# • Dregon

. Kate Brown, Governor 

### Department of Agriculture 635 Capitol St NE Salem, OR 97301-2532 11 March 2016
Tawanda Maignan , Team Leader Risk Integ ration, Minor Use, and Emergency Response Branch U .S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (7SOSP) Document Processing Desk (EMEX) Room S4900, One Potomac Yard 2777 S. Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202**-'-~ --~-** 



### RE: Section 18 emergency use of pyridate (ToughTM 5EC Herbicide) for postemergence weed control in peppermint and spearmint grown in Oregon during 2016, and possible use of this request as a template for similar exemptions in other states. The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) hereby requests an emergency exemption under Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide , Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), to allow the use of pyridate (ToughTM SEC Herbicide , not EPA registered) for postemergence control of certain broadleaf weeds in peppermint and spearm int grown in Oregon during 2016. Th is is our third request for th is emergency use , but our first such request since the year 2000. 

### Background: History of U.S

. registration of pyridate and use on mint

• FIFRA Section 3 registration : Pyridate, formulated as Tough SEC, was first approved for U
.S. registration by EPA in 1997 (EPA Reg. No
. SS947-168, Sandoz Agro) , for use on corn and peanuts
. T he reg istration was transferred to the successor companies Novartis and then Syngenta Crop Protection under EPA Reg. No. 100-880.
• FIFRA Section 18 exemptions in 1999 and 2000: EPA granted emergency exemptions to Oregon and other states for use of pyridate in mint, to control weeds that had become resistant to registered alternative herbicides. (Tough SEC, Novartis Crop Protection , EPA Reg. No. 100-880 , EPA File Symbols 99-0R-27 and 00-0R-1 0, and other states.)
• Residue tolerances established for mint: In May 2000 , EPA established residue to lerances of 0.20 ppm pyridate in/on peppermint tops and spearmint tops in 40 CFR 180.462.
• FIFRA Section 24(c) registrations: Special Local Need registrations were approved for mint in Oregon and other states in 2001 (EPA Reg. No. 100-880, EPA SLN No. OR-01 OOOS, and in CA, ID , IN , Ml , WA, WI.)
• U.S. pyridate registrations cancelled: All U.S. pyridate registrations were voluntarily cancelled by Syngenta Crop Protection in 2004 , but EPA extended all state mint SLNs through 2007. 

### 2016 Section 18 Request

• Emergency situation: To date , efficacious alternatives have not been registered for postemergence control of certain herbicide-resistant broadleaf weeds in mint that formerly were controlled by pyridate. In fields infested with these weeds, especially redroot pigweed and kochia in Oregon, growers continue to suffer significant economic loss due to both lower yields of mint oil and lower prices received for oil tainted by off-flavors imparted by these weeds
.§ 18/Pyridate.mint.Oregon/2016 11 March 2016 page 2

• New U.S. pyridate registration (in progress): ODA has been informed that Syngenta recently transferred the U.S. marketing rights for pyridate to the Belchim Crop Protection company of Belgium , and that Belchim has had initial meetings with EPA to discuss reestablishing U.S. registration of pyridate on certa in crops , including mint.
• Although pyridate residue tolerances for mint remain in effect in 40 CFR 180.462 , EPA has advised ODA that pursuing a Section 24(c) SLN registration is not a viable option because there are currently no Section 3 registrations for pyridate, but that a Section 18 might be considered a reasonable option (email communication from Marion Johnson). The Mint Industry Research Council (MIRC) has obtained support of Belchim for Section 18 emergency exemption requests for Oregon and other states in 2016
. • Other states may cite this Oregon request: On behalf of mint growers inCA, ID, IN , Ml, WA , WI , the MIRC has collaborated with ODA to offer this Oregon request as a template that can be cited by other State Lead Agencies for similar Section 18 requests in those states. Each other state that wishes to pursue a Section 18 request may cite any information in this Oregon request , while providing its own state-specific information on affected acreage and proposed use details/directions , enforcement programs, environmental and endangered/threatened species concerns, and significant economic loss (SEL) analysis. It is ODA 's understanding that this multiple-state exemption approach is allowed under EPA's Section 18 guidelines.
• Information required in 40 CFR 166.20 for Oregon is provided in the following pages. Please contact me if there are questions about this request.

David L. Priebe Pesticides Program Phone : (503)986-4656 FAX: (503)986-4735 Email: dpriebe@oda

.state
.or. us

cc: Steve Salisbury, Mint Industry Research Council Bryan Ostlund, Oregon M int Commission Carol Mallory-Smith , Oregon State University Liesbeth Bosman , Belchim Crop Protection Eric Maurer, Engage Agro USA Ted Buerger, U
.S

. Fish and Wildlife Service Ben Miller, Idaho State Department of Agriculture Erik Johansen/Steve Foss, Washington State Department of Agriculture Ji ll Townzen/Margaret Reiff, California Department of Pesticide Regulation Ed White , Office of the Indiana State Chemist Brian Verhougstraete , Michigan Department ofAgriculture & Rural Development Otto Oemig, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture , Trade and Consumer Protection Rose Kachadoorian, ODA Registration Team Leader§ 18/Pyridate.m i nt.Oregon/2016 11 March 2016 

### Request for FIFRA Section 18 Emergency Exemption for Use of Pyridate (Tough TM 

### 5 EC Herbicide) for Postemergence Broadleaf Weed Control in Mint Grown in Oregon
A. Summary of General Information Required in 40 CFR 166.20(a).

1. Type of Exemption: Specific. 2. Contact Persons : Steve Salisbury (Technical) Mint Industry Research Council PO Box 4059 Salem, OR 97302-1059 Phone: 503-551-3747 Email: steve@pacificagresources.com Dr
. Carol Mallory-Smith (Scie ntific) Department of Crop and Soil Science Oregon State U niversity Corvallis, OR 97331-3002 Phone:503-737-5883 Email : Caroi

. Mallorv-Smith@oregonstate

.edu Bryan Ostlund (Economics) Oregon M int Commission P.O. Box 3366 Salem, OR 97302 Phone: 503-363-3346 Email: bryan@ostlund
.com Liesbeth Bosman (Manufacturer /Registran t) Belch im Crop Protection , Inc
. Tech nologielaan 7 1840 Londerzee l Belgium Phone: +32 (0) 473 86 52 33 Email : Liesbeth
.Bosman@Belchim

.com Eric Maurer (U.S. Distributor) Engage Agro USA, LLC 118 E
. Carleton Street, Suite B Prescott , AZ 86303 Phone: 410-703-3756 Email : ericmaurer@engE.geagro

.com 3. Description of the Pesticide. page 3



### a. Active Ingredient: Pyridate; 0-(6-chloro-3-phenyl-4-pyridazinyi)-S-octyl-carbonothioate; CAS No. 55512-33-9
.§ 18/Pyridate.mint.Oregon/2016 11 March 2016
b. Trade Name: ToughTM 5 EC Herbicide , not currently**r~istered** in U
.S. page 4

c. Formulation : Emu lsifiable concentrate containing 55.8% active ingredient, equivalent to 5 lb. pyridate per gallon. d. Registrant/Manufacture r: Belchim Crop Protection; Londerzeel, Belgium
. e. U .S. Distributor: Engage Agro USA, LLC; Prescott, Arizona. The proposed U.S. marketing/container label and Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for the product are enclosed as Attachments #1 and #2, respectively. 4. Description of the Proposed Use.
a. Sites to be Treated : Peppermint and spearmint grown in the following regions/counties in · Oregon. Central and Eastern Oregon: Crook, Deschutes , Harney, Lake , Malheur, Morrow, Umatilla , and Union counties Southern Oregon: Klamath County Western Oregon (Willamette Valley): Benton , Clackamas, Lane, Lin n, Marion , Polk, and Yamhill counties b. Method of Application: ToughTM may be applied to mint using ground equipment only. For best control of broadleafweeds , applications should be targeted to actively growing weeds by the 4-leaf stage (approximately 3 inches in height or less).
c. Rate of Application: Appl ications may be made at the rate of 24 fl. oz. of product (0

.94 lb. a.i. pyridate) per acre, in 20-40 gallons of water per acre. d
. Maximum Number of Applications: A maximum of two applications may be made , tota ling no more than 48 fl. oz. ToughTM (1

.88 lb. a .i. pyridate) per acre per season. A minimum 14-day interval must be observed between applications. e . Total Acreage to be Treated: There are approximately 18,000 acres of mint grown in Oregon. The emergency weed situation affects about half (50%) of this total acreage. Thus , approximately 9,000 acres could potentially be treated with Tough TM 5 EC Herbicide under this exemption, if granted
. f. Total Amount of Pesticide to be Used : Based on the maximum seasonal application rate of 48 fl. oz. product per acre, a maximum of 3 ,375 gallons of Tough TM 5 EC Herbicide (16 ,875 lb
. a.i. pyridate) may be applied to a maximum of 9 ,000 acres in Oregon. g . Use Season : The requested use period is from April1 through December 31, 2016
. A fall application after harvest may be necessary if conditions promoting weed growth occur. h
. Harvest Dates: The majority of peppermint acreage is harvested once , in August. However, some peppermint growers are double cutting their crop . Double-cut mint is harvested twice during the growing year, once in mid- to late June and again in late August or early September. Spearmint is harvested twice during the growing season , once in the middle of June and again in the middle of August.§ 18/Pyridate.mint.Oregon/2016 11 March 2016
i. Additional Use Information, Requirements, and Restrictions: page 5

All precautionary/hazard and worker protection information on the main product container label for Tough TM 5 EC Herbicide (Attachment #1) must be followed
. Do not enter or allow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted-entry interval (REI) of 24 hours
. Do not apply more than 48 fl. oz. of ToughTM (1.88 lb. a.i. pyridate) per acre per season, as a result of no more than two (2) applications
. A minimum 14-day interval must be observed between applications. Do not apply ToughTM to mint within 49 days before harvest. Do not apply ToughTM to mint by air or through any type of irrigation equipment. Treated fields or forage from treated fields may not be used for livestock feed or grazing
. To protect endangered plant species , one of the following options must be used : (1) App ly only when there is a sustained wind away from wetland/transitional zone native plant communities ; (2) Leave a 25-foot buffer between treatment area and wetland/transitional zone native plant communities ; or (3) Use low pressure nozzles according to manufacturer's specifications that produce only coarse or very coarse droplets. To protect endangered freshwater invertebrate species, do not apply ToughTM within 100 yards of any freshwater spring
. Any adverse effects that may result from the use of ToughTM under this emergency exemption must be immediately reported to the Oregon Department of Agriculture
. Any unused , unregistered product must either be returned to the manufacturer or distributor (unopened containers), or be disposed of in accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations following the expiration of the emergency exemption
. The product container label for ToughTM 5 EC Herbicide and the Oregon Section 18 use directions for mint must be in possession of the user at the time of pesticide applications. A draft Section 1 8 use directions document for emergency exemption use of ToughTM 5 EC Herbicide on mint in Oregon is enclosed as Attachment #3
. 5. Al tern ative Methods of Control . a. Registered Postemergence H erbicide Alternatives: 1
. Bentazon (Basagran)- Provides inconsistent (partial) postemergence control of kochia. Does not contro l pigweed
. Weeds emerging after application are not controlled
. 2
. Bromoxynil (Maestro)- Phytotoxic to actively growing mint. Cannot be applied above§ 18/Pyridate.mint.Oregon/2016 11 March 2016 page 6
70° F to actively growing mint. Only gives partial control of kochia and pigweed seedlings
. Kochia and pigweed seeds germinate (multiple flushes) throughout the growing season. 3. Clethodim (Select Max)- Grass weed control only. 4. Clopyralid (Stinger) - For spot treatment, postemergence control of broadleaf weeds (Canada thistle, dandelion) only
. Destroys mint that comes in contact with herbicide
. Does not control kochia or pigweed
. 5
. MCPB {Thistrol)- Can only be applied early postemergence to weeds and to dormant or small/newly emerged mint. It is limited to partial control of Canada thistle and field bindweed. Does cause crop injury and loss of oil yield
. 6
. Quizalifop (Assure II) - Grass weed control only
. 7. Sethoxydim (Poast Plus) - Grass weed control only
. 8. Terbacil (Sinbar)- Does not control kochia. Pigweed has developed resistant biotypes due to years of continuous use. It is not effective on weeds that have g rown beyond the seedling stage
. Cannot be used when rotating from mint into other crops the fo llowing year, due to soil persistence and crop rotational restrictions
. Cannot be used on sandy soils, loamy sands , or soils with less than 1% organic matter without crop injury
. b
. Other Weed Control Alternatives: Mechanical weed control methods such as tillage are not feasible or practiced in actively growing mint due to the destruction of the crop . Tillage in mint at any time also spreads the disease Verticillium wilt , a fungal pathogen in mint that is spread by the movement of soil and debris
. T illage also spreads the rhizomes and stolons of perennial weeds. Hand rogueing is cost prohibitive and does not provide season-long control of weeds , as weed seeds continue to germinate in the soil throughout the growing season. I n addition, the labor needed for hand weeding is not available in most mint growing regions. Crop rotation is practiced when feasible; but mint, being a perennial crop , is usually left in production for 3 to 5 years or longer. Research on biological control methods is currently being conducted, but to date no effective methods have been developed
. c. Ongoing Research for Chemical Alternatives: T he m int industry has placed a high priority on finding alternatives to pyridate for postemergence broadleaf weed control. The industry has diligently invested several hundred thousands of dollars of research funds for the past decade to this effort. Numerous preemergence and postemergence herbicides have been tested and evaluated , with little or no success . Preemergence herbicides evaluated include pendimethalin , terbacil , saflufenacil, sulfentrazone, flumioxazin, oxyfluorfen, pyroxasulfone , and both oxyfluorfen and flumioxazin impregnated on fertilizer have been tested
. Postemergence herbicides that have been tested include bentazon, terbacil, bromoxynil , bicyclopyrone, mesotrione , tembotrione , topramezone, fluroxypyr , MCPB, and carfentrazone. These herbicides are either too injurious to the mint or do not adequately control the pigweed. A letter from Dr. Rick Boydston , USDA-ARS, summarizing mint herbicide research since 2006 is enclosed as Attachment 

### #4. In summary, despite extensive efforts, the mint industry has not been able to successfully find an adequate replacement for pyridate (since cancellation of its U
.S

. registrations in 2007) to provide postemergence weed control that does not cause significant injury to the§ 18/Pyridate.mint.Oregon/20 16 11 March 2016 page 7

mint crop . Therefore , weed control remains an urgent situation challenging the ability to produce high quality mint oil. In addition to the urgency of the situation , it is important to note that postemergence broadleaf weed control has recently developed into a non-routine s ituation due to the increased demand for double-cut m int production acreage . Many acres have been forced to double-cut production to meet recent global regulatory and market demands
. Furthe r description of this non -routine situation is discussed below, in Section B , Part 2 (Description of the Emergency Condition) of this request. 

### 6. Effi cacy of the Proposed Use. Results of efficacy and comparative field trials involving pyridate (Tough TM ) are enclosed as Attachment #5
. It is noteworthy that these efficacy and crop safety trials were all conducted back in the 1990s, during the period in which the m int industry and the former U.S

. reg istrant of pyridate (Novartis/Syngenta Crop Protection) were developing data in support of res idue to lerances (estab lished in 2000) and registration on mint (SLNs approved in 2001 ). There are no more recent data available , which is not unexpected , because there had been no expectation that pyridate m ight become availab le in the U
.S. once again
. ToughTM selectively contro ls annual weeds in mint witho ut causing significant cr op injury. Risks to rotational crops are min im ized due to the short half-life and low soil pers istence , leading to no residual impact to subsequent crops. Tough TM is the only known br oad leaf herbicide that can provide postemergence control ofweeds without impacting crop yield (see Attachment #6). 

### 7. Resi due Inform ati on. Residue trials for pyridate/m int were conducted by the IR-4 Prog ram in 1994. Applications made in accordance with the requested provisions for th is exemption are not expected to resu lt in residues of pyridate and its metabolites in excess of 0
.2 ppm in peppermint tops and spearmint tops. There are no feed items associated with mint; therefore , secondary residues are not expected to occur in meat, milk, pou ltry , or eggs as a resu lt of the proposed use. Mint residue to lerances we re established by EPA in 40 CFR 180.462 at 0.2 ppm in May 2000. Although U
.S. reg istrations of pyridate on m int were ca nceled i n 2007 , the tolerances remain in effect to this day. 

### 8. Risk Inform ation . a. Worker/Handler Occupational Risks : The proposed ToughTM 5 EC Herbicide product labe l (Attachment #1) addresses the risks to worker/appl icator by outlining hand ler p recautions and requ i red personal protective equipment. These worker protection statements mirror those on the label of the product when formerly reg istered in the U
.S. under EPA Reg
. No
. 100-880
. b
. Human Health Dietary Risks : EPA completed a comprehensive risk assessment in conjunction with the estab lishment of the mint residue tolerances in May 2000
. Data and other information concerning pyridate toxicology , endocrine effects , mode of action , aggregate exposure (including exposures through drinking water) , and safety fo r the U.S

. population and infants and chi ldren , were evaluated , and the safety determination was made , in order to set those tolerances. Information relevant to this risk assessment was§ 18/Pyridate.mint.Oregon/20 16 11 March 2016 page 8
presented in the final rule published in : Federal Register , 03 May 2000 (Volume 65 , Number 86), pages 25647-25652
. A copy is enclosed as Attachment #7. ToughTM herbicide poses little potential risks to humans , domestic animals , wildlife , and the environment. The acute oral LD50 for male rats is > 5,000 mg/kg

. The active ingredient has a low dermal irritation potential and a low inhalation hazard
. Acute dermal LDsofor rabbits is > 2 ,000 mg/kg. Inhalation LCso is > 4.37 mg/L air. Primary dermal irritation study ind icated it is mildly irritating to rabbit skin. (See EPA Health Effects Division Risk Assessment, January 2000 , enclosed as Attachment #8
.) EPA concluded that residues of pyridate in drinking water do not contribute significantly to the aggregate acute human health risk
. The acute human health risks resulting from exposure to pyridate in food and water are below EPA's level of concern for all population subgroups. As for chronic risk, the EPA also concluded that no harm will result from aggregate chron ic exposure. T he potential for exposure to residues of pyridate in drinking water is neg li gible due to its low water solubility (1.5 mg/L at 20°C) , strong soil adso rption (Kd 

### = 0.3-3.5) and short half-life (7-21 days)

. Pyridate is essentially immobile in all so il types and any risks to surface or groundwater contamination will be negl igible. T he EPA Health Effects Division determined that pyridate does not possess the environmental fate parameters associated with a compound that could leach to groundwater
. However, the parameters of its degradate indicate that under unusual conditions such as flooding , where anaerobic cond itions persist in topsoil for up to 60 days, the degradate cou ld possibly leach to groundwater or run off to surface water. Pyridate is not listed in the EPA Pesticides in Ground Water Database , nor is there an EPA Maximum Containment Leve l or health advisory. It was also determ ined that pyridate is not carcinogenic in either rat or mouse , and the refore is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
c. Reside ntial Uses : Pyridate is not registered for use in ornamentals or in residential areas . d. Common Mode of Act ion : Pyridate is a Group 6 herbicide , H RAC Group C3 (He rbicide Resistance Action Committee , www .hracglobal.com)

. It belongs to the phenyl-pyridazine fami ly of herbicides
. Its site of action is inh ibition photosynthesis by blocking electron transport in photosystem II (reactions taking place in the chloroplast thylakoid membranes)

. e . Endangered or Threatened species : Endangered or threatened species listed by the USFWS w ithin the m int production counties of Marion , Polk, Yamhill , Clackamas , Linn , Benton , Lane , Malheur, Crook, Union , Umatilla, Morrow, Harney, Lake , Deschutes, and Klamath are provided in Attachment #9
. The use of ToughTM herbicide in accordance with the label in m int fie lds should not pose a risk to any threatened or endangered species
. f. Beneficial Organisms : ToughTM herb icide is not toxic to bees and other beneficial insects (e

.g ., lady beetles , predatory m ites)

. See the EPA Environmental Fate and Effects Division report, Decembe r 1989, enclosed as Attachment #1 0.§ 18/Pyridate.mint.Oregon/2016 11 March 2016 g. Fish and Aquatic Organisms: Pyridate is considered toxic to estuarine organisms. page 9

However, due to its strong soil adsorption and short half-life , if applied according to the labe l it should not pose a risk to estuarine organisms (see Attachment #1 0). The proposed labe l states that this material should not be applied within 100 yards of any freshwater spring , directly to water, to areas where surface water is present, or to intertidal areas below the mean high water mark. 

### 9. Coordination with Other Agencies. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office of the U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service will receive a copy of this request. Any comments received will be forwarded to EPA. 

### 10. Notification of Registrant. Belchim Crop Protection has been notified and their letter of support is enclosed as Attachment #11. Engage Agro USA, LLC, which will serve as the U.S. distributor of Tough TM S EC Herbicide, has also provided a letter of support , enclosed as Attachment #12
. 

### 11. Enforcement Program. The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) has adequate authoriti es for enforcing provisions of Section 18 emergency exemptions. ODA will require the registrant (manufacturer, if unreg istered) of Tough 

### TM S EC Herbicide, Belchim Crop Protection , to prepare and make available to end users Section 18 Use Directions that comply with ODA and EPA requirements for the emergency use, if approved. Applicators will be required to keep adequate records of application use and acreage . The Mint Industry Research Council (MIRC) , in cooperation with Belchim Crop Protection and Engage Agro USA, will be required to provide the ODA a report summarizing results of the emergency use after the end of the use pe riod. 

### 12. Repeat Uses. EPA granted Section 18 emergency exemptions for use of pyridate (Tough SEC , Novartis Crop Protection , EPA Reg
. No. 100-880) on mint in Oregon in 1999 and 2000 , EPA File Symbo ls 99-0R-27 and 00-0R-10. After mint residue tolerances were established in May 2000 , ODA registered Tough SEC on mint under FIFRA Section 24(c) , EPA SLN No
. OR-01000S. EPA and Syngenta Crop Protection voluntarily canceled the U.S. registrations of pyridate in 2004, but allowed the mint SLN to remain registered until the end of 2007. This is the th ird time that ODA has requested use of pyridate on m int under FIFRA Section 18
. 

### 13. Progress Toward Registration. Pyridate/mint residue tolerances of 0.20 ppm in peppermint tops and spearmint tops were establ ished by EPA in May 2000 (Attachment #7). Use of Tough SEC on mint was registered in several states under FIFRA Section 24(c) , but all U.S. registrations of pyridate were voluntarily cancelled by Syngenta Crop Protection and EPA at the end of 2007
. Recently, Belchim Crop Protection of Belgium acquired the U
.S

. marketing rights for pyridate from Syngenta

. It is understood that Belch im is working with the EPA to re-register pyridate on mint in the U.S.§ 18/Pyridate.mint.Oregon/2016 11 March 2016
B. Summary of the Economic Loss Information Required in 40 CFR 166.20(b).

1
. Pests to be Controlled. The pests causing an emergency are broadleaf weeds that have become resistant to registered postemergence herbicides, in particular: Redroot pigweed, Armaranthus retroflexus Kochia, Kochia scoparia 2. Discussion of the Emergency Condition. page 10

This request is due to the emergency condition existing in mint from pigweed , kochia, and other broadleaf weed communities that cannot be effectively controlled postemergence in active growing mint crops . All crops including mint suffer yield losses from populations of weeds, but unlike other crops, the quality of mint oil also is affected by weeds. A quality marketable mint crop is dependent upon weed-free fields
. Redroot pigweed present in mint at 1.6 weeds/yd 2 renders mint oil unmarketable , due to off-flavors imparted during the distillation process (see Attachment #13). Research at Oregon State University (OSU) also demonstrated that a redroot pigweed infestation of 10 plants/ft2 caused a peppermint oil yield reduction 34.4 lb/acre, a 46% reduction (Attachment #13). Furthermore , both redroot and prostrate (A. blitoides) pigweeds have developed biotypes that are resistant to terbacil (Sinbar), the most commonly used postemergence broadleaf herbicide in mint (see Attachments #14 and #15). Kochia , a summer annual, can grow to heights of six feet and several feet in diameter, hindering harvest operations and competing for nutrients and light. An infestation of 2.3 kochia plants/fe can reduce mint oil yields by over 30% in addition to reducing oil quality (Attachment #13). Mechanical tillage is not a postemergence weed control option in mint because tillage will destroy growing mint, eliminate irrigation rills in surface irrigated fields, and will spread devastating diseases in mint such as Verticillium wilt (Verticillium dahliae). Terbacil (Sinbar), the commonly used herbicide registered for weed control in mint, is weak on pigweed species and has become even less effective in controlling pigweeds due to the development of resistant biotypes (Attachments #14 and #15). Additionally, terbacil cannot be used when weeds are beyond the seedling stage and when rotating from mint to other crops due to residual carryover. The only alternative method of controlling these weeds is hand -rogue ing, but the unavailability of labor and excessive cost where labor is available , eliminates rogueing as a viable weed control method. Again , there are presently no effective postemergence means of controlling these weeds in mint. Th e recent increase in global demand for the production of double-cut mint oil has created a non -rou tine situation that poses additional stress on the need for adequate postemergence broadleaf weed control. Preemergence herbicides applied in February/early March to dormant mint dissipate to low levels that no longer control weeds after 4-6 weeks. The mint crop canopy suppresses any new weed emergence or establishment after this period
. Once the mint canopy is removed with a mid- to late June harvest (first cutting) , new weed flushes fo llow. These new flushes include both summer annual grasses and later germinating broadleaf weeds such as pigweeds. The grass weeds are easily controlled with registered grass active herbicides. However, there are no effective postemergence herbicides that are labeled in m int for pigweed control during the second half of the growing season following the first harvest of mint.

### § 18/Pyridate.mint.Oregon/2016 11 March 2016 page 11

The increased demand for double-cut mint is a result of both global regulatory challenges and the increasing desire for the oil quality that is produced in double-cut production
. T he global regulatory issues involve the concern of menthofu ran and pulegone contents in the mint oil , and the lim its of these compounds that are allowable in oil to deem it acceptable in markets. The reduction of these compounds and the increase of other desirable oil quality traits can be achieved through double-cut production
. The market has shifted to a higher demand for double-cut mint, but the acreage to meet the demand is not adequate due to management challenges associated with double-cut production
. Postemergence broadleaf weed control is the primary management challenge facing doub le-cut production
. Producers do not have viable broadleaf weed contro l options to address th is challenge. The m int industry has been di ligently investing research funds to discover effective postemergence broadleaf weed herbicides that are safe to the crop. Pyridate has p r oven to be effective on broad leaf weeds , as well as possessing acceptab le postemergence crop safety needed for m int production
. Populations of prob lem weeds have reached economically devastating levels and are impacting the producers' abi lity to compete in the market. Additionally , the recent increased demand for double-cut mint has forced production into and created a non -routine situation for mint producers who have no effective and viable postemergence broad leaf weed control options
. The use of pyridate/ Tough

### TM 5 EC Herbicide for postemergence weed contro l in mint is critical to maintaining U
.S

. m int oil quality and market share in today's global economy. 

### 3. Discussion of Eco nomi c Loss. Koch ia/redroot pigweed and other broadleaf weed communities have become serious weed pests of mint growers in Oregon

. The lack of any postemergence broadleaf weed control option (no effective registered herbicide , and presence of herbicide-resistant pigweed) has created an emergency situation fo r Oregon mint growers. Furthermo re , the recent increased demand for double-cut mint has created a non-routine situation in weed contro l for mint producers. Economic thresho lds for these problem weeds are very low
. Weeds res istant to herbicides which mature and form seeds , soon establish large popu lations of the resistant biotype , if not contro ll ed. Studies performed by OSU weed scientists show yie ld losses ranging from 22% to 47% from the target weeds individually (Attachment #13)

. Koch ia and redroot pigweed are often found in complexes of other weeds , which further reduces the yield and quality of**mi~t** oi l. 

### Significant Eco nom ic Loss (SEL) -Tier 2 An alysi s The first table below shows the five-year econom ic history of mint oil productio n in Oregon. As footnoted below the table , yield and price data were obtained from mint growers and oil buyers
. These data represent oil yie ld across all mint acres in Oregon , i.e., from both fields infested with the prob lem weeds and uninfested fields , collective ly . In the second table , a Tier 2 SEL analysis is used to illustrate the impact of reductions in both yield and quality of m int oil lead ing to loss of revenue due to the devaluation of tainted oil resulting from weed contaminants
. Tier 2 yie ld calculations are based on the five-year average (2011 -2015) of 84 lb/acre. The base line vs. emergency comparison reflects a 35% yie ld reduction (based on OSU trial data) on the portion of the acres (50%) faced with the impact of postemergence weed control cha ll enges . As previously stated in this request , the estimated acreage of Oregon m int is 18,000 acres and approximately 9,000 acres (50%) have the emergency weed infestations .§ 18/Pyridate.mint.Oregon/2016 11 March 2016 IVe· ear 1story o 

### F" y 

### H " Year Average Yield 1 Average Price 1 (lb oil/acre) ($/lb oil) 2011 81 $21 2012 82 $21 2013 85 $21 2014 83 $21 2015 88 $21 Average 84 $21 fO page 12
regon 

### p d f ro uc 1on o 

### m I f 

### M" t 

### 0"1 Gross Cost of Net Reven ue Production 2 Revenue 3 ($/acre) ($/acre) ($/acre) $1,705 $2 ,038 ($333) $1,725 $2 ,038 ($313) $1,788 $2,038 ($250) $1,750 $2 ,038 ($288) $1,849 $2,038 ($189) $1,763 $2,038 ($275)
1 Yield and price data were obtained from mint industry oil growers and buyers. 2 Cost of production is based on 2013 University of Idaho Enterprise Budget (Attachment #16).

Oregon was not used because the most recent university budget was published in 1995. 3 A loss does not necessarily mean a negative cash flow, but rath er that the grower will not earn a

return on capital and management contributions (hourly wage, labor, etc
.) equal to what could be earned in an alternative investment of the land producing the mint crop. As for marketable oil quality, it is estimated that control of the problem weeds will reduce the amount of tainted oil produced (i.e., increase production of untainted oil) by 20% overall. The price devaluation of tainted oil ranges from a small percentage deduction to complete rejection/loss. Based on industry knowledge, an average devaluation of 35% was used for this analysis. The emergency situation results in 20% more tainted oil that has 35% less value realized by the growers . In all , this is a loss greater than $10 million to the mint producers in Oregon

. Ti er 2 Oregon Eco nomic Analysi s of Yield and Quality Loss Baseline Emergency Change %Change Total Oil Y ield** 1,919,077 1 ,512,000 -407 ,077 -21%

(lb./18 ,000 acres) Untainted Oil 90% 70% (%of yield) (total lb .) 1,727, 169 1,058,400 -668,769 -39% Tainted Oil 10% 30% (%of yield) (total lb
.) 191,908 453,600 261,692 + 1 36% Price, Untainted ($/lb) $21 .00 $21

.00 Price, Ta inted ($/lb} $13

.65 $13

.65 -$7.35
-35% Gross Revenue $38 ,890,093 $28,418,040 -$ 10,472,053 -27% ($/acre) ** Tota l mint oil yield in current (emergency) situation across all 18,000 acres at average yield of 84 lb/ac 

### = [18,000 x 84 lb/ac] 

### = 1 ,512,000 lb
. Baseline yield expected to be achieved without the emergency situation, calculated across all 18,000 acres = [9,000 ac x 84 lb/ac] + [9,000 ac x (84 lb/ac/0 .65)] = 1,919,077 lb.

### §18/Pyridate.mint.Oregon/2016 11 March 2016 C. Supporting Documentation Attachment# Cited in Request 1. To ugh

### TM 5 EC Herbicide container label (proposed). 2. To ugh

### TM 5 EC Herbicide Safety Data Sheet (SDS)

. page 13

3. ToughrM 5 EC Herbicide proposed Section 18 Use Directions for mint in Oregon in 2016. 4. Letter summarizing weed research efforts searching for alternatives to pyridate. Dr. Rick Boydston. USDA-ARS. Prosser, WA. March 1, 2016. 5. To lerance of Peppermint to Pyridate. Oregon State University Efficacy Data. Hyslop Farm, Corvallis, OR. 1993
. 6. Pyridate Properties and Characteristics. Heap , I. pp . 89-91
. 7. Final rule to establish pyridate residue tolerances for mint. Federal Register, Vol. 65 , No. 86. Wednesday, May 3, 2000. pp. 25647-25652. 8. EPA Health Effects Division Risk Assessment. Pyridate (i.e. Tough® ) in/or on Brassica Head and Stem Subgroup , Collards and Mint. January 24, 2000. 9. Endangered/Threatened Species Found in Oregon Mint Producing Counties

. February 2016. http ://ecos.fws .gov /tess public/ 10. EPA Environmental Fate and Effects Division- Pyridate Report. December 12 , 1989. 11. Belchim C rop Protection N.V./S.A. Letter of Support. January 13 , 2016
. 12. Engage Agro USA, LLC

. Letter of Support. February 4 , 2016. 13. The Effect of Weeds on Mint Oil Yield and Quality

. Heap, I. Department of Crop and Soil Science. Oregon State University
. 14. Herbicide Resistant Weeds in Mint. Heap , I. WeedSmart, Corvallis , OR. 15. Terbacil and Bromacil Cross-Resistance in Powell Amaranth (Amaranths powellit). Boydston , Rand AI-Khatib , K. Weed Science. Volume 40:513-516. 1992. 16. Costs & Returns Estimates for Peppermint Establishment & Production Center Pivot, No Fumigation. Painter, K, et.al. University of Idaho. 2013