1

February 1 5 , 2016



## Petition for Section 18 Emergency Exemption for Tough ®



## H erbicide (pyridate) for use in mint grown in Wisconsin

A. Summary of General Information

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. Jed Colquhoun (Scientific) Department of Horticulture University of Wisconsin

1575 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706

Phone: 608

- 852

- 4513

Email: colquhoun@hort.wisc.edu

Julie Braun (Economics)

Wisconsin Mint Board

PO Box 327 Antigo, WI 54409

Phone: 715

- 623

- 7683

Email: jbraun@wisconsinpotatoes.com

Lie sbeth Bosman (Registrant) Belchim Crop Potection, Inc. Technologielaan 7

1840 Londerzeel Belgium

Phone : +32 (0) 473 86 52 33

Email: Liesbeth.Bosman@Belchim.com2

3

. Description of Pesticide Active Ingredient: Pyridate

Trade Name: Tough Herbicide 5EC, not currently registered in U.S.

Formulation: Emulsifiable concentrate formulated at 55.8% (5.0 lb. ai. per gal.) and 44.2

% inert ingredients.

Registrant/Manufacturer: Belchim Crop Protection a Belgium based company (EPA Company No. 91746). The U.S. distr ibutor is Engage Agro USA Corp. Material Safety

Data Sheet (MSDS) and label s are attached

.

4. Description of Proposed Use

a. Sites to be T reated There are approximately 3,5 00 acres of mint grown in Wisconsin . It is estimated that approximately 3,100 (90 %) of this acreage will need to be treated with Tough. The mint production areas are located in Wisconsin counties of Adams, Columbia, Dane, Dodge, Green Lake, Jefferson, Marquette, Oconto, Rock, Sauk, and Walworth

. The soils of these mint growing counties are generally productive, deep, and fertile in agricultural areas where a diversity of crops are also grown.

b. Metho d of A pplication The herbicide will be applied by g r o u n d

- d riven spray equipment and applied by l icensed applicators in accordance with the EPA approved label. Tough will not be applied by aerial methods or through any type of irrigation system.

c. Rate of A pplica tion

A maximum of 0 .9375 lb. active ingredient per acre (24 ounces of product per acre ) in

20

- 40 gallons of water per acre will be applied during the growing season.

d. Maximum Number of A pplications Two applications of Tough per growing season may be mad e
, if necessary

, with a minimum of 14 days between applications. Applications may be made between the dates of April 1 and December 31, 2016 . No applications will be made within 49 days of

harvest.

e. Total Acreage to be Treated It is estimated that approximately 3,100 acres (90 % of total Wisconsin acreage) will need to be treated with Tough.

f

. Total pesticide to be used An estimated 1,163 gallons (5,815 lbs of a.i.) of herbicide are expec ted to be applied

. 3,1 00acre * 24 fl. oz. * 2 applications = 1,163 gal. of formulated product. 1,163 gal * 5 lb a.i./ gal = 5,815 lbs of active ingredient.3

g

. Use season We are requesting application beginning A pril 1 through December 31, 2016 . A fall application after harvest may be necessary if conditions promoting weed growth occur. No applications will be made within 49 days of harvest.

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 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.

i . Other Restr ictions, User Precautions, and Requirements Federal and supplemental labels address reentry and worker protection, environmental

hazards and restrictions ( see attached label ). Treated fields or forage from treated fields may not be used for livestock feed or grazing. Tough will not be applied through any type of irrigation system or by air. To protect endangered freshwater invertebrate species, Tough will not be applied within 100 yards of any freshwater spring

.

5. Alternative Methods of Control

a. Registered Post

- Emergent Herbicide Alternatives

1. B entazon (Basagran)

– Provides inconsistent (partial) post

- emergence control of Kochia. Does not control pigweed. Weeds emerging after application are not

controlled.

2. B romoxynil (Maestro)

– Phytotoxic to actively growing mint. Cannot be applied above 70 degrees 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. C lopryalid (Stinger)

– For spot treatment, post emergence control of broadleaf weeds (canada thistle, dandelion). Destroys mint which comes in contact with herbicide

. Does not control Kochia or Pigweed

5. MCPB ( Thistrol)

– Can only be applied early post

- emergent 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 w eed control only.

7. Sethoxydim (Poast Plus)

– Grass weed control only.4

8. T erba cil (Sinbar)

– Does not control Kochia. Pigweed has developed resistant biotypes due to years of continuous use. I t is not effective on weeds that have grown beyond the seedling st age. Cannot be used when rotating from mint into other crops the following year due to soil persistence and crop rotational restriction . Cannot be used on sandy, loamy sands, or soils with less than 1% organic matter without crop injury.

b. Other alternat ives 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 which is sprea d by the movement of soil and debris. Tillage 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 growing s eason. In 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 left in production for 3 to 5 years, or longer. Research on biological control methods is currently being conducted, but as of to date no effective methods have been developed.

c. On

- going research for chemical alternatives The mint 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 suc cess. Preemergence herbicides evaluated include pendamethalin, terbacil, saflufenacil, sulfentrazone, flumioxazin, oxyfluorfen, pyroxasulfone and both oxyfluorfen and flumioxazin impregnated on fertilizer have been tested. Postemergence herbicides that

hav e 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, is attached summarizing mint herbicide research since 2006.

In summary, despite extensive efforts the mint industry has not been able to successfully find an adequate replacement for pyridate (Tough herbicide) to provide posteme rgence weed control that does not cause significant injury to the 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 no te that postemergence broadleaf weed control has recently developed into an un

- routine situation due to the

increased demand for double

- cut production acreage. Many acres have been forced to

double

- cut production to meet recent global regulatory and market demands. Further description of this un

- routine situation is discussed in Section B Part 2 (Description of the Emergency Condition) of this request.5

6. Efficacy of the Proposed Use Results of efficacy and comparative field trials a re attached. Tough selectively controls annual weeds in mint without causing significant crop injury. Risks to rotational crops are

minimized due to the short half

- life and low soil persistence leading to no residual impact to subsequent crops. Tough is the only known broadleaf herbicide that can provide post

- emergent control of weeds without impacting crop yield. Since there is a limited amount of trial data from Wisconsin, a letter of support from Dr. Jed Colquhoun, University of Wisconsin, is attached explaining the benefits and usability of Tough in mint production.

7. Residue Information Residue trials for mint were conducted by the IR

- 4 Program in 1994. Applications made in accordance with the requested provisions are not expected to result in residues of py ridate and its metabolites in excess of 0.2 ppm for peppermint and spearmint tops. These tolerances have been established by the EPA and are recorded under CFR 180.462. Secondary residues in meat, poultry, and eggs are not expected to r esult

.

8. Risk Info rmation On May 3, 2000 the EPA established tolerances of 0.2 ppm for res idues of pyridate and its

metab olites in/on peppermint and spearmint tops. Information regarding pyridate toxicology and aggregate exposure can be found in the final rule published in the Federal Register May 3, 2000, volume 65, number 86, pages 25647

- 25652 (attached).

a. Human Health Tough 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 der mal LD50 for rabbits is > 2,000 mg/kg. Inhalation LC50 >4.37 mg./L air. Primary dermal irritation study indicated it is mildly irritating to rabbit skin (EPA Health Effects Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs, 2000).

The EPA concluded that resid ues 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 chronic exposure.

It was also determined that pyridate is not carcinogenic in either rat or mouse, and therefore is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

The produc t label address es the risks t o worker/applicator by outlining handler precautions and required personal protective equipment.6

b. Potential to be found in drinking water The potential for exposure to residues of pyridate in dri nking water is negligible du e to it s low water solubility (1.5mg/L at 20 C), strong soil adsorption (Kd = 0 .3

- 26) and short

half

- life (7

- 21 days). Pyridate is essentially immobile in all soil types and any risks to surface or groundwater contamination will be negligible.

The EPA H ealth 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 conditions persist in topsoil for up to 60 days, the degradate could 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 Level or health advisory.

c. Residential Uses Pyridate is not registered for use in ornamentals or in residential areas.

d. Common Mode of Action Pyridate is a Group 6 herbicide, HRAC Group C3 (Herbicide Resistance Action Committee, www.hracglobal. com) . It belongs to the phenyl

- pyridazine family of herbicides. Its site of action is inhibition photosynthesis by blocking electron transport in photosystem II (reactions taking place in the chloroplast thylakoid membranes).

e. Endangered or Threaten ed Species Endangered or threatened species listed by the USFWS within the mint production

counties of Adams, Columbia, Dane, Dodge, Green Lake, Jefferson, Marquette, Oconto, Rock, Sauk, and Walworth are listed in the attached table.

The use of Tough her bicide in accordance to the label in mint fields should not pose a risk to any threatened or endangered species.

f. Beneficial Organisms Tough is not toxic to bees and other beneficial insects (i.e. lady beetles, predatory mites).

See the attached EP A Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) report.

g. Fish and Aquatic Organisms

Pr yridate is considered toxic to estuarine organisms. However, due to its strong soil adsorption and short half

- life, if applied according to the label it should not pose a risk to estuarine organisms (see attached EPA EFED report ) . The label 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.7

9. Coordinate with Other Agencies

The Wisconsin Fish and Game Office of the U.S. Fis h and Wildlife Service will receive a copy of this request. Any comments received will be forwarded to the U.S. EPA.

10. Notification of Registrant Belchim Crop Protection has been not ified and their letter of support is attached

. In addition, Engage Agro USA Corp. is the U.S. distributor and they have also been notified. A letter of support from Engage Agro USA is also attached

.

11. Enforcement Program

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (WDATCP ) has adequate authorities for enforcing provisions of Sec t ion 18 emergency exemptions.

WDATCP will require the registrant (or manufacturer, if unregistered) of Tough herbicide

, Belchim Crop Protection, to prepare and make available to end users supplement al labeling that complies with WDATCP and EPA requirements for the emergency use, if approved. Applicators will be required to keep adequate records o f application use and acreage. The Mint Industry Research Council (MIRC), in cooperation with Belchim Crop Protection and Engage Agro USA

,

w ill be req uired to provide the WDATCP a report summarizing results of the emergency use after the end of the use period.

12. Repeat Uses Tough has been previously used under a Section 18 from 199 9

- 2000. Tough was later registered under an SLN 24c from 2001

- 2007 after tolerances were established in 2000.

13. Progress Toward Registration Registration and tolerance were established through the IR

- 4 by the EPA in May of 2000. The Final Rule was publishe d in the Federal Register vol. 65, No. 86, May 3, 2000 pages 25647

- 25652 (attached) . Tolerances were established for peppermint and spearmint tops at 0.20 ppm (CFR 180.462). Product registration was voluntarily cancelled by the registrant (Syngenta) and

th e product was no longer marketed in the U.S. Recently, Belchim Crop Protection acquired the marketing rights for pyridate from Syngenta. It is understood that Belchim is working with the

EPA to re

- register Tough in the U.S.

B. Summary of Economic Loss

1. Pest(s) to be Controlled The pests causing an emergency are broadleaf weeds, in particularly Redroot Pigweed, Armaranthus retroflexus and Kochia, Kochia scoparia

.

2. Discussion of the Emergency Condition This request is due to the emergency condition existing in mint from the postemergence of pigweed, kochia, and other broadleaf weed communities that cannot be effectively controlled 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.8

The recent increase in global demand for the production of double

- cut mint oil has

cr eated an un

- routine 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 follow. These new flushes include both summer annual grasse s 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 mint for pigweed control during the second half of the growing season following the first harvest of mint.

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. The global regulatory issues involve the concern of menthofuran and pulegone contents in the mint oil and the limits 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 oi l 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. Postemerge nce broadleaf weed control is the primary management challenge facing double

- cut production. Producers do not have viable broadleaf weed control options to address this challenge. Redroot pigweed present in mint at 1.6 weeds/yd 2 renders mint oil unmarketa ble, due to

off

- flavors imparted during the distillation process (attachment). OSU research also demonstrated that a redroot pigweed infestation of 10 plants/ft 2 caused a peppermint oil yield reduction 34.4 lbs/acre, a 46% reduction (attached). Furthermore , both redroot and prostrate ( A.

blitoides ) pigweeds have developed terbacil resistant biotypes. Kochia, a summer annual, can reach heights of six feet high and several feet in diameter, hindering harvest operations and competes for nutrients and light. I n addition, an infestation of 2.3 kochia plants/ft 2 can reduce mint oil yields by over 30 % (attachment) in addition to reducing oil quality. Mechanical tillage is not a post emergence 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 sp ecies and has become even less effective in controlling pigweeds due to the development of resistant biotypes. Additionally, terbacil cannot be used when weeds are beyond the seedling stage and when rotating from mint to other crops due to residual carryov er. The only alternative method of controlling these weeds is hand

- rogueing, 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 post

- emer gent means of controlling these weeds in mint. The mint industry has been diligently investing research funds to discover effective post

emergent broadleaf weed herbicides that are safe to the crop. Pyridate has proven to be effective

on broadleaf weeds a s well as possesses acceptable post

- emergence crop safety needed for mint production. Populations of problem weeds have reached economically devastating levels and is impacting the producer’s ability to compete in the market. Additionally, the recent incre ased

demand for double

- cut mint has forced production into and created an un

- routine situation for9

mint producers who have no effective and viable postemergence broadleaf weed control options. The use of Tough herbicide for postemergence weed control in mi nt is critical to maintaining U.S. mint oil quality and market share in today’s global economy.

3 . Discussion of Economic Loss Redroot Pigweed/Kochia and broadleaf weed communities have become serious weed pests of mint growers in Wisconsin . The lack of any post emergent weed control option, ( no effective registered herbicide, and the presence of herbici de resistant pigweed ) have created an emergency situation for Wisconsin mint growers. Furthermore, the recently increased demand

for double

- cut mint has created an un

- routine situation in weed control for mint producers. Economic thresholds for these problem weeds are very low. Weed s resistant to herbicides which mature and form seeds, soon establish large populations of the resistant biotype, if not controlled. Studies performed by OSU weed scientists show yield losses ranging from 22%to 47% from the target weeds individually (att achment ). Kochia and Redroot Pigweed are often found in complexes of other weeds, which further reduces the yield and quality of mint oil.

Five

- Year History of Wisconsin Production

Year Average

Yield Average

Price Gross

Revenue Cost of

Production Net

Revenue
(lbs / acre) ($ / lb) ($ / acre) ($ / acre) ($ / acre)

2011 71 $21 $1,497 $1,100 $397

2012 55 $21 $1,159 $1,100 $59

2013 54 $21 $1,139 $1,100 $39

2014 48 $21 $1,007 $1,100 ($93)

2015 57 $21 $1,196 $1,100 $96

Average 57 $21 $1,200 $1,100 $100

1. Yield and price data were obtained from mint industry oil growers and buyers.

2. Cos t of production is based on local industry knowledge

. 3. A loss does not necessa rily mean a negative cash flow, but rather 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.

Tier 2 Ana lysis

A Tier 2 Significant Economic Loss (SEL) analysis illustrates the reduction of oil yield and quality as well as the loss of gross revenue due to the devaluation of tainted oil resulting

from weed contam inants. The yield comparison reflects a 35 % yield reduction (OSU trial data) on the portion of the acres ( 9 0%) faced with the impact of post

- emergent weed control challenges

.10

Furthermore, the yield calculations are based on the f ive

- year average (2011

- 15) of 57

lbs/acre. As previously stated in t his request, the estimated acreage of Wisconsin mint is 3,500 acres and approximately 3,100 acres (90 %) would be treated with Tough herbicide. As for marketable oil quality, it is estimated that the use of Tough herbicide would increase pure quality oil by 20%, thus reducing the amount of tainted devalued oil by the same. The devaluation of tainted oil ranges from a small percentage deduct ion to complete rejection/loss. Based on industry knowledge, an a ver age 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 gross revenue loss greater than $2 Million to the mint producers in

Wisconsin

.

Tier 2 Wisconsin Economic Analysis of Yield and Quality Loss

Baseline Emergency Change % Change

Yield (lbs/acre) 296,181 199,500

- 96,681

- 33%

Pure (% of yield) 90% 70%

(lbs/acre) 266,563 139,650

- 126,913

- 48%

Tainted (% of yield) 10% 30%

(lbs/acre) 29,618 59,850 30,232 102%

Price, Pure ($/lb) $21.00 $21.00

Price, Tainted ($/lb) $13.65 $13.65

Gross Revenue ($/acre) $6,002,103 $3,749,603

- $2,252,501

- 38%11

C. Supporting Documentation

1. Tough 5EC Package Label.

2. Tough 5EC Section 18 Supplemental Label.

3. Tough 5EC MSDS.

4. Tolerance of Peppermint to Pyridate. Oregon State University Efficacy Data. Hyslop Farm, Corvallis, OR. 1993.

5. Efficacy and Crop Safety Data 1994, 1995. Binning, L.K., et.al. University of Wisconsin.

6. Letter of Support. Dr. Jed Colquhoun

, University of Wisconsin. Madison, WI.

7. 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/Th reatened Species Found in Wisconsin 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 Crop 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 powellii ). Boydston, R and Al

- Khatib, K. Weed Science. Volume 40:513

- 516. 1992.

16. Pyridate Properties and Characteristics. Heap, I. pp. 89

- 91.

17. Letter summarizing weed researc h efforts searching for alternatives to pyridate. Dr. Rick Boydston. USDA

- ARS. Prosser, WA. March 1, 2016.