### Marc h 31 , 20 16 

## Petition for Section 18 Emergency Exemption for Tough ® Herbicide (pyridate) for use in mint grown in Indiana

A. Summary of General Information
1. Type of Exemption: 

### Specific
2. Contact Persons:


### Steve Salisbury (Technica l) Mint Industry Research Council PO Box 4059 Salem , OR 97302 -105 9 Phone: 503 -5 5 1- 3747 E mail: steve@pacificagresources

. com
Or. Steve We ll er (Sc ientific) Department of H orti culture & 

### Landscape Architecture Purdue Univers i ty 625 Agric ul ture Mall Drive West Lafayette , IN 47907-2010 Phone: 765-494-1333 Email: weller@purdue

. edu Jerry Frankhauser (Economics) P urdue Agricultural Cent ers Purdue University 615 West State Street West Lafayette , IN 47907

- 2053 Ph o n e : 765-494

- 8368 Emai l : frankhaus@purdue

. edu
Lie s b eth Bosman (Registrant) Be lchim C rop Potection , Inc. Technologielaan 7 1840 Londerzeel Belgium Phone: +32 (0) 473 86 52 33 Emai l: Liesbeth

. Bosman@Belchim

. com 

### •••••• 

### • • • • • • • • •••••• 

### • • 

### • 

### •

• • 

### ••••• 

### • 

### • • • 

### ••••• • 

### ••• • ••••

•••• • 

### •••• 

### • • • 

### •••••• • • • 

### •• 

### • 

### • •



### •• •

### 2. Contact Persons (continued):


### Edward M. White , Assistant Pesticide Adm ini strator (Regulatory Issues) Office of the Indiana State Chemist 175 

### S

. Un ivers ity Street Purdue University West Lafayette , lN 47907-2063 

### Phone: 765-494-1587 

### Ema il : ewhite@ purdu e
. edu
3. Description of Pesticide 

### Act i ve Ingred i e nt: Pyridate
Trade Name: Tough Herbicide SEC, not currently registered in U.S.
Formu l ation: Emulsifiab le concentrate formu l ated at 55.8% (5.0 

### lb. ai. per ga l. ) and 44.2 % 

### in ert ingredients. Registrant/Manufacturer: Belchim Crop Protection a Belgium based company (E PA Company No. 91746). 

### The U.S. distributor is Engage Agro USA Corp. Material Safety Data S h eet (MSDS) and labels are attached.
4. Description of Proposed Use



### a. Sites to be Treated There are nearly 14,000 

### acres of mint grown in Indiana. I t is est imated that approximately II , 200 (80%) 

### of this acreage w ill need to be treated with Tough. The mint production areas are l ocated in Indi ana counties of Jasper, Kosciusko, LaGrange, La Porte , Newton, Porter, Pulaski , Stark, and St. Joseph. The so il s of these mint growing counties are ge n era ll y productive , deep , and ferti l e in agricultural areas. b. Method of Appl i cat i on The herbicide wi ll be app li ed by ground -dri ven s pray equipm e nt by li censed applicator s according to the EPA approved product l abel. Tough will not be applied by aer i al methods or through any type of irrigation system

.

c. Rate of Application A maximum of .9375 

### lb. active ingredient per acre (24 

### ounces of product per acre) in 2crr•• • 40 

### gallons of water per acre w ill be applied during the grow in g seaso n. : • •: •: • • • • 

### • 

### • • • 

## • d. Maximum Number of Applications

.. : • •: Two applications ofTough per grow in g season may be made if necessary**a** 

### :· • • minimum of 14 

### days between applicati o ns
. Applications may be made bet\: ti<! 11 t he**da t~~**  

### • of April I and December 3 1 , 20 16. 

### No applications w ill be made within**4~ da_ys**  

### of • •. harvest. : • •' • • 

### •••• • • 

### •

•• 

## •e. Tota l Acreage to be Treated It is estimated that approximately 11,200 acres (80% of total Indiana acreage) will need to be treated with Tough

. f. Total pesticide to be used An est imated 4 , 200 gallons (21 , 000 lbs of a.i.) of herbicide are expected to be applied. II ,200 acre 

## * 24 tl.oz. 

## * 2 applications = 4,200 ga l. of formu lated product. 4,200 gal 

## * 5 lb a.i./ ga l = 21 , 000 lbs of active ingred ient.
g. Use season We a r e requesting app lication beginning Apr il 1 through December 31, 20 I 6. A fall application after harvest may be necessary if condit ion s promoting weed growth occur. No applications wi ll be made within 49 days of harvest.
h. Harvest Dates The majority of peppermint acreage is harvested once in August. However , so me peppermint growers are double cutting thei r 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 grow in g season, once in the middle of June and aga in in the middle of Aug u st.
i. Other Restrictions. User Precautions. and Requirements Federal and supplemental labels add r ess reentry and worker protection, environmenta l hazards and restriction s (see attached label). Treated fields or forage from treated fields may not be used for livestock feed or grazing

. Tough wi ll not be applied through any type of irrigation system or by air. To protect endangered freshwater in vertebrate species , Tough w ill not be applied within I 00 yard s of any freshwater spring.


### 5. Alternative Methods of Control

a. Regi stere d Post-Emergent Herbicide Alternatives
1. Bentazon (Basagran)

- Provide s inconsistent (partial) post-emergence control of Kochia. Does not control pigweed. Weeds e merging after application are not controlled.
2. Bromoxyni l (Maestro)

- Phytotoxic to actively growing mint. Cannot be appl i ed 

### •••• above 70 degr ees F to actively grow in g mint. Only g i ves partial**cont ~q** **Q{ l<och** **.:.** and Pigweed seedlings. Kochia and Pigweed seeds germinate (multirile**fl hes)**  throughout the growing season. • •
3. Clethodim (Se l ect Max)

- Grass weed contro l on l y
. 

### •••••• • 

## •


# .. 

# .

•• ••••• • 

### • 

## • •

. I I I I I 

### •••• • •••• 

### • • • 

### •••••• 

### • •••• • • •



### •• •4. Clop rya lid (Stinge r)- For spot treatment, post emergence co ntro l ofbroa dlea fweeds (canada thist l e, dandelion). D estroys min t wh i ch comes in co nt act with herbicde. Does not control Kochia or Pi gweed
5. MCPB (Th istro l)

- Can on l y be applied early post

- emerge nt to weeds and to dormant o r sma ll /newly e m erged mint. lt is limited to partial contro l of Canada thistle and field bindweed. D oes cause cro p injury and loss of oil yield

. 6. Quizalifop (Assu r e II)- Grass weed co ntrol o nl y.
7. Sethoxyd im ( Poast Plus)- Grass weed control on l y.
8. Terbacil (S inbar )- D oes not co ntro l Kochia. Pi gweed ha s d eveloped resistant biotypes du e to years of co ntinu o u s u se
. It i s no t effect i ve on weeds that have g ro wn beyond the seed lin g stage. Cannot be used w h en ro tatin g from mint in to other crops the fo ll owi ng year due to so il persistence and cro p rotational r estri ct ion. Cann ot be used o n sandy , l oam y sa nd s , o r soi l s with less than I % organ ic matter without c rop injury.
b. Other alte rnativ es Mechanical weed control methods such as t illa ge are not feas ible o r practiced in actively growing min t du e to the destruction of the crop. Tilla ge in mint at any time also sp r eads the disease Verticillium Wilt, a fungal pathogen in min t wh i c h is sprea d by the movement of so il and debris. T ill age also s preads the rhizomes a nd stolo ns of perennial weeds. Hand rogueing is cost proh ibiti ve and does n ot provide season l ong contro l of weeds as weed seeds continue to ge rm inate in the so il thr o ug hou t grow in g season. In add ition, the labor
n ee d e d for ha nd weeding i s not ava ilabl e in most mint g rowin g r egions. Crop rotation is practiced when feasi ble , but mint be in g a pere nnial crop is left in production for 3 to 5 yea rs, or longer. Research on bi o l ogica l control methods is cur r e nt ly being conducted , but
as ofto da te no effective methods have been deve loped

.

c. On-going research for c he mica l alternatives Th em in t industry ha s placed a hi g h priority o n finding alternatives to pyridate for postemergence broad l eaf weed co ntrol. Th e industry has dili ge ntl y in ves ted seve r al hundre d thou sa nd s of dollar s of r esear ch funds for the past d ecade to thi s effort. Nu m erous preemergence and po s teme rge nce herbicides have been tested and evaluated w ith littl e o r no success
. Preeme rgence herbicides evaluated in c lud e pendamethalin, terbacil , safl u fe n ac il , su lf en trazone, flumi oxaz in , oxyfluorfe n , pyroxasu lfon e and both oxyfluo rfe n 

### •••• and flumioxazin impreg nated on ferti li ze r have been tested.**os emergenc** **~ Vf** **~~c id** **es ~**  have bee n tested includ e bentazon, terbacil, bromoxy n il , bicyclopyrone, me so tti<l ne , • te mb o trion e, topramezone , flu ro xy pyr, M C PB , and carfe ntrazone. These herbicides are 

### •••••• ei th er too injuri ous to the mint or d o not adequately co n t rol the pigweed. A**r: from**  Dr. Rick B oydsto n , U S D A

- ARS , i s attac hed summar izin g mint he rbi cide r esearc h•s i nce**200 :**  

### • • 

# ... '. 

# . ... • 

## • • • • In sum mar y , desp ite ex tens ive efforts the mint ind ustry has not been able**tJtt essfu** **y** • find an adequate replacement for pyridate (Tough herbicide) t o prov ide postemergence ! • • • • • 

### •••• 

### • • 

### •



### •• •weed control that does not cause sign ifi cant injury to the mint crop. Therefore , weed contro l remains an urgent situation challeng in g the ability to produce high quality mint oi l.
ln addition to the urgency of the situation, it is important to note that postemergence broad leaf weed control has recently developed into a non-routine s i tuation due to the increased demand for double-cut production acreage. Many acres have been forced to doub l e
- cut production to meet recent global regulatory and market demands. Further descrip tion of this non-routine situation is discussed in Section B Part 2 ( D escription of the Emergency Condition) of this request.


### 6. Efficacy of the Proposed Use Results of efficacy and comparative field tria l s from Oregon State University are attached
s in ce Indiana tria l data was not recovered. A l etter of support from Dr. Steve Weller , Purdue University is attached to help exp la in the benefits and usability of Tough in mint production. Dr. Weller has been instrumental in weed control research in Midwest mint production for three decades. Tough se lective ly controls annual weeds in mint without caus in g significant crop injury. Risks to rotationa l crops are m in imized due to the short half-l ife and low soil persistence l ead in g to no residual impact to subsequent crops. Tough i s the only known broadleafherbicide tha t can provide post-emergent control of weeds without impacting crop y i e ld

. 

### 7. Residue Information Residue trials for mint were conducted b y the lR -4 Program in 1 994. Applicat ions made in accorda nce with the requested provisi o n s are not expected to result in residue s of pyridate and its metabolite s in excess of0.2 ppm for peppermint and spearmint tops. These to lerances have been established by the E PA and are recorded under CFR 1 80.462. Secondary residues in meat , poultry , and eggs are not expected to result.


### 8. Risk Information On May 3 , 2000 the EPA established tolerances of0

.2 ppm for residues ofpyrid ate and its metabolites inion peppermint and spearmint tops

. fnf ormation regarding pyridate toxicology and aggregate exposure can be found in the final rule published in the Federa l Register May 3 , 2000 , vo lum e 65 , number 86 , pages 25647-25652 (attached).

a. Human Heal th Tough herbicide poses little potential risks to humans , domestic animals, wildlife, and the environment. The acute oral LD50 for mal e rats i s> 5 , 000 mg/kg. The active ingredient has a l ow dermal irritation potential and a l ow in ha lation hazard. Acute dermal LD50 for 

## •••• rabbits is> 2,000 mg/kg. Inhalatio n LC50 > 4.37 mg ./ Lair. Primary**derm VJ~** **tion** •• :. study indicated it is mildly irritating to rabbit sk in (EPA Health Effects**zy is** **~rt ofthe**  • Office of Pesticide Programs , 2000). • • 

## •••••• • 

## • • 

### •



# '
·' 

# .... The E PA concluded that residues of pyridate in drinking water do not contribute • significant ly to the aggregate acute human health risk. The acute human

### ea~h " rjs ks • • •: resulting from exposure to pyridate in food and water are below EPA ' s**le "~** **concer -.** **'1** • for all populati o n s ubgroups. As for chron ic risk, the EPA also concluded that no har m • • • ••

• J t I 

### • • •

• • 

### •will result from aggregate chron i c exposure.
It was also determined that pyridate is not carc in ogenic in e i ther rat or mouse, and therefore is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
The product labe l addresses the risks to worker/applicator by out linin g handler precautions and required persona l protective equipment.
b. Potential to be found in drinking water The potential for exposure to residues of pyridate in drinking water i s negligible due to its low water so lu bi li ty (1.5mg/L at 20 

### C) , strong soil adsorption (Kd = . 3

- 26) and short half-life (7

- 21 days). Pyridate is essent ially immobi le in a ll so i l types and any risks to su rface or groundwater co nt amination will be neg li gib l e.
The EPA Health Effects Division determined that pyridate does not possess the env ironmental fate parameters associated with a compound that could l eac h to groundwater. However, the parameters of i ts degradate indicate that under unusual conditions suc h as flooding , where anaerobic conditions 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 Level or health advisory.

c. Residential Uses Pyridate is not registered for use in ornamentals or in r esidentia l a r eas.
d. Common Mode of Action Pyridate is a Group 6 herbicide, HRAC Group C3 (Herbic id e Resistance Action Committee, www.hracg lobal.com). It belongs to the phenyl-pyr id azine fami l y of herbicides. Its site of act ion is inhi b ition photosynthesis by blocking electron transport in photosystem II (reactions taking place in the chlorop last thylakoid membranes).

e
. Endangered or Threatened Species Endangered or threatened spec i es listed by the USFWS with in the mint product ion • • • • •. counties of Jasper, Kosciusko, LaGrange , La Porte, Newton , Porter, Pulaski, Stark , an ti' • • St. Joseph are listed in the attached tab l e. :•• • 

### •••• • The use ofTough herbicide in accordance to the label in mint fields should not pose a. ••• 

### • • risk to any threatened or endangered spec ies. • • • • 

### •••• • 

### • • • • f. Beneficial Organisms • Tough is not toxic to bees and other beneficial in sects ( i. e. lady beetles , predatory m ites)

.• See the attached EPA Environmenta l Fate a nd Effects Division (EFED) report. : • • • • •
g. Fish and Aquatic Organisms 

### •••• 

### • • •

•• • Pryridate is considered toxic to estuarine organisms. However , due to its strong soil adsorpt ion and short ha lf- li fe, if applied according to the label it should not pose a risk to 

## • ••••• • • 

### • • 

### • 

### •••••• • 

## •

•• • 

### •••• 

## • • 

### • ••••estuarin e organisms (see attached EPA EFED report). The label states that this material sho u ld not be app li ed wi thin l 00 ya rd s of any freshwater sp ring , d irectly t o wate r , t o areas w here s urface wate r is present, or to intertida l areas below the mean hi gh water mar k

. 

### 9. Coordinate with Other Agencies The Indian a F is h and Wild lif e Office of th e U

. S. Fish and Wi ldli fe Service w ill rece i ve a copy ofthi s req uest. A ny comments received will be forwarded to the U.S. EPA.


### 10. Notification of Registrant B elc him C ro p Protecti o n has been not ifi ed and the ir l ette r of su pport i s att ached. In addition , Engage Agro USA Co rp. is the U.S. distributor and th ey have a l so been notified. A letter of s up port from Engage Agro USA is a lso attached.


### 11

. Enforcement Program Th e Office of the Indi ana State C he mi st (O I SC) has adeq uate au th o riti es for enfo rc in g provisions ofSection 18 e m ergency exe mp t io n s. OISC w ill require the r egistrant (o r m a nu facture r , if unregistered) of Tough herbicide, Belchim Crop Protection , to prepare and
m a ke ava ilable to e nd u sers s uppl eme nt al labeling that com pli es w ith OI SC a nd EPA
re quire m ents fo r th e eme rgency u se , if a ppr oved

. App li cators wi ll be required to keep adequate records of appl i cation u se and acreage. T he Mint In dus try Research Counci l (M IRC), in cooperat ion w ith Belch im Crop P rotection and E ngage Ag ro USA, w ill be r equ ired to provide the OI SC a r eport sum m ariz i ng results of the eme rgency use afte r the end of the u se pe ri o d

. 

### 12. Repeat Uses T o ug h ha s been previo u s l y used und e r a Sect ion 18 fro m 1999-2000. To ugh was later r eg i stered u nd e r an SLN 24c from 200 1 -2007 afte r tolerances we r e es tabl is hed in 2000.


### 13. Progress Toward Registration Registration and tolerance we re establis hed thro u gh the IR-4 by the E P A in May of2000. The Fi na l Rule was p ubli s h ed in the Fe d era l Register vo l. 65 , No

. 86, May 3, 2000 pa ges 25647

- 25652 (attac h ed). Tolerances were estab li s hed for peppermint and spearm int tops at 0.20 ppm (CFR 18 0.462). Product reg i stratio n was vol un taril y cancelled by the registrant (Syngenta) a oo • • 

### • • th e product was no longer m a rk eted in the U.S. Recently, Belchim Cro p Protection acq ui re d**rt ~**  

### • marketing ri g hts fo r py rid ate f rom Syn genta. It i s un derstood that B e lc h im is work in g w ith the : • • • E PA to r e-register Tough in th e U.S. • • •:
B. 

### Summary of Economic Loss 

### •••• • •



### ••••

•••• • 

### •••• 1. 

### Pest(s) to be Controlled • T h e pests causing an e m e rgency a re broadleafweeds , in particularly Redroot Pigwe e d , • 

### Armaran t hus retroflexus a nd Kochia , 

### Kochia scopari a. : • • • • • 

### •••• 

## • • •



### • • • •••••• • 

### • • 

### • • 

### •••••• • •

• • • 

### •••• 

### • • 

### • 

### ••••

### 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 broad leaf weed commun iti es that cannot be effectively controlled
[ in active growing mint crops. All crops including mint suffer yie ld l oss es from o ulations of weeds, but unlike other crops , the quality of mint oil a l so is a ecte y weeds. A quality il13rketab le mint crop is dependent upon weed free fields.

[ The recent increase in global demand for the production of double-cut mint oil has created ar non-routine situation that poses additional stress on the need for ade uate postemergence roa ea wee con ro
. Preemergence herbicides applied in February/early March to dormant mmt d1ss1pate to low levels tliat no l onger control weeds after 4-6 weeks. The mint o cano su resses any new weed emer ence or estab li shment after this eriod. oncethe mint canopy is removed with a m1 to late June harvest (first cuttin , new weed shes**L.>.LU~w.** 

### ese n us es me ude both summer annual grasses and l ater germinating broadleaf weeds such as pigweeds. The grass weeds are easi l y cont r olled with registered grass active herbicides. However, there are no effecti ve postemergence herbicides that a re labeled in mint for pigweed control during the second half of the grow in g season following the first harvest of mint. T h e 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 doub l e
- cut production. The g l obal regula tory issues involve the concern ofmenthofuran and pulegone contents in the mint o il and the limits of these compounds that are allowable in oil to deem it acceptable in markets. The reduction of these

. compounds and the in crease of other desirable oil quality traits can be achieved through double-cut production. The market has shifted to a higher demand for doublecut mint , but the acreage to meet the demand is not adequate due to management challenges**ana~m t_** **cha ll** **enge** 

### facing dou e
- cu pro uct10n. ro ucers do not have viab l e broadleaf weed control options to address th1s challenge.

---**Redro~** 

### present in mim at 1.6 weeds/ yd 2 

### renders mint o il unmarketable , due to

off -fl avors imparted during the distillation process (attachment). OSU research also demonstrated that a redroot pigweed infestation of I0 plants /ft 2 

### caused a peppermint oil yie ld reduction 34.4 lbs/acre , a 46% reduction (attached)

. Furthermore , both redroot and prostrate (A. 

### blitoides) 

### pigweeds have developed terbacil resistant b i otypes. Kochia , a summer annual , can reach heights of s ix feet high and several feet in diameter, hindering harvest operations and competes for nutrients and light. In addit i on , an infestation 

### Qf: •• 2.3 kochia plants/ ft 2 

### can reduce mint oil yields by over 30% (attachment) in addition to reduCi n g • • oi l quality. : • • • Mechanical tillage is not a post emergence weed control option in mint because tillage • • w ill destroy grow in g mint, e liminate irrigation r ill s in surface irrigated fields, and will spread•• :. devastating diseases in mint such as Verticillium w il t (Verticillium dahliae). 

### Terbacil**(Sinb<fr :jll**  

### •• • the common ly used herbicide registered for weed control in mint, is weak on pigweed specie s • • • • and has become even less effective in controlling pigweeds due to the development of resism f 1 t • biotypes. Add itionally , terbac il cannot be used when weeds are beyond the seedling stage and • when rotating from mint to other crops due to residual carryover. T h e only alternative

### meth**el uf!**  • controlling these weeds is hand-rogueing , but the unava il ab ility of labor and excessive cost •••• where labor is ava il able , e limin ates rogue in g as a viab l e weed control method. Again , there
·a re • 

### ! presently no effective post-emergent means of controlling these weeds in mint. The mint industry has been diligently in vesting research funds to di s cover effective po s t- 

### •••••• • 

### • • • 

### • 

### •••••• 

## • •

•• ••••• • 

### • •••••emergent broad l eaf weed herbicides that are safe t o the crop.**~has** p rov e n to be effective on broad l eafweeds as we ll as possesses acceptable po st-emer ge nce crop safety n eeded for mint pro duct io n. P op ula tio n s of prob lem weed s hav e reached economically deva stat ing level s an d i s im pacting the producer 's ability to co mp ete in the market. Addit io na ll y , th e rec e nt increa sed

, demand for double -c ut mint has forced produ ctio n into and create d a non -rou ft ne s ituation for**~rod ce** **s** w ho ha ve no ef fecti ve and v ia bl e postemergence broad leaf weed con tr ol o pti ons. The u se ofToug h h e rbicid e for postemergence weed co ntr o l in mint is cr itic al to maintaining U

. S

. mint o il quality and m a rk et s hare in toda y's g loba l economy.


### 3. Additional Benefits Information
4. Discussion of Econo mic Loss Redroot Pi gwee d/ Kochi a and broadleafweed co mmuniti es have become se ri ous weed pes t s of min t growe r s in Indiana. The lack of any post e mer ge nt weed co ntr o l opti o n , ( n o effec ti ve reg is t ere d he rbicide , and the prese nce of h erbi ci d e resistant pigweed) h ave c re ate d a n e m e rgency s ituati o n f o r Indi ana mint growers. Furtherm o r e, the recently increased demand for do uble-cut mint has create d a n o n-ro utin e s ituation in weed control for mint producer s. Economic thresho ld s for these problem wee d s are very l ow. Weeds resi stant to herbicides wh ich
m ature and form seeds , soo n establi sh la rge po p ul at ion s of the r es i st a nt bi otype, if not con troll e d. Studies perf o rmed b y OSU weed sc i enti sts s how yield losses ranging from 22%to 47% from th e target weeds indi vid ua ll y (attachment). Kochia and Re dr oot Pi gweed are ofte n found in
com pl exes of othe r weeds, wh i ch furth e r r e duc es the y ie ld a nd quality of mint o il.
F iv e
- Year Hi sto ry of Indian a Pro duction

Year

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average

I. 2. 

### 3. Average Yi e ld (lbs 

### I acre) 71 56 54 49 58 58 Average Gross Pri ce Revenue ($I l b) ($I acre) $21 $1,495 $21 $1,179 $21 $1 , 140 $21 $1,033 $21 $1,208 $21 $1,211 Cost of Net Production Revenue

($I acre) 

### ($I acre)

$1,100 $395 $1,100 $79 $1,100 $40 $1,100 ($67) $1,100 $108 $1,100 $111 

### •••• 

## • •



### ••••

• • • 

### • • 

### •••• 

### • •••• • •



### ••••

•••• 

### • ••••

• ••• 

### • • •



### •• • 

### • ••••• 

### • • 

## • • • 

### •••••• • 

### •

• • • •••• 

### • • 

### • 

### ••••

### Tier 2 Analysi s A Tier 2 S ignifica nt Eco nomic Lo ss (SEL) ana lysis illu s trates the red uction of oi l y i e ld
a nd quality as well as the l oss of gross revenue due to the deval uation of tainted oi l resulting from weed contam in ants. The y ie ld comparison reflects a 35% y i e l

d reduction (OSU tri a l data)
o n the portion ofthe acre s (80%) fac e d with the imp act of post-emergent weed co ntrol challenges

. Furthermore, the yie ld ca l culatio ns are based on the five-year average (20 11

- 1 5) of 58 lbs/ac re. As previously stated in thi s r equest, the estim ated acreage of Indian a m in t is 1 4,000
acres and approximately 11 ,2 00 acres (80%) would be treated w ith Tough herbicide. As for marketable oi l qua l ity, i_!:,is estima t ed that the u se of Tough herbi cide wou ld in crease pure q uali ty o il b y 20%, thu s r ed uc in g the amo un t of tainted deva lued oi l b the same. e eva uat 10n o tainted o il ran ges from a sma ll percentage deduction to complete rejection/ lo ss. Based o n indu str y know l edge, an average devaluation of35% was used for thi s a na lys i s. Th e Emerge n cy situatio n res u lts in 20% more tainted oi l tha t h as 35% l ess va lu e r ea li zed b y th e growers. In all , this i s a loss greater than $8Mi lli on to the mint prod ucers in Indiana.
Tier 2 In diana Economic Ana lysis of Yield and Quality L oss

Basel in e Emergency Ch a nge %Cha ng e
Yield (lbs/acre) 1 ,161, 785 812,000 -349,785

- 30% Pure(% of yi eld) 90% 70% (lbs/ac re) 1 , 045,606 568,400 -477,206 -46 % Tainted(% of yield) 10% 30% (lbs/a cre) 116,178 243,600 127,422 11 0 % Price, Pure ($/lb) $21.00 $21

. 00 

### • 

## ••• •• • Pr i ce, Tainted ($/lb) $13.65 $13.65 

### •••• • ••• Gross Revenue ($/acre) $23,543,565 $15,261,5 40

- $8,282,025 -35% •••• 

### • •

•••• 

### • •••• 

### • • • 

### •••••• • 

### •••• 

### • • •



### •• • 

### •••••• 

### • • • 

### • 

### • • 

### ••••• • •



### •• • 

### •••• 

## • • •••••