Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0766-0040
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Tolerance Crop Grouping Program III
Posted Date: 2011-11-09T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69693-69699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29071]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 69694]]

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

[[Page 69695]]

Sec.  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 pre-
existing 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 pre-existing 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 Sec.  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.;

[[Page 69696]]

     Ginkgo, Ginkgo biloba L.;
     Guiana chestnut, Pachira aquatica Aubl.;
     Heartnut, Juglans ailantifolia Carri[egrave]re var. 
cordiformis (Makino) Rehder, J. ailantifolia Carri[egrave]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. & Fr[eacute]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 (Sec.  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

[[Page 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-for-profit 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

[[Page 69698]]

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 Sec.  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:

Sec.  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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Related  crop
                       Commodities                           subgroup
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.)...........................          12-11C
Apricot, Japanese (Prunus mume Siebold & Zucc.).........          12-11C
Capulin (Prunus serotina Ehrh. subsp. capuli (Cav.)               12-11A
 McVaugh)...............................................
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            12-11B
 (Suckow) C.K. Schneid).................................
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.)           12-11C
 C.K. Schneid.).........................................
Plum, Japanese (Prunus salicina Lindl.; P. salicina               12-11C
 Lindl. var. salicina)..................................
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 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 (Aubry-Lecomte 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 Carri[egrave]re var. cordiformis 
(Makino) Rehder, J. ailantifolia Carri[egrave]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. & Fr[eacute]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