Page 4 of 13

EPA Reg. No. 62719

- 649

Decision No. 457755

APPENDIX A Testing of Tank Mix Products

1. Products proposed for tank

- mixing with Enlist Duo may be added to the list of products that will
not adversely a ffect the spray drift properties of Enlist Duo contained on the web site if a study is
performed under the testing conditions set forth below; the test information is reported as set forth
below; and the results are interpreted as set forth below and the i nterpretation supports adding the tested
product to the list of products that will not adversely affect the spray drift properties of Enlist Duo:

Testing Conditions

Spray chamber test using conditions described in ASTM E

- 2798

- 11; or Wind Tunnel test using
conditions described in EPA Final Generic Verification Protocol for Testing Pesticide Application Spray
Drift Reduction Technologies for Row and Field Crops (September 2013)

Testing Media: Enlist Duo and Enlist Duo + Proposed Tank Mix Product

Test Nozzle: AIXR 11004 at 40 psi

Number of Replicates: 3 for each tested medium

Reporting

Validation information as summarized in Appendix B

Full droplet spectrum to be reported for each replicate of each tested medium

Perform AGDISP (8.26) modeling run for each r eplicate droplet spectrum for each tested medium
(AGDISP input parameters described in Appendix C )

Establish 30 foot spray drift deposition estimate from AGDISP run on each replicate for each tested

medium

Establish mean and standard deviation of 30 foot d eposition for the 3 replicates of each tested medium

One

- tail (upper bound) t

- test ( p =0.1) to determine if proposed tank

- mix product is above Enlist Duo 30
foot spray drift deposition

Interpretation of Results

If mean 30 foot deposition for proposed tank

- m ix product is not statistically greater than mean 30 foot
deposition for Enlist Duo, proposed tank

- mix product can be added to the list of products that will not
adversely affect the spray drift properties of Enlist Duo contained on the web site. If mean 30 foot
deposition for proposed tank

- mix product is statistically greater than mean 30 foot deposition for EnlistPage 5 of 13

EPA Reg. No. 62719

- 649

Decision No. 457755

Duo, proposed tank

- mix product cannot be added to the list of products that will not adversely affect the
spray drift properties of Enlist Duo contained on the web site

2. Results from other testing protocols will be acceptable for adding products to the list of products that will not adversely affect the spray drift properties of Enlist Duo provided that EPA has determined in writing that such other protocol is appropriate for such purpose.Page 6 of 13

EPA Reg. No. 62719

- 649

Decision No. 457755

APPENDIX B

Validation Criteria a. Detailed information of instrument setting and measurements

‐ The distance from the nozzle tips to the laser settings

‐ Measurements o f airspeed and flow rate of liquid

b. Detailed information of test substances

‐ Volume composition and density of Enlist formulation (2,4

‐ D choline and glyphosate) and tank mixes c. Summary of the entire spray output distribution for each nozzle/tank mixes with statistical analysis of replicates. d. Graphical outputs of Sympatec Helos laser diffraction particle size analyzer FOR individual spectrum Report of Dv0.1 (SD), Dv0.5 (SD), and DV0.9 (SD) as well as mean % fines of (≤ 141μm SD) fractionsPage 7 of 13

EPA Reg. No. 62719

- 649

Decision No. 457755

APPENDIX C

AGDISP Input Parameters

Parameter Value comments Application method section

Method Ground
Nozzle type Flat fan (Default) The direct use of the DSD overrides the use of “Nozzle type.

Boom pressure 40 psi If nozzles/tank mixes were test ed at 40 psi. It has to be consistent

with tank mix as well as Enlist

for both TeeJet and AIXR

nozzles. Release height 3 ft Default
Spray lines 20 Default
Meteorology section

Wind type Single height Default
Wind speed 15 mph Under bound fr om label

Wind direction

- 90 deg Worst

- case and default
Temperature 65 F Default
Relative humidity 50% Default

Surface section

Angles 0 Default
Canopy None Default
Surface roughness 0.12 ft Mean of “crops” cover type
Application technique section

Nozzles 54, even spacing Standard boom setup

DSD From wind tunnel results, imported in library
Atmospheric stability Strong Default

Swath sectionPage 8 of 13

EPA Reg. No. 62719

- 649

Decision No. 457755

Swath width 90 ft Standard boom
Swath displacement 0 ft Worst

- case Spray material section

Spray volume rate 15 gal/acre From Enlist Duo label

Volatile/nonvolatile

fraction Enlist Duo at 2.8% v/v To calculate volatile/nonvolatile

fraction in the tank mix for the model input, provide detailed

information of the test ed

formulations and tank mixes. See sample calculation below used in WT study submitted by
DOW (MRID 49384801) 1

1 The tested mixture was 2.8% (v/v) Enlist Duo in water. Enlist Duo has a density of 1.171 kg/L and contains 24.42 % (w/w) of 2,4

- D choline s alt (16.65% (w/w) 2,4

- D acid equivalent) and 22.17% (w/w) glyphosate dimethylammonium salt. For example, a 100

- liter batch would contain the following: Enlist Duo 2.8% * 100 L = 2.8L; 2.8L * 1.171 kg/L = 3.279 kg

Water: 100

- 2.8 L = 97.2 L = 97.2 kg

Total weight: 3.279+97.2 = 100.497 kg Active ingredient fraction: 3.279 kg * 16.65 % (a.e.) = 0.546 kg; 0.546 kg/100.497 kg = 0.0054 (dimensionless)

Non

- volatile fraction: 3.279 kg* (24.42 % + 22.17%) = 1.528 kg; 1.528 kg/100.497 kg = 0.0152 (dimensionless)Page 9 of 13

EPA Reg. No. 62719

- 649

Decision No. 457755

APPENDIX D Herbicide Resistance Management Plan

Dow AgroSciences (DAS) must:

A. Grower Agreements, Field Detection and Remediation Components:

1. Ensure that any person who purchases any Enlist seed sign a binding contract, enforceable b y DAS, herein referred to as a “grower agreement.” In such grower agreement, DAS will reinforce with users of Enlist Duo the critical importance of following resistance management practices. This includes stressing the need for pre

- and post

- application field scouting and that lack of herbicide efficacy should be reported promptly to DAS or its representative.

2. Provide a copy of the grower agreement to EPA;

3. Retain copies of all executed grower agreements for a period of 3 years from the date of

ex ecution, and make such copies available to EPA upon request;

4. If any grower informs you of a lack of herbicide efficacy, then you or your representative must make an effort to evaluate the field for “likely resistance” to Enlist Duo by applying the crit eria set forth in Norsworthy, et al ., “Reducing the Risks of Herbicide Resistance: Best Management Practices and Recommendations,” Weed Science 2012 Special Issue:31

– 62 ( hereinafter “Norsworthy criteria”);

5. Keep records of all field evaluations for “lik ely resistance” for a period of 3 years, and make such copies available to EPA upon request; and

6. If one or more of the Norsworthy criteria are met, then:

a. Provide the grower with specific information and recommendations to control and contain likely resistant weeds, including retreatment and/or other non

- chemical controls, as appropriate. If requested by the grower, DAS will become actively involved in implementation of weed control measures;

b. Request, at the time of the initial determination tha t one or more of the Norsworthy criteria are met and prior to any application of alternative control practices, that the grower provide you with access to the relevant field(s) to collect specimens of the likely resistant weeds (potted specimens or seeds) for further evaluation in the greenhouse or laboratory, and so collect such specimens if possible (or, alternatively, request that the grower provide such specimens to you, at your expense);

c. Commence greenhouse or laboratory studies to confirm resistan ce as soon as practicable following sample collection;Page 10 of 13

EPA Reg. No. 62719

- 649

Decision No. 457755

d. To the extent possible, contact or visit the grower in an appropriate timeframe after implementation of the additional weed control measures in order to evaluate success of such measures; and

e. I f the additional weed control measures were not successful in controlling the likely resistant weeds, then:

i. Work with the grower to determine the reason(s) why the additional control measures were not successful;

ii. Report annually the inability to c ontrol the likely resistant weeds to relevant

stakeholders ; and

iii. Offer to further assist the grower in controlling and containing the likely resistant weeds, including retreatment and/or other non

- chemical controls, as appropriate.

B. Educational / Inf

ormational Component:

1. Develop and implement an education program for growers that includes the following elements:

a. The education program shall identify appropriate best management practices (BMPs), set forth under “Best Management Practices (BMPs) Component,” below, to avoid and control weed resistance, and shall convey to growers the importance of complying with
BMPs;

b. The education program shall include at least one written communication regarding herbicide resistance management each year to pu rchasers of Enlist seed (separate and apart from the grower agreement document); and

c. You must make the education program available to DAS sales representatives for distribution to growers.

2. Provide to EPA the original education program within three months of the issuance of this registration.

C. Evaluation Component:

1. Annually conduct a survey of users of Enlist seed. This survey must be based on a statistically representative sample of users of Enlist seed. The sample size and geographical resol ution should be adequate to allow analysis of responses within regions, between regions, and across the United States. This survey shall evaluate, at a minimum, the following:

a. Growers’ adherence to the terms of the grower agreements, andPage 11 of 13

EPA Reg. No. 62719

- 649

Decision No. 457755

b

. Whether g rowers have encountered any perceived issue with non

- performance or lack of efficacy of Enlist Duo and, if so, how growers have responded.

2. Utilize the results from the survey described in paragraph 1 of this section to annually review, and modify as ap propriate for the upcoming growing season, the following:

a. Efforts aimed at achieving compliance with the grower agreement;

b. Responses to incidents of likely resistance and confirmed resistance; and

c. The education program. At the initiative of ei ther EPA or DAS, EPA and DAS shall consult about possible modifications of the education program.

D. Reporting Component:

1. Submit annual reports to EPA by January 15 th of each year, beginning on January 15, 2016. Such reports shall include:

a. Annual s ales of Enlist seed and Enlist Duo herbicide by state;

b. The current grower agreement;

c. The first annual report shall include the current education program and associated materials, and subsequent annual reports shall include updates of any aspect of the education program and associated materials that have materially changed since submission of the previous annual report;

d. Summary of your efforts aimed at achieving compliance with the grower agreements;

e. Summary of your determination s as to wheth er any reported lack of herbicide efficacy was “likely resistance,” your follow

- up actions taken

, and , if available, the ultimate outcome (e.g., evaluation of success of additional weed control measures) regarding each case of “likely resistance.” In the annual report, DAS will list the cases of likely resistance by county and state.

f. The results of the annual survey described in paragraph 1 under “Evaluation Component,” above, including whether growers are implementing herbicide resistance

BMPs , and a summary of your annual review and possible modification

– based on that

survey

– of the education program, grower agreement compliance efforts, and response to reports of likely resistance, described in paragraph 2 under “Evaluation Component,”
above; and

g. Summary of the status of any laboratory and greenhouse testing performed by, or at the direction of, Dow AgroSciences following up on incidents of likely resistance, performedPage 12 of 13

EPA Reg. No. 62719

- 649

Decision No. 457755

in the previous year. Data pertaining to such testing need not be included in the annual reports, but such data must be made available to EPA upon request.

2. Following your submission of the annual report, you shall meet with the EPA at EPA’s request in order to evaluate and consider the information contained in the report.

E. Be st Management Practices (BMPs) Component:

1. Best management practices (BMPs) must be identified in your education program. You must advise growers to follow them in your grower agreements. The following are examples of

BMPs:

a. Regarding crop selectio n and cultural practices:

i. Understand the biology of the weeds present.

ii. Use a diversified approach toward weed management focused on preventing weed seed production and reducing the number of weed seeds in the soil seed

- bank.

iii. Emphasize cultur al practices that suppress weeds by using crop competitiveness.

iv. Plant into weed free fields, keep fields as weed free as possible, and note areas where weeds were a problem in prior seasons.

v. Incorporate additional weed control practices whenever p ossible, such as mechanical cultivation, biological management practices, crop rotation, and

weed

- free crop seeds, as part of an integrated weed control program.

vi. Do not allow weed escapes to produce seeds, roots or tubers.

vii. Manage weed seed at ha rvest and post

- harvest to prevent a buildup of the weed

seed

- bank.

viii. Prevent field

- to

- field and within

- field movement of weed seed or vegetative propagules.

ix. Thoroughly clean plant residues from equipment before leaving fields.

x. Prevent an infl ux of weeds into the field by managing field borders.

xi. Fields must be scouted before application to ensure that herbicides and application rates will be appropriate for the weed species and weed sizes present.

xii. Fields must be scouted after applica tion to confirm herbicide effectiveness and to detect weed escapes.Page 13 of 13

EPA Reg. No. 62719

- 649

Decision No. 457755

xiii. If resistance is suspected, treat weed escapes with an alternate mode of action or

use non

- chemical methods to remove escapes.

b. Regarding herbicide selection:

i. Use a broad spe ctrum soil applied herbicide with a mechanism of action that differs from this product as a foundation in a weed control program.

ii. A broad spectrum weed control program should consider all of the weeds present

in the field. Weeds should be identifie d through scouting and field history.

iii. Difficult to control weeds may require sequential applications of herbicides with

alternative mechanisms of action.

iv. Fields with difficult to control weeds should be rotated to crops that allow the use

of her bicides with alternative mechanisms of action.

v. Apply full rates of this herbicide for the most difficult to control weed in the field. Applications should be made when weeds are at the correct size to minimize weed

escapes.

vi. Do not use more than t wo applications of this herbicide or any herbicide with the same mechanism of action within a single growing season unless mixed with another mechanism of action herbicide with overlapping spectrum for the difficult

to control weeds.

vii. Report any incidence of lack of efficacy of this product against a particular weed species to Dow AgroSciences or a Dow AgroSciences representative.

This list may be updated or revised as new information becomes available.