordable food supply for this nation and the worid. This frees American farmers from significant trade disruptions that could have been caused by an unnecessary, unilateral revocation of chlorpyrifos tolerances in the United States. it is also great news for consumers, who will continue to have access to a full range of both domestic and imported fruits and vegetables. We thank our colleagues at EPA for their hard work.? in October 2015, under the previous Administration, EPA proposed to revoke all food residue tolerances for chlorpyrifos, an active ingredient in insecticides. This proposai was issued in response to a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Councii and Pesticide Action Network North America. The October 2015 proposal largely relied on certain epidemioiogical study outcomes, whose application is novel and uncertain, to reach its conclusions. The public record lays out serious scientific concerns and substantive process gaps in the proposai. Reliabie data, overwhelming in both quantity and quaiity, contradicts the reliance on and misappiication of? studies to estabiish the end points and conclusions used to rationalize the proposai. The USDA disagrees with the methodology used by the previous Administration. Similariy, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture aiso objected to methodology. The Federai insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panei (SAP) also expressed concerns with regard to previous reliance on certain data the Agency had used to support its proposal to ban the pesticide. The SAP is a federai advisory committee operating in accordance with the Federai Advisory Committee Act and established under the provisions of FEFRA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. It provides scientific advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-reiated issues regarding the impact of regulatory decisions on health and the environment. To view the petition: R044 To: Dravis, Bowman, From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 8:50:42 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote This is great. Most widely used in the world? That?s true? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:46 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote He said go with it, I think. Text him From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:44 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan <5acksonrvan@enagov> Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote It may not, I just was double checking. I think JP is editing it now, but we have it t-ed up and ready to go out, as soon as JP gives the go. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:43 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Why does this need legal approval? RJ are you good with this? From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:03 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Are you with him/JP? I hadn?t heard from him. Who is the legal person that I should run this by? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: Dravis, Samantha Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Jackson, Dravis, From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 8:51 :25 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Well, the stuff I had said it was, but I wrote ?one of? to be From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:51 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Bowman, Liz Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote This is great. Most widely used in the world? That?s true? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:46 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote He said go with it, I think. Text him From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:44 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote It may not, I just was double checking. I think JP is editing it now, but we have it t-ed up and ready to go out, as soon as JP gives the go. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:43 PM To: Bowman, Liz jrov> Cc: Jackson, Ryan <5ack.son.rvan@epagov> Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Why does this need legal approval? RJ are you good with this? From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:03 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Are you with him/JP? I hadn?t heard from him. Who is the legal person that I should run this by? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz ; Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: Dravis, Samantha Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Freire, Cc: Dravis, Konkus, From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 7:55:19 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Dravis, Bowman, Cc: Konkus, From: Freire, JP Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 8:13:27 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Actually, hold on a sec, am going to change one or two things. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: Dravis, Samantha Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Freire, Cc: Dravis, Konkus, From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 2:19:24 PM Subject: For Ray Review: Updated Release Can you please send this to Ray to review/edit accordingly? Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 8-00001 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Dravis, Konkus, Freire, Wilcox, From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 2:10:48 PM Subject: RE: Got it, thank you From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 10:08 AM To: Bowman, Liz Konkus, John Subject: Headline is too hyperbolic, tone it down. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Dravis, Freire, Konkus, Konkus, Cc: Wilcox, Ferguson, From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 1:46:15 PM Subject: For Review: Draft Press Release on Chiorpyrifos Petition Below, for review, please ?nd a draft release on order today on Chlorpyrifos. This language might be too strong, but I thought I would take a stab and y?all can edit/adjust as you see fit. JP I talked with Sam about this earlier, and John and I also talked about a plan to announce; let me know when you have a minute to discuss. Thank you Liz Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Dravis, Cc: Bowman, Konkus, Wilcox, Ferguson, Bolen, From: Freire, JP Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 2:00:03 PM Subject: Re: For Review: Draft Press Release on Chlorpyrifos Petition We will pass to ray once you're through looking at it. .P. Freire Environmental Protection Agency Associate Administrator for Public Affairs Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy i On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: Did you run this by Ray Starling at the White House? I will have some edits that I?ll send shortly. From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 9:46 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Freire, JP Konkus, John ; Konkus, John Cc: Wilcox, Jahan Subject: For Review: Draft Press Release on Chlorpyrifos Petition Below, for review, please ?nd a draft release on order today on Chlorpyrifos. This language might be too strong, but I thought I would take a stab and y?all can edit/adjust as you see JP I talked with Sam about this earlier, and John and I also talked about a plan to announce; let me know when you have a minute to discuss. Thank you Liz Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Freire, Dravis, Cc: Bowman, Wilcox, Ferguson, Bolen, From: Konkus, John Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 2:01 :50 PM Subject: RE: For Review: Draft Press Release on Chlorpyrifos Petition We are working on an outstanding comms plan to push this out. Really outstanding. From: Freire, JP Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 10:00 AM To: DraVis, Samantha Cc: Bowman, Liz Konkus, John Wilcox, ahan Subject: Re: For Review: Draft Press Release on Chlorpyrifos Petition We will pass to ray once you're through looking at it. .P. Freire Environmental Protection Agency Associate Administrator for Public Affairs MObllG'l Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: Did you run this by Ray Starling at the White House? I will have some edits that I?ll send shortly. From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 9:46 AM To: Dravis, Samantha ; Freire, JP Konkus, John Konkus, John Cc: Wilcox, Jahan Subject: For Review: Draft Press Release on Chlorpyrifos Petition Below, for review, please ?nd a draft release on order today on Chlorpyrifos. This language might be too strong, but I thought I would take a stab and y?all can edit/adjust as you see JP I talked with Sam about this earlier, and John and I also talked about a plan to announce; let me know when you have a minute to discuss. Thank you Liz Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Jackson, Dravis, Bolen, Gunasekara, Schwab, Freire, Bowman, Greenwalt, Ferguson, Wagner, Cc: Richardson, From: Bennett, Tate Sent: Thur 3/30/2017 2:56:59 PM Subject: FW: SEPW Complaint about Chlorpyrifos Noti?cation Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Freedhoff, Michal (EPW) [m Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:09 AM To: Kaiser, Sven-Erik Iov> Subject: Re: Noti?cation: EPA Denies Petition to Ban Chlorpyrifos I saw this last night when it posted. Could you suggest that more timely noti?cations would be appreciated in the ?xture? Thanks Sent from my iPhone On Mar 30, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Kaiser, Sven-Erik wrote: Heads up that EPA denied a petition that sought to ban chlorpyrifos, a pesticide crucial to US. agriculture. ?We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment,? said EPA Administrator Pruitt. ?By reversing the previous Administration?s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making rather than predetermined results.? ?This is a welcome decision grounded in evidence and science,? said Sheryl Kunickis, director of the Office of Pest Management Policy at the US. Department of Agriculture (USDA). ?it means that this important pest management tool will remain available to growers, helping to ensure an abundant and affordable food supply for this nation and the world. This frees American farmers from significant trade disruptions that could have been caused by an unnecessary, unilateral revocation of chlorpyrifos tolerances in the United States. lt is also great news for consumers, who will continue to have access to a full range of both domestic and imported fruits and vegetables. We thank our colleagues at EPA for their hard work.? in October 2015, under the previous Administration, EPA proposed to revoke all food residue tolerances for chlorpyrifos, an active ingredient in insecticides. This proposal was issued in response to a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North America. The October 2015 proposal largely relied on certain epidemiological study outcomes, whose application is novel and uncertain, to reach its conclusions. The public record lays out serious scientific concerns and substantive process gaps in the proposal. Reliable data, oven/vhelming in both quantity and quality, contradicts the reliance on and misapplication of studies to establish the end points and conclusions used to rationalize the proposal. The USDA disagrees with the methodology used by the previous Administration. Similarly, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture also objected to methodology. The Federal insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) also expressed concerns with regard to previous reliance on certain data the Agency had used to support its proposal to ban the pesticide. The SAP is a federal advisory committee operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and established under the provisions of as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. it provides scientific advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues regarding the impact of regulatory decisions on health and the environment. For more information on chlorpyrifos and the petition: Please let me know if any questions. Thanks, Sven Sven-Erik Kaiser US. EPA Office of Congressional and intergovernmental Relations 1200 Ave, NW (1305A) Washington, DC 20460 202-566-2753 To: Kreutzer, Dravis, From: Paui Schlegei Sent: Thur 3/30/2017 2:56:26 PM Subject: News release - Farm Bureau Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision removedixt David a Samantha i wanted you te the press statement we have issued. We?re very supportive 0f the Administrater?s decisieh yesterday. Paui Paul Schlegel Streetcar, Ehergy and Envirehment Team ?irect: 4363687 CQEE: Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Email: hauls@th.erg Contacts: Will Rodger Kari Barbic (202) 406-3642 (202) 406-3672 - karih'a-oftjrer" Farm Bureau Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision WASHINGTON, D.C., March 30, 2017 American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall today applauded Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt for rejecting a petition that would have eliminated the use of chlorpyrifos in agriculture. ?Farmers nationwide depend on chlorpyrifos in managing their crops,? Duvall said. ?it is widely and safely used for a wide range of crops, including alfalfa, citrus, vegetables, soybeans, almonds and others. lt also protects hundreds of thousands of acres of grass seed production, where it controls aphids, cutworms and other pests. As USDA has noted, chlorpyrifos has been used as a part of environmentally friendly (integrated pest management) programs for nearly 50 years.? Duvall noted that the chemical is still subject to registration review and any concerns about its safe use can be addressed in that process. AFBF earlier filed comments with EPA expressing concern over the agency?s approach. The agency had apparently relied on epidemiological studies even though researchers had failed to share raw data with the agency. own Scientific Advisory Panel, as well as USDA, had expressed caution about how the agency used the epidemiological study. -30- ATTACHMENT REMOVED This message contained an attachment which the administrator has caused to be removed. ATTACHMENT REMOVED Attachment name: [image001.jpg] Attachment type: [image/jpeg] To: Jackson, Dravis, From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 9:01 :33 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wednesday, March 29,2017 5:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:58 PM To: Jackson, Ryan ; Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:52 PM To: Bowman, Liz ; Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote 0k. As long as we have a foundation for that from a fellow chemical person. I trust you. From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:51 PM To: Jackson, Ryan Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Well, the stuff I had said it was, but I wrote ?one of? to be From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:51 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Bowman, Liz Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote This is great. Most widely used in the world? That?s true? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:46 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan rov> Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote He said go with it, I think. Text him From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:44 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote It may not, I just was double checking. I think JP is editing it now, but we have it t-ed up and ready to go out, as soon as JP gives the go. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:43 PM To: Bowman, Liz jrov> Cc: Jackson, Ryan <5ack.son.rvan@epagov> Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Why does this need legal approval? RJ are you good with this? From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:03 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Are you with him/JP? I hadn?t heard from him. Who is the legal person that I should run this by? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz ; Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: Dravis, Samantha Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Bowman, Dravis, From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 9:00:36 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:58 PM To: Jackson, Ryan Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:52 PM To: Bowman, Liz ena rov>; Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote 0k. As long as we have a foundation for that from a fellow chemical person. I trust you. From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:51 PM To: Jackson, Ryan ; Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Well, the stuff I had said it was, but I wrote ?one of? to be From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:51 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Bowman, Liz Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote This is great. Most widely used in the world? That?s true? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:46 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote He said go with it, I think. Text him From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:44 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote It may not, I just was double checking. I think JP is editing it now, but we have it t-ed up and ready to go out, as soon as JP gives the go. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:43 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Why does this need legal approval? RJ are you good with this? From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:03 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Are you with him/JP? I hadn?t heard from him. Who is the legal person that I should run this by? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz ; Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: Dravis, Samantha Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Jackson, Dravis, From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 8:57:31 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Reiease USDA Quote Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:52 PM To: Bowman, Liz Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote 0k. As long as we have a foundation for that from a fellow chemical person. I trust you. From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:51 PM To: Jackson, Ryan toy>; Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Well, the stuff I had said it was, but I wrote ?one of? to be From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:51 PM To: DraVis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote He said go with it, I think. Text him From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:44 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan <5ac?ksonrvan?cbcpagov> Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote It may not, I just was double checking. I think JP is editing it now, but we have it t-ed up and ready to go out, as soon as JP gives the go. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:43 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Why does this need legal approval? RJ are you good with this? From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:03 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Are you with him/JP? I hadn?t heard from him. Who is the legal person that I should run this by? From: DraVis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz <8owmanliz@cpa wov>; Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: DraVis, Samantha Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Bowman, Dravis, From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 8:52:12 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote 0k. As long as we have a foundation for that from a fellow chemical person. I trust you. From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:51 PM To: Jackson, Ryan Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Well, the stuff I had said it was, but I wrote ?one of? to be From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:51 PM To: Dravis, Samantha ; Bowman, Liz Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote This is great. Most widely used in the world? That?s true? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:46 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote He said go with it, I think. Text him From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:44 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote It may not, I just was double checking. I think JP is editing it now, but we have it t-ed up and ready to go out, as soon as JP gives the go. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:43 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Why does this need legal approval? RJ are you good with this? From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:03 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Are you with him/JP? I hadn?t heard from him. Who is the legal person that I should run this by? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: Dravis, Samantha ; Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Dravis, Cc: Jackson, From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 8:44:03 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote It may not, I just was double checking. I think JP is editing it now, but we have it t-ed up and ready to go out, as soon as JP gives the go. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:43 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Why does this need legal approval? RJ are you good with this? From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:03 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Are you with him/JP? I hadn?t heard from him. Who is the legal person that I should run this by? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz wov>; Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: Dravis, Samantha ; Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Dravis, Bowman, Cc: Konkus, From: Freire, JP Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 8:12:19 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Great, get it out. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: Dravis, Samantha Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Dravis, From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 8:03:28 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Reiease USDA Quote Are you with him/JP? I hadn?t heard from him. Who is the legal person that I should run this by? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: Dravis, Samantha ; Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Dravis, From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 8:01 :17 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Reiease USDA Quote JP said he was sending it, along with legal review, not sure yet to track him down. Do you want me to go ahead and send it to Ray, by replying to your message? Worse that can happen is he gets it again also, we have a stakeholder outreach list ready to go. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:57 PM To: Bowman, Liz Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ok so was this sent to Ray or no? From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: Dravis, Samantha Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Admin. . Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Dravis, From: Kime, Robin Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 7:28:46 PM Subject: This is the signature page only: Signed - Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and Petition to Revoke Tolerances Petition Deniai Chlorpyrifespdf A .pdf of the entire doc is coming your way From: Burden, Susan Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:15 PM To: Mike Jackson, Ryan Brown, Byron Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Cc: Mojica, Andrea Keigwin, Richard Strauss, Linda Hofmann, Angela Curry, Bridgid Kime, Robin Owens, Nicole Jutras, Nathaniel Mojica, Andrea Knapp, Kristien Threet, Derek Fonseca, Silvina Subject: Signed - Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances This afternoon, Administrator Pruitt signed an order denying PANNA and petition to revoke tolerances for chlorpyrifos. A copy of the signature page is attached. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Susan Susan Burden, Special Assistant (0RD, OCSPP, OCHP, SAB) Of?ce of the Administrator US. Environmental Protection Agency Of?ce: (202) 564-6308 Cell: Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Administrater*s Signature'on page 45 of 45 pages; F.RL-- 996037: Chlomyrifos; Order?enying and: Patitidn- t0 Revoke Tolerances Authority: 7 1336 et seq. and 21 346a.? Dated:- Scott Pruitt, Administratm. To: Dravis, Cc: Rees, Owens, From: Kime, Robin Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 7:02:41 PM Subject: Chlorpyrifos is signed, .pdf en route to you in a few minutes To: Dravis, Bowman, Freire, Cc: Wilcox, Ferguson, From: Konkus, John Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 2:14:17 PM Subject: RE: For Review: Draft Press Release on Chlorpyrifos Petition Yes. Stand by. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 10:11 AM To: Bowman, Liz Freire, JP Konkus, John Cc: Wilcox, ahan Ferguson, Lincoln Subject: RE: For Review: Draft Press Release on Chlorpyrifos Petition Can you give me a quick call about the comms plan? I am at my desk I have no idea what my desk number From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 9:46 AM To: Dravis, Samantha ; Freire, JP Konkus, John ; Ferguson, Lincoln Subject: For Review: Draft Press Release on Chlorpyrifos Petition Below, for review, please find a draft release on order today on Chlorpyrifos. This language might be too strong, but I thought I would take a stab and y?all can edit/adjust as you see JP I talked with Sam about this earlier, and John and I also talked about a plan to announce; let me know when you have a minute to discuss. Thank you Liz Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Samantha Cc: Brittany George Kenny, Kime, Pritchard, Nickerson, Corrales, Curry, Owens, Peffers, From: Sarah Rees Sent: Tue 3/28/2017 7:59:23 PM Subject: OP Policy Review - ORPM Of?ce Director Approvai Noti?cation (SAN 5993 - Notice/ Administrator's Signature Review #1 IOCSPP 'Chlorpyrifos; Final Response to Petitions') Approval for Administrator's Signature: Notice - 'Chiorpyrifos; Finai Response to Petitions' This Policy Review is ready for OP Associate Administrator Approvai. Link to Policy Review Document-> To: Schnare, Cc: Dravis, Benton, From: Mike Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 2:12:02 PM Subject: Re: Checking in Samantha, great - be good to have you join us. Will have foiks get this on your calendar. Mike Mike Acting Deputy Administrator US. Environmental Protection Agency (202) 564-4711 On Mar 8, 2017, at 6:58 AM, Schnare, David wrote: Mike and hold an afternoon meeting with selected AO staff to figure out what we need to get before the Administrator at the next morning's Chief of Staff meeting. You are welcome. The time of the meeting tends to bounce around between 3 and 4. Mike sets this up. l'm cc'ing him on this to ensure you are invited. D. Original Message From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 6:56 AM To: Benton, Donald Schnare, David Subject: FW: Checking in Good morning gentlemen! i'm not sure what the 3pm meeting Shannon is referring to is, but from now on I would like to attend that going forward instead of Shannon. Could you forward me calendar invitations? Thank you! Original Message From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daiiy meeting with David and Don today. We may want to taik more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent from my iPhone To: CIeiand-Hamnett, Cc: Kenny, Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 12:16:16 PM Subject: RE: Chiorpyrifos - Administrator Briefing Great, thanks From: Cleland?Hamnett, Wendy Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 7:02 AM To: DraVis, Samantha Cc: Kenny, Shannon Mike Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos - Administrator Brie?ng I just heard from Ryan that he?s looking at Monday afternoon. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Of?ce of Chemical Safety Pollution Prevention US. EPA On Mar 8, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: Apologies Wendy, I?m not sure where this left off and I don?t have a status update. Let me check with RJ and see where he is on this. From: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 6:54 PM To: Kenny, Shannon Cc: Mike Subject: Chlorpyrifos - Administrator Brie?ng Can you let me know status? Are we still waiting to ?nd out, or is it not happening tomorrow? Thanks. Wendy CIeIand-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Of?ce of Chemical Safety Pollution Prevention US. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-2910 To: Dravis, From: Schnare, David Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 11:59:57 AM Subject: RE: Checking in yes Original From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 8,2017 6:59 AM To: Schnare, David Subject: RE: Checking in Are you in the of?ce, David? Original From: Schnare, David Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 6:58 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Benton, Donaid Cc: Fiynn, Mike Subject: RE: Checking in Mike and hoid an afternoon meeting with seiected AO staff to figure out what we need to get before the Administrator at the next morning's Chief of Staff meeting. You are welcome. The time of the meeting tends to bounce around between 3 and 4. Mike sets this up. l'm cc'ing him on this to ensure you are invited. D. Original Message-?--? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 8,2017 6:56 AM To: Benton, Donald Schnare, David Subject: FW: Checking in Good morning gentlemen! E'm not sure what the 3pm meeting Shannon is referring to is, but from now on I would iike to attend that going forward instead of Shannon. Could you forward me calendar invitations? Thank you! Original From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, March 7,2017 5:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daiiy meeting with David and Don today. We may want to talk more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent from my iPhone To: Schnare, Benton, Cc: Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 11:59:00 AM Subject: RE: Checking in Original From: Schnare, David Sent: Wednesday, March 8,2017 6:58 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Benton, Donaid Cc: Mike Subject: RE: Checking in Mike and hoid an afternoon meeting with seiected AO staff to figure out what we need to get before the Administrator at the next morning's Chief of Staff meeting. You are welcome. The time of the meeting tends to bounce around between 3 and 4. Mike sets this up. l'm cc'ing him on this to ensure you are invited. D. Original From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 8,2017 6:56 AM To: Benton, Donald Schnare, David Subject: FW: Checking in Good morning gentlemen! E'm not sure what the 3pm meeting Shannon is referring to is, but from now on I would like to attend that going forward instead of Shannon. Could you forward me calendar invitations? Thank you! Original From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daiiy meeting with David and Don today. We may want to talk more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent from my iPhone To: Reeder, Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 11:57:58 AM Subject: FW: Checking in hope that have made this change Original Message-?--? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 8,2017 6:54 AM To: Kenny, Shannon Subject: FW: Checking in Shannon, Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Thank you Shannon. As always, if we need to discuss or talk please come on in. Samantha Original From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daily meeting with David and Don today. We may want to talk more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent?onwnwiPhone From: Rees, Sarah Location: 3513A Importance: Normal Subject: Accepted: Chlorpyrifos Start Date/Time: Mon 3/6/2017 9:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Mon 3/6/2017 9:30:00 PM From: McGar?and, Location: 3513A Importance: Normal Subject: Accepted: Chlorpyrifos Start Date/Time: Mon 3/6/2017 9:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Mon 3/6/2017 9:30:00 PM From: Microsoft Outiook Location: 3513A Importance: Normal Subject: Meeting Forward Notification: Chlorpyrifos Start Date/Time: Mon 3/6/2017 9:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Mon 3/6/2017 9:30:00 PM Your meeting was forwarded Kime Robin has forwarded your meeting request to additional recipients. Mae/timid Ch Iorpyrifos wide Monday, 06 March 2017 16:00-16:30. Wadi/dieata McGartiand At Rees Sarah timam item-id are in that?? timid Edna: Eaetarn fit ?andda) Sift-2rd tidy Mics/?0am Exahaaga tit/23mm From: Willis, Sharnett Location: 3402 WJC-N Importance: Normal Subject: Discussion on Chiorpyrifos (pre?brief for the Administrator) Start DatelTime: Thur 3/9/2017 7:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Thur 3/9/2017 7:30:00 PM From: Location: Importance: Normal Subject: Accepted: Chlorpyrifos - lnvitees Only Start DatelTime: Fri 3/3/2017 3:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/3/2017 3:30:00 PM Your request was accepted. Marti my M?eream? Exam age 203$ From: Kime, Robin Location: Importance: Normal Subject: Accepted: Chlorpyrifos - lnvitees Only Start DatelTime: Fri 3/3/2017 3:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/3/2017 3:30:00 PM From: Microsoft Outlook Location: Importance: Normal Subject: Meeting Forward Notification: Chlorpyrifos Start DatelTime: Fri 3/3/2017 3:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/3/2017 3:30:00 PM Your meeting was forwarded Ktme Robin has forwarded your meeting request to additional recipients. Weetimgg Ch Iorpyrifos Meeting; ?time Friday, 03 March 2017 10:00-10:30. Weeittiewm Aft timed Eiettitsd are in the time zone: Eeetern Ema: (tit; tit ?endde) titty-mt, Elk-y Mioreeoft Exohmge ?it-truer From: Nickerson, Location: Importance: Normal Subject: Accepted: Chlorpyrifos Start DatelTime: Fri 3/3/2017 3:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/3/2017 3:30:00 PM From: Location: Importance: Normal Subject: Deciined:Ch orpyrifos Start DatelTime: Fri 3/3/2017 3:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/3/2017 3:30:00 PM Your meeting request was declined. You don?t have permission to book this resource. ?are-m: its; M?mresm? Exam rage 20362} From: Inge, Carolyn Location: Importance: Normal Subject: Accepted: Chlorpyrifos Start DatelTime: Fri 3/3/2017 3:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/3/2017 3:30:00 PM From: Microsoft Outlook Location: Importance: Normal Subject: Meeting Forward Notification: Chlorpyrifos Start DatelTime: Fri 3/3/2017 3:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/3/2017 3:30:00 PM Your meeting was forwarded Inge! Caroiyn has forwarded your meeting request to additional recipients. Weetimgg Ch Iorpyrifos Meeting; ?time Friday, 03 March 2017 10:00-10:30. fifteeigiiteeftu Reeb Sarah Nickerson Witiiam Kime Robin Inge: Caroiyn Aft timed Eiettitsd are in the time zone: Eeetern Emit (tit; tit ?endde) titty-mt, Elk-y Mioreaoft Exohmge ?it-truer 225_00000959-00001 From: Inge, Carolyn Location: Importance: Normal Subject: Chiorpyrifos - invitees Only Start DatelTime: Fri 3/3/2017 3:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/3/2017 3:30:00 PM Contact Robin with questions 564-6587. To: Dravis, From: Paul Schlegei Sent: Thur 3/30/2017 4:35:17 PM Subject: RE: News release - Farm Bureau Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision Samantha i knew you guys must be swamped, but if yeu were abie ts find time en your caiendar when i eenid swing by with a ceupie ef feiks we?d be very gratefui. Thanks Paui Paui Schiegei Directer, Energy and Envirehment Team Direct: (292) 486-368? CHE: Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Emaii: pauis@fb.erg From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Thursday, March 30,2017 12:34 PM To: Paul Schlegei; Kreutzer, David Subject: RE: News release - Farm Bureau Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision Thank you, Paul for your support. From: Paul Sehlegel Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 10:56 AM To: Kreutzer, David Dravis, Samantha Subject: News release - Farm Bureau Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision David 8: Samantha - i wanted you to the press statement we have issued. We?re very suppertive 0f the Administrater?s decisien yesterday. Paut Patti Schteget Birecter, Energy and Envirenmeht Team ?irect: 4363687 Cg?: Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy; Emait: Contacts: Will Rodger Kari Barbic (202) 406-3642 (202) 406-3672 karib@fb.erg Farm Bureau Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision WASHINGTON, D.C., March 30, 2017 American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall today applauded Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt for rejecting a petition that would have eliminated the use of Chlorpyrifos in agriculture. ?Farmers nationwide depend on chlorpyrifos in managing their crops,? Duvall said. ?It is widely and safely used for a wide range of crops, including alfalfa, citrus, vegetables, soybeans, almonds and others. lt also protects hundreds of thousands of acres of grass seed production, where it controls aphids, cutworms and other pests. As USDA has noted, chlorpyrifos has been used as a part of environmentally friendly (integrated pest management) programs for nearly 50 years.? Duvall noted that the chemical is still subject to registration review and any concerns about its safe use can be addressed in that process. AFBF earlier filed comments with EPA expressing concern over the agency?s approach. The agency had apparently relied on epidemiological studies even though researchers had failed to share raw data with the agency. own Scientific Advisory Panel, as well as USDA, had expressed caution about how the agency used the epidemiological study. -30- To: Dravis, Kenny, Cc: Reeder, Schnare, Haie, Anderson, Dickerson, Connors, From: Mike Sent: Tue 3/7/2017 5:11:26 PM Subject: List of Requested Brie?ngs Priority Briefinqsdocx Hi Samantha, As you know, there are numerous brie?ngs for the Administrator that have been requested by the program of?ces, that Ryan has asked to setup, or may have been mentioned in the program of?ce brie?ngs for the Administrator (a couple of which you attended). To help Ryan and the scheduling team, I had folks put together a list of the requested brie?ngs (attached). The ?rst group are the ones that seem to be the most urgent. We?ve gone over this with Michelle and wanted to get your and your team?s input before sharing with Ryan. I?d like to share with Ryan later today so he can con?rm which meetings he would like to be scheduled with the Administrator in the short term. This is just to jump start getting key meetings on the calendar for the Administrator. I realize more discussions with Ryan will be needed going forward to make sure we have a smooth process with everyone involved who needs to be. Thanks for your help. Mike Mike Acting Deputy Administrator US. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-4 71] RAFT 3/7/2017 ADMINISTRATOR PRIORITY REQUESTED BRIEFINGS Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process GRQUPZ: Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process DRAFT 3/7/2017 Internal Deliberative Page 2 of 1 Do not Cite, quote or distribute To: Dravis, Benton, Cc: From: Schnare, David Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 11:58:00 AM Subject: RE: Checking in Mike and hoid an afternoon meeting with selected AO staff to figure out what we need to get before the Administrator at the next morning's Chief of Staff meeting. You are welcome. The time of the meeting tends to bounce around between 3 and 4. Mike sets this up. I'm cc'ing him on this to ensure you are invited. D. Original From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 8,2017 6:56 AM To: Benton, Donald Schnare, David Subject: FW: Checking in Good morning gentlemen! E'm not sure what the 3pm meeting Shannon is referring to is, but from now on I would iike to attend that going forward instead of Shannon. Could you forward me calendar invitations? Thank you! Original From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, March 7,2017 5:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daiiy meeting with David and Don today. We may want to taik more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent from my iPhone 225_00000969-00001 To: Dravis, From: Kime, Robin Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 7:48:03 PM Subject: Full Text - Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and Petition to Revoke Tolerances Chiorevrifes; Cbrder Denying PANNA and Petititien to Revoke Toieraneesedf Attached is the full text of the order. BILLING CODE AGENCY 1005;: Chlo-rpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and Petition to Retoke Tolerances AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). order. -- Y: In this Order, EPA denies a petition requesting that EPA revoke all tolerances for the pesticide chlorpyrifos under section of the Federal Food, Ding, and Cosmetic" A-et andcancel all olilorpytifos registratiotis under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Aet. The petition Was ?led 2007 by the Pesticide Action Network North America. (PANNA) and theN-atutal Resources Defense Council I This Orderis eii'ectite [insertdate of publication in the Fedetal Regitter]. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before [insert date 60 days a?oat tiara of pubitcatton in the edema! Regitter], and must be ?led in aeoordwee With the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178- (see 8150 Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY. ADDRESSES: jThe docket for this action, identi?ed by doekiet identi?cation (ID) number is available at f/uww regnlatt'ons. got or at the Of?ce Of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the I Environmental Ptotection Agency Docket Center (EPAIDC), West William e?emon Clinton Bldg, Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave, NW. Washington, oc- 20460-oo01. ?The Public Reading Room is Open from 8:30 am. to 4:39 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566?1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 3056805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at I i epa. gov/dockets. 22% FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Pesticide Re~Evaluation Division (7508P), Of?ce of P-e-stiCide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 120.0 Ave, 'Washington, DC 20460?0001; telephone number: (703) 347- 0206; email address: 0PPChIorpyr1fosInqumes@epa gov. it; SUPPLEMENTARY I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply .16 Me? In this document EPA denies a petition by PANNA ?and the NRDC to revoke pesticide tolerances and cancel pesticide registrations. This action may also be of interest to agricultural producers, food manufacturers, or pesticide manufacturers. Potentially a I . . . affected entities may inelude, but are not limited to those engaged in the .followmg act1v1t1es: . - -- . in Crop production (North American industrial Classi?cation System (NAIC S) a code 111), agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and ?onculture workers; g? farmers. a: 0 Animal production (NAICS code 112), e. cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy new cattle farmers, livestock farmers - - a a Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g. agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators, 9 Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g. agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers, greenhouse, nursery, and ?oriculture workers; residential users; I . This listing is. not. intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide-a guide for. readers regarding entities likely to be affected "by this action. Other types of entities not listed. in this unit Couldn'alsoibe affected. ?The codeshave been provided to assists you and others in determining Whether this action. might app1y to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding-the; applicability of this actionto a particular entity, consult the permit listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. HOW Can I Get TC'Opies lofIhis Do-cament and Other Related Information? EPA has; established a docket for-this action underDocket ID No. - 2007-1005,. Additional-information relevant. to this-action is located in the chlorpyrifos registration review. docket under Docket ID No, and the? chlorpyrifos tolerance rulemaking docket under Docket ID No, 0653. To access the electronic docket, go to select - ?Advanced Search,? then ?Docket Search.? Insert the docket ID number. where-indicated and select the ?Submit? button. Follow the instructions on the regulations-gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index availablein regulationsgov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, Con?dential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will bepu'blicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials ere available in the electronic I 5 docket or, if only available in hard copy, at the opp Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. 5- 4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg), 2777 S. Arlington, VA. The "Docket Facility is open. from 8:30 am. to 4 pm. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Dockct_Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805. C. Can 1 File _-an ObjeCIion or Hearingiiaquest? Under section the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (F U.S.C. 34mg?, any person may ?le an Objection to any'aspect of this order and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must ??le your objection or-reque-st a hearing on thisorder iniaccordance with ?the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt-by (EPA, you must identify dodket ID number 2007-1005 in the .subje-Ct line on the-?rst page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and mustbe received by the Hearing Clerk on or before [insert date 60 days 'rr??r date of publication in the Federal Register], and may be submitted by one of the "following methods: I - Mari]; US EPA Of?ce of Adrhinistrative Law Judges, Mailcode 1900R, 1200 Ave.,_ NW., Washington, DC 20460 - Hand Delivery; US. Environmental Protection Agency Of?ce of Administrative Law Judges, Ronald Reagan Building, .1300 Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Deliveries are. only .accepted'during the Of?ce?s normal hours of operation (8:30 am. to 4- pm, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should he made for deliveries of boxed information. The Of?ce's telephone number is (202) 564-6255. In addition to ?ling an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as Mom". described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the ?ling that does not contain. - CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is dCSC?bgd "in 1.3.1 above. Information not marked con?dential pnr-suantto 40 CF part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by dOCk_et. ID number 2007?1005, by one of?ng-following methods: 0 ederal.?RuI?making Portali h?p/hvww regulations. gov. "Follow the on-line instructions for I Mail: U.S..Env1ronmental Protection Agency Of?ce of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Public Regulatory Docket Ave Washington DC 20460-0001. 0 Delivery: OPP (Regulatory Public DOcket (7502B), Environmental Protection. Agency, Rm. One Potomac Yard (South Bldg. 2777 Dr. ,Arlingtom VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket?s normal hours of operation (8: 30 . am. to 4 Mondaythrough Friday, .exclud'mg legal holidays): Special arrangements I should be made for deliveries of boxed-information. The DOcket Facility telephone number is_ D. WhatShould bei Included in Objections? The objection stage is the second stagein the. petition under DCA section 408. This .multi-stage process is initiated by-a petitiOn requesting establishment, modi?cation, or revocation of a toleranCe. Once EPA makes a decision on a petition. and publishes its-decision in the Federal Register, the .?secOnd stage of the petition process is triggered. At this point, parties who disagree with decision, whether it is a decision to grant or deny the petition, may ?le objections with EPA to ?the decision "made. i? RR 2: The objection stage gives parties a chance to seek review of decision before the Agency. This is an opportunity for parties to contest the conclusions EPA reached and - the determinations underlying ?those conclusion-s. As an administrative review stage, it is notan opportunityto raise new issues or arguments or. present facts or information that I were available earlier. _On the o?ler-hand, parties inust do more than-repeat the ?claims in the petition. The objection stage is the :opportunity. tochallenge decision on the petition. An objection fails on its face- if it does not identify-aspects ofEPA?s decision believed to be in. error-and :explainthe reason why decision is incorrect. This two.- stage process insuresthatzissues are fully aired before the Agency-and a comprehensive record is compiled, priorto judicial review. 11. Introduction A. What Action is the Agency Taking? In this document, EPA denies a petition by PANNA and the a petition dated September 12, 2007, PANNA and NRDC (the petitioners) requested that EPA revoke all tolerances for the pesticide chlorpyrifos established under Section 408 of the FFDCA. (Ref. .1) sought the cancellation of all chlorpyr-ifos pesticide product registrations under section 6 the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide andiRod-enticide Act (FIFRA), 7 USE. 136d. 2 The PANNA and (the Petition) raised the following claims regarding reregistra-tion and active registrations of chlorpyrifos in support of the request for tolerance revocation and produCt cancellation: 1. EPA has ignored genetic evidence of vulnerable populations. 2. EPA has needlessly delayed a decision regarding endocrine disrupting e?'ects. 3. EPA has ignored data regarding cancer risks. A 2 ?at Nita 4. 2.006 cumulative risk assessment (CRA) for the organophosphates misrepresented risks and failed to apply FQPA 10X safetyfactor. [For convenience?s sake, the le gal requirements regarding: the additional safety margin for infants and Children in section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA. arereferred to throughout this response as the 10X. safety factor?; or siinply the safety factor.? Due to Congress? focus on both pre- and post-natal toxicity,- EPA has interpreted this additional safety factor as pertaining to risks to infants and children that arise due to pre-natal exposure as well as to expOsure dunng childhood years] 5. EPA has over-relied on reg1strant data. 6. EPA has failed to properly address the exporting hazard in foreign countries ?rom chlorpyrifos. 7. EPA has failed toil-quantitatively incorporate data demonstrating long-lasting effeCts ?om "early life exposure to .chlorpyrifos in children; 8. . EPA has disregarded data demonstrating that there-is no evidence of a safe level of exposure duringprewhirth and early-life stages. I 9. EPA has failedrto :cite or quantitatively incorporate studies and clinical reports suggesting Potential. adverse-effects belovv 10% cholinesterase inhibition. 10. EPA has failed to "incorporate inhalation .ronteg bid-exposure.? In this order EPA is denying the Petition in full. EPA proVided the petitioners with Mo interim responses-on July .16, 2012g andJul'y. 1.5; 2014.; respectively. The July- 16, 22012., response denied claim 6 (export hazard) completely and that portion of the - reSponse was a ?nal _-a-_genc_y action. The remainder-of the July 16, 2012, response and the July 15, 2014, response expressed intention to deny six other petition claims (1-5 I mm? I. ALIA, WisKWh?hW a masses m. Wis. Whis a amass and 10). [in the 20.12 response, EPA did, howeVer, inform petitioners of its approval of label mitigation (in the form of rate reductions and spray drift buffers) to reduce bystander risks, including risks from inhalation exposure, which in effect partially granted petition claim 10,] EPAmade clear in both the 2012 and 2014 responses that, absent -a request from petitioners; denial Of'thOSe six claims would not be ?made ?nal until EPA ?nalized its-response to the entire Petition. Petitioners made no such request. EPA is denial of those six claims in this order. The remaining claims (.799) all related to same issue: whether the potential exists for chiorpyrifos to cause neurodevelopmental effects in children at exposure levels below existing regulatory standard (10% cholinesterase inhibition). While these claims raised. novel, highly complex and unresolvedscienti?c issues, EPA decided it would nonetheless expedite theeregistration review of chlorpyrifos under ERA section and attempt to address these issues several years in advance of the OCtober 1, 2022 deadline for completing that review. Accordingly, EPA-also decided as a policy matter that it would address the Petition claims raising these matters on a similar timefrarne. Although EPA had expedited itsregistration review to addressthese issues, the petitioners were not satis?ed with progress in responding to the Petition and they brought legal action in the Circuit Court of Appeals to compel EPA to :either issue an order denying the PetitiOn or to grant the Petition by initiating the tolerance revocation process. In August 2015, the 9th Circuit issue-da ruling of the petitioners and Ordered EPA to respond to the Petition by either denying the Petition or issuing a proposed or-?nal; rule revoking chlorpyrifos. tolerances. In re Pesticide Action Network of North America v. EPA, 793 F.3d (9th Cir. .2015). ?wemerm ?We ?mmeWtiMM 25? On November 6, 2015, pursuant to the 91th Circuit?s order, EPA proposed to revoke all chlorpyrifos tolerances-based in part on uncertainty surrounding the potential for chlorpyrifos to cause neurodevelopmental effects the issue raised in petition claims 7-9. Following publication-ofthe proposal, the ??_Cncuit announced that it would retain jurisdiction over this matter and-on August i2, 2016, the enurt further ordered EPA to complete a ?nal petition response by March 31, 2017and madeclear that no further extensions would be grmted. On November "17, 20.16, EPA. published a notice of data availability that released. for public comment revised risk assessment that. proposed a new regulatory point of departure basedionfthe potential for chlorpyrifos to result in adverse .neurodevelopmental. effects. I Following axreview of comments. on both the November 2015-; proposal and the Nevember 2016 notice-of. data availability, EPA has concluded that, despite several years of study, the Science Iatimessingneurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved and that further evaluation. of the science during the remaining time for completion of registration . review is warranted to] aehieVe greater certainty as to whether the potential exists for. adverse neurodevelopmental effects to 0mm from current human exposures to chlorpyrifos. has therefore concluded that it. will not Complete the human health portion of the registration review or any-associated tolerance revocation of 'chlorpyrifos without ?rst attempting to come toa resolution on those issues. As noted, CongreSs has providedthat EPA must complete registration review by October 1, 2022. Because the ?Circuit?s August 12, 2016 order has made clear, however, that further extensions to the March 31, 2017 deadline for responding to the Petition would not be granted, EPA is today also denying all remaining petition claims. WW M3, B. What Is the Agency is. Authority for Taking This Action? Under section 408(d)(4) of the FFDCA, EPA is authOrized to respond to a section . 408(d) petition to revoke tolerance either by issuing a ?nal rule revoking the tolerances, issuing a proposed. rule, issuing an order denying the Petition. 111. Statutory and Regulatory Background A. andApplicable Regulations 1. In general. EPA establishes maximum residuelimits, or ?tolerances,? for peSticide residues in food and feed Commodities-under section 408 of the FFDCA. Without such :a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a. tolerance, a. food containing a pesticide Iresid'ue- is ?adulterated? under section 402 of the FFDCA and may- not be legally moved in interstate commerce. Section 408 Was substantially reWritten by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1:996 (FQPA) (Public Law 104?170, .110 Stat. 1489 (1996)), Which established a detailed safety standard for pesticides and integrated regulation of pesticide food residues under the FFDCA With registration and re? evaluation of pesticides under FIFRA. The standard for issuing .ormaintaining a tolerance under section of is whether it is ?safe.? _?Sa_feu is de?ned by to mean that ?_?there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result?om aggregate expoSure "to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other eXposm?es for Which there is reliable information.? While the authorizes the establishment of legal limits for pesticide residues in food, section 3(a) of FIFRA requires the approval of pesticides prior-Ito their an 9/ nan?m ?in awn \r-n namnw KW 5/ i sale and. distribution, and establishes a registration regime for regulating the use of regulates pesticide use in conjunction with its registration Scheme by requiring EPA reView and approval of pesticide labels and specifying. that use of a pesticide inconsistent w1th1ts label is a violation of federal law. In the FQPA, Congress integrated action underthe two statutes by'reqniring that the Safety standard under the FDCA be usedas a cr1ter10n1n registration. actions as to pesticide uses which result in dietary risk ?omre51duesm or section and directing that EPA coordinate, to then-eixtent practicable, revocations of tolerances with pesticide cancellations under (see FFDCA section Under section 3(g) of FIF RA, EPA is required _to pesticides under the FIFRA standard which includes a. detenninationfregarding the safety of enisting FFDCA tolerances every :15 . years under .a program. known as ?registration review.? The deadline for completing the registration review for chlorpyrifos is October 1, 2022. . 2.. Propednresfbr establishing, amending, or revoking tolerances. Tolerances are established, .aniended,'3or_ revoked by n?emaking ?under the unique procedural framework set forth in the a tolerance rulemaking is initiated by the party seeking to establish, aniend, or revoke a tolerance by means of ?ling apetition with. EPA. (See. FF DCA EPA publishes in the Federal. Register :a notice of the petition ?ling and requests. public cornn'1ent. A?erreviewing the'petition, and any comments received on it, Section 408(d)(4)_ provides that EPA mayissue a?nal rule - establishing, amending-or revoking "the tolerance, i5sue a proposed title to do the same, or deny the petition. Once EPA takes ?nal action on the petition by establishing, amending, or ?ag sis 233% \5 kiss? i ?Mn ?bk z; x? revoking the tolerance or denying the petition, section 40f8(g)(2) allows any party to ?le - objections with EPA and seek an evidentiary hearing on those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be ?led within 60 days. Section 408(g)(2)(B) provides that EPA shall ?hold a public evidentiary hearing if and to the extent the Administrator determines that such a public hearingfiSnecessary to receive factual evidence relevant to material issues of fact raised by. theObj ections.? EPA regulationsmake clear thathearings will only be- granted where his shown that there is genuine and subStantial issue of fact,? the?questor has identi?ed evidence ?which ?would, if established, resolve oneormore of such issues in favor of the requester: and the issue is 65determinative?? with regard to the relief requestedl"(40 .CFR Further, a party Inay notraise issues in objections unless they were. part of the petition and Ian-Objec?ng party must state objections to the-EPA decision and not just repeat the allegations in .its' petition. Com Growers v. EPA, 613 F.2d 266 (DC cert.- denied, 131 Ct. 2931 (2011'). ?nal order on the objections is subject-to judicial review. (21 U.S.C. 346a(h)(1)). IV. Chlorpyril'os Regulatory-Background phosphorothioate) is a broad?spectrum, chlorinated organophosphate (OP) insecticide that has been registered. for "use in the United States since :1 965. By pounds of active. ingredient, it is the :mO-St - widely used conventional insecticide-in the count-32.. Currently registered-use. isites include a large variety of food crops (including tree fruits and nuts, many-WES of small ?uits and vegetables, including vegetable seed treairnents, grain/oilseed crops, and cotton, for example), and non-food use settings ornamental and agricultural seed production, non-sresidential turf, industrial sites/rights of way, greenhouse and nursery productiOn, RM x? ?in :3 WW: @W?nw 1 (ng? sod farms, pulpwood production, public health and wood protection). For some of these crops, chlorpyrifos is currently the only cost?effective choice for control of certain insect. pests. In 2000, the registrants reached an agreement with EPA .to voluntarily cancel all residential use products except those reglstered for ant and roach baits in child- resistant packaging and ?re ant mound treatments. A In 2006, EPA completed IFRA section 4 reregistration and FFDCA tolerance reassessment for and the 0P class of pesticides. Having completed reregistration and tolerance reassessment EPA is required to Complete the next re- evaluation of under the FIFRA Section 3(g) review program by October 1, ?2022. Given ongoing scienti?cdevelopments in-thestudy of the OPS generally, in MarCh 2009 EPA announced its decision to prioritize the FIFRA section 3(g) registration review of chloi'pyrifos by opening a public docket and releasing a preliminary work plan to complete the chlorpyrifos registration review by 2015? 7 years in. advance of the date required by law. The registration review of chlorp'yrifos and the OPS has preSented EPA with numerous novel scienti?c issues that the agency has taken to multiple FIFRA Scienti?c Advisory Panel (SAP) meetings since the completion of [The SAP IS a federal advisory committee created by section 25(d) of FIFRA, that serves as primary source of peer review for signi?cant regulatory and policy matters involving pesticides] Many of these complex scienti?c issues formed the basis of the 2007 petition ?led by PANN A and NRDC and EPA therefore decided to address the Petition on a 'similar'timefrarne to expedited registration review schedule. Although EPA expedited the chlorpyrifos registration review in an attempt to sm%W KW as. address the novel scienti?c issues raised by the Petition in advance of the statutory deadline, the petitiOnerts were dissatis?ed with the pace. of response efforts and have sued EPA "in federal Court on three separate occasions to compel afaster response to the Petition. As explained in Unit EPA had addressed 7 of the 10 claims asserted in the Petition by either denying the claim, issuing a preliminary denial or approving label mitigation to. address the claims, but on June 10, 201.5, in the .PANNA decision, the US Court-of Appeals. for theNinth .Circuit signaled its intent to order EPA to complete its response to the "Petition and directed EPA to inform the court how and by when EPA intended to respond, On -June_30, 2015, EPA informed the court that it intended to propose by April 15,, 2016,__theirevocation of all chlorpyrifos tolerances in the absence of pesticide label mitigation that ensures that exposure-s be safe. On August 2015, the court rejected time line-and issued a mandamus Order directing EPA to ?issue either a proposed. or- ?nal revocation rule or a full and. final response ?to the administrative- Petition by- October .31, 2015.? On October 30, 2015, EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke all .chlorpyrifos tolerances which it publiShed in the Federal Register on November 6,2015 (BO-FR 69080). On December 10, 201.5, the Ninth Circuit issued a further order requiring EPA to complete any ?nal rule (or petition denial) and fully respond tothe Petition by December 30, 2016. On June 30, 2016, EPA sought a 6-month extension to-that deadline in order to allow EPA to fully consider the most recent views ofthe .FIFRA SAP with respect to chlorpyrifos toxicologyThe FIFRA SAP report was ?nalized and made avail-ablefor EPA consideration onluly 20, 2016. (Ref. 2) On August 12, 2016, the court rejected request for a 6-month extension and ordered EPA to complete its final action by WW ?r Wain Manama March 31, 2017 (Heifeetively granting EPA a three?month extension), On November'17, 2016, EPApublished a notice of data availability (N ODA) seeking public comment on both revised risk and water asSessrnents and reopening the comment period on the proposal to revoke .all chlorpyrifos (81 FR 81049). The cornment period fOr the NODA closed on January '17, 2017., V. Ruling on Petition This order denies the Petition On the nine remitting grounds for whiCh EPA has not issued. a ?nal denial that. can be the subject. ?of objections tinder section .of the FFDCA.. As noted in Unit 11, on July_16, denied as. ?nal agency action petitioners? claim 6 that the registration of chlorpyrifos created an export hazard for workers in foreign co-unn'ieis. [That response and the response of July 15, 2014, also included preliminary denial of petition Claims 1?5 anle (except to the extent EPA granted that claim) and responses to those claims are now incorporated into this order as set forth below I This uni-t also includes basis for denying petition claims 7-9. Each speCi?c petition claim is summarized in this Unit V. immediately prior to response tothe claim. 1. Genetic Evidence of Vulnerable Popuiations n. Petitioners.? claim. Petitioners claim that as part of reregistration decision (which was completed in 2006 with the completion of the org-anophosphate cumulatiVe risk assessment) the Agency failed to calculate an appropriate intra-species uncertainty 'factor within human va?ability) for chlorpyrifos in both its aggregate ?and cumulative risk assessments (CRA). They assert that certain relevant, robust data, speci?cally the Furlong et al. (2005:) study (Ref. 3) that addresses intra?s'pecies variability KM in the behavior of the detoxifying enzyme paraoxenase (POND, indicate that. the Agency should have applied an intra?species safety factor ?of at least 150x in the aggregate and cumulative assessments? rather than the factor EPA applied. Petitioners conclude by noting that applying an ?intrafspecies factor of or higher would. require setting tolerances below the level of detection, which therefore should compel EPA to revoke all chlorpyrifos tolerances. I b. Agency Response. Petitioners are correct that the. Agency, as part of the 2006 OP CRA, evaluated, but. did not rely on. Furlong _et. in setting the :intra-ispecies uncertainty-factor for that asses_sment. The Agency did not rely on the results of the data in the OP-CRA because these data do not take into consideration the complexity of GP metabcli'sm, Which involves multiple metabolic enzymes, not just In addition, EPA believes the methodology. utilized in the Furlong et a1. study to measure intra-species variability Combining values from multiple species I (transgenic mice andhuman) to determine the range of sensitivity within asi'ngle species . is not consistent with wellnestablished international risk assessment practices. Further, EPA believes that petitioners? assertion-that the Furlong et a1. study supports an intra- species uncertainty ?factor :of at least 150K is based on an analysis of the data that is inconsistent with. EPA policy and widely- accepted international guidance on the development of intra-species uncertainty fact0rs.. In 2008 FIFRA SAP did not support the use of the Furlong .et a1 (2006) study-alone an intra-species factor. For these reasons, and as further explained. below, EPA believes it is not appropriate to solely rely on the results _of the-Furlong et study, or petitioners? interpretation of those results, for purposes of determining the intra-species uncertainty 5% ?ram Wing i wanna WM an thian ?e factor. To determine that factor, EPA ?rst uses science tools to quantitatively characteriZe human variability in both exposure and and then determines the appropriate intra-species uncertainty factor to protect sensitiVe populations. Speci?cally, for EPA uses a physiologically-based pharmacokmetic (PBPK) model to account for human variability in the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) of chemicals based on key physiological, biochemicals and physicochemical 1 ts ofthese ADME processes, including the in?uence of PONI variability. Addressing human variability and sensitive populations is an important aspect of the Agency?s "risk assessment process. The Agency is well aware of the issue of PONI and has examined the soienti?c evidence on this source of genetic variability. PONI is one of the key detoxr?catlon enzymes of chlorpyrifos and 1s included as part of the PBPK mOdel used by EPA in the_2=014 human health risk assessment (HHRA) and 2016 revised - risk assessment. Speci?cally,- PONI IS an A?esterase which can metabolize chlorpyrifos- oxon without. inactivating the enzyme. (Ref. .4) Indeed, as part of the 2008 SAP, EPA performed a literature review-of PONI and its possible uSe'in informing the inn-awspecies within human variability) uncertainty This literature review can be found in the dratt Appendix B: Data Derived Extrapolation-Factor Analysis to the draft Science Issue Paper: Chlorpyrifofs Hazard and Dose .5) In sum, the Agency oonsidered.a_vaj.1.able PONI data from more than 25 studies from diverse I human populations Worldwide. I I The Agency focused on the polymorphism since it has been linked to chlorpyrifos-oxon sensitivity in experimental toxicology studies and, has been evaluated . in epidemiology studies attempting to associate PONI status" with health outcomes anneal ?a QWKM 9.31.1.1; his. Sinhalxam following 0P pesticide exposure; in adults and children (Holland et al., 200610111116 et al., 6). _[Note, Holland et a1 (2006) and Furlong :et al (20136) report ?n?ngs from the some cohort The 1 reference provides enzymes activities. for speci?c polymorphisms 1n Table 4; the Furlong paper does not report s11ch values and provides information primarily in graphical form] However, EPA believes that focusing on PONI variability .m .isolati0n from other metabolic action-is not an appropriate approach for developing a data?driven uncertainty factor. The Agency solicited feedback from the SAP on'the utility of the PONI data, "by itself, for use in risk assessment; the? SAP was? similarly-not Supportive of using _suchd-ata-in isolation, Speci?cally, the SAP report states: .the information on should not be used as. the sole factor in a data-derived uncertarnty factor for two main reasons: I) it is only one enzyme in a complex pathway, and Is subsequent to the bioactrvotion reaction; therefore it can only ?tnotton on the amount of bicactivotion prodHCt (i thot' 1s del1vered to it by and 2) the genotype of PONI alone is insu?iaent to predict vulnerability because the overall level of enzyme activity is ultimately. what determznes detoxi?catzon potential?om that pathway, thus it is - better to use PONI status because- It provzdes information regarding PONI genotype and activity Some of the doto?om- laboratory animal studies 1'11 PON knockout animals are using an unrealistic animal model ond?equently very. high dose levels, and do not re?eCt what might happen in humans. (Ref Based on adetailejdreview of the comments from the SAP, the Agency has determinedthatsuch data are not appropriate for use" alone. in deriving an: iota?species uncertainty factor for use in human health risk assessment; As indiCated by the SAP report, multiple factors other enzymes such 38134505, carbonylesterases, are likely to impact _potehtial populatiOn sensitivity, rendering the results 'of'the PGNI data, by themselves, insuf?ciently reliable to support a regulatory conclusion about the potential variation of human sensitivity to chlorpyrifos. - Sine-e 11132008 SAP, several epidemiOIOgical studies have been published that considered the association between PON Status/genotype and :health outcome. Ho?nann et a1. (2009) recently reported. associations between status and inhibition of in Washington. The . authors note that this study :re??llires. replicatiOn with larger sample size(s) and more blood samples. (Ref. Given the limitations 'of H-o?nannet al., the Agency has not drawn any conclusions. ?from this study. The. and/or CIT ?108_polymorphisrh at the promoter site have been evaluated recently as a factor a?'ecting birth or neurobehavioral outcomes following gestational exposure to.0.Ps. (Refs. 9, 10,11) These Studies (Eskanazi., 'et al., 201a (Ker Haney et at, 2011 (Ref. a 1 (Ref. 11)) were evaluated by EPA in preparation for the April 2012 SAP review. Petitioners further .:emphasize that the Furlong et al.- study supports an intra-_ species uncertainty fast-Oriiqf over 164K given the range of variability II's-een in that study. The 164x value is derive-dirom sensitivity observed in transgenic mice expressing human compared humanPONlR-192 combined-"with the range of plasma arylesterase (AREase) ?'om the Ineufbom with the lowest level compared with them-other with the highest level from 130 'maternal? newborn pairs from the CHAMACOS (Center for the. Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas) cohort. EPA believes it .is_ fundamentally at odds with international risk assessment practices to combine values from both mouse and human data to determine the potential WSPWEWKPAKW 2m WSW range of variability within a single species regardless of whether the test animals express a human 13le enzyme-As the .2008 FIFRA SAP explained, is but a single enzyme that should not? be. considered in isolationto predict the overall level of enzyme activity that may affect human sensitivity to a substance. Using a 164K intra- .- species uncertainty facto?rderived- from the Furlong et a1. study would take this practice one step further by relying upon Combined PONI values ?om different species with differing overall metabolic activity to derive the intra?species factor. EPA does not believe this approach is an appropriate means of determining the potential range of intra- species variability. Finally, petitioners?t'assertion that the Furlong study supports an intra?species uncertainty factor of at leaStl 50X is based on .an analysis of that study that is inconsistent with EPA policy and widely- accepted international guidance ?on the development of innit-species uncertainty factors. in deriving the intrafspecies 'uncertah?y factor in. its risk assessments, guidedby the principles of the .2005 il?CS (Ref. 12) guidance on chemical specific adjustment factors (CSAFS) and the 2014 Guidance for Applying Quantitative Data. to Develop Data-Derived Extrapolation Factors for Interspecies and Intraspecies Extrapolation. (Ref. 13). These guidances recommend that intra-spec-ies factors shouidbe extrapolated from a meaSure of central tendency. in. the population to a measure. in the sensitive population to 'exnapolate from a typical human to a sensitive human). To base the. factor on the difference between the single lowest and highest measurements in a given study, as petitioners suggest in this instanCe, would likely greatly exaggerate potential intra-speeies variability. That approach effectively assumes that the point of departure in an EPA risk assessment will be deriVed smasasasaas Wm from the least Sensitive test subject, thereby necessitating the application of an intra- species factor that accounts for the full range of sensitivity across a species Since EPA does not develop its PoDs In this fashion; the approach suggested by petitioners is not appropriate. in summary, the Agency has carefully considered the issue of PONI variability and determined that dataaddressmg in isolaticn are-not appropriate for use alone in deriving an inns?species uncertainty facior and that the issue is mere appropriately handled using model. Further, "the derivation of the value advocatedby the petitioners is based on combining values ?orn humanized .naiee with human measured values with a range: front highestto iowefst; the urlong et ah derivaticn-zisinappropriate and inconsistent with international :ris1t ass-essrnent practice. (Ref. 2) The 2008 FIFRA i SAP did net support the PQNI data'used in isolation. Finally, petitioners" statement that the Furlong e131 study supports an intra-speCies uncertainty factor of at least ISOX likely over-states pctential variability. EPA therefore denies this aspect of the Petition. 2. Endocrine Disrupting E?cts a Petitioners? claim, Petitioners summarize a number of studies evaluating the effects of chlorpyrifos on the endocrine system, asserting that taken together, the studies ?suggest that chlolpyrifos-m'ay be an endocrine-disrupting chemical, capable of - interfering. with inliltiple ho-nnones controlling reproduction and neurodeveloprnen The petitioners then assert that EPA should not have delayed consideration of endoc?ne effects absent ?nalization of the Endocrine 'Dijsruptor Screening Program (EDSP) (Ref. I 14) and should have quantitatively incorporated the studies into the chlorpyrifos IRED. 5. Agency ResponSe. This portion of the Petition appears largely to be a complaint - \Wnl about thecompleteness of reregistrgation decision and arequesttihat EPA undeitake quantitative incorporation of endocrine endpoints into its assessment of chlorpyrifos. The Petition does not explain whetherand how endocrine effects should form the basis of -a decision-to. revoke tolerances. The-basisfor seeking revocation of a tolerance is a showing that the-pesticide is not ?safe.? Petitioners have neither asserted that EPA should revoke-"tolerances- because e?'eCts. on the endocrine systemrenderlthe tolerances have ..petitioner.s suibmitted'a factual analysis demonstrating that aggregate exposure to presents an unsaferisk ?to-humans based on effects on the. endocrine System. Rather, theP-etition appears to collect anumber of studies suggesting that may have effects on the endocrine system and that EPA should have considered thosehealth impacts at reregistratiOn in a quantitative assessment. To the-extent that petitioners are seeking tolerance revOcation on these grounds,__ the Petition fails to pronide- a sni?Cient basis for revocation because, in addition to the preceding defects,.the cited data do not provide quantitative data endpoints/points of departure) that indicate endocrine e?'ects at doses that are more sensitive than the points of departureused in-thechlorpyrifos. risk assessment that are based on eholinesterase inhibition! "While the citedist-udies. provide qualitative information that exposure to chlorpyrifo-s may be associated with effects on the androgen and thyroid hormonal pathways, these data alone do. not demonstrate that current human expOSures from existing tolerances are unsafe. The Agency noted similar during its evaluation of information submitted by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) during its review of existing information as part of EDSP, as discussed below? Based on the review of that a as ?a \s Wantsasmam as f" ?as ?sis/?v ,oN is? data, EPA concluded diet the effects seen in those studies do not caii into question prior safety determinations supporting the existing tolerances; the data do not indicate a risk warranting regulatory action, and the petitioners have provided no speci?c information to alter this detern?na?on. . Consequently, the Petition does not support a conclusion. that existing tolerances are unsafe due to potential tendoeifine'effects. This portion of die Petition is therefore I I As petitioners may 'be aware, since. the ?ling of the petition, EPA has completed the evaluation (11111111111131.1101 under nosp, lee reamed under FFDCA section 403(1)) that meme 0111111111 15,2009, a-Federsi Register notice was-published in which-enlarpyrifos was included mthemltlal list of cheniicais (List 1) to receive 1 test 111111111. The EDSP program is a two-tiered screening and testing pregrarn, Tier 1. and Tier 2 tests. Tier 1 includes 11 assays in. the battery; these- data are intended to a11o'w EPA to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide active and other ingredients) have the potential to" interact with the endocrine system and cause an effect 111 hunians or wildlife si1?niiar to an effect produced by a ?naturally occinring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the may desimate. The purpose of Tier 2 tests is to identify and establish a quantitative, dosew response relationship for any adverse effects that might result 110111 the interactions with the endocrine system. I I 011 November 5, .2009, EPA issued Tier 1 test orders to the registrants of chlorpyrifos, requiring a battery of 11; screening assays to identify the potential to interact with the estrogen, androgensor thyroid hormonal systems. (Ref. 15) The agency received and reviewed all 11. EDSP Tier .1 screening assays for chlorpyrifus. On June 29, 2015, the agency completed the EDSP weight-of evidence Conclusions for the Tier 1 screening assays for List 1 chemicals, including In addition to the Tier I data, the evaluations considered other Scienti?cally relevant information (OSRI), incliIding general toxicity data and open literature studies of su?icientquality. In determining whether chlorpyrifos interacts with the estrogen, androgen or thyi'oid pathways, the agency .conSi-dered the number and type of effects magnitude and pattern of responses observed across and sexes. agency also considered the conditions under which effects occurred, in partiCular whether or not endocrine-related responses occurred at that also resulted in general systemic or overt toxicity The agency concluded that, based on 2 weight of evidenceconsiderations, EDSP Tier 2 testing is. not recommended for chlorpyrifos since there. was no evidence of potential-interaction With the estrogen, androgen and thyroid pathways. The. EDS-P Tier 1 assessment and associated data- evaluationireco'rds for chlorpyrifos are available online. (Ref. 16) This assessment further supports denial iof this portion of the Petition. 3. Cancer Risks - a. Petitioners? claim. Petitioners claim that the Agency? ?ignored? a December . 2004 National Institutes of Health Agricultural Health Study (AHS) by Lee et al. (2004) (Ref. 17) that evaluated the association between chiorpyrifos and lung cancer incidence. (Ref. '17) The petition summarizesthe results of the AI-IS study, stating that the incidence I of lung cancer hasa statistic-ally signi?cant. association with chlorpyrifos exposure. The Petition then asserts that these data are highly relevant and therefore should have been am ?$31 i ?x $2121 g: a *1 referenced in the ?nal aggregate assessment for chlorpyrifos or the 0P (ERA. Petitioners do not othemrise explain whether and how these data support the revocation of tolerances or the cancellation of pesticide registrations-5 b. Agency .Respoitse. As explained in the previous?ection, the'bas'is for seeking revocation lot? a tolerance is a Showing that'the pesticide is not Claiming that EPA failed to reference certain data 111 its risk assessment regarding carcinogenicity does not amount to illustrating that the tolerances are unsafe. To Show ?a lack of safety, petitioners would have to present Some fact-based argument demonstrating that aggregate exposure to poses an enSefe cereinogenic risk. Petitioners have not presented such an analysis. denying the__ Petition .to-revoke chlorpyrifes tolerances or cancel ehlorpytif?s resignations to the extent the ?Petition relies on claims pertaining to carcinogenicity. I. I. I I I Despite the inadeqnaey of petitioners cancer the course of the Agency 5 review of EPA has examined the Lee et at. study cited by petitioners (Ref 17 aniong other lines of evidence EPA has concluded that the Lee et a1. .mves?gation does not alter the. Ageneyf-s weight of evidence determination concerning chl-orpyrifos? carcinogenic potential, and therefore does not alter the Agency?s current cancer classi?cation for chlorpyrifos. Speci?cally, the Agency does not believe this evidence raises suf?cient grounds for concern regarding that EPA Should consider initiating action based upon this information that might lead to revocatiOn of the chlorpyrifos tolerances or cancellation tit-the Chlorpyrifos registrations. The Agency was aware of the December 2004 study cited by petitioners. While. Lee et a1. observed a. possible association between 'Chlorpyrifos use and the incidence of . a yr, lung cancer, the authors also stressed. that further evaluation was necessary before concluding the association was causal in namre.(Ref, 1.7) Additional .eiialuation is necessary because of pess'ihle alternative explanations for the Lee .et a1. study, which include unmeasured confounding factors or confounding factors not fully amounted for in the analysis, and possible false positive results due tetheperfomlanee of multiple statiStical teSts. .- I I EPA has beena' collaborating agency With the AHS since 1993, and continues to closely monitor the-AHS :literamre. The Agency is working closely with the AHS researchers to clearly understand the results of their researish efforts to ensure the Agency appropriately interprets these data as future studies are published Between 2003 and 2009 there have been six nested easemeontrol analyses within the AHS which evaluated the use of :a number of agriculnlral pesticides, including chlorpyri'fos, 1n association with speci?c anatomical cancer sites, in additidn ?to the previously published cohort study (Ref. .17.) cited by the. petitioners; As noted both the Agency and Health Canada-- have comprehensively: reifiewed these. data. Inaccordance with-the Agency?s 2005 Guideline. for Cancer Risk Assessment - (Ref. l8), chlorpy'rifos is classi?ed as ?Not Likely to. bezcarcmogenic to Humans? based On the lack of evidenceo?f carcinogenicity in male or female mice and male "or female rats. In chronic toxicity! carcinogenicity studies, animals received chlorpyrifos in their feed every day of their lives (78 weeks for mice and 104 weeks for rats) at doses thousands of times greater than any anticipated exposure to humans from authOrized uses. ThereWas no evidence of cancer in the experimental animal studies. Additionally, available evidence from in viva and-in vim) assays did not support a mutagenic or genotoxic potential of chiorpyrifos. ?Recently, the Agency conducted its own review of the six nested case?control analyses and one cohori study Within "the ABS concerning the carcinogenic potential of chlorpyrifos. (Ref. .19) EPA concluded with respect to the. AHS lung cancer results that the ?ndings are useful for generating hypotheSes, but require con?rmation in future studies. This conclusionis consistent with that of researchers from Health Canada. Speci?cally, Weichenthal et al. (2010) (Ref. 20) published a review article in Environmental Health Perspectives on pesticide exposure and-cancer incidence in the ABS cohort. Their review of these same studies Concluded that the Weight of experimental toxicological evidence does not suggest that chlorpyrifosis carcinogenic, and that epidemiologicinresults currently available from the AHS are inconsistent, lack replication, and lack a coherent biologically plausible carcinogenic mode of action. The authors did note associations-for chlorpyrifos and lung cancer in two separate evaluations. in summary, While there is initial suggestive epidemiological evidence of an association between chlorpyrifos and lung cancer to only form ahypothesis as to a carcinogenic mode :of action, additionalresearch (including follow-upAHS research) is. needed to test the hypothesis. Consequently, at this we. it. is reasonable to Conclude chlorpyrifos is not a carcinogen in View of the lack ?of carcinogenicity in the rodent bioassays and the lack of a genotoxic or mutagenic potential. The Agency concludes "that existing epidemiological data (including Lee et do not change the current weight of - the evidence conclusions. The Agency continues to believe there is not a suf?cient basis to alter its assessment of chlorpyrifos as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when a. \Kx . a ma multiple lines of evidence are considered epidemiology ?ndings, rodent bioassay, genotoxicity); therefore, chlorpyrifos cancer risk. would not be a factor in any potential Agency risk determinatiOn to revoke tolerances for chlorpyrifos. I 4. CRA misrepresents riSks, failedto-appbz Factor a. Petitioners claim. Petitioners assert that EPA relied on limited data and inaccurate interpretations of data ?to support its decision to remove the FQPA safety factor in the 2-006 0P CRA Speci?cally, the petitioners challenge the Agencyi's use of data from a paper by Zheng et ah (2000) (Ref. 21) claiming that, in contrast to the Agency?s analysis of the study data, the data does show-an obvious difference between juvenile and I adult responses to chlorpyrifos. Petitioners conclude by asserting that the Zheng et al. study suppOrts using .a 10X safety factor for Chlorpyrifos in the CRA. Agency Response. Petiti oners? assertions do-not. provide a suf?cient basis for revoking chlorpyrifos tolerances; As explained previously, the-ground for seeking revocation of a tolerance is a. showing that the pesticide is not ?safe.? The petitioners? claim thatthedata EPA relied upon Support a different FQPA safety factor for chlorpyrifos in the CRA does not amount to a showing that chlorpyrifos tolerances are unsafe. To show a lack of would have to present a factual analysis demonstrating that the lack of a. 10X safety factor in the CRA for chlorpyrifos poses unsafe cumulative exposures to the OPS. Petitioners have-net made such a showing. For this reasbn, EPA is denying the petitioners? request to revoke- chlorpyrifos tolerances or cancel chlorpyrifos registrations to the extent that request relies on claims pertaining to failure to provide a 10X safety factor-in the 2006 CRA based on the results of the Zheng et study. i ?\Kk WW Despite the inadequacy of petitioners? FQPA safety factor claims, EPA examined the evidence. sited by petitioners for me purpose (if-evaluating whether the evidence raises suf?cient grounds for eoncern regarding ehlaorpyiifos that EPA should cdnsider initiating the actions sought-by the'petitioners I In general, when the Agency eondnets _a cumulative assessment, the scope of cumudative. risk 1s limited in the common mechanism endpoint which' 1.11 this. case of the 2006 OP CRA, was cholinesterase-inhihinon, the primary toxieity mode of action for the OP st As such, for the QP CRA., experimental toxicology data inhibition were used fer developing relative potency estimates, points of departure, and informing the FQPA mfety. factor used in the 0P CRA. EPEA relied on brain data from adult female rats dosedfojr. 21 days orlonget for estimating relative potency and points of departure At approximately three weeks of oral exposure to OPs, inhibition reaches steady state .inthe adult rat such that continueddosing-.doesnot result in inereased inhibition. This timeframe of toxicity (2.17-days and longeti teas selected as there was-high eon?d?enee'in the potency estimates derived'fremfthe steady State toxicology studies due-- to the stability of the inhibition The Ageney? 2006 DP ICRA contained complete FQPA safety factor Myrna-(Ref. 22) whieh involVedconsidera?en of pref-natal and postnatal esperimental toxicology Studies, in additien to exposure . In the OP CRA, prefna?tsal I exposure studies in rats Show that the fetus is no more sensitive than the dam to . inhibition and the fetus is Often less sensitive than thedam. Thus, evaluating the potential for increased toxicity of juveniles from. post-natal exposure was a key cOmponent in determining the magnitude of the FQPA safety factors in the 0P (IRA. Furthermore, because characteristics of children are directly accounted for in the cumulative exposure assessment, the .Agency?smethods didnot underestimate exposure to I I. . In the 2006 OBICRA, each or was assigned a 1055: Porn safety factor unless. chemical-speci?c data on yOung animals were available to generate a data derived safety factor. To best match the relative potency factor and PODS based on- repeated dosing, the Agency. used repeated dosing data injuveniles for developing the FQPA: 'safetyfactors, the time elf-the 2066- CRA, the only such. data available were tram-the Zheng et "literature stady. - The petitioner's. are correct that Dr. Carey Pope of Oklahoma State University provided the; Agency with the raw data from the Zheng et a1. study, These raw data were used to develop the plot in the 2006 (JP whichwas reproduced in the Petition. Petitioners-accuratelynote that for other OPS doSe modeling approach was used and that no BMD values were reported for chlorpyrifos. In deter-mining the FQPA safety factor, petitioners claim that-the Agency misinterpretedthe brain data from Zheng et al. I As shown in the plot reproduced on page 15 of thePetition, the dose-response datain the Zheng et al._ study are. variable and lack a monotonic shape at the low dose end of the dose response curve, The Agency acknowledges that at the hi ghdose, the pups appear to be more sensitive. However, at the low dose end of the response curve, relevantfor human exposures and, thus, the cumulative risk assessment at Or near the 10% inhibition level), little to no difference is observed. Therefore, despite the lack sweets simmer i ?View see WW est k, with ?a we} . . .. estimates for the Zheng et a1. study, the Agency is?eon?dent in the value used to. address the common mechanism endpoint inhibition)_iaddressed_ in the 2006 CRA. Sinoe that time, the Agency attempted-"BMD niedel?ing of the 'Zlieng et a1. data as part of the 2011 preliminary HHRA (Ref. 23) which yielded 10w con?denoe .?sults due to the variability in the data Dow AgroScienCes' subrriitied a Comparative ohdlinesterase study (CCA) for chlorpyrifos. CCA studies are specially designed studies to compare the dose-response relationship in juvenile and adult rats. This CCA study includes two components: 1) acute,- sing-1e dosing on "postnatal day 11 and yeungadult rats and 2) 1.1-.day.ys of repeating dosing in rat pupsfrom and 1-days ofrepeated dosing in adult rats. The CCA Study for eonsideredby EPA to be and well?designed. The preliminary risk assessment for Chlorpyrifos reports BMD estimates from this CCA study. Speci?cally, for the. mpeated dosing portion of the study.95 mg/kg/day respectively for female pups. and adults support the FQPA safety faetor of IX for the Inhibition. endpoint used in the 200.6 ORCRA. As such, petitioners claims regarding theCRAand FQPA safety factor is denied. I i 5.. Over?relianee rm registrant data. at Petitioners? chitin-s. Petitieners-assert?that in reregis?tering e-hlorpyrifos EPA ?cherry pick whilst, peer?retriewed? dateij? favor O'fweak, iilCiULSu'y? . sponsored data to determine that ohlorpyrifos could?be 'rewre5gi?stered and food tolerances be retained.? As such, the Agency?s reassessment deciSion .is?not scienti?cally defensible. b. Agency. response. This portion of the Petition does not purport to be an independent basis. for revoking chlorpyrifos tolerances or cancelling chlorpyrifos registrations, Rather, this claim appears to underlie petitioners? arguments in other- se'ctions of the Petition. While petitioners claim that EPA ignored robust, peer-reviewed I data in favor Of weak, industry?sponsored data for thereregisttation of chiorpyrifos, petitioners do not cite to any studies other thanthose used to support their other claims. In general, petitioners didnot provide any studies in the Petition that EPA failed to evaluate. Since the speci?c studies cited by pe1itioners are not associated with this claim, but rather their other Claims, "response to the speci?c studies are, therefore, addressed in its responses to petitioners? other claims. However, EPA explains below why, as a general matter, the Agency does not believe it ?over?relied? on registrant data in evaluating the risks of .chiorpyrifos in its 2006 reregistration decision. In spite .of peti?oners? claim, the Agency does not ignore robust, peer-reviewed . a; data In favor of Industry-sponsored data. Further, EPA has a very public and well- a documented set of procedures that it applies to the use and signi?cance accorded all data a utilized to inform risk management decisions. Registrant generated data, in response "to FIFRA and DCA requirements, are conducted and evaluated in accordance with a nan series of intemationally'harmoniz-ed and scienti?cally peer-reviewed studyprotocols as designed. 'to maintain a high Standard of scien??c' quality and reproducibility. (Refs. '23 in? and 24). Additionally, to further inform the Agency?s risk assessment, EPA is committed to the consideration of other sources of information such as data iden??ed in the open, . in, peer-reviewed litteratme and information submitted by the public as part of the regulatory nastn mi? -z evaluation of a pesticide; An important issue, when evaluating any study, is its scienti?c soundness and quality, and thus, the level of con?dence in the study ?ndings to- cOntribute to the risk assessment. The literature was searched, fully considered, and provided additional information on, chlorpyrifos mode of action, phannacokinetics, epidemiology, neurobehavioral effects in laboratory animals,.and age dependent sensitivityto cholinesterase inhibition. Therefore, by evaluating registrant data 1n accordance with internationally harmonized and sc1ent1?cally peer?reviewed study protocols, undertaking thorough open literaturesearches, and considering information provided by the public, the Agency 1s con?dent that its assessment for .chlorpyrifos in 2006 was reasonably based upon the best available science at the time. of the assessment. Previous sections of this response to petitioners? claims regarding. the Agency?s inadequate use of "various data. only further highlights and supports the scienti?cally defensible results of theAgency?s aSsessme'nt. P-etitioner-s? claim that the. Agency overly relies tin-registrant data is therefore denied. 6. EPA has failed to properly address the exporting hazard in foreign countries- ?om chlorpyrifos. I I As noted in Unit July '1 6, .2012 interim petition response EPA issued a ?nal denial of this claim. That denial constituted ?nal agency action and EPA is not reopening consideration of that claim. 7. -9. EPA failed to quantitatively incorporate data demonstrating long-lasting e?'ects from early life exposure to chlorpyrifos in children; EPA disregarded data demanstratingthat there is no evidence of a safe level of exposure duringpre?birth and early life stages; EPA failed to cite or quantitatively incorporate studies and clinical i?h??xx ?an ,c a nae :n reports adverse e??ets' balew10% cholinesterase inhibition. a. Petitioners claims; The petitioners assert that human epidemiology and rodent develeipmenttal .neurotexicity data suggest that prenatal "and early life exposure te chlorpyrifos can result in longalasting, possibly permanent damage to the nervous system and that theseeffects are likely occurring at expesure levels below-.1 0% cholinesterase inhibition, existing regt?atory standard for chlorpyrifos and-tether 0P-s.. They - assert that EPA has therefore- used the-"wrongendpoint asa basis regulatinn and that, taking into account the full spectrum of toxicity, .chlorpyrifos does not Inset the FFDCA safety "standard or the FIFRA standard for registration. 5, Agency response. EPA has grouped claims 7+9. together because they ?mdarnentally all raise the same issue": tethethe?r the potential ?xists for _c'hlorpyrifos to cause neurod'evelopmental e?bcts in infants and children from expo-Sums (either to mothers during pregnancy for directly to infants and children) that are lower than those resulting in 10% cholinesterase inhibition. the basis for long-standing pointof departure in regulating chlo-rpyrifos and other While petitioners may perhaps disagree, "unlike the claims-addressed above, these claims Were nettruly challenges to - 2006 reregistration decisien for chlorpyrifos, but rather, challenges-to? ongoing approval of ehlo?rpyrifos under FIFRA and the FFDCA that rely in large measure ondata published ?after EPA completed both its 2001 chlorpyrifos Interim Reregistration DeCi-Sien and the 2006 OP CRA that-concluded the reregiistratic?. process for and. all other OPS. As matters that largely Came to light a?er the completion of reregistration, these petition issues are issues to be addressed as part of the registration review of Chlorpyrifos - the next round of reevaluation under section 3(3) of As petitioners are aware, past EPA administratiOns prioritized the registration review of the DPS in no small measure to begin to focus on the question of OP neurodevelopmental toxicity, which was, and remains, an issue at the Cutting edge of science, involving signi?cant uncertainties, EPA has three times presented approaches and proposals to the FIFRA SAP for evaluatingrrecent epidemi-ologic data (some of which 13 cited 1n the Petition) exploring the possible connection between in uteroand early childhood exposure to c'hlorpyrifos and adverse neurodevelopmental effects. The reports have rendered numerous recommendations for additional study and sometimes c0n?icting advice for how EPA should consider (or not consider) the epidemiology data in conducting registration review human health jriSk. assessment for chlorpyrifos. While industry andpubli-c'interest groups on both sides of tins issue can debate what the recommendations mean and which recommendations should be followed, one thing should be clear to all persons following this lssue: the science on this question is not resolved and would likely bene?t from additional mquiry. EPA has, however, been unable to persuade the Circuit Court Of Appeals that further inquiry into this area of unsettled science should delay response to the - Petition. Faced with an order requiring EPA to respond to the Petition-fin ()ctoher 2015, EPA choSe to issue a prepOSed "rule to revoke all chlorpyrifo'sltolerances based in part on g? the uncertain science .surrOunding neurodevelopmentaltoxicity suggested by certain i epidemiology smdies. The cumments EPA has received on: that. proposal and on ii Nevember 17, 2016 NODA suggest that there continue to be considerable areas of >2 as uncertainty With regard to what the epidemiology data show and deep disagreement over how those data should be considered in risk assessment. Although not a legal c-Onsideration, it is "important to recognize that for many decades Chlorpyrifos has been and remains one of the most widely used pesticides in the United States, making any decision to retain or remove this pesticide from the market an exn'emely signi?cant policy choice. In light of the this decision and in light of the significant uncertainty that exists regarding the potential for chlorpyrifos to - cause adverse neurod-evelopniental effects, preference. is to fully explore approaches raised by the SAP and commenters on the proposed rule, and possibly seek additional authorltatrve peer review of risk assessment prior to ?nalizing any regulatory action in the course of registratiOn review. As the 9th Circuit has made clear in its August 12, 2016 order PANNA v. EPA, EPA-must provide. a ?nal response to the Petition by Mar-ch 31, 2017, regardless of whether thescie-nce remains. uIISettled and irrespective .of whatever options may exist for more a complete resolution of these. issues during the registration -reView process. I While EPA acknowledge-s its obligation to respond to-the Petition as required by the court, the. courtis Order does not and cannot compel EPA to. complete the registration review of chlorp?ii?os in advance. of the" October 1, 2022 deadline provided in section 3(g) of FIFRA, 7 USC Although "past EPA administrations hadchosen to attempt to complete that. review Several years in advance of the statutory deadline (and respond to the Petition on the same time frame), it has turned out thatit is not possible to . fully address these issues early in the "registration review period, As .a result, EPA has concluded that it should alter its priorities and adjust the Schedule for chlorpyrifos so that it can complete its review of the science addressing neurodeveloprnental effects prior to - making a ?nal registration review decision whether to retain, limit or remove an XWW \noi ?Qx 3 anaemia .A ?Sghx this: ?We chlorpyrifos from the market. Accordingly, is denying these Petition Clairns and intends to complete a full and appropriate review of the neurodevelopniental data before either finalising the proposed rule of Qotober 30, 2011-5, tit-taking "an alternative regulatory path. denial of thePetitiOn on the. grounds provided above is wholly consistent with governing-law; petition provision in does not address the timing for responding to this petition nor dries it limit the extent to which EPA may coordinate its petition responses with the registration review" proviSions of FIFRA section Further, provided EPA .coinpletes mgi'stration review by October 1, 2022;, CongreSS otherwise gave the EPA Administrator the discretion to de'teiinine' the schedule and tinting for c-onipieting the review of the approidrnately over 100-0 pesticide active ingredients currently suhj exit to evaluation under section EPA may lawfully re? prioritize the registration review schedule developed by earlier administrations provided that decision is consistent With law and an appropriate exercise of discretion See Federal Comment-cations Commisszon 12 Fox elevismn Stations, S. Ct 1300 (2009) (Administrative Procedure. _Act does not require that. a policy change be justi?ed by reasons more substantial than these required to adopts policy in. the ?rst instance), Nothing in FIFRA section 3(g) preCludes: EPA from altering previously established registration Ire?ew schedule. Given the ahsence of a clear statutory directive, I Fir RA anti the Fr?mi provide neA' with discreg?om?tase snug account registration review of a pesticide "in determining how and when the Agency responds to FFDCA petitions to revoke tolerances. As outlined above, given the importance of this matter and the fact that Critical questions remain regarding the signi?cance of the data addressing neurodeveloprnental effects, EPA believes there is good reason to extend the registration review of chlorpyrifos and therefore to. deny the Petition. To ?nd otherwise. would effectively give petitioners under the FFDCA the authority to reorder scheduling decisions regarding the FIFRA registration review proceSs that Congress has vested in the Administrator. I 10. Inhalation Exposure?om Volatilization a. Petitioners .ciaim, Petitioners assert that when .EPA completed its 52006 DP CRA, .EPA failed to consider and incorporate signi?cant exposures to chlorpyrifos? sin-.tdrazag. air that egiSt for some populations in communities where .chlorpyrifos is applied. Petitioners assert thatthiese exposures exceeded safe levels when considering cholinesterase inhibition as a point of departure. and that developmental neurotoxicity may occur at even. loWer capesure levels than those resulting in ?cho'lineste'rase inhibition. .1). Agency responsa Tosthe extent petitioners-rare asserting that human esposure to chlorpyrifos spray drift and. volatilized Chlorpyrifofs present jneurodeveloprnental risks for infants and children,- EPA is denying this claim for the'reasons stated above in our response to claims 7-9. As noted, EPA believe-s "that, given the uncertainties associated with this identi?ed risk concern, the appropriate course- of action is for EPA to .deny the Petition and work to further resolve this area of- unsettle-dscience 1n the time remaining for the completion of registration review under section" 3(g) of FIFRA I {With respect to petitioner-s? claim that expnsures to spray drift and volatilized chlorpyrifos present a risk from cholinesterase inhibition, EPA is denying the. Petition for ?the reasons. previously identi?ed in Spray Drift Mitigation Decision of July 16, 2012 and interim response of July 15, 2014 ski/4% XYWW WW WW WW ?g addressing chlorpyrifos volatilization. 1n the Spray Drift Mitigation Decision, EPA-detennined that-the chlorpyrifos registrants" adoption of label mitigation (in the fonnof'label use rate reductions and no spray buffer zones) eliminated risk ?om cholinesterase inhibition as a result of As for risks presented by volatilized chlorpyrifos that may occurfollOwing application, July 15, 2014 interim response. to the Petition explained that recent vapor phase inhalation studies for both chlorpyrifos and ehlorpyrifos-oion made clearthatneither vapor phase Chlorpyrifos nor chlorpyrifos-oxon presents a risk of cholinesterase inhibition. Speci?cally, those studies, as indicated in memorandum, Chlorpyrifos: Re?valudtion ofithe Potential Risks from in Camideration ofChIorpyrifos Parent and 035011 Vapor Inhalation Toxicity Stadies (Ref. 25.), revealed that levels of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-oxon in vapor form are much lower thanthe levels seen in earlier aerosol studies that are better suited for evaluating spray drift. Indeed, no c'holinesterase inhibition was observed in either volatility study. What is elear from these .data. is that the air cannot hOld leVels of volatilized chlorpyrifos or its oxonfthat are capable of causing adverse e??ects from chOIinesterase inhibition. VI 'Reguiatnry Assessment Requirements As indicated previously, this action announces the. Agency?s order denying a petition ?led, inpart, tinder section 408((1) 0f FFDCA. As such, this action is an adjudication and not a rule. The regulatory assessment requirements applicable to rulemaking do not, therefore, apply to. this action. VII. Submission to 'C-engressand the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 301 at seq., does not apply because this mes ?sea, s3? new action is not a rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). IX. References The. following is- alisting of the document's-- that-are speci?cally referenced in this document. The docket includes-these documents and other information considered by including documents thatare reference-d within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the "referenCed document is not physically- located in the docket. For assistance. in locating these other- documents, please consult the techniCal person listed. under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 1. The Petition from. NRDC and PANNA and various responses to it are available in available at http://Www. regulations. gov. .. 2. Scienti?c Advisory Panel (2016). ?Chlorpyrifos: Analysis of Biomonitoring Data?. Available at: I 3. Furlong CB, Holland N, Richter RJ, Bradman A. Ho A. Eske'nazi (200-6). POletatus of farmworker mothers and children as a'predictor of organophosphate sensitivity. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2006 Mar; 4.. snltatos Marphy so, (1983). Kinetic Analysis Of The Microsomal Biotransfonnation Of The Phosphorothioate Insecticides Chlorpyrifos And Parathion. Fundemental and Applied Toxicology. 3:16-21. 5. US. EPA (2008).. Draft Appendix available at Draft Science Issue Paper: Chlorpyrifos Hazard and Dose Response Characterization. August 21.. 2-008. new 5 2? Wien?m? ?en WWV AW 5? Available. at 6. Holland, N., Furlong, Began, Richter, Bradman, A., Hnen, K., Beckman, K., and EskenaziaiB. (2006). Paraoxonase polymorphisms, haplotypes, and. enzyme activity. in Latino mothers and newborns. Environ Health Perspect. 114(7), 9-85- 991; Chen, J., Chan, Berkowitz, and Wetlnur, J. (2003). Increased InfluenCe of Genetic Variation? an Activity inNeonates. Envirnnmen'tal Health Perspective 11:1403-9. - 7. US. EPA (2008). Transmittal of Meeting ?Minutes oftheFIFRA Scienti?c . Advisory Panel MeetingHe-ld Sentember 16-18, 2008? onithe Agency?s Evaluation of the Toxicity Pro?le of Chlorpyrifos. Available at? http://mvw. at 61. 8. Engel,S.M., wetr'nm, ., 21111, BoydBar?r, Can?eld, KL, Wolff, (2011) Frenatal Exposure to 0rganophoSplsates, Paraoxonase 1, and Cognitive Development inChil-dhood Environ HealthPerspect 1192118241188 (2011). [Online 21. April 2011]. I 9. Hofmann, .J.N., Keifer, Furlong, Denoos, A.J.., Fer-111., F.M., Fenske, R.A., van Belle, (3., CheckOway, (2009) Serum in Relation to Paraoxonase-l (PONI) Status among?OrganophOSphateeEnposed Agricultural Pesticide Handlers Environ Health Perspect 117: 140241 408 (2009). doi: 10 1289/ehp. 0900682. Available at http: lldx. doi org] [Unline 9 June 2009]. 10.. Eskenazi,B; Huen, K., Marks, A., Harley, K.G., Bradman, Boyd Barr, Holland, N. (2010) and Neurodevelopment in Children from the as Hm x. as. ?$54 . 4W Study Exposed to Organophosphate Pesticides in Utero. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol 118 (-12): 1775?1781). 11. Harley KG, Huen K, Schall RA, Holland NT, Bradman A, et al. (201 1) Association of Organopbosphate Pesticide Exposure and Baraoxonase with Birth Outcome in Mexican?Arnerican Women. e23 923. 12. IPCS (International PrograMe-o.n Chemical Safety) 2005. Chemical-Speci?c Adjustment. FactOrs .for :Lnterspecies Di??erence-s and Human Variability: Guidance . Document for Use of Data in Dose/ConcentratioanBSponse Assessment. Harmonization Project Document No. 2. World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety, Geneva, Switzerland. . 13. US. EBA (2014). Guidance for Applying Quantitative Data? to Develop Data- Derived Extrapolation Factors for Interspecies and Intraspecies Extrapolation. Available at 14. For additional information on the Endocrine Disruptor Screening program see- . I 15. For information related to the status of EDSP=test orders/DCIs, status of EDSP OSRI: order recipientsubmissions and EPA responses, and other EDSP assay infOrmation see '16. For available Data Evaluation Records (DERS) for EDSP Tier 1, see ti Wm%mk Wmet ?Bat Ease. BX screening-detenmnetioneend1 . 17. Heppin 1A, Lubin .1 H, Rusiecki JA, 831111131 DP, Dosemeci M, Alavanja MC. (2004) Cancer incidence? among pes?eide applicaters expesedto chlorpyrifes inthe I Agricultural Health Study. 1.11311 Cancer Inst, 96(23), 11814789. (hereina?ef Lee eta]. 2004). I 18. 11.3. 31330005). Guidelines 11.10.111.131 Risk Assessment. Available at http:/Mww. 05.PDF. I I I 19. (21111) 13388167,C111111pynfos Carcinogenicity: Review of Evidence from the U. 113131111131 Health Study (AHS) Ep1dem1010glc Evaluations 2003 32009. . . . 20. Weie??t?als, Moase C, C11311 (2011)). A review Of peStieide ekposu?re 31:1d ca?cer incidence 111-the health study-111111011. Cien, Sande C0161. 21112 3113701255470. 11111311111111.1111): 22213559. 21 . 211mg Q, Olivier K, Won YK, Pope CN. (211110), Comparative choline-git: - neuromxicity of eXp'osures 11:1 preewee?ing and adult rats. 0111901031111 Science's. 55(1): 124-112. I '22. For additional. infomation on the: organepheiephate cumulative risk assessment, see 1111p. cr11__ main 23. EPA (2011) Prelmnary Human Health As5essment for Registration. Available' 111 decke?t 1111111111131: (23) For additional infometion 011 Harmonized Test Guidelines and . ,1 international c?o?s at harmonization, see re glarions. gav i? docket I (24) Available 0850. ED 001225 00000971-00044 Administrator?s Signature on page 45 of 45pages; m- 996047: Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and Petition to Revoke Tolerances Auth?rity: 7 U.S.C. 13-6 et seq. and 21 u.s.c. 346a. E. Scott Pmitt, Administrator. I ?f To: Dravis, From: Mike Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 6:43:20 PM Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos - TEME SENSITIVE Yes, 1?11 get on it Mike Acting Deputy Administrator US. Environmental Protection Agency (202) 564-471 1 On Mar 29, 2017, at 2: 15 PM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 2:14 PM To: Reeder, John Jackson, Ryan Kime, Robin Subject: Chlorpyrifos - TIME SENSITIVE A11 9 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Thanks for your attention to this. Samantha To: Freire, Bennett, Dravis, From: Schwab, Justin Sent: Mon 3/27/2017 1:30:25 PM Subject: Fwd: 2017 Consent Decree table 2.16.17.docx 2017 Consent Decree tabie 2.16:1Tdecx ATT00001 .htm Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: enaeev> Date: March 26, 2017 at 6:23:26 PM EDT To: Ryan Jackson , "Sarah Greenwalt? Subject: Fw: Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances - Electronic Copy of Final Versions Status of the order below, and copy attached. Hope you all have a good weekend. From: Hofmann, Angela Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 5:09 PM To: CIeIand-Hamnett, Wendy; Wise, Louise Cc: Mojica, Andrea; Friedman, Dana; Chun, Melissa; Keigwin, Richard; Dyner, Mark; Guilaran, Yu?Ting; Smith, Charles; Costello, Kevin; Strauss, Linda; Dunton, Cheryl Subject: Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances - Electronic Copy of Final Versions Hi Wendy, I just dropped off the final signature package with Andrea. Attached is an electronic copy in case you want another look or want to share it with others. I have things lined up with OP to get the package to them in the morning on Monday, and they are ready to process it with deadline in mind. Susan is ready to track it once i get it to OP and will coordinate getting it signed on time and back to us - Angela To: Dravis, Cc: Rees, Kenny, Kime, From: Torma, Tim Sent: Fri 3/24/2017 10:40:18 PM Subject: RE: items for 03/27 8:00 AM Meeting Use this file instead Tonics for {33?27?2017 Administrator meetinedocx Sorry, made a few canes after I sent the last version. Please use this one. From: Torma, Tim Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 6:28 PM To: DraVis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Kenny, Shannon Kime, Robin Subject: Items for 03/27 8:00 AM Meeting Samantha, Attached is a ?le with some items to consider for the 8 AM Monday. Hard copies are in your chair. There are many additional items in the weekly reports we can work through next week. Have a great weekend. TT Daily Hot Topics 03/23/2017 Summary&Context Action Deadline or Next Step Required? miiestone da Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process The Agency 5 court-ordered deadilne for response to the chlorpyrifos petition is next Friday, March 31, 2017. OCSPP wiil get the signature package to OP by Monday, March 27, 2017 for the Administrator?s signature. We are working with CPA and OCIR on com Senate EPW Wednesday, March 29, 2017- Hearing before the Senate Awareness Hearings Environment and Pubiic Works Committee on "Cleanup of Cold War iegacy sites under the Formeriy Used Defense Sites (FUDS) program, the Formerly Sites Remediai Action Program (FUSRAP), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Act (CERCLA). Witness: Barry Breen, Acting Assistant Administrator for Land and Page 1 of 3 Emergency Management. I Tuesday, March 28, 2017 - Senate Committee Environment Pubiic Works Legisiative Hearing on: S. 518, a biil to amend the Federai Water Poiiution Controi Act to provide for technical assistance for smaii treatment works; S. 692, the "Water Infrastructure Fiexibility Act of 2017;? and 5.675, the ?Long lsiand Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act? - No EPA Witness (Statement requested) ORDDiscussion Last week ORD coordinated a follow-up discussion with Oklahoma WAwareness/goo with Okiahoma DEQ and ORD scientists on potentiai technoiogies and indicators news on Delineating that may assist the state in delineating chlorinated solvent piumes Chlorinated and help reduce costs to investigate dry cieaners and Solvent Plumes manufacturers that use chlorinated solvents. East Chicago: The Acting RA and the Commissioner meet in Indiana on March Robin R. to make Acting RA to 24 to discuss ongoing coordination of EPA and activities in sure Tate is Meet with East Chicago. aware. Indiana 0 Region 5 and the State have worked together on a robust set of Department of responses to drinking water issues in East Chicago. Environmental - The responses wiil focus on protection of residents, and Management aiso be helpfui in answering the Safe Drinking Water Commissioner Emergency Order Petition EPA received on March 2, 2017. The coordination of drinking water activities and the dovetailing of remediation and iead service line replacement will be a specific focus of the meeting. Gold King Mine This week Regions 8, 6 and 9 notified interested states and tribes of Awareness (GKM) Spring plans for April 2017 sampiing of water and sediment in the Run-off Animas and San Juan Rivers to further assess impacts of spring run- Sampling off on the GKM reiease. Page 2 of 3 States and tribes may accompany the sampiing crews. This work? being coordin ted Wig Dand OW. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Page 3 of 3 To: Dravis, Cc: Rees, Kenny, Kime, From: Torma, Tim Sent: Fri 3/24/2017 10:27:48 PM Subject: Items for 03/27 8:00 AM Meeting Toeies for 03?27?2517 Administrator meetinqdoex Samantha, Attached is a ?le with some items to consider for the 8 AM Monday. Hard copies are in your chair. There are many additional items in the weekly reports we can work through next week. Have a great weekend. TT Daily Hot Topics 03/23/2017 Summary Context Action Required? Deadline or miiestone da Next Step Senate EPW Hearings The Agency 5 court-ordered deadime for response to the chlorpyrifos petition is next Friday, March 31, 2017. OCSPP wiil get the signature package to OP by Monday, March 27, 2017 for the Administrator?s signature. We are working with CPA and OCIR on comm nica 'ons. Wednesday, March 29, 2017- Hearing before the Senate Environment and Pubiic Works Committee on "Cleanup of Cold War iegacy sites under the Formeriy Used Defense Sites (FUDS) program, the Formerly Sites Remediai Action Program (FUSRAP), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Act (CERCLA). Witness: Barry Breen, Acting Assistant Administrator for Land and Awareness Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Page 1 of 3 Emergency Management. I Tuesday, March 28, 2017 - Senate Committee Environment Pubiic Works Legisiative Hearing on: S. 518, a biil to amend the Federai Water Poiiution Controi Act to provide for technical assistance for smaii treatment works; S. 692, the "Water Infrastructure Fiexibility Act of 2017;? and 5.675, the ?Long lsiand Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act? - No EPA Witness (Statement requested) ORDDiscussion Last week ORD coordinated a follow-up discussion with Oklahoma WAwareness/goo with Okiahoma DEQ and ORD scientists on potentiai technoiogies and indicators news on Delineating that may assist the state in delineating chlorinated solvent piumes Chlorinated and help reduce costs to investigate dry cieaners and Solvent Plumes manufacturers that use chlorinated solvents. East Chicago: The Acting RA and the Commissioner meet in Indiana on March Robin R. to make Acting RA to 24 to discuss ongoing coordination of EPA and activities in sure Tate is Meet with East Chicago. aware. Indiana 0 Region 5 and the State have worked together on a robust set of Department of responses to drinking water issues in East Chicago. Environmental - The responses wiil focus on protection of residents, and Management aiso be helpfui in answering the Safe Drinking Water Commissioner Emergency Order Petition EPA received on March 2, 2017. The coordination of drinking water activities and the dovetailing of remediation and iead service line replacement will be a specific focus of the meeting. Gold King Mine This week Regions 8, 6 and 9 notified interested states and tribes of Awareness (GKM) Spring plans for April 2017 sampiing of water and sediment in the Run-off Animas and San Juan Rivers to further assess impacts of spring run- Sampling off on the GKM reiease. Page 2 of 3 States and tribes may accompany the sampiing crews. This work is being coordinated OW. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Page 3 of 3 To: Weekly Report Cc: Schwab, Greenwalt, Gunasekara, Brown, Packard, Knapp, Aibores, Trudeau, Prabhu, CIeiand-Hamnett, Dunham, Dravis, Breen, Shapiro, Thomas, Nishida, From: Minoli, Kevin Sent: Fri 3/24/2017 12:58:52 AM Subject: OGC Weekly Report OGC Weekly Report 3.23.17docx Attached is OGC's Weekly Report. Also available upon request are the following: 1. List of litigation deadlines for the next 90 days 2. Detailed list of litigation and similar deadlines over the next two weeks 3. Court ordered, settlement, and consent decree deadlines through 2017 Thanks, Kevin Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsei Office of General Counsei US Environmental Protection Agency Office Line: 202-564?8040 Direct Dial: 202-564-5551 OGC Weekly Report Upcoming Public Events in the Next Two Weeks 3/27 COS Jackson, OGC, OP, and OAR meeting with representatives from Murray Energy Upcoming Major Deadlines in the Next Two Weeks Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Last Week Highiights 0 Thirty OGC empioyees voiunteered to answer main line in response to increased caii volume 0 The Federai Laboratory Consortium seiected scientists from ORD and attorneys from OGC to receive an award for their efforts to invent, patent, and then make avaiiable ?NoMonia,? which removes ammonia and other poliutants from water 0 Court order requiring EPA to compiete 13 risk and technoiogy reviews, seven by 12/31/18 and six by 6/30/20 issued in Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League v. Pruitt 0 Supreme Court rejected US position and further iimited President?s to nominate an individuai for a PAS position and have that individuai serve in that position on an acting basis To: Dravis, Cc: Kenny, Rees, Kime, From: Torma, Tim Sent: Tue 3/21/2017 9:33:10 PM Subject: File for 03/22 8:00 AM Togics for {33?22?2017 Administrator meetinqdocx Samantha, Attached is a revised ?le for tomorrow moming?s meeting with the Administrator. Hard copies are in your chair. Iwill be out of the of?ce tomorrow for medical stuff but Sarah Rees will have a list of items for the 2:00 meeting. TT Tim Torma Senior Advisor US EPA Of?ce of Policy 202-566?2864 Administrator 8:00 AM Topics 03/22/2017 Summary&Context Action Deadline or Next Step Required? mifestone Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Page 1 of 4 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Page 3 of 4 Title New Effective Date Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Page 4 of 4 Page 5 of 4 To: Dravis, From: Schwab, Justin Sent: Fri 3/17/2017 4:18:59 PM Subject: Fwd: CD List 2617 Consenl Decree table 2.15317docx .htm Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Minoli, Kevin? Date: February 21, 2017 at 4:52:59 PM EST To: "Schwab, Justin" Subject: CD List Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsel Of?ce of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Main Of?ce Line: 202-564n8040 2017 Consent Decree, Settlement Agreement and Court Ordered Deadlines February 16, 20] 7 Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product Ex. 5 - Attorney Work Product To: Dravis, From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Tue 3/14/2017 11:41 :04 AM Subject: RE: Regulatory Hot Topics for 3/14 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 7:19 AM To: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: Regulatory Hot Topics for 3/14 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 5:37 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Brown, Byron Schwab, Justin Subject: Re: Regulatory Hot Topics for 3/ 14 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 14, 2017, at 5:31 AM, Drayis, Samantha wrote: Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Sent from my iPhone On Mar 13, 2017, at 10:16 PM, Jackson, Ryan wrote: What?s a full denial? You either do or you don't. Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 13, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 6:23 PM To: Drayis, Samantha Cc: Kenny, Shannon ; Kime, Robin Nickerson, William Subject: Regulatory Hot Topics for 3/14 Hi Samantha here are the new regulatory hot topics for tomorrow. I haven?t brought up items already discussed and in need of follow-up. Also there are other items in queue for Administrator signature, but they are not immediately pressing, so I?m not raising here. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Chlorpyrifos Need to know that there is a ?nal decision on the petition OMB is asking and wants interagency review if we do anything other than a full denial Need to know when OCSPP will have a revised package ready re?ective of this decision so we can meet the 3/31 deadline Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, Sarah Sarah L. Rees, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy Management US EPA Office of Policy (202) 564?1986 (0) I Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy m) To: Dravis, Cc: Kenny, Kime, Nickerson, From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Mon 3/13/2017 10:22:53 PM Subject: Regulatory Hot Topics for 3/14 Hi Samantha here are the new regulatory hot topics for tomorrow. I haven?t brought up items already discussed and in need of follow-up. Also there are other items in queue for Administrator signature, but they are not immediately pressing, so I?m not raising here. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Chlorpyrifos Need to know that there is a ?nal decision on the petition OMB is asking and wants interagency review if we do anything other than a full denial Need to know when OCSPP will have a revised package ready re?ective of this decision so we can meet the 3/31 deadline Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers, Sarah Sarah L. Rees, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy Management US EPA Office of Policy (202) 564?1986 (0) I 6 - Personal Privacy :rn) To: Dravis, From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 12:55:01 PM Subject: Re: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Shannon. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 8, 2017, at 6:54 AM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: Shannon, Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Thank you Shannon. As always, if we need to discuss or talk please come on in. Samantha Original Message From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daiiy meeting with David and Don today. We may want to talk more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent from my iPhone To: Dravis, From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 2:1 1 :56 AM Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos - Administrator Briefing I?m kidding. Wendy is actually very helpful. I think I did scare them or surprise them Friday. They are getting us information from Friday but they know where this is headed and they are documenting it well. Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 7, 2017, at 8:58 PM, Jackson, Ryan wrote: They are trying to strong arm us. I scared them Friday. Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 7, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: I don?t know what she?s talking about. Did Shannon tell her the administrator needs a brie?ng?? Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: ?Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy? Date: March 7, 2017 at 6:53:32 PM EST To: "Kenny, Shannon" "Dravis, Samantha" Cc: Mike" Subject: Chlorpyrifos - Administrator Brie?ng Can you let me know status? Are we still waiting to ?nd out, or is it not happening tomorrow? Thanks. Wendy CIeIand-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Of?ce of Chemical Safety Pollution Prevention US. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-2910 To: Dravis, From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 1:58:05 AM Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos - Administrator Briefing They are trying to strong arm us. I scared them Friday. Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 7, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: I don't know what she?s talking about. Did Shannon tell her the administrator needs a brie?ng?? Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Cleland?Hamnett, Wendy" Date: March 7, 2017 at 6:53:32 PM EST To: ?Kenny, Shannon" Cc: Mike? Subject: Chlorpyrifos - Administrator Brie?ng Can you let me know status? Are we still waiting to ?nd out, or is it not happening tomorrow? Thanks. Wendy Cieiand-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Of?ce of Chemical Safety Pollution Prevention US. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-2910 cleland~hamnettwendv??enaaov To: Dravis, Cc: Rees, From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tue 3/7/2017 10:39:43 PM Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daiiy meeting with David and Don today. We may want to talk more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent from my iPhone To: Dravis, Cc: Kenny, Rees, McGartiand, Shaw, From: Nickerson, Wiiliam Sent: Tue 3/7/2017 8:40:01 PM Subject: eiectronic copies of materials from today's regulatory Executive Orders meeting Summary df Effisdecx interim guidance on Reducinq EO Final Version 2?2?iT.decx EC) i3777.9df 13771.Qdf Presidentiai Memerandum Streamlinind Permitting and Reducine Requiatery Burdens for Domestic Manufacturingdecx Samantha, Please ?nd attached the documents from today?s meeting on the regulatory Executive Orders and the Presidential Memorandum. In answer to your question about who to notify when the Regulatory Reform Of?cer has been designated, the Executive Order does not require that we notify anyone. However, based on prior experience, we would suggest that we notify two senior career staff at OMB (Dominic Mancini and Jim Laity) so they are aware of who was selected. We can take care of that once the selection has been made. We would also suggest informing key political and career staff within EPA about the members of the Regulatory Reform Task Force. Let me know if you need anything else, or have additional questions. Thank you. Bill William (Bill) Nickerson Associate Of?ce Director Of?ce of Regulatory Policy and Management Of?ce of Policy Phone: (202) 566-0326 Regulatory Review Presidential Actions President Trump recentiy took three general regulatory review actions. He issued two Executive Orders, Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Cost and Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. He aiso issued a Presidentiai Memorandum on Streamlining Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing. Each of these requires related action on the part of EPA in identifying and reforming burdensome regulations; see the detaiied summaries that foiiow. OP has the iead for 3 initiatives. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Executive Order: Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda The President signed this Executive Order on February 24, 2017. The purpose of the Order is to impiement and enforce reguiatory reform and alieviate unnecessary reguiatory burdens. This Executive Order refers back to Executive Orders 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controiling Regulatory Costs, 12866: Reguiatory Planning and Review, and 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review as the "initiatives and policies? that must be considered in carrying out the February 24, 2017, Executive Order. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, issued January 30, 2017, is commonEy known as the "2-for-1? E.O since it directs federai executive branch agencies to remove 2 existing reguiations for each new regulation proposed or finaiized in FY-17 and thereafter. The intent is to measure reguiatory costs and offset new reguiations by repeating old ones, such that the net effect on the economy is zero. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 1 Executive Order 12866 (October 4, 1993) directs agencies to annualiy publish a Reguiatory Pian containing agency statements of regulatory priorities and additionai information about the most significant regulatory activities planned for the coming year. 2 The Regulatory Fiexibility Act of 1980 and ED. 12866 direct agencies, under direction, to reiease every spring and fall an agenda providing uniform data on reguiatory and deregulatory activities under deveiopment throughout the Federal Government. Presidential Memorandum: Streamlining Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing The purpose of this memorandum is to "support the expansion of manufacturing in the United States through expedited reviews of and approvals for proposals to construct or expand manufacturing facilities and through reductions in regulatory burdens affecting domestic manufacturing.? The President directs the Secretary of Commerce to "conduct outreach to stakeholders concerning the impact of Federai regulations on domestic manufacturing.? The Secretary of Commerce will solicit comments from the public for no more than 60 days on Federal actions to streamline permitting and reduce regulatory burdens for domestic manufacturers. As part of this process, Secretary of Commerce will coordinate with secretaries of other departments and agencies including the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Within 60 days of completion ofthis process, the Secretary of Commerce wili submit a Permit Streamlining Action Plan to the President identifying priority actions with deadiines inciuding recommendations for any necessary changes to existing regulations or statutes, as weli as actions to change policies, practices, or procedures that can be taken immediateiy. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Dravis, From: Minoli, Kevin Sent: Fri 3/3/2017 1:52:35 AM Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos Meeting on Friday Hi Samantha- That is nice of you to send this follow-up, but you do not need to sing Robin's praises to me -- I know she is great! I wasn't thinking of anything other than passing along word to combine the two meetings if you wanted as I didn?t want to presume folks wanted me to do that. Happy to have you touch base with her instead, but please don't think I was upset at her or really anyone. Normally I would have called you rather than sent an email, but I had just heard about it at 6:00 and am out in the morning, so felt it was my only option. I will send a note to my folks that that they will likely see a revised invite or at least that the invite was not meant to exclude folks, so unless you reschedule it so Ryan can attend they should be there at 10:00. Hope you have a good night as well. Kevin. Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsel Office of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Main Office Line: 202-564-8040 On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: Kevin, I also just wanted to make sure to say that I really don?t think Robin intended to do any harm. She has gone above and beyond to help me this week, and has made me feel welcome here. I hate to reprimand her for something when I think she was really just trying to help on an issue that I had indicated was a time pressing topic. Please bear with us as we learn routines and appropriate processes, etc. thanks and hope you have a great evening. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:07 PM, Minoli, Kevin wrote: Sounds like if we simply combine the two meetings we will have Ryan and Samantha, as well as OCSPP, OP, and OGC, which would be great. I am happy to email Shamett and Robin tonight to ask them to work together to do that if that works for you. We definitely agree you both should be briefed as soon as possible, so this would be a great result if you are ok with it. 008-00001 Thanks, Kevin Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsel Of?ce of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Main Of?ce Line: 202-564-8040 From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 7:29 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Minoli, Kevin Mike Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos Meeting on Friday I don't have anything on my calendar. Wendy has ask to talk to me about it and I've been involved with the Administrator all the time. I?m expecting to meet with Wendy tomorrow. Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 2, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: The meeting wasn?t set up by me, it must have been Robin on my behalf after I suggested that this was a hot topic that required attention. Ryan and I need a brie?ng with the appropriate parties as soon as is possible. Thanks, Samantha Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Minoli, Kevin wrote: Hi Samantha- I wanted to reach out to you and discuss a meeting request the one of attorney?s received earlier today for a meeting on chlorpyrifos tomorrow. While we are happy to meet with you and others on that subject, there were a couple points of concern I need to raise. I realize that you may not have actually set up the invitation (a ton of meetings get set up under my name), but as the senior person in OP I felt it was appropriate to write to you. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege Thanks, Kevin Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsel Office of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Main Of?ce Line: 202-564n8040 To: Jackson, Dravis, Cc: From: Minoli, Kevin Sent: Fri 3/3/2017 1:07:13 AM Subject: RE: Chiorpyrifos Meeting on Friday Sounds like if we simply combine the two meetings we will have Ryan and Samantha, as well as OCSPP, OP, and OGC, which would be great. I am happy to email Sharnett and Robin tonight to ask them to work together to do that if that works for you. We de?nitely agree you both should be briefed as soon as possible, so this would be a great result if you are ok with it. Thanks, Kevin Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsel Of?ce of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Main Of?ce Line: 202664-8040 From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 7:29 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Minoli, Kevin Mike Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos Meeting on Friday I don?t have anything on my calendar. Wendy has ask to talk to me about it and I?ve been involved with the Administrator all the time. I?m expecting to meet with Wendy tomorrow. Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US EPA 009-00001 (202) 564-6999 On Mar 2, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: The meeting wasn?t set up by me, it must have been Robin on my behalf after I suggested that this was a hot topic that required attention. Ryan and I need a brie?ng with the appropriate parties as soon as is possible. Thanks, Samantha Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Minoli, Kevin wrote: Hi Samantha? I wanted to reach out to you and discuss a meeting request the one of attomey?s received earlier today for a meeting on chlorpyrifos tomorrow. While we are happy to meet with you and others on that subject, there were a couple points of concern I need to raise. I realize that you may not have actually set up the invitation (a ton of meetings get set up under my name), but as the senior person in OP I felt it was appropriate to write to you. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege Thanks, Kevin Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsel Of?ce of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Main Of?ce Line: 202-564-8040 To: Dravis, Cc: Minoli, From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Fri 3/3/2017 12:29:19 AM Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos Meeting on Friday I don?t have anything on my calendar. Wendy has ask to talk to me about it and I?ve been involved with the Administrator all the time. I?m expecting to meet with Wendy tomorrow. Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 2, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: The meeting wasn?t set up by me, it must have been Robin on my behalf after I suggested that this was a hot topic that required attention. Ryan and I need a brie?ng with the appropriate parties as soon as is possible. Thanks, Samantha Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Minoli, Kevin wrote: Hi Samantha? I wanted to reach out to you and discuss a meeting request the one of attorney?s received earlier today for a meeting on chlorpyrifos tomorrow. While we are happy to meet with you and others on that subject, there were a couple points of concern I need to raise. I realize that you may not have actually set up the invitation (a ton of meetings get set up under my name), but as the senior person in OP I felt it was appropriate to write to you. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege Thanks, Kevin Kevin S, Minoli Acting General Counsel Office of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Main Of?ce Line: 202-564-8040 To: Dravis, Cc: Jackson, From: Minoli, Kevin Sent: Thur 3/2/2017 11:49:38 PM Subject: Chiorpyrifos Meeting on Friday Hi Samantha? I wanted to reach out to you and discuss a meeting request the one of attorney?s received earlier today for a meeting on chlorpyrifos tomorrow. While we are happy to meet with you and others on that subject, there were a couple points of concern I need to raise. I realize that you may not have actually set up the invitation (a ton of meetings get set up under my name), but as the senior person in GP I felt it was appropriate to write to you. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney - Client Privilege Thanks, Kevin Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsel Of?ce of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Main Office Line: 292-564-8849 To: Dravis, From: Kime, Robin Sent: Thur 3/2/2017 10:26:31 PM Subject: Fwd: Updated FR queue lists FR queue 3.1.2017 shortSortrev1.xlsx ATT00001 .htm FR Packet 3.1.2017rev1docx Hi Sending these so you have them electronically. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Tyree, JamesN" Date: March 2, 2017 at 5:00:25 PM EST To: "Kime, Robin? Cc: "Rees, Sarah" "Nickerson, William? Subject: Updated FR queue lists Hi Robin, Per Sarah?s request, attached are updated FR queue lists. The FR Packet 3.1.2017reyl.docx ?le contains ?Documents with Immediate Deadlines? and ?Documents Submitted to OFR Since January 20, 2017 tables. The FR queue 3.1.2017_shortSortrevl ?le is all FR Queue Active Master List with short descriptions sorted by priority and category. James Tyree, P.E. Policy and Regulatory Analysis Division Of?ce of Policy, Of?ce of Regulatory Policy and Management US. EPA 202.564.2658 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 FR Queue Active Master List Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 10 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 11 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 12 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 13 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 14 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 15 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 16 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 17 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 18 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 19 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/2/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 20 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 21 3/2/2017 To: Dravis, Cc: Kime, From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Wed 3/1/2017 10:49:09 PM Subject: One pagers for OMB rule list 1NPAGER Mid Term Evaiuation for Model Year 2022decx 1?eaqers for 3?4 actionsdocx CEO Federal Greenheuse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidancedecx Remediatine Contaminated Sediment Sites Birectivedocx Air Action One Pagers OMEB iistdecx Samantha, attached are electronic versions of the one pagers I left a hard copy of on your chair. These are for the deep yellow highlighted actions on the OMB ?midnight rules? list. I will have the light highlighted actions to you tomorrow, but wanted to triage by order of importance. Please let me know if you have any questions on any of this more than happy to help. Cheers, Sarah Sarah L. Rees, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy Management US EPA Office of Policy (202) 564?1986 (0) I: Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Em) 1 March 2017 Title: Chemical Substances When Manufactured or Processed as Nanoscale Materials; TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements (Final Rule, SAN 5366) Publication Date: 01/12/2017 Effective Date: 05/12/2017 0 EPA finalized an information gathering rule on certain existing and new nanomaterials. The package defines a one-time reporting of available information such as specific chemical identity, production volume, methods of manufacturing and processing, exposure and release information and existing data concerning environmental and health effects. 0 No additional testing or generation of new data is required by this rule. 0 EPA did not establish a definition ofa nanoscale material. Rather, it defined parameters for identifying chemical substances that are subject to the rule. 0 Manufacturers, importers and processors of nanoscale substances must report to EPA. 0 information gathered under this rule will facilitate determination of whether further action, including additional information collection, is needed for that specific nanoscale material. 0 Small businesses are exempted. Research and development nanoscale materials are excluded, as well as biological materials. 0 EPA made substantial changes to the rule between proposal and final stages to address industry concerns about flexibility and material characterization approaches. 0 EPA received limited substantive feedback during OMB review of the final rule. Many comments resulted in the addition of clarifying language rather than changing rule provisions. 0 The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has been a vocal industry voice on the rule. in January 2017, ACC noted that EPA made some important clarifications in response to their and others? comments on the proposed rule. ACC said they are prepared to work with EPA and other stakeholders to ensure that additional guidance is as clear and workable as possible. 1 March 2017 Title: Biological Evaluations of Three Chemicals? impacts on Endangered Species Publication Date: 01/18/2017 0 EPA announced the finalized Biological Evaluation for the registration reviews of chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion uses. 0 This action was the subject of significant attention. 0 The agencies concluded that 97% US. endangered species could potentially suffer adverse effects from the three pesticides in their critical habitat. 0 EPA collaborated with Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (N MFS) and the USDA to complete the analysis. These agencies followed the National Academy of Sciences recommendation in designing a process to accurately assess risk to individuals of many different endangered and threatened species. This is just one step in a process involving these partners. EPA must now submit the opinions to the Services. The evaluations will form the scientific rationale for decisions by the FWS and NMFS regarding pesticide usage in areas of critical habitat. The Biological Evaluation will not necessarily result in a ban of these pesticides. Rather, how these pesticides are applied in endangered species critical habitat could potentially be impacted. 0 Registration review is periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration (the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects). 0 With this work, EPA meets its obligation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by ensuring that each pesticide's registration is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. The draft Biological Evaluations were released April 6, 2016 for comment on April 6, 2016. The methods used were developed based on an April 2013 NAS report. 0 Previously, on February 21, 2013, a three judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous landmark decision in Dow Agrosciences v. National Marine Fisheries Service setting aside a Biological Opinion (BiOp) prepared by the NMFS that found that use ofthe pesticides chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion could jeopardize the viability of certain species of salmon and their habitat. There is active litigation underway - in Centerfor Biological Diversity v. U. 5. Environmental Protection Agency, (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2017), the Ninth Circuit reversed in part a district court?s dismissal of plaintiffs? claims arising from their citizen suit alleging that EPA violated the ESA when it registered certain pesticide active ingredients and pesticide products without undertaking consultation with the NMFS and FWS. Specifically, plaintiffs argued that reregistering pesticide products pursuant to triggered duty to consult with the Service under ESA section 7. 1 March 2017 Title: Updated List of Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides in Drinking Water Available Publication Date: 01/18/2017 0 EPA has updated its list of human health benchmarks for pesticides (HHBP) in drinking water. EPA has been maintaining this list since 2012. The are not legally enforceable federal standards and serve only as reference values. 0 These benchmarks are intended as informational tools for states, tribes, water systems and the public to help interpret monitoring data for pesticides for which there are no drinking water standards or health advisories. A total of 394 are now available for pesticides that are currently registered for use on food crops or other use that could result in exposure through food or drinking water. The 2017 update includes an update of toxicity values for 41 pesticides. in addition, 38 new pesticides were added to the list. 0 The benchmarks are for pesticides for which the agency has not issued a drinking water health advisory or set an enforceable federal drinking water standard. 1 March 2017 Title: Policy to Mitigate the Acute Risk to Bees from Pesticide Products Publication Date: 01/12/2017 0 EPA released a final policy which describes methods for addressing acute risks to bees from pesticides. Pesticide manufacturers and grower groups criticized proposed policy, arguing that the plan failed to provide growers with sufficient flexibility for pesticide spraying. The final policy is more flexible than the proposed policy. For example, a product that retains its toxicity to bees for a shorter time might be allowed to be applied under certain circumstances. Also, in some cases, pesticide application would be allowed when it is unlikely that pollinators will be foraging for crops that have extended bloom periods or when pesticides have a low residual toxicity. 0 Applications of acutely toxic pesticides would be prohibited under certain conditions when bees are most likely to be present. 0 The EPA will begin implementing this policy in 2017 by sending letters to registrants describing steps that must be taken to incorporate the new labeling. This policy was part of a broad federal effort to address bee health. To: Dravis, From: Kime, Robin Sent: Wed 3/1/2017 3:11:01 PM Subject: FW: List of OMB rules GMB listof ruies Feb 23 2017 1 saqendocx OMB list of ruies Feb 23 2017.xlsx Hi I?ll bring hard copies to you now, just wanted you to have this electronically if need be. From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 10:10 AM To: Kime, Robin Subject: List of OMB rules The list is in the excel ?le; the word document is a one pager explaining the list a little bit. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Sarah Sarah L. Rees, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy Management US EPA Office of Policy (202) 564-1986 (0) I -Persona Privacy 7/13/2017 OMB List of Ruies, February 23, 2017 mm,- Page 1 of 6 7/13/2017 OMB List of Ruies, February 23, 2017 .- *ii/W Hazard?ankmg .. m; th . . ?u perfu nd Nateo hali PrioritieSList . - . . .. -. Certi?ed .. .. .. . Pp'icatorscans Pray The onJanuaW42017 '5 pestmes pdates erta?edappncators - ndertheruiestates ubmatplansforEPAsapp valthatexma wstatecertafacat: ta ndards /21/2017 enewabteF . .. agii?gs: 3/21/2911}? Document 3 Nu?ib??gisi-zei?a 1425 {(259 73-0318-22 Revocation/Termination or . unt213/21/2017FR oumntNumb $2016 [2 .. and Incrporataonopr oroachestcAddress OzoneandFme tumors/d us/zz/zomaomwm2916317479017 - tandards neDelayedunHE 3/21/2017 FRDocument Nu? mbers201700153(201702594) i Page 2 of 6 7/13/2017 OMB List of Ruies, February 23, 2017 eguiatory" Regulatory I ction Action .. 0 Finai NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities Permit PermIt General Permit (1/19/17). Replaces the prior general permit that prevents operators from needing individuai permits. 0 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment Sixth Report to Congress. OMB received this draft report form EPA on January 19, 2017, for comment and Other Other Water interagency reVIew. The report compiles data coiiected durIng FY 2015 on theidrInking water infrastructure needs for public water systems across the country and be used to caicuiate the aiiocation formula for State Revoiving Fund (SRF) grants beginning in FY 2018. RMO is currently reviewing the report. Annuai Toxics . . . . . 0 Annual Reiease Inventory. This EPA Report shows releases of tOXic chemIcais into Reports Reports Reiease . . . the an natIon-WIde. Inventory Ozone Pian 0 Ozone PIan Findings of Failure. On January 20, EPA signed I*findings of faiiurestates and D.C. to submit state impiementation pians for the 2008 ozone air quaiity FindIngs of FIndings of FindIngs standard, startIng the clock on a two-year wmdow under the Clean Air Act for those Faiiure Failure FaIiure: 15 States . . . . and DC jurisdictions to submit approvabie plans or become subject to a Federai Impiementation Pian. Nationai and Hazardous Substances Poiiution Contingency Plan: Nationai Priorities List: Reguiatory Regulatory . . . . . Action Action Poilution Pians Partial DeIetIon of the North Penn Area 6 Superfund Site: Deiayed until 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2016-31032 (2017-01822) - Safe Drinking Water Act Assessment of Lead in Drinking Water (1/19/17). EPA published a Federai Register Notice seeking nominations for an expert externai peer review panei Other Other Water and pubiIc comment on a draft report entitied, Proposed ModeiIng Approaches-for a Health Based Benchmark for Lead In DrinkIng Water and the draft charge questions for the expert peer review panei. Nominations must be received by February 21, 2017, and comments on the draft report and charge questions must be received by March 6, 2017. Page 3 of 6 7/13/2017 OMB List of Rules, February 23, 2017 0 Four neonicotinoid pesticide risk assessments made avaiiable for pubiic comment is is Pesticides (1/12/17). EPA found that most crop uses do not pose significant risks to bee colonies, but Assessment Assessment . spraying for several crops may pose risks. 0 Report to Congress concerning resource and capacity needs to conduct chemicai risk evaiuations under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by the Re orts Re orts Toxic Substances recently amended TSCA, EPA provided this report to Congress on January 19, 2017. EPA :3 Control Act indicated that the additional requirements of the amended TSCA pose resource chailenges, but that the agency is working to increase capacity to impiement the requirements of the new law. - Proposed Reissuance of the NPDES General Permit for Facilities Related to Oil and Gas Extraction in the Territorial Seas of Texas (1/19/17). Replaces the prior general permit that Permit Permit General Permit prevents operators from needing to secure individual permits. Authorizes discharges from exploration, development, and production facilities located in and discharging into the territorial seas off Texas. - Public Notification Requirements for Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Regulatory Regulatory . . . . . Water Basm (1/13/17). Rule wouid impiement section 425 of the FY 2016 Appropriations Bill to Action Action . . . . establish pubiic notice reqUirements. ncinera or - Proposed incinerator Guidelines for States (1/10/17). This proposed rule sets emissions Other Other GUideiines for . . . States limits, progress miiestones, and other elements that the state plans are to contain. Uranium and 0 Proposed Health and Environmentai Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Miil Regulatory Regulatory . Tailings (1/19/17). EPA re-proposed standards applicabie to byproduct materials produced . Thorium Miil . . . . Action Action Tailin by uranium in-Situ recovery (ISR). The standards would be implemented by the US Nuclear Reguiatory Commission (NRC) and NRC Agreement States. 0 CERCLA 108(b) Financial Assurance Proposed Ruiemaking for the Hardrock Mining Regulatory Regulatory . . . . Action Action CERCLA Industry (1/11/17). This proposed rule establishes finanCial assurance reqUirements for the Hardrock Mining industry under CERCLA 108(b). 0 CERCLA 108(b) Financial Assurance Notice for the Chemical, Petroieum, and Eiectric Power Industries (1/11/17). This notified the chemicai manufacturing, petroleum and coai Regulatory Regulatory . . . . . . Action Action CERCLA products manufacturing, and eiectric power generation industries about EPA intent to issue proposed financial assurance rulemakings pursuant to a court ordered schedule over the next seven years. Page 4 of 6 7/13/2017 OMB List of Rules, February 23, 2017 Pians Regulatory Regulatory Trichioroethylene 0 Proposed rule to ban trichloroethylene (TCE) when used in vapor degreasing (1/11/17). Action Action Ban The proposed rule affects consumer and occupational settings. Methylene . . . . Regulatory Regulatory . 0 Proposed rule to limit methylene chloride and NMP when used as paint removers . chloride and . . Action Action NMP use (1/12/17). The proposed rule affects consumer and occupational settings. Regulatory Regulatory Toxic Release 0 Proposed rule to add natural gas processing facilities to list of industrial sectors covered Action Action Inventory by the Toxic Release Inventory Regulatory Regulatory Underground State of Kentucky Underground Injection Control (UIC) Ciass ii Program: Primacy Approval: Action Action Injection Control Delayed until 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2016-25931(2017-01822) Re ulator Re ulator Munici al Solid Determination of Full Program Adequacy of Washington Municipal Solid Waste Landfill g. g_ Permit Program: Delayed untii 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2016-26754 (2017- Action Action Waste 01822) Re ulator Re ulator Fine Particulate Determination of Attainment of the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Standard: Actgion Acfion Matter Standards Delaware County Nonattainment Area: Delayed until 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2016-29751(2017-01822) St Regulatory Regulatory Ima leementation Air Plan Approval: Michigan; Part 9 Miscellaneous Rules: Deiayed until 3/21/2017. FR Action Action Document Numbers 2016-30195 (2017-01822) Re ulator Re ulator Determination of Attainment of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Air Quality Mariposa County, California: Delayed until 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2016-30477 Action Action (2017-01822) State Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Regulatory Regulatory Im lementation Quality Planning Purposes; Louisiana; Redesignation of Baton Rouge 2008 8-Hour Ozone Action Action Piapns Nonattainment Area to Attainment: Delayed until 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2016-30776 (2017-01822) St 1: Regulatory Regulatory Ima leementation Air Plan Approval: Wisconsin; infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS: Action Action Piapns Delayed until 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2016-31017 (2017-01822) State Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: New York Prevention of Significant Regulatory Regulatory Im lementation Deterioration of Air Quality and Nonattainment New Source Review; Infrastructure State Action Action Implementation Plan Requirements: Deiayed until 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2016-31018 (2017-01822) Page 5 of 6 7/13/2017 OMB List of Rules, February 23, 2017 Plans Re ulator Re uIator State Air Plan Approval: RACM Determination for the KY Portion of the Louisviile Area 1997 Implementation Annual PM2.5: Delayed until 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2016-31023 (2017- Action Action Pians 01822) St Regulatory Regulatory a . Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Great Basin Unified Air Poliution Control District: Implementation Action Action Plans Delayed until 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2016-31225 (2017-01822) St 1: Regulatory Regulatory a . Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, South Coast Air Quality Management District: Implementation Action Action Pians Delayed until 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2016-31226 (2017-01822) State . . . . . . . . . Regulatory Regulatory . Air Plan Approvai: EilinOis; Volatile Organic Compounds Definition: Delayed untii Implementation Action Action Pians 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2016-31227 (2017-01822) Regulatory Regulatory Underground State of Kentucky Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class ii Program: Primacy Approval: Action Action Injection Control Delayed until 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2016-31268 (2017-01822) State . . . . Regulatory Regulatory . Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Pians: LOUiSiana; State Boards: Delayed Implementation Action Action Pians until 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2016-31332 (2017-01822) Re ulator Re ulator State Approval of Arizona Air Plan Revisions: Ajo and Morenci, Arizona; Second 10-Year Suifur Actgion Actgion Implementation Dioxide Maintenance Plans and Technical Correction: Delayed until 3/21/2017. FR Pians Document Numbers 2016-31637 (2017-01822) State . . . . . . Regulatory Regulatory . Air Plan Approvai: Georgia: Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air Implementation Action Action Pians Pollutants: Delayed until 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2016-31753 (2017-01822) Re ulator Re ulator State Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Pians: Texas; Control of Air Poilution from Actgion Actgion Implementation Visibie Emissions and Particuiate Matter: Deiayed until 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers Plans 2017-00087 (2017-01822) Re ulator Re uIator State Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Pians: Alabama; Infrastructure Action Acfion Implementation Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Delayed Pians untii 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2017-00159 (2017-01822) St 1: Regulatory Regulatory a . Air Plan Approval: TN infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 N02 NAAQS: Delayed until Implementation Action Action 3/21/2017. FR Document Numbers 2017-00161 (2017-01822) Page 6 of 6 7/13/2017 OMB List of Rules, February 23, 2017 0 EPA Notification - Fiat of Clean Air Act Violations for alleged violations of the Enforcement Enforcement . . CAA Clean Air Act. Violations include installing and failing to disclose engine management Actions Actions . . . . . . software With 3.0 liter diesel engines sold in the United States. - Gold King Mine Claims. On January 13, 2017, EPA denied a majority of claims filed under Denial of Denial of Gold King Mine the Federal Tort Claims Act related to the August 5, 2015 Gold King Mine Release. EPA will Claims Claims Claims continue to operate the water treatment facility at the site and water monitoring programs in areas previously impacted by the spill. 0 Volkswagen Settlement. On January 10th, EPA and Volkswagen released a negotiated Enforcement Enforcement Proposed . . . . . . . . draft settlement With U.S. authorities over the company 5 diesel emISSions scandal. Actions Actions Consent Decree Criminal and Civil fines related to this settlement could total $4.3 billion. Page 7 of 6 7/13/2017 %w@M WW . uiatorv Regulatory guy - :y OMB List of Ruies, February 23, 2017 Page 9 of 6 7/13/2017 OMB List of Ruies, February 23, 2017 Feguia Other Reports Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Findings of Fa?ure Reguiatory Action Other Page 10 of 6 7/13/2017 Risk Assessment Reports Permit Reguiatory Action Other Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process OMB List of Ruies, February 23, 2017 Page 11 of 6 7/13/2017 Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process OMB List of Ruies, February 23, 2017 Page 12 of 6 7/13/2017 Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Reguiatory Action Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process OMB List of Ruies, February 23, 2017 Page 13 of 6 3 7/13/2017 Enforcement Actions DeniaE of Ciaims Enforcement Actions Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process OMB List of Ruies, February 23, 2017 Page 14 of 6 To: Dravis, Cc: Kenny, Kime, From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Wed 3/1/2017 12:20:57 AM Subject: Regulatory actions - for discussion 3/1 Regulatory actions hot list March 1 2Q17docx Hi Samantha Robin asked that I put together a short list of ?hot? regulatory actions on a daily basis so that you have these for your morning meeting with Administrator Pruitt. We may not have something every day, but I?ll certainly run the traps and make sure. What I have attached is a list of items that immediately require attention over the next month to the extent they are currently in our system. I think we will soon need a focused discussion about expanding the scope of what we track so that we can more comprehensively manage the ?ow of regulations. The action that I believe needs urgent focus and attention is Chlorpyrifos as we discussed yesterday. We have to take ?nal action on revoking the tolerance for this insecticide (basically whether to ban it or not) by March 31. I know you said a brie?ng is already in the works to be scheduled, but I am very concerned that we are down to the wire, so have included it and added some substantive bullets. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Please let me know if you need anything else or have questions on any of this; I am available by Cheers, Sarah Sarah L. Rees, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy Management US EPA Office of Policy (202) 564-1986 (0) I: Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy m) Priority Regulatory Items March 1, 2017 Chlorpyrifos: Court-ordered deadiine to take final action by March 31, 2017 (US. Court of Appeais for the Ninth Circuit in Pesticide Action Network North America (PAN NA) v. EPA, No. 14-72794). Background: in 2015, EPA proposed to revoke all toierances (maximum legai residue for food) for chlorpyrifos based on an assessment of safety. This action would finaiize the tolerance revocation. This is an action that has been in development for many years, and has a great deal of stakeholder interest. Chiorpyrifos is one of the most widely used insecticides for food crops and is also used for non-food uses mosquito control. Issues: Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Dravis, Cc: Kenny, Kime, From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Tue 2/28/2017 8:36:46 PM Subject: Revised FR Queue List FR queue 228.2517 shertSertrxisx Hi Samantha attached is the current (as of today) FR queue list. There are some areas highlighted those are for actions that are new to the queue that we weren?t able to get a description in yet; that will be completed shortly. The back page has a summary of the count by action type; there are currently 105 actions in the queue. Again, that sounds daunting but we have recommendations on categories that can go without too much additional inquiry so that this list becomes manageable. I will send you the email memorializing the decisions we made on actions that are cleared to go to the Federal Register later today. Cheers, Sarah Sarah L. Rees, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy Management US EPA Office of Policy (202) 564-1986 (0) I Ex. 6-Personal Privacy m) 1 225_0000 ?l 028-00001 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 FR Queue Active Master List Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 029-00001 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 10 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 11 1 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 12 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 13 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 14 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 15 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 16 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 17 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 18 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 2/28/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 19 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 20 2/28/2017 To: Paut Kreutzer, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Thur 3/30/2017 4:34:15 PM Subject: RE: News release - Farm Bureau Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision Thank you, Paul for your support. From: Paul Schlegel [mailtozpauls@fb.org] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 10:56 AM To: Kreutzer, David Dravis, Samantha Subject: News release - Farm Bureau Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision David Samantha wanted yeu te the press statement we have issued. We?re very supportive at the Administrater?s deeisien yesterday. Paut Paut Sehtegei Streetcar, Energy and Envtrenment Team Street: (292) 496?358? CQIE: Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy Email: ?i Contacts: Will Rodger Kari Barbic (202) 406-3642 (202) 406-3672 fb.or karib@fb.org Farm Bureau Praises EPA Chlorpyrifos Decision WASHINGTON, D.C., March 30, 2017 American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall today applauded Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt for rejecting a petition that would have eliminated the use of Chlorpyrifos in agriculture. ?Farmers nationwide depend on Chlorpyrifos in managing their crops,? Duvall said. ?It is widely and safely used for a wide range of crops, including alfalfa, citrus, vegetables, soybeans, almonds and others. lt also protects hundreds of thousands of acres of grass seed production, where it controls aphids, cutworms and other pests. As USDA has noted, Chlorpyrifos has been used as a part of environmentally friendly (integrated pest management) programs for nearly 50 years.? Duvall noted that the chemical is still subject to registration review and any concerns about its safe use can be addressed in that process. AFBF earlier filed comments with EPA expressing concern over the agency?s approach. The agency had apparently relied on epidemiological studies even though researchers had failed to share raw data with the agency. own Scientific Advisory Panel, as well as USDA, had expressed caution about how the agency used the epidemiological study. -30- To: Bowman, Jackson, RyanLiackson.ryan@epa.gov] From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 9:02:24 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 5:02 PM To: Jackson, Ryan Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wednesday, March 29,2017 5:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:58 PM To: Jackson, Ryan <1aeksongrvan.@epa tov>; Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:52 PM To: Bowman, Liz epa rov>; Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ok. As long as we have a foundation for that from a fellow chemical person. I trust you. From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:51 PM To: Jackson, Ryan ; Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Well, the stuff I had said it was, but I wrote ?one of? to be From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:51 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Bowman, Liz Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote This is great. Most widely used in the world? That?s true? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:46 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote He said go with it, I think. Text him From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:44 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote It may not, I just was double checking. I think JP is editing it now, but we have it t-ed up and ready to go out, as soon as JP gives the go. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:43 PM To: Bowman, Liz jrely? Cc: Jackson, Ryan <5ac?ksonrvan?d?epagov> Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Why does this need legal approval? RJ are you good with this? From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:03 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Are you with him/JP? I hadn?t heard from him. Who is the legal person that I should run this by? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz ; Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: DraVis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:58 PM To: Jackson, Ryan Iov>; Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:52 PM To: Bowman, Liz ; Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote 0k. As long as we have a foundation for that from a fellow chemical person. I trust you. From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:51 PM To: Jackson, Ryan Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Well, the stuff I had said it was, but I wrote ?one of? to be From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:51 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Bowman, Liz Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote This is great. Most widely used in the world? That?s true? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:46 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan rov> Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote He said go with it, I think. Text him From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:44 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote It may not, I just was double checking. I think JP is editing it now, but we have it t-ed up and ready to go out, as soon as JP gives the go. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:43 PM To: Bowman, Liz jrov> Cc: Jackson, Ryan <5ack.son.rvan@epagov> Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Why does this need legal approval? RJ are you good with this? From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:03 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Are you with him/JP? I hadn?t heard from him. Who is the legal person that I should run this by? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz ; Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: Dravis, Samantha Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Bowman, Cc: Jackson, RyanLiackson.ryan@epa.gov] From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 8:46:23 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote He said go with it, I think. Text him From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:44 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote It may not, I just was double checking. I think JP is editing it now, but we have it t-ed up and ready to go out, as soon as JP gives the go. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:43 PM To: Bowman, Liz Cc: Jackson, Ryan <5acksontvan?ci?cpa.gov> Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Why does this need legal approval? RJ are you good with this? From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:03 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Are you with him/JP? I hadn?t heard from him. Who is the legal person that I should run this by? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz <8owmanliz@cpa wov>; Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: Dravis, Samantha ; Konkus, John akenanov> Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Bowman, Cc: Jackson, RyanLiackson.ryan@epa.gov] From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 8:43:06 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Retease USDA Quote Why does this need legal approval? RJ are you good with this? From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:03 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Are you with him/JP? I hadn?t heard from him. Who is the legal person that I should run this by? From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:01 PM To: Bowman, Liz Freire, JP Cc: Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ray approved this From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Dravis, Samantha Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Bowman, Freire, Cc: Konkus, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 7:57:24 PM Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Ok so was this sent to Ray or no? From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55 PM To: Freire, JP Cc: DraVis, Samantha Konkus, John Subject: RE: For Ray Review: Updated Release USDA Quote Importance: High Updated with USDA Quote for joint release. Please let us know if you hear back from anyone reviewing. Do you think we could add ?With Support from USDA, Into the headline, to show it?s a joint release? Or is that too much? I considered a sub-head, but I think the quote speaks for Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 6:15:49 PM Subject: FW: Chlorpyrifos - TEME SENSITIVE Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 2: 14 PM To: Reeder, John Jackson, Ryan Subject: Chlorpyrifos - TIME SENSITIVE A11, Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Thanks for your attention to this. 042-00001 Samantha To: Reeder, Jackson, Kime, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 6:14:31 PM Subject: Chiorpyrifos - TIME SENSETIVE A11 9 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Thanks for your attention to this. Samantha To: Bennett, Schwab, Cc: Freire, Konkus, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 5:56:39 PM Subject: RE: chiorpyrifos We are denying a petition by PANNA (Pesticide Action Network of North America) and NRDC to ban entirely the use of Chloropyrifos. Liz has a draft press release that is informative. From: Bennett, Tate Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 1:56 PM To: Schwab, Justin Dravis, Samantha Cc: Freire, JP Konkus, John Subject: chlorpyrifos Is this something I can give House/ Sen Ag chairs a heads up on? If so, what exactly are we doing? All I know is they will be excited and likely want to do press. Elizabeth Tate Bennett Sr. Advisor to the Administrator Office of Congressional and intergovernmental Affairs US. Environmental Protection Agency To: Bowman, Freire, Konkus, Konkus, Cc: Wilcox, Ferguson, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 2:11:13 PM Subject: RE: For Review: Draft Press Release on Chlorpyrifos Petition Can you give me a quick call about the comms plan? I am at my desk I have no idea what my desk number From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 9:46 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Freire, JP Konkus, John Cc: Wilcox, ahan Ferguson, Lincoln Subject: For Review: Draft Press Release on Chlorpyrifos Petition Below, for review, please ?nd a draft release on order today on Chlorpyrifos. This language might be too strong, but I thought I would take a stab and y?all can edit/adjust as you see JP I talked with Sam about this earlier, and John and I also talked about a plan to announce; let me know when you have a minute to discuss. Thank you Liz Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Bolen, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 2:08:35 PM Subject: FW: From: DraVis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 10:08 AM To: Bowman, Liz Konkus, John Subject: Headline is too hyperbolic, tone it down. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Bowman, Konkus, Freire, Wilcox, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 2:07:35 PM Headline is too hyperbolic, tone it down. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Bowman, Freire, Konkus, Konkus, Cc: Wilcox, Ferguson, Bolen, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/29/2017 1:59:06 PM Subject: RE: For Review: Draft Press Release on Chlorpyrifos Petition Did you run this by Ray Starling at the White House? I will have some edits that I?ll send shortly. From: Bowman, Liz Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 9:46 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Freire, JP Konkus, John Cc: Wilcox, ahan Ferguson, Lincoln Subject: For Review: Draft Press Release on Chlorpyrifos Petition Below, for review, please ?nd a draft release on order today on Chlorpyrifos. This language might be too strong, but I thought I would take a stab and y?all can edit/adjust as you see JP I talked with Sam about this earlier, and John and I also talked about a plan to announce; let me know when you have a minute to discuss. Thank you Liz Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process To: Kime, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Mon 3/27/2017 12:52:43 PM Subject: doc Arkansas List of 3maaired Waters?ocx Samantha Dravis Senior Counsel Associate Adminstrator for Policy US. Environmental Protection Agency Arkansas List of Impaired Waters Chiorpyrifos 0 Working with Ray Stariing to coordinate denial with USDA 0 OEX is preparing the signature package Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 058-00001 To: Rees, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Sun 3/26/2017 9:55:40 PM Subject: RE: Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Toierances - Eiectronic Copy of Finai Versions I finally had a chance to read the denial. interesting stuff.. helpful to understanding and FFDCA From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017' 5:24 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances - Electronic Copy of Final Versions Will do. From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017' 5:21:14 PM To: Rees, Sarah Subject: FW: Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances - Electronic Copy of Final Versions Let?s have OEX tee this up for SP3 signature. No autopen, i need to check with the White House on this because they may want to do something in conjunction with USDA on it and i don?t want it executed before i have a chance to do that. Thanks! From: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 5:45 PM To: Jackson, Ryan Dravis, Samantha Subject: Fw: Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances Electronic Copy of Final Versions Status of the order below, and copy attached. Hope you all have a good weekend. From: Hofmann, Angela Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 5:09 PM To: CIeIand-Hamnett, Wendy; Wise, Louise Cc: Mojica, Andrea; Friedman, Dana; Chun, Melissa; Keigwin, Richard; Dyner, Mark; Guilaran, Yu-Ting; Smith, Charles; Costello, Kevin; Strauss, Linda; Dunton, Cheryl Subject: Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances - Electronic Copy of Final Versions Hi Wendy, just dropped off the final signature package with Andrea. Attached is an electronic copy in case you want another look or want to share it with others. have things lined up with OP to get the package to them in the morning on Monday, and they are ready to process it with deadline in mind. Susan is ready to track it once i get it to OP and will coordinate getting it signed on time and back to us - Angela Deiibem?ve Kama] Documem 7777777 D0 Nor (fife, QM) 1? or Release 07 .3: 7' STATES ENVIRQNMENTAL PROTECTEQN AGENCY 20460 at PROTEG OF CHEMECAL SAFETY AND PREVENT-EON MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances - ACTION MEMORANDUM FROM: Wendy Cleland-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator (7 101M) THRU: Of?ce of Policy (1804A) Of?ce of Executive Secretariat (1105A) TO: B. Scott Pruitt EPA Administrator (1101A) Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process mternet Address (URL) Recycied?Recyciable - Printed with Vegetab?e DEE Based inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chiorine Free Reeye?ed Paper 062-00001 A A A Deliberative Infernal D0 (fife, Quete 0r Reiease A A A Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process A A A Deliberative Infernal D0 (fife, Quete 0r Reiease A A A Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Page 4 of 4 A A A Deliberative Infernal D0 (fife, Quere 0r Reiease A A A Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Page 5 of 4 DOCUMENT ED_001225_00001063 HAS BEEN WITHHELD IN FULL UNDER FOIA EXEMPTION 5, DELIBERATIVE PROCESS ED_001225_00001063 To: Rees, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Mon 3/20/2017 2:11:20 PM Subject: FW: Chloropyrifos Responsemd?d??ldoc Could we go ahead and prepare this order for signature, assuming that there are no issues with this? I am reading through it now. From: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:57 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan Subject: RE: Chloropyrifos Samantha, Attached is our ?rst draft of the order denying the petition. As such, please be aware that we are still in the process of editing. If you see typos or citations, etc. to be ?lled in, folks are working on those. Also, it?s been reviewed at the Associate General Counsel level (Kevin McLean) but Kevin Minoli and Justin Schwab haven?t yet reviewed. But I think this version will allow you to see how we?re describing the basis for the denial. The most relevant sections, describing our basis for denying the petition at this time, are on pages 8-9 and 38-41. As you?ll read in the notice, the Agency previously provided 2 interim responses. In 2012 we denied one claim completely and, in 2014, expressed an intent to deny 6 other claims. In this document, we?re also ?nalizing the denial of those 6 claims to completely close out the petition response. The description of the bases for those earlier denials are cut pasted from those earlier documents. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process In the meantime, we?ll also work with OPA on communications. I?ve asked my coms people to hold off on preparing anything until we?ve settled on the substance. Always happy to answer questions or come over to discuss. Wendy Wendy CIeIand-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Of?ce of Chemical Safety Pollution Prevention US. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-2910 clelandmhamnett.wendv@cna.gov From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 11:04 AM To: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Cc: Jackson, Ryan {iacksongryan (inepagovz Brown, Byron @cna,gov> Subject: RE: Chloropyrifos Great, thanks much! From: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:48 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan ?iac?ksonm Brown, Byron Subject: RE: Chloropyrifos Samantha, I received the ?rst draft late yesterday and am now working through the 40+ pages. Will meet with OGC and the pesticides program at 11:00. Will get back to you after that. Wendy CIeIand-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Of?ce of Chemical Safety Pollution Prevention US. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-2910 cle1andwliamnett.wendv?lenagov From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:31 AM To: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Cc: Jackson, Ryan ; Brown, Byron Cc: Jackson, Ryan ; Brown, Byron Subject: RE: Chloropyrifos Samantha, Attached is our first draft of the order denying the petition. As such, please be aware that we are still in the process of editing. If you see typos or citations, etc. to be filled in, folks are working on those. Also, it’s been reviewed at the Associate General Counsel level (Kevin McLean) but Kevin Minoli and Justin Schwab haven’t yet reviewed. But I think this version will allow you to see how we’re describing the basis for the denial. The most relevant sections, describing our basis for denying the petition at this time, are on pages 8-9 and 38-41. As you’ll read in the notice, the Agency previously provided 2 interim responses. In 2012 we denied one claim completely and, in 2014, expressed an intent to deny 6 other claims. In this document, we’re also finalizing the denial of those 6 claims to completely close out the petition response. The description of the bases for those earlier denials are cut & pasted from those earlier documents. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process ED_001225_00001066-0001 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process In the meantime, we’ll also work with OPA on communications. I’ve asked my coms people to hold off on preparing anything until we’ve settled on the substance. Always happy to answer questions or come over to discuss. Wendy Wendy Cleland-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-2910 cleland-hamnett.wendy@epa.gov From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 11:04 AM To: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Cc: Jackson, Ryan ; Brown, Byron Subject: RE: Chloropyrifos Great, thanks much! ED_001225_00001066-0002 From: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:48 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan ; Brown, Byron Subject: RE: Chloropyrifos Samantha, I received the first draft late yesterday and am now working through the 40+ pages. Will meet with OGC and the pesticides program at 11:00. Will get back to you after that. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-2910 cleland-hamnett.wendy@epa.gov From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:31 AM To: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Cc: Jackson, Ryan ; Brown, Byron Subject: Chloropyrifos ED_001225_00001066-0003 Wendy: I’m checking in on the draft of the petition denial for Chloropyrifos. I know we still have a bit of time before the 3/31 deadline, but I’d like to know where this is in the process as well as take a look at how the denial has been drafted given the record, to make sure we have time to ask any last minute questions. Could you send over an update? Thank you very much. Samantha Samantha Dravis Senior Counsel / Associate Adminstrator for Policy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ED_001225_00001066-0004 DOCUMENT ED_001225_00001067 HAS BEEN WITHHELD IN FULL UNDER FOIA EXEMPTION 5, DELIBERATIVE PROCESS ED_001225_00001067 To: Rees, Sarah[rees.sarah@epa.gov] From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Thur 3/16/2017 7:02:38 PM Subject: FW: Chloropyrifos MAIL_RECEIVED: Thur 3/16/2017 7:02:00 PM CPYFOS.Petition Response.md.3.16.17.doc From: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:57 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan ; Brown, Byron Subject: RE: Chloropyrifos Samantha, Attached is our first draft of the order denying the petition. As such, please be aware that we are still in the process of editing. If you see typos or citations, etc. to be filled in, folks are working on those. Also, it’s been reviewed at the Associate General Counsel level (Kevin McLean) but Kevin Minoli and Justin Schwab haven’t yet reviewed. But I think this version will allow you to see how we’re describing the basis for the denial. The most relevant sections, describing our basis for denying the petition at this time, are on pages 8-9 and 38-41. As you’ll read in the notice, the Agency previously provided 2 interim responses. In 2012 we denied one claim completely and, in 2014, expressed an intent to deny 6 other claims. In this document, we’re also finalizing the denial of those 6 claims to completely close out the petition response. The description of the bases for those earlier denials are cut & pasted from those earlier documents. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process ED_001225_00001068-0001 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process In the meantime, we’ll also work with OPA on communications. I’ve asked my coms people to hold off on preparing anything until we’ve settled on the substance. Always happy to answer questions or come over to discuss. Wendy Wendy Cleland-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-2910 cleland-hamnett.wendy@epa.gov From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 11:04 AM To: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Cc: Jackson, Ryan ; Brown, Byron Subject: RE: Chloropyrifos Great, thanks much! ED_001225_00001068-0002 From: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:48 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Jackson, Ryan ; Brown, Byron Subject: RE: Chloropyrifos Samantha, I received the first draft late yesterday and am now working through the 40+ pages. Will meet with OGC and the pesticides program at 11:00. Will get back to you after that. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-2910 cleland-hamnett.wendy@epa.gov From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:31 AM To: Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy Cc: Jackson, Ryan ; Brown, Byron Subject: Chloropyrifos ED_001225_00001068-0003 Wendy: I’m checking in on the draft of the petition denial for Chloropyrifos. I know we still have a bit of time before the 3/31 deadline, but I’d like to know where this is in the process as well as take a look at how the denial has been drafted given the record, to make sure we have time to ask any last minute questions. Could you send over an update? Thank you very much. Samantha Samantha Dravis Senior Counsel / Associate Adminstrator for Policy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ED_001225_00001068-0004 DOCUMENT ED_001225_00001069 HAS BEEN WITHHELD IN FULL UNDER FOIA EXEMPTION 5, DELIBERATIVE PROCESS ED_001225_00001069 To: Jackson, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Tue 3/14/201711:19:04 AM Subject: RE: Regulatory Hot Topics for 3/14 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 5:37 AM To: DraVis, Samantha Cc: Brown, Byron Schwab, Justin Subject: Re: Regulatory Hot Topics for 3/14 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 14, 2017, at 5:31 AM, DraVis, Samantha wrote: Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Sent from my iPhone On Mar 13, 2017, at 10:16 PM, Jackson, Ryan acksongr athJeeaxww> wrote: What?s a full denial? You either do or you don't. Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 13, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Drayis, Samantha wrote: Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 6:23 PM To: Drayis, Samantha Cc: Kenny, Shannon Subject: Re: Checking in Weird, was responding to your email about the 3pm. We meet everyday to boil down all the hot issues into what is most important for Scott to get decisions from him the next morning at the 8am. Love to have you instead of Shannon. She was asked yesterday to prepare a chronological list of issues based on deadline dates due to bring to each meeting. See you at 3 today. Don Sent from my iPad On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:22 AM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: didn't get a message here. Original Message From: Benton, Donald Sent: Wednesday, March 8,2017 8:02 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: Re: Checking in Sent from my iPad On Mar 8, 2017, at 6:55 AM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: Good morning gentlemen! E'm not sure what the 3pm meeting Shannon is referring to is, but from now on would like to attend that going forward instead of Shannon. Could you forward me calendar invitations? Thank you! Original Message From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daiiy meeting with David and Don today. We may want to talk more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent from my iPhone To: Benton, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 2:22:09 PM Subject: RE: Checking in didn't get a message here. Original From: Benton, Donald Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 8:02 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: Re: Checking in Sent from my iPad On Mar 8, 2017, at 6:55 AM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: Good morning gentlemen! E'm not sure what the 3pm meeting Shannon is referring to is, but from now on I would iike to attend that going forward instead of Shannon. Could you forward me calendar invitations? Thank you! Original Message From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, March 7,2017 5:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daiiy meeting with David and Don today. We may want to talk more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent from my iPhone 072-00001 To: Kenny, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 2:14:34 PM Subject: Re: Checking in Happy to meet with you now. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 8, 2017, at 7:55 AM, Kenny, Shannon wrote: I Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Shannon. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 8, 2017, at 6:54 AM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: Shannon, Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 2) Thank you Shannon. As always, if we need to discuss or talk piease come on in. Samantha Original Message From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daiiy meeting with David and Don today. We may want to talk more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent from my iPhone To: Kime, Enge, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 12:24:50 PM Subject: FW: Reguiatory "hot" list and revised FR queue FR queue 3.8.2017 shortSortrev2.xlsx FR Packet 3.8.2017rev2deox Could one of you print this email and the attachments, and then bring some more printer paper into my of?ce. Thank you so much. From: Rees, Sarah Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 6:22 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Brown, Byron Cc: Kenny, Shannon Kime, Robin Subject: Regulatory "hot" list and revised FR queue Hi Samantha I?ve attached the revised FR queue (current as of today) as well as an updated list of actions in the FR queue with near-term deadlines. Of the near-term deadlines, the ones that are most pressing are three that are highlighted; two are notices of upcoming meetings, another is extension of a comment period (which was requested by a trade association). I can run these through Byron or catch up with you if you have time tomorrow; these should not be considered controversial. I mentioned earlier today that there are 2 actions upcoming for Administrator signature in mid? March that is being driven by a consent decree deadline. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process We are starting to get other actions in the queue for the Administrator?s signature that don?t have hard legal deadlines but are being driven by other issues. We should probably talk about what the process should look like for queuing items up for Administrator signature. Cheers, Sarah Sarah L. Rees, Director, Office of Regulatory Poiicy Management US EPA Office of Policy (202) 564?1986 (0) Ex. 6 - Personal Privacy m) Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 FR Queue Active Master List Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 10 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 11 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 12 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy 3/7/2017 Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 13 Enternai Deiiberative Office of Poiicy Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process 14 3/7/2017 To: Schnare, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 12:00:23 PM Subject: RE: Checking in Ok coming to visit you Original From: Schnare, David Sent: Wednesday, March 8,2017 7:00 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Subject: RE: Checking in yes Original From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 6:59 AM To: Schnare, David Subject: RE: Checking in Are you in the of?ce, David? Original From: Schnare, David Sent: Wednesday, March 8,2017 6:58 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Benton, Donaid Cc: Fiynn, Mike Subject: RE: Checking in Mike and hold an afternoon meeting with seiected AO staff to figure out what we need to get before the Administrator at the next morning's Chief of Staff meeting. You are welcome. The time of the meeting tends to bounce around between 3 and 4. Mike sets this up. l'm cc'ing him on this to ensure you are invited. D. Original From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 8,2017 6:56 AM To: Benton, Donald Schnare, David Subject: FW: Checking in Good morning gentlemen! E'm not sure what the 3pm meeting Shannon is referring to is, but from now on I would iike to attend that going forward instead of Shannon. Could you forward me calendar invitations? Thank you! Original From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, March 7,2017 5:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daiiy meeting with David and Don today. We may want to talk more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent from my iPhone To: Schnare, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 11:59:24 AM Subject: RE: Checking in Are you in the of?ce, David? Original From: Schnare, David Sent: Wednesday, March 8,2017 6:58 AM To: Dravis, Samantha Benton, Donaid Cc: Fiynn, Mike Subject: RE: Checking in Mike and hoid an afternoon meeting with seiected AO staff to figure out what we need to get before the Administrator at the next morning's Chief of Staff meeting. You are welcome. The time of the meeting tends to bounce around between 3 and 4. Mike sets this up. l'm cc'ing him on this to ensure you are invited. D. Original From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wednesday, March 8,2017 6:56 AM To: Benton, Donald Schnare, David Subject: FW: Checking in Good morning gentlemen! E'm not sure what the 3pm meeting Shannon is referring to is, but from now on I would like to attend that going forward instead of Shannon. Could you forward me calendar invitations? Thank you! Original From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daiiy meeting with David and Don today. We may want to talk more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent from my iPhone To: Benton, Schnare, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 11:55:32 AM Subject: FW: Checking in Good morning gentlemen! E'm not sure what the 3pm meeting Shannon is referring to is, but from now on I would like to attend that going forward instead of Shannon. Could you forward me calendar invitations? Thank you! Original From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, March 7,2017 5:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daily meeting with David and Don today. We may want to talk more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent from my iPhone 079-00001 To: Kenny, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 11:54:18 AM Subject: FW: Checking in Shannon, Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process Thank you Shannon. As always, if we need to discuss or talk please come on in. Samantha Original From: Kenny, Shannon Sent: Tuesday, March 7,2017 5:40 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Rees, Sarah Subject: Checking in Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process attended the 3:00 daily meeting with David and Don today. We may want to talk more about that process and how to make it serve the Administrator better. it may also be good to chat about how to make it serve you better in your AA role. Shannon Sent from my iPhone To: Jackson, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Wed 3/8/2017 1:48:24 AM Subject: Fwd: Chtorpyrifos - Administrator Briefing 1 don?t know what she's talking about. Did Shannon tell her the administrator needs a brie?ng?? Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: ?Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy? Date: March 7, 2017 at 6:53:32 PM EST T0: "Kenny, Shannon? Cc: Mike" Subject: Chlorpyrifos - Administrator Brie?ng Can you let me know status? Are we still waiting to ?nd out, or is it not happening tomorrow? Thanks. Wendy CIeIand-Hamnett Acting Assistant Administrator Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Of?ce of Chemical Safety Pollution Prevention US. Environmental Protection Agency 202-564-2910 To: Minoli, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Fri 3/3/2017 1:33:33 AM Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos Meeting on Friday Kevin, I also just wanted to make sure to say that I really don't think Robin intended to do any harm. She has gone above and beyond to help me this week, and has made me feel welcome here. I hate to reprimand her for something when I think she was really just trying to help on an issue that I had indicated was a time pressing topic. Please bear with us as we learn routines and appropriate processes, etc. thanks and hope you have a great evening. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:07 PM, Minoli, Kevin wrote: Sounds like if we simply combine the two meetings we will have Ryan and Samantha, as well as OCSPP, OP, and OGC, which would be great. I am happy to email Sharnett and Robin tonight to ask them to work together to do that if that works for you. We de?nitely agree you both should be briefed as soon as possible, so this would be a great result if you are ok with it. Thanks, Kevin Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsel Office of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Main Of?ce Line: 202-564-8040 From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 7:29 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Minoli, Kevin Mike Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos Meeting on Friday I don't have anything on my calendar. Wendy has ask to talk to me about it and I?ve been involved with the Administrator all the time. I'm expecting to meet with Wendy tomorrow. Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: The meeting wasn't set up by me, it must have been Robin on my behalf after I suggested that this was a hot topic that required attention. Ryan and I need a brie?ng with the appropriate parties as soon as is possible. Thanks, Samantha Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Minoli, Kevin wrote: Hi Samantha? I wanted to reach out to you and discuss a meeting request the one of attorney?s received earlier today for a meeting on chlorpyrifos tomorrow. While we are happy to meet with you and others on that subject, there were a couple points of concern I need to raise. I realize that you may not have actually set up the invitation (a ton of meetings get set up under my name), but as the senior person in OP I felt it was appropriate to write to you. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney-Client Privilege Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney-Client Privilege Thanks, Kevin Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsel Of?ce of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Main Office Line: 292-564-8849 To: Minoli, Cc: Jackson, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Fri 3/3/2017 1:30:02 AM Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos Meeting on Friday That sounds like a great plan to me, Kevin. Apologies for the confusion. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:07 PM, Minoli, Kevin wrote: Sounds like if we simply combine the two meetings we will have Ryan and Samantha, as well as OCSPP, OP, and OGC, which would be great. I am happy to email Sharnett and Robin tonight to ask them to work together to do that if that works for you. We definitely agree you both should be briefed as soon as possible, so this would be a great result if you are ok with it. Thanks, Kevin Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsel Office of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Main Of?ce Line: 202-564n8040 From: Jackson, Ryan Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 7:29 PM To: Dravis, Samantha Cc: Minoli, Kevin Mike Subject: Re: Chlorpyrifos Meeting on Friday I don't have anything on my calendar. Wendy has ask to talk to me about it and I?ve been involved with the Administrator all the time. I'm expecting to meet with Wendy tomorrow. Ryan Jackson Chief of Staff US. EPA (202) 564-6999 On Mar 2, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Dravis, Samantha wrote: The meeting wasn't set up by me, it must have been Robin on my behalf after I suggested that this was a hot topic that required attention. Ryan and I need a brie?ng with the appropriate parties as soon as is possible. Thanks, Samantha Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Minoli, Kevin wrote: Hi Samantha- I wanted to reach out to you and discuss a meeting request the one of attorney?s received earlier today for a meeting on chlorpyrifos tomorrow. While we are happy to meet with you and others on that subject, there were a couple points of concern I need to raise. I realize that you may not have actually set up the invitation (a ton of meetings get set up under my name), but as the senior person in OP I felt it was appropriate to write to you. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney-Client Privilege Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney-Client Privilege Thanks, Kevin Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsel Of?ce of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Main Office Line: 292-564-8849 From: Dravis, Samantha Location: Importance: Normal Subject: Canceled: Chlorpyrifos - lnvitees Only Start DateITime: Fri 3/3/2017 3:00:00 PM End Date/Time: Fri 3/3/2017 3:30:00 PM Contact Robin with questions 564-6587. To: Minoii, Cc: Jackson, From: Dravis, Samantha Sent: Fri 3/3/2017 12:26:39 AM Subject: Re: Chiorpyrifos Meeting on Friday The meeting wasn?t set up by me, it must have been Robin on my behalf after I suggested that this was a hot topic that required attention. Ryan and I need a brie?ng with the appropriate parties as soon as is possible. Thanks, Samantha Sent from my iPhone On Mar 2, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Minoli, Kevin wrote: Hi Samantha? I wanted to reach out to you and discuss a meeting request the one of attorney?s received earlier today for a meeting on chlorpyrifos tomorrow. While we are happy to meet with you and others on that subject, there were a couple points of concern I need to raise. I realize that you may not have actually set up the invitation (a ton of meetings get set up under my name), but as the senior person in OP I felt it was appropriate to write to you. Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney-Client Privilege Ex. 5 - Deliberative Process, Attorney-Client Privilege Thanks, Kevin Kevin S. Minoli Acting General Counsel Of?ce of General Counsel US Environmental Protection Agency Main Of?ce Line: 202-564-8040