August 19, 2009

Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
Regulator Public Docket (7502P)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-001

Subject: Re-registration of fomesafen (Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0239)

Current proposed US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Re-Registration regulations for
fomesafen will restrict vegetable production in Georgia. These regulations would eliminate the most
effective tool to manage Palmer amaranth and morningglory in 67% of Georgia’s snap bean acreage
(farm gate value of $22.6 million). These regulations will also eliminate the benefits of fomesafen
currently being developed for fruiting vegetables and cucurbits (farm gate value exceeding $387 million),
including its role as a key herbicide in the development of methyl bromide alternative systems.
The EPA’s objective, to protect endangered species from any pesticide, including fomesafen, is
admirable, and the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association support the goal of this mission.
However, we believe this objective can be achieved without such detrimental regulations. Realistically,
some Georgia growers dependent on fomesafen will have only two options if these regulations are passed
into law:

1) stop producing the impacted crops or
2) producing these crops following current practices while ignoring the law.

With these proposed regulations being similar for both clomazone and fomesafen, one would anticipate
similar proposed regulations for all herbicides (if not all pesticides) once each product faces reregistration.
Regulations such as those proposed by the EPA will not only greatly restrict agricultural
production in the United States, they will also restrict the ability of University and Industry researchers
from developing new and innovative technologies that are needed to feed the world.
We are struggling to understand the validity of these proposed regulations. First, how did the EPA
determine “that the use of pesticides containing fomesafen is likely to adversely affect a variety of listed
species”? A literature search of many endangered plant species in Georgia and their relationship with
fomesafen showed little to no data results; this suggests the sensitivity of endangered plant species to
fomesafen may not have been determined scientifically.

Secondly, we challenge the theory that an 850-foot buffer between a target area and a wetlands,
waterway, or other endangered species habitat, is needed with a herbicide such as fomesafen. The
University of Georgia has shown herbicide drift can be managed and, in some instances, avoided completely. Thus, the logic of assigning a buffer zone distance of 850 feet, considering the diversity of
application techniques and environmental conditions, appears both non-scientific and unrealistic. We
agree that additional efforts could be made to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, off-target pesticide
movement; however, the EPA should invest their efforts in working with manufactures and universities to
improve application techniques and understand herbicide movement and fate before imposing restrictions
that could regulate the American farmer out of business.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Please feel free to contact me should you have
any questions.

Sincerely,

Charles T. Hall, Jr.
Executive Director