Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 69693 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Agricultural commodities, Feed 

additives, Food additives, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 24, 2011. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28934 Filed 11–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0766; FRL–8887–8] 

Tolerance Crop Grouping Program III 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing revisions to 

its pesticide tolerance crop grouping 

regulations, which allow the 

establishment of tolerances for multiple, 

related crops based on data from a 

representative set of crops. The present 

revisions would expand existing crop 

groups for stone fruits and tree nuts by 

establishing new crop subgroups and/or 

adding new commodities. EPA expects 

these revisions to promote greater use of 

crop groupings for tolerance-setting 

purposes and, in particular, to assist in 

making available lower risk pesticides 

for minor crops, both domestically and 

in countries that export food to the 

United States. This is the third in a 

series of planned crop group updates 

expected to be proposed over the next 

several years. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 9, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0766, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2006– 

0766. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or 

email. The regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the comment that is placed in 

the docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either in the 

electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

hours of operation of this Docket 

Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Nollen, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–7390; email address: 

nollen.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer or food manufacturer. 

Potentially affected entities may 

include, but are not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111), 

e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, 

nursery, and floriculture workers; 

farmers. 

•Animal production (NAICS code 

112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, 

dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; 

commercial applicators; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; residential users. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69694 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information 

and/or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. Tolerance-Setting Requirements and 

Petitions To Expand the Existing Crop 

Grouping System 

EPA is authorized to establish 

maximum residue limits or tolerances 

for pesticide chemical residues in or on 

food commodities under section 408 of 

the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 346a). EPA 

establishes pesticide tolerances only 

after determining that aggregate 

exposure to the pesticide is considered 

safe. The U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

enforce compliance with tolerance 

limits. 

Traditionally, tolerances are 

established for a specific pesticide and 

commodity combination. However, 

under EPA’s crop grouping regulations 

(40 CFR 180.41), a single tolerance may 

be established that applies to a group of 

related commodities. For example, the 

current Stone Fruit Crop Group 12 

includes 11 stone fruit commodities, 

including cherry, peach, and plum. The 

proposed Stone Fruit Crop Group 12–11 

expands on the existing crop group and 

will include 22 commodities, if 

adopted. Crop group tolerances may be 

established based on residue data from 

designated representative commodities 

within the group. Representative 

commodities are selected based on 

EPA’s determination that they are likely 

to bear the maximum level of residue 

that could occur on any crop within the 

group. Once a crop group tolerance is 

established, the tolerance level applies 

to all commodities within the group. 

This proposed rule is the third in a 

series of planned crop group 

amendments expected to be completed 

over the next several years. Specific 

information regarding the history of the 

crop group regulations, the previous 

amendments to the regulations and the 

process for amending crop groups can 

be found in the Federal Register of May 

23, 2007 (72 FR 28920) (FRL–8126–1). 

Specific information regarding how the 

Agency implements crop group 

amendments can be found in 40 CFR 

180.40(j). 

Today’s proposal is based upon two 

petitions developed by the International 

Crop Grouping Consulting Committee 

(ICGCC) workgroup and submitted to 

EPA by a nation-wide cooperative 

project, the Interregional Research 

Project Number 4 (IR–4). These petitions 

and the monographs supporting them 

have been included in the docket for the 

proposed rule. EPA expects that a series 

of additional petitions seeking 

amendments and changes to the crop 

grouping regulations (40 CFR 180.41) 

will originate from the ICGCC 

workgroup over the next several years. 

EPA believes that this proposal is a 

burden-reducing regulation. It will 

provide for greater sharing of data by 

permitting the results from a magnitude 

of residue field trial studies in one crop 

to be applied to other, similar crops. 

The primary beneficiaries are minor 

crop producers and consumers. Minor 

crop producers will benefit because 

lower registration costs will encourage 

more products to be registered for use 

on minor crops, providing additional 

tools for pest control. Consumers are 

expected to benefit by having more 

affordable and abundant food products 

available. Secondary beneficiaries 

include pesticide registrants, as 

expanded markets for pesticide 

products will lead to increased sales. 

EPA believes that data from 

representative crops will not 

underestimate the public exposure to 

pesticide residues through the 

consumption of treated crops. IR–4, 

which is publicly funded, will also 

more efficiently use resources as a result 

of this rule. Revisions to the crop 

grouping scheme will result in no 

appreciable costs or negative impacts to 

consumers, minor crop producers, 

pesticide registrants, the environment, 

or human health. 

B. International Considerations 

1. North American Free Trade 

Agreement (NAFTA) partner 

involvement in proposal. EPA’s 

Chemistry Science Advisory Council 

(ChemSAC), an internal Agency peer 

review committee, provided a detailed 

analysis for each proposed crop group to 

Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory 

Agency (PMRA), IR–4, and the 

government of Mexico for their review 

and comment, and invited these parties 

to participate in the ChemSAC meeting 

to finalize the recommendations for 

each petition. 

PMRA has indicated that it will, in 

parallel with the United States effort 

and under the authority of Canada’s Pest 

Control Products (PCP) Act (2002), 

establish equivalent crop groups. 

Additionally, once the new crop groups 

become effective in the United States, 

Mexico will have them as a reference for 

the establishment of maximum residue 

limits in Mexico. 

2. Relationship of proposal to Codex 

activities. The American and Canadian 

Delegations to the Codex Committee on 

Pesticide Residues (CCPR) have an 

ongoing effort to harmonize the NAFTA 

crop groups and representative 

commodities with those being 

developed by Codex, an international 

commission created to develop 

international food standards, guidelines 

and related texts, as part of their 

revision of the Codex Classification of 

Foods and Feeds. Canada and the 

United States are working closely with 

the Chairs of the Codex group for this 

project (Netherlands and the United 

States) to coordinate the U. S. crop 

group amendments with the efforts to 

amend the Codex crop groups. The goals 

of coordinating these NAFTA activities 

with Codex activities are to minimize 

differences within and among the U. S. 

and Codex groups and to develop 

representative commodities for each 

group that will be acceptable on an 

international basis. These efforts could 

lead to the increased harmonization of 

tolerances and maximum residue level 

recommendations. 

C. Scheme for Organization of Revised 

and Pre-Existing Crop Groups 

EPA has amended the generic crop 

group regulations to include an explicit 

scheme for how revised crop groups 

will be organized in the regulations. 

In brief, the regulations now specify 

that when a crop group is amended in 

a manner that expands or contracts its 

coverage of commodities, EPA will (1) 

Retain the pre-existing crop group in 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 69695 

§ 180.41; (2) insert the new, related crop 

group immediately after the pre-existing 

crop group in the CFR; and (3) title the 

new, related crop group in a way that 

clearly differentiates it from the preexisting crop group. The new, related 

crop group will retain roughly the same 

name and number as the pre-existing 

group except that the number will be 

followed by a hyphen and the final two 

digits of the year it is established. For 

example, EPA is proposing to revise 

crop group 12: Stone Fruit Group. The 

revised group will be titled Crop Group 

12–11: Stone Fruit Group. Although 

EPA will initially retain pre-existing 

crop groups that have been superseded 

by new crop groups, EPA will not 

establish new tolerances under the preexisting groups. Further, EPA plans to 

eventually convert tolerances for any 

pre-existing crop groups to tolerances 

with the coverage of the new crop 

group. This conversion will be effected 

both through the registration review 

process and in the course of establishing 

new tolerances for a pesticide. To this 

end, EPA requests that petitioners for 

tolerances address this issue in their 

petitions. 

For example, assuming EPA adopts 

the proposed amendment that would 

create Crop Group 14–11: Tree Nut 

Group, any tolerance petition for a 

pesticide that has a Group 14 tolerance 

should include a request that the Group 

14 tolerance be superseded by a Group 

14–11 tolerance, since the 

representative commodities are 

equivalent. When all crop group 

tolerances for a superseded crop group 

have been revised or removed, EPA will 

remove the superseded group from 

§ 180.41. 

III. Specific Proposed Revisions 

This Unit explains the proposed 

amendments to the crop group 

regulations. 

A. Crop Group 12–11: Stone Fruit Group 

EPA is proposing to revise Stone Fruit 

Crop Group 12 in the following manner. 

1. Add commodities. EPA proposes to 

amend existing Crop Group 12 by 

expanding it from 11 to 22 commodities. 

The existing Crop Group 12 contains the 

following 11 commodities: 

• Apricot, Prunus armeniaca; 

• Cherry, sweet, Prunus avium; 

• Cherry, tart, Prunus cerasus; 

• Nectarine, Prunus persica; 

• Peach, Prunus persica; 

• Plum, Prunus domestica, Prunus 

spp.; 

• Plum, Chickasaw, Prunus 

angustifolia; 

• Plum, Damson, Prunus domestica 

spp. insititia; 

• Plum, Japanese, Prunus salicina; 

• Plumcot, Prunus armeniaca x P. 

domestica; 

• Prune (fresh), Prunus domestica, 

Prunus spp. 

EPA proposes to expand Crop Group 

12 by adding the following 11 

additional commodities to the 

commodities already included in Crop 

Group 12 and naming the new crop 

grouping as Crop Group 12–11: 

• Apricot, Japanese, Prunus mume 

Siebold & Zucc.; 

• Capulin, Prunus serotina Ehrh. 

subsp. capuli (Cav.) McVaugh; 

• Cherry, black, Prunus serotina 

Ehrh. subsp. Serotina; 

• Cherry, Nanking, Prunus tomentosa 

Thunb.; 

• Chokecherry, Prunus virginiana L.; 

• Plum, American, Prunus americana 

Marshall; 

• Plum, beach, Prunus maritima 

Marshall; 

• Plum, Canada, Prunus nigra Aiton; 

• Plum, cherry, Prunus cerasifera 

Ehrh.; 

• Plum, Klamath, Prunus subcordata 

Benth.; 

• Sloe, Prunus spinosa L.; 

Including cultivars, varieties, and/or 

hybrids of these. 

The additional commodities proposed 

for Stone Fruit Crop Group 12–11 were 

chosen based on similarities and 

characteristics of the Rosaceae family, 

of which all existing and proposed 

commodities are members. The 

commodities were also chosen based on 

similarities to the existing stone fruit 

commodities in cultural practices, 

edible food and animal feed portions, 

residue levels, geographical locations, 

pest problems, established tolerances, 

and for international harmonization 

purposes. The scientific names for each 

commodity entry proposed for Stone 

Fruit Crop Group 12–11 are also being 

proposed to be updated to reflect the 

current taxonomic name. 

2. Create crop subgroups. EPA 

proposes to add three crop subgroups to 

Crop Group 12–11: Stone Fruit Group, 

as follows: 

i. Cherry subgroup 12–11A. 

(Representative commodities- Sweet 

cherry or Tart cherry). Six commodities 

proposed in this subgroup are: Cherry, 

black; Capulin; Cherry, Nanking; 

Cherry, sweet; Cherry, tart; and 

Chokecherry; including cultivars, 

varieties and/or hybrids of these. 

ii. Peach subgroup 12–11B. 

(Representative commodity- Peach). 

Two commodities proposed in this 

subgroup are: Nectarine and Peach, 

including cultivars, varieties and/or 

hybrids of these. 

iii. Plum subgroup 12–11C. 

(Representative commodities- Plum or 

Prune, plum). Fourteen commodities 

proposed in this subgroup are: Apricot; 

Apricot, Japanese; Plum; Plum, 

American; Plum, beach; Plum, Canada; 

Plum, cherry; Plum, Chickasaw; Plum, 

Damson; Plum, Japanese; Plum, 

Klamath; Plumcot; Plum, prune; Sloe; 

including cultivars, varieties and/or 

hybrids of these. 

The creation of these subgroups and 

the choice of representative commodity 

designations are based on similarities in 

pest pressures, cultural practices, and 

the edible portion of the commodity. 

The Agency also determined that three 

subgroups would be appropriate, as 

listed above, in order to harmonize with 

Codex subgroups and representative 

commodities for stone fruit. EPA has 

determined that residue data on the 

designated representative crops will 

provide adequate information on 

residue levels in crops and subgroups. 

B. Crop Group 14–11: Tree Nut Group 

EPA is proposing to revise Tree Nuts 

Crop Group 14 in the following manner. 

Add commodities. EPA proposes to 

amend the existing Tree Nuts Crop 

Group 14 by expanding it from 12 to 39 

commodities. The existing Crop Group 

14 contains the following 12 

commodities: 

• Almond, Prunus dulcis; 

• Beechnut, Fagus spp.; 

• Brazil nut, Bertholletia excelsa; 

• Butternut, Juglans cinerea; 

• Cashew, Anacardium occidentale; 

• Chestnut, Castanea spp.; 

• Chinquapin, Castanea pumila; 

• Filbert (hazelnut), Corylus spp.; 

• Hickory nut, Carya spp.; 

• Macadamia nut (bush nut), 

Macadamia spp.; 

• Pecan, Carya illinoensis; 

• Walnut, black and English 

(Persian), Juglans spp. 

EPA proposes to expand crop group 

14 by adding the following 26 

commodities and naming the new crop 

grouping as Crop Group 14–11. The 

added commodities are: 

• African nut-tree, Ricinodendron 

heudelotii (Baill.) Heckel; 

• Brazilian pine, Araucaria 

angustifolia (Bertol.) Kuntze; 

• Bunya, Araucaria bidwillii Hook.; 

• Bur oak, Quercus macrocarpa 

Michx.; 

• Cajou nut, Anacardium giganteum 

Hance ex Engl.; 

• Candlenut, Aleurites moluccanus 

(L.) Willd.; 

• Coconut, Cocos nucifera L.; 

• Coquito nut, Jubaea chilensis 

(Molina) Baill.; 

• Dika nut, Irvingia gabonensis 

(Aubry-Lecomte ex O’Rorke) Baill.; 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

• Ginkgo, Ginkgo biloba L.; 

• Guiana chestnut, Pachira aquatica 

Aubl.; 

• Heartnut, Juglans ailantifolia 

Carrie`re var. cordiformis (Makino) 

Rehder, J. ailantifolia Carrie`re; 

• Japanese horse-chestnut, Aesculus 

turbinata Blume; 

• Mongongo nut, Schinziophyton 

rautanenii (Schinz) Radcl.-Sm.; 

• Monkey-pot, Lecythis pisonis 

Cambess.; 

• Monkey puzzle nut, Araucaria 

araucana (Molina) K. Koch; 

• Okari nut, Terminalia kaernbachii 

Warb.; 

• Pachira nut, Pachira insignis (Sw.) 

Savigny; 

• Peach palm nut, Bactris gasipaes 

Kunth var. gasipaes, B. gasipaes Kunth; 

• Pequi, Caryocar brasiliense 

Cambess., C. villosum (Aubl.) Pers., C. 

nuciferum L.; 

• Pili nut, Canarium ovatum Engl., C. 

vulgare Leenh., C. indicum L.; 

• Pine nut, Pinus edulis Engelm., P. 

koraiensis Siebold & Zucc., P. sibirica 

Du Tour, P. pumila (Pall.) Regel, P. 

gerardiana Wall. ex D. Don, P. 

monophylla Torr. & Fre ́m., P. 

quadrifolia Parl. ex Sudw., P. pinea L.; 

• Pistachio, Pistacia vera L.; 

• Sapucaia nut, Lecythis zabucaja 

Aubl.; 

• Tropical almond, Terminalia 

catappa L.; 

• Yellowhorn, Xanthoceras 

sorbifolium Bunge 

Including cultivars, varieties, and/or 

hybrids of these. 

EPA additionally proposes to include 

the current Crop Group 14 entry for 

Walnut, black and English (Persian) 

(Juglans spp.) as two separate 

commodity entries in the new crop 

group, as follows: Walnut, black, 

Juglans hindsii Jeps. ex R. E. Sm., J. 

microcarpa Berland., J. nigra L.; and 

Walnut, English, Juglans regia L., 

including cultivars, varieties, and/or 

hybrids of these. 

There are 18 different plant families 

represented in the proposed Tree Nut 

Crop Group 14–11. The proposed 

commodities were chosen based on 

similarities in edible food and animal 

feed items, residue levels, geographical 

locations, established tolerances, and for 

international harmonization purposes. 

The commodities were also chosen 

based on similar cultural practices and 

uses, including harvesting, processing 

(hulling, drying), marketing, and 

nutritional values. Therefore, all of 

these commodities were found to have 

similar characteristics and uses to 

become a member of Tree Nut Crop 

Group 14–11. The scientific names for 

each commodity entry proposed for 

Tree Nut Crop Group 14–11 have also 

been updated to reflect the current 

taxonomic name. 

Pistachio was previously rejected as a 

member of Tree Nuts Crop Group 14, 

because there were concerns that the 

unsealed husks or shells surrounding 

pistachio nuts would expose the edible 

portion to significantly higher pesticide 

residues than would be found in other 

tree nuts. Subsequent to that decision, 

EPA examined scientific literature (Refs. 

1 and 2) and found that although the 

pistachio shell splits before harvest, the 

nutmeat remains inside an intact hull, 

so it may not be exposed to a pesticide. 

Based on this information, a study was 

conducted to determine how intact the 

outer hull that surrounds the shell and 

nutmeat remains during the season, 

from flowering to harvest. The results of 

this study confirmed that the shells of 

pistachio nuts split naturally in the 

orchard [≤ 80%] prior to harvest, but the 

hull stays intact, covering and 

protecting the kernel from invasion by 

molds, insects, and nonsystemic 

pesticides (Ref. 3). Therefore, the 

concerns that the unsealed husks or 

shells (splits) found in pistachio nuts 

would expose the edible portion to 

significantly higher pesticide residues 

than would occur in other tree nuts 

proved to be unfounded. Additionally, 

the EPA conducted an analysis of 

tolerances that had been established for 

15 pesticides on pistachios and 

compared the tolerance levels with 

those registered on the same pesticides 

for other tree nuts. In all cases except for 

permethrin, the established tolerances 

were identical. Even with permethrin 

(§ 180.378), the tolerance of 0.1 ppm 

established on pistachio was well 

within the Crop Group limit of 5X for 

the other tree nuts, which were 

established at 0.05 ppm. As a result, the 

Agency concluded that pesticide 

residues on pistachio nutmeat should be 

similar to the other nut crops that are 

members of the existing Tree Nut Crop 

Group, and are therefore appropriate for 

inclusion in the revised crop group 

proposed in this rule. 

IV. References 

The following references are used in 

this document and are available in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

1. Sommer, N.F., J.R. Buchanan, and R.J. 

Fortlage. 1986. ‘‘Relation of Early Splitting 

and Tattering of Pistachio Nuts to Aflatoxin 

in the Orchard.’’ Phytopathology 76:692–694 

2. Sommer, N.F. 1994. ‘‘Genetic Variation 

in the Resistance of Various Cultivars of Tree 

Nut to Aspergillus flavus,’’ Univ. CA. Project 

Report #0500–00029–006–01S. USDA 

Current Research Information Service. 

3. Schneider, Bernard A. 2000. ‘‘Review of 

Request for Residue Data Developed for 

Almonds To Be Translatable to Pistachios for 

Establishing Tolerances.’’ 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

EPA prepared an analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with this action in the first proposed 

rule published May 23, 2007 (77 FR 

28920). This analysis is contained in 

‘‘Economic Analysis Proposed 

Expansion of Crop Grouping Program.’’ 

A copy of the analysis is available in the 

docket and is briefly summarized here. 

This is a burden-reducing regulation. 

Crop grouping has saved money by 

permitting the results of pesticide 

exposure studies for one crop to be 

applied to other, similar crops. This 

regulation expands certain existing crop 

groups and adds one new crop group. 

The primary beneficiaries of the 

regulation are minor crop producers and 

consumers. Specialty crop producers 

will benefit because lower registration 

costs will encourage manufacturers to 

register more pesticides on minor crops, 

providing these growers with additional 

pesticide options. The greater 

availability of pesticides for use in the 

United States as well as increased 

coverage of tolerances to imported 

commodities may result in a larger 

supply of imported and domestically 

produced specialty produce at 

potentially lower costs benefiting 

consumers. Secondary beneficiaries are 

pesticide registrants, who benefit 

because expanded markets for 

pesticides will lead to increased sales. 

IR–4 and EPA, which are publicly 

funded Federal government entities, 

will more efficiently use resources as a 

result of the rule. 

EPA will conserve resources if, as 

expected, new or expanded crop groups 

result in fewer emergency pesticide use 

requests from specialty crop growers. 

Further, new and expanded crop groups 

will likely reduce the number of 

separate risk assessments and tolerance 

rulemaking that EPA will have to 

conduct. The public will further benefit 

from the increased international 

harmonization of crop classification and 

nomenclature, harmonized commodity 

import and export standards, and 

increased potential for resource sharing 

between EPA and other pesticide 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 69697 

regulatory agencies. Revisions to the 

crop grouping program will result in no 

appreciable costs or negative impacts to 

consumers, specialty crop producers, 

and pesticide registrants. 

The benefits of the proposed rule can 

be shown through the example of the 

impact of changes to Crop Group 3 in 

a prior rulemaking from December 7, 

2007 (72 FR 69150). That rulemaking 

established Bulb Vegetable Crop Group 

3–07, which expanded upon the related 

Crop Group 3, Bulb Vegetables from 7 

to 25 crops, an increase of 18 from the 

original crop group. Prior to the 

establishment of the expanded crop 

group, adding tolerances for the 18 

crops would have required a minimum 

of 18 field trials at a cost of 

approximately $5.4 million (assuming 

$300,000 per field trial). However, after 

promulgation of the new group, these 18 

new crops could obtain pesticide 

tolerances under a Crop Group 3–07 

tolerance with no field trials in addition 

to those required on the representative 

commodities (which did not change 

with the expansion of the group). Fewer 

field trials mean a greater likelihood 

that these commodities will obtain 

tolerance coverage under the FFDCA, 

aiding growers and reducing the costs of 

both the IR–4 data development process 

and the EPA review process. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection requirements that 

would require additional review or 

approval by OMB under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. However, the 

proposed rule is expected to reduce 

mandatory paperwork due to a 

reduction in required studies. The 

proposed rule will have the effect of 

reducing the number of residue 

chemistry studies because fewer 

representative crops would need to be 

tested under a crop grouping scheme, 

than would otherwise be required. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Agency hereby 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant adverse economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule does not have any 

direct adverse impacts on small 

businesses, small non-profit 

organizations, or small local 

governments. 

For the purpose of assessing the 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, a small entity is defined as: 

(1) A small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

In determining whether a rule has a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities’’ (5 

U.S.C. 603 and 604). Thus, an agency 

may certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden or 

otherwise has a positive economic effect 

on all of the small entities subject to the 

rule. 

This proposed action provides 

regulatory relief and regulatory 

flexibility. The new crop groups ease 

the process for pesticide manufacturers 

to obtain pesticide tolerances on greater 

numbers of crops. Pesticides will be 

more widely available to growers for use 

on crops, particularly specialty crops. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

(Pub. L. 104–4), EPA has determined 

that this proposed regulatory action 

does not contain a Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. 

Accordingly, this rule is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202, 203, 

204, and 205 of UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, 

entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), EPA has determined 

that this action does not have federalism 

implications, because it will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in the 

Order. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this proposed rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175 

As required by Executive Order 

13175, entitled Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments (65 FR 67249, November 

6, 2000), EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have 

any effect on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in the Order. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

proposed rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) does 

not apply to this proposed rule because 

this action is not designated as an 

economically significant regulatory 

action as defined by Executive Order 

12866 (see Unit IV.A.), nor does it 

establish an environmental standard, or 

otherwise have a disproportionate effect 

on children. 

H. Executive Order 13211 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211, entitled Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not designated as 

a regulatory action as defined by 

Executive Order 12866 (see Unit IV.A.), 

nor is it likely to have any adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

and sampling procedures) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. This 

proposed rule does not impose any 

technical standards that would require 

EPA to consider the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898 

This action does not have an adverse 

impact on the environmental and health 

conditions in low-income and minority 

communities. Therefore, this action 

does not involve special consideration 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

of environmental justice related issues 

as specified in Executive Order 12898, 

entitled Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

pesticides and pests. 

Dated: October 27, 2011. 

Stephen A. Owens, 

Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety 

and Pollution Prevention. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I be amended as follows: 

1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q). 346a and 371. 

2. In § 180.41 amend as follows: 

a. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(17) 

through (c)(26) as paragraphs (c)(18) 

through (c)(27), respectively, and add a 

new paragraph (c)(17). 

b. Redesignate newly redesignated 

paragraphs (c)(21) through (c)(27) as 

paragraphs (c)(22) through (c)(28), 

respectively, and add a new paragraph 

(c)(21). 

These proposed amendments read as 

follows: 

§ 180.41 Crop group tables. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(17) Crop Group 12–11: Stone Fruit 

Group. 

(i) Representative commodities. Sweet 

cherry or Tart cherry, Peach, and Plum 

or Prune plum. 

(ii) Commodities. The following Table 

1 is a list of all commodities included 

in Crop Group 12–11. 

TABLE 1—CROP GROUP 12–11: STONE FRUIT GROUP

Commodities 

Related 

crop 

subgroup 

Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) ............................................................................................................................................................. 12–11C 

Apricot, Japanese (Prunus mume Siebold & Zucc.) ........................................................................................................................... 12–11C 

Capulin (Prunus serotina Ehrh. subsp. capuli (Cav.) McVaugh) ........................................................................................................ 12–11A 

Cherry, black (Prunus serotina Ehrh. subsp. Serotina) ...................................................................................................................... 12–11A 

Cherry, Nanking (Prunus tomentosa Thunb.) ..................................................................................................................................... 12–11A 

Cherry, sweet (Prunus avium L.) ......................................................................................................................................................... 12–11A 

Cherry, tart (Prunus cerasus L.) .......................................................................................................................................................... 12–11A 

Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana L.) ..................................................................................................................................................... 12–11A 

Nectarine (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch var. nucipersica (Suckow) C.K. Schneid) .............................................................................. 12–11B 

Peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch var. persica) ................................................................................................................................ 12–11B 

Plum (Prunus domestica L. subsp. Domestica) .................................................................................................................................. 12–11C 

Plum, American (Prunus americana Marshall) .................................................................................................................................... 12–11C 

Plum, beach (Prunus maritima Marshall) ............................................................................................................................................ 12–11C 

Plum, Canada (Prunus nigra Aiton) .................................................................................................................................................... 12–11C 

Plum, cherry (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.) ............................................................................................................................................... 12–11C 

Plum, Chickasaw (Prunus angustifolia Marshall) ................................................................................................................................ 12–11C 

Plum, Damson (Prunus domestica L. subsp. insititia (L.) C.K. Schneid.) .......................................................................................... 12–11C 

Plum, Japanese (Prunus salicina Lindl.; P. salicina Lindl. var. salicina) ............................................................................................ 12–11C 

Plum, Klamath (Prunus subcordata Benth) ......................................................................................................................................... 12–11C 

Plum, prune (Prunus domestica L. subsp. Domestica) ....................................................................................................................... 12–11C 

Plumcot (Prunus hybr.) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12–11C 

Sloe (Prunus spinosa L.) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12–11C 

Cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these ........................................................................................................................................ ........................

(iii) Crop subgroups. The following 

Table 2 identifies the crop subgroups for 

Crop Group 12–11, specifies the 

representative commodities for each 

subgroup, and lists all the commodities 

included in each subgroup. 

TABLE 2—CROP GROUP 12–11: SUBGROUP LISTING

Representative commodities Commodities 

Crop subgroup 12–11A. Cherry subgroup 

Cherry, sweet or Cherry, tart .......... Capulin; Cherry, black; Cherry, Nanking; Cherry, sweet; Cherry, tart; Chokecherry; cultivars, varieties, and/ 

or hybrids of these. 

Crop subgroup 12–11B. Peach subgroup 

Peach .............................................. Peach; Nectarine; cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these. 

Crop subgroup 12–11C. Plum subgroup 

Plum or Prune plum ........................ Apricot; Apricot, Japanese; Plum; Plum, American; Plum, beach; Plum, Canada; Plum, cherry; Plum, 

Chickasaw; Plum, Damson; Plum, Japanese; Plum, Klamath; Plumcot; Plum, prune; Sloe; cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 69699 

* * * * * 

(21) Crop Group 14–11. Tree Nut 

Group. 

(i) Representative commodities. 

Almond and Pecan. 

(ii) Commodities. The following is a 

list of all commodities included in Crop 

Group 14–11. 

Crop Group 14–11: Tree Nut Group— 

Commodities 

African nut-tree (Ricinodendron 

heudelotii (Baill.) Heckel) 

Almond (Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. 

Webb) 

Beechnut (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh., F. 

sylvatica L., F. sylvatica L. subsp. 

Sylvatica) 

Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa Humb. & 

Bonpl.) 

Brazilian pine (Araucaria angustifolia 

(Bertol.) Kuntze) 

Bunya (Araucaria bidwillii Hook.) 

Bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa Michx.) 

Butternut (Juglans cinerea L.) 

Cajou nut (Anacardium giganteum 

Hance ex Engl.) 

Candlenut (Aleurites moluccanus (L.) 

Willd.) 

Cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) 

Chestnut (Castanea crenata Siebold & 

Zucc., C. dentata (Marshall) Borkh., C. 

mollissima Blume, C. sativa Mill.) 

Chinquapin (Castanea pumila (L.) Mill., 

C. ozarkensis Ashe) 

Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) 

Coquito nut (Jubaea chilensis (Molina) 

Baill.) 

Dika nut (Irvingia gabonensis (AubryLecomte ex O’Rorke) Baill.) 

Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba L.) 

Guiana chestnut (Pachira aquatica 

Aubl.) 

Hazelnut, Filbert (Corylus americana 

Marshall, C. avellana L., C. californica 

(A. DC.) Rose, C. chinensis Franch.) 

Heartnut (Juglans ailantifolia Carrie`re 

var. cordiformis (Makino) Rehder, J. 

ailantifolia Carrie`re) 

Hickory nut (Carya cathayensis Sarg., C. 

glabra (Mill.) Sweet, C. laciniosa (F. 

Michx.) W. P. C. Barton, C. 

myristiciformis (F. Michx.) Elliott, C. 

ovata (Mill.) K. Koch, C. tomentosa 

(Lam.) Nutt.) 

Japanese horse-chestnut (Aesculus 

turbinata Blume) 

Macadamia nut (Macadamia integrifolia 

Maiden & Betche, M. tetraphylla 

L.A.S. Johnson) 

Mongongo nut (Schinziophyton 

rautanenii (Schinz) Radcl.-Sm.) 

Monkey-pot (Lecythis pisonis Cambess.) 

Monkey puzzle nut (Araucaria 

araucana (Molina) K. Koch) 

Okari nut (Terminalia kaernbachii 

Warb.) 

Pachira nut (Pachira insignis (Sw.) 

Savigny) 

Peach palm nut (Bactris gasipaes Kunth 

var. gasipaes, B. gasipaes Kunth) 

Pecan (Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) 

K.Koch) 

Pequi (Caryocar brasiliense Cambess., C. 

villosum (Aubl.) Pers, C. nuciferum 

L.) 

Pili nut (Canarium ovatum Engl., C. 

vulgare Leenh., C. indicum L.) 

Pine nut (Pinus edulis Engelm., P. 

koraiensis Siebold & Zucc., P. sibirica 

Du Tour, P. pumila (Pall.) Regel, P. 

gerardiana Wall. ex D. Don, P. 

monophylla Torr. & Fre ́m., P. 

quadrifolia Parl. ex Sudw., P. pinea 

L.) 

Pistachio (Pistacia vera L.) 

Sapucaia nut (Lecythis zabucaja Aubl.) 

Tropical almond (Terminalia catappa 

L.) 

Walnut, black (Juglans hindsii Jeps. ex 

R. E. Sm., J. microcarpa Berland., J. 

nigra L.) 

Walnut, English (Juglans regia L.) 

Yellowhorn (Xanthoceras sorbifolium 

Bunge) 

Cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of 

these. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–29071 Filed 11–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS