[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 206 (Monday, October 26, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57062-57067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28486]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 180, 185 and 186

[OPP-300735; FRL-6035-8]
RIN 2070-AB78


Revocation of Tolerances and Exemptions from the Requirement of a 
Tolerance for Canceled Pesticide Active Ingredients

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule announces the revocation of tolerances for 
residues of the pesticides listed in the regulatory text. EPA is 
revoking these tolerances because EPA has canceled the food uses 
associated with them. The regulatory actions in this document are part 
of the Agency's reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the tolerance reassessment 
requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). By 
law, EPA is required to reassess 33% of the tolerances in existence on 
August 2, 1996, by August 1999, or about 3,200 tolerances.
DATES: This final rule becomes effective January 25, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For technical information contact: 
Joseph Nevola, Special Review Branch, (7508C), Special Review and 
Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460. 
Office location: Special Review Branch, CM #2, 6th floor, 1921 
Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. Telephone: (703) 308-8037; e-mail: 
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this document apply to me?

    You may be affected by this document if you sell, distribute, 
manufacture, or use pesticides for agricultural applications, process 
food, distribute or sell food, or implement governmental pesticide 
regulations. Pesticide reregistration and other actions [see FIFRA 
section 4(g)(2)] include tolerance and exemption reassessment under 
FFDCA section 408. In this document, the tolerance actions are final in 
coordination with the cancellation of associated registrations. 
Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not 
limited to:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Examples of Potentially
                 Category                         Affected Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Stakeholders.................  Growers/Agricultural Workers
                                            Contractors [Certified/
                                             Commercial Applicators,
                                             Handlers, Advisors, etc.]
                                            Commercial Processors
                                            Pesticide Manufacturers
                                            User Groups
                                            Food Consumers
Food Distributors.........................  Wholesale Contractors
                                            Retail Vendors
                                            Commercial Traders/Importers
Intergovernmental Stakeholders............  State, Local, and/or Tribal
                                             Government Agencies
Foreign Entities..........................  Governments, Growers, Trade
                                             Groups
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table 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 table could also be 
affected. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, you can consult with the technical 
person listed in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.

[[Page 57063]]

II. How can I get additional information or copies of this or other 
support documents?

A. Electronically

    You may obtain electronic copies of this document and various 
support documents from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://
www.epa.gov/. On the Home Page select ``Laws and Regulations'' and then 
look up the entry for this document under ``Federal Register - 
Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the ``Federal 
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/homepage/fedrgstr/.

B. In Person or by Phone

    If you have any questions or need additional information about this 
action, please contact the technical person identified in the ``FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section. In addition, the official record 
for this document, including the public version, has been established 
under docket control number [insert the appropriate docket number], 
(including comments and data submitted electronically as described 
below). A public version of this record, including printed, paper 
versions of any electronic comments, which does not include any 
information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI), is 
available for inspection in Room 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson 
Davis Hwy., Arlington VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Public Information and Records 
Integrity Branch telephone number is 703-305-5805.

III. Can I challenge the Agency's final decision presented in this 
document?

    Yes. You can file a written objection or request a hearing by 
December 28, 1998 in the following manner:

A. By Paper

    Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the document 
control number [OPP-300735], may be submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900), 
Environmental Protection Agency, room M3708, 401 M St., SW, Washington, 
DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and hearing requests shall be 
labled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and forwarded to: EPA Headquarters 
Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, 
Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any objections and hearing requests 
filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the document 
control number and submitted to the Public Information and Records 
Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), 
Office of Pesticide Programs, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460. In 
person, bring a copy of objections and hearing requests to room 119, CM 
#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.

B. Electronically

    A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing 
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending e-mail to opp-
[email protected], per the instructions given in ``ADDRESSES'' 
above. Electronic copies of objections and hearing requests must be 
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and 
any form of encryption. Copies of objections and hearing requests will 
also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.1 file format or 
ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing requests in 
electronic form must be identified by the docket control number [OPP-
300735]. Do not submit CBI through e-mail. Electronic copies of 
objections and hearing requests on this rule may be filed online at 
many Federal Depository libraries.

IV. What action is being taken?

    This final rule revokes the FFDCA tolerances for residues of 
certain specified pesticides in or on certain specified commodities. 
EPA is revoking these tolerances because they are not necessary to 
cover residues of the relevant pesticides in or on domestically treated 
commodities or commodities treated outside but imported into the United 
States. These pesticides are no longer used on commodities within the 
United States and no person has provided comment identifying a need for 
EPA to retain the tolerances to cover residues in or on imported foods. 
EPA has historically expressed a concern that retention of tolerances 
that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods 
has the potential to encourage misuse of pesticides within the United 
States. Thus it is EPA's policy to issue a final rule revoking those 
tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals for which there are no 
active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the 
proposal demonstrates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or 
on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.
    EPA is not issuing today a final rule to revoke those tolerances 
for which EPA received comments demonstrating a need for the tolerance 
to be retained. Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of 
these tolerances on the grounds discussed above only if, prior to EPA's 
issuance of a section 408(f) order requesting additional data or 
issuance of a section 408(d) or (e) order revoking the tolerances on 
other grounds, commenters retract the comment identifying a need for 
the tolerance to be retained or EPA independently verifies that the 
tolerance is no longer needed.
    In the Federal Register of January 21, 1998 (63 FR 3057) (FRL-5743-
8), EPA issued a proposed rule for specific pesticides announcing the 
proposed revocation of tolerances for canceled active ingredients and 
inviting public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance 
retention under FFDCA standards. The following comments were received 
by the agency in response to the document published in the Federal 
Register of January 21, 1998.

Cyhexatin

    1. Comment from Elf Atochem North America, Inc. A comment was 
received by the Agency from Elf Atochem requesting that the tolerances 
for cyhexatin not be revoked. Elf Atochem claimed it has pending 
applications for registration including grapes, hops, pome fruit, 
strawberries, walnuts and macadamia nuts, submitted data on citrus, and 
stated that it is developing data to support stone fruits and almonds, 
and wishes to retain the tolerance for milk and for various [fat, 
kidney, liver, mbyp (exc. kidney & liver), and meat] tolerances on 
cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep, since several of the raw 
agricultural commodities (RACs) are fed to livestock.
    2. Comment from OXON ITALIA. A comment was received by the Agency 
from OXON ITALIA requesting that the tolerance for cyhexatin on citrus 
not be revoked. OXON ITALIA stated it is developing residue data for 
submission to the Agency. In follow-up correspondence to the Agency, 
OXON ITALIA, through its agent, further committed to provide the data 
required to maintain the tolerances of cyhexatin on imported citrus 
crops.
    3. Comment from California Citrus Quality Council. A comment was 
received by the Agency from the California Citrus Quality Council 
(CCQC) requesting that the tolerance for cyhexatin on citrus not be 
revoked. CCQC cited Elf Atochem's submission that indicated data was 
being developed and concerns about imports into the United States.
    4. Comment from U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee. A 
comment was received by the Agency from the

[[Page 57064]]

U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee requesting that the 
tolerance for cyhexatin on hops not be revoked, claiming that a section 
18 request was submitted for the 1998 growing season in WA, OR, and ID.
    Agency response. Because of Elf Atochem's and OXON ITALIA's 
interests in developing all data necessary to maintain all existing 
tolerances, EPA will not revoke the cyhexatin tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.144, 185.1350, and 186.1350 at this time.

Phosphamidon

    5. Comment from Washington State Department of Agriculture. A 
comment was received by the Agency from the Washington State Department 
of Agriculture (WSDA) requesting that the tolerance for phosphamidon 
use on apple not be revoked. Further, WSDA claims that existing stocks 
may take 6-8 years to exhaust and 2 years to clear trade channels.
    6. Comment from Northwest Wholesale, Inc. A comment was received by 
the Agency from the Northwest Wholesale Inc. requesting that the 
tolerance for phosphamidon use on apple not be revoked and expressed a 
concern that existing stocks may take 10 years to exhaust.
    Agency response. Although EPA intends to revoke the tolerance for 
phosphamidon on apples, the Agency will not revoke that tolerance on 
apples in this final rule. The Agency will address the tolerance for 
phosphamidon on apples in a subsequent Federal Register document. With 
the exception of the tolerance on apple, all other tolerances for 
phosphamidon in 40 CFR 180.239 will be revoked.

Phosalone

    7. Comment from Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. A comment was received by 
the Agency from Rhone-Poulenc requesting that the tolerances for 
phosalone be retained for cherries; peaches; plums/prunes; apricots 
(stone fruits); apples; pears (pome fruit); nuts, almonds only; and 
grapes, so that those commodities could be legally imported into the 
United States.
    Agency response. EPA will not revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.263 for phosalone use on almond; apple; apricot; cherry; grape; 
peach; pear; and plum/prune, at this time. In 40 CFR 180.263, the 
Agency will revoke the tolerances for artichokes; Brazil nuts; 
butternuts; cashews; cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle, mbyp; 
chestnuts; citrus fruits; filberts; goats, fat; goats, meat; goats, 
mbyp; hickory nuts; hogs, fat; hogs, meat; hogs, mbyp; horses, fat; 
horses, meat; horses, mbyp; Macadamia nuts; nectarines; pecans; 
potatoes; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; sheep, mbyp; and walnuts. Also, the 
Agency will revoke the tolerances in Sec. 185.4800.

3,4,5-Trimethylphenyl methylcarbamate and 2,3,5-Trimethylphenyl 
methylcarbamate [Trimethacarb]

    8. Comment from Drexel Chemical Company. A comment was received by 
the Agency from Drexel Chemical requesting that the revocation of 
tolerances for trimethacarb be delayed because Drexel cannot determine 
if all existing stocks of their product labeled for the uses associated 
with the subject tolerances have been completely exhausted.
    Agency response. Although EPA intends to revoke the tolerances in 
40 CFR 180.305 for 3,4,5-Trimethylphenyl methylcarbamate and 2,3,5-
Trimethylphenyl methylcarbamate [Trimethacarb], the Agency will not 
revoke those tolerances in this final rule. The Agency will address the 
tolerances for trimethacarb in a subsequent Federal Register document.

2-(m-Chlorophenoxy) propionic acid [Cloprop]

    9. Comment from the Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii. A 
comment was received by the Agency from the Pineapple Growers 
Association of Hawaii requesting that the tolerances for cloprop be 
retained for five years, three years for use of cloprop on pineapples 
and two years for consumption of the resulting canned pineapple 
products.
    Agency response. EPA will revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.325 
for 2-(m-Chlorophenoxy) propionic acid [Cloprop] on pineapple, fodder; 
and pineapple, forage; and in Sec. 186.850 on pineapple, bran on the 
grounds that these are no longer considered significant livestock 
feedsuffs and therefore, the tolerances are not necessary. Although EPA 
intends to revoke the tolerance on pineapple; the Agency will not 
revoke that tolerance in this final rule. The Agency will address the 
tolerance for cloprop on pineapple in a subsequent Federal Register 
document. With the exception of that tolerance on pineapple, all other 
tolerances for cloprop in 40 CFR 180.325 will be revoked.

Copper linoleate and Copper oleate

    10. Comment from Griffin Corporation. A comment was received by the 
Agency from Griffin Corporation requesting that the exemption from a 
tolerance for copper oleate and copper linoleate in 40 CFR 180.1001 not 
be revoked if the revocation covers copper salts of fatty and rosin 
acids, which may affect some of their products.
    11. Comment from Stewart Marine. A comment was received by EPA from 
an agent for Stewart Marine requesting that the exemption from a 
tolerance for copper linoleate not be revoked. Stewart Marine expects 
to submit a petition for registration of copper linoleate for use as a 
pesticide as an antifoulant paint.
    12. Comment from WSDA. A comment was received by the Agency from 
the WSDA requesting that the exemption from a tolerance for copper 
oleate not be revoked.
    Agency response. Because Griffin Corporation products which contain 
copper salts of fatty and rosin acids would be impacted by revocation 
of exemption from a tolerance for copper linoleate and/or copper 
oleate, EPA will not revoke the exemption from a tolerance in 40 CFR 
180.1001(b)(1) for copper linoleate and copper oleate at this time. 
This will also address the concerns expressed by Stewart Marine and 
WSDA.

(E,Z)-3,13-Octadecadien-1-ol acetate and (Z,Z)-3,13-Octadecadien-1-ol 
acetate [ODDA]

    13. Comment from WSDA. A comment was received by the Agency from 
the WSDA requesting that the exemption from a tolerance for ODDA in 40 
CFR 180.1055 should not be revoked for apricot, cherry, nectarine, 
peach, plum, and prune trees.
    Agency response. Since ODDA is a lepidopteran pheromone, it will 
remain covered under the broader tolerance exemption of 40 CFR 180.1153 
Lepidopteran pheromones; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. 
Therefore, the current tolerance exemptions listed for ODDA under 40 
CFR 180.1055 are not needed and will be revoked by the Agency.

Malathion

    14. Comment from Interregional Research Project No. 4. A comment 
was received by the Agency from Interregional Research Project No. 4. 
(IR-4), NJ, stating that the exemption from a tolerance for malathion 
in 40 CFR 180.1067 should be retained because a 24(c) registration is 
active in California for malathion on listed commodities for use as an 
insecticide against the Oriental, Mediterranean, and Mexican fruit 
flies.
    Agency response. In this final rule, EPA will not revoke the 
exemption from a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.1067 for methyl eugenol and 
malathion combination. The Agency will address the exemption from a 
tolerance for

[[Page 57065]]

malathion under Sec. 180.1067 in a subsequent Federal Register 
document.

V. When do these actions become effective?

    These actions become effective 90 days following publication of a 
final rule in the Federal Register. EPA has delayed the effectiveness 
of these revocations for 90 days following publication of a final rule 
to ensure that all affected parties receive notice of EPA's action. 
Consequently, the effective date is January 25, 1999, except where the 
date is otherwise indicated. For this particular final rule, the 
actions will affect uses which have been canceled for more than a year. 
This should ensure that commodities have cleared the channels of trade.
    Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that 
are treated with the pesticides subject to this document, and that are 
in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be 
subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by the Food Quality 
Protection Act (FQPA). Under this section, any residue of these 
pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so 
long as it is shown to the satisfaction of FDA that, (1) the residue is 
present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a 
time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and (2) the residue 
does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the 
application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or 
exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully 
treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide 
was applied to such food.

VI. How do the regulatory assessment requirements apply to this 
action?

A. Is this a ``significant regulatory action''?

    No. Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and 
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a 
``significant regulatory action.'' The Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) has determined that tolerance actions, in general, are not 
``significant'' unless the action involves the revocation of a 
tolerance that may result in a substantial adverse and material affect 
on the economy. In addition, this action is not subject to Executive 
Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health 
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this 
action is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined 
by Executive Order 12866. Nonetheless, environmental health and safety 
risks to children are considered by the Agency when determining 
appropriate tolerances. Under FQPA, EPA is required to apply an 
additional 10-fold safety factor to risk assessments in order to ensure 
the protection of infants and children unless reliable data supports a 
different safety factor.

B. Does this action contain any reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements?

    No. This action does not impose any information collection 
requirements subject to OMB review or approval pursuant to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

C. Does this action involve any ``unfunded mandates''?

    No. This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain 
any ``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

D. Do Executive Orders 12875 and 13084 require EPA to consult with 
States and Indian Tribal Governments prior to taking the action in this 
notice?

    No. Under Executive Order 12875, entitled Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA may 
not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates 
a mandate upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by those governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA 
must provide to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a description 
of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of 
affected State, local and tribal governments, the nature of their 
concerns, copies of any written communications from the governments, 
and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In 
addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective 
process permitting elected officials and other representatives of 
State, local and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely 
input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant 
unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create an unfunded federal mandate on State, 
local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable 
duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) 
of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
    Under Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19,1998), EPA may not 
issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly 
or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and 
that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, 
unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the 
direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the 
mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide OMB, in a separately identified 
section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of 
EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal 
governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement 
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive 
Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting 
elected and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to 
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their 
communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

E. Does this action involve any environmental justice issues?

    No. This action is not expected to have any potential impacts on 
minorities and low income communities. Special consideration of 
environmental justice issues is not required under Executive Order 
12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 
16, 1994).



F. Does this action have a potentially significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities?

    No. The Agency has certified that tolerance actions, including the 
tolerance action in this document, are not likely to result in a 
significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The factual basis for the Agency's determination, along with 
its generic certification under section 605(b) of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5

[[Page 57066]]

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), appears at 63 FR 55565, October 16, 1998 (FRL-
6035-7). This generic certification has been provided to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

G. Does this action involve technical standards?

    No. This tolerance action does not involve any technical standards 
that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus 
standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer 
and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note). Section 12(d) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, 
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 
bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.

H. Are there any international trade issues raised by this action?

    EPA is working to ensure that the U.S. tolerance reassessment 
program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers 
Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) in setting U.S. tolerances and in 
reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex Committee on 
Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission, an international organization formed to promote the 
coordination of international food standards. When possible, EPA seeks 
to harmonize U.S. tolerances with CODEX MRLs. EPA may establish a 
tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 
408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain in a Federal Register document the 
reasons for departing from the Codex level. EPA's effort to harmonize 
with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of 
individual REDs. The U.S. EPA is developing a guidance concerning 
submissions for import tolerance support. This guidance will be made 
available to interested stakeholders.

I. Is this action subject to review under the Congressional Review Act?

    Yes. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action 
is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 185

    Environmental protection, Food additives, Pesticide and pests.



40 CFR Part 186

    Environmental protection, Animal feeds, Pesticide and pests.

    Dated: September 30, 1998.

Jack E. Housenger,
Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of 
Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR parts 180, 185, and 186 be 
amended as follows:

PART 180-- [AMENDED]

    1. In part 180:
    a. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as 
follows:
    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

    b. In subpart A, in Sec. 180.2, by revising paragraph (a) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 180.2  Pesticide chemicals considered safe.

    (a) As a general rule, pesticide chemicals other than benzaldehyde 
(when used as a bee repellant in the harvesting of honey), ferrous 
sulfate, lime, lime-sulfur, potassium sorbate, sodium carbonate, sodium 
chloride, sodium hypochlorite, sulfur, and when used as plant 
desiccants, sodium metasilicate (not to exceed 4 percent by weight in 
aqueous solution) and when used as postharvest fungicide, citric acid, 
fumaric acid, oil of lemon, and oil of orange are not for the purposes 
of section 408(a) of the Act generally recognized as safe.
 * * * * *


Secs. 180.115, 180.118, 180.148, 180.158, 180.159, 180.162, 180.171, 
and 180.219 [Removed]

    c. In subpart C, by removing Secs. 180.115, 180.118, 180.148, 
180.158, 180.159, 180.162, 180.171, and 180.219.


Sec. 180.239  [Amended]

    d. By removing from Sec. 180.239, the entries for ``broccoli''; 
``cantaloupes''; ``cauliflower''; ``cottonseed''; ``cucumbers''; 
``grapefruit''; ``lemons''; ``oranges''; ``peppers''; ``potatoes''; 
``sugarcane''; ``tangerines''; ``tomatoes''; ``walnuts''; and 
``watermelons''.


Sec. 180.263  [Amended]

    e. By removing from Sec. 180.263, the entries for ``artichokes''; 
``cattle, fat''; ``cattle, meat''; ``cattle, mbyp''; ``citrus fruits''; 
``goats, fat''; ``goats, meat''; ``goats, mbyp''; ``hogs, fat''; 
``hogs, meat''; ``hogs, mbyp''; ``horses, fat''; ``horses, meat''; 
``horses, mbyp''; ``Nuts''; ``nectarines''; ``potatoes''; ``sheep, 
fat''; ``sheep, meat''; and ``sheep, mbyp''.


Sec. 180.306 [Removed]

    f. By removing Sec. 180.306.


Sec. 180.319  [Amended]

    g. By removing from the table in Sec. 180.319, the entire entry for 
``Isopropyl carbanilate (IPC)''.


Sec. 180.321  [Removed]

    h. By removing Sec. 180.321.


Sec. 180.325  [Amended]

    i. By removing from the table in Sec. 180.325, the entries for 
``kidneys, cattle''; ``kidneys, goats''; ``kidneys, hogs''; ``kidneys, 
horses''; ``kidneys, sheep''; ``meat (except kidneys), fat, mbyp, 
cattle''; ``meat (except kidneys), fat, mbyp, goats'';``meat (except 
kidneys), fat, mbyp, hogs''; ``meat (except kidneys), fat, mbyp, 
horses''; ``meat (except kidneys), fat, mbyp, poultry''; ``meat (except 
kidneys), fat, mbyp, sheep''; ``nectarines''; ``peaches''; ``pineapple, 
fodder``; and ``pineapple, forage''.


Secs. 180.326, 180.347, and 180.357  [Removed]

    j. By removing Secs. 180.326, 180.347, and 180.357.
    k. In subpart D, in Sec. 180.1001, by revising paragraph (b) (1), 
removing paragraphs (b) (6) and (b) (9) and redesignating paragraphs 
(b) (7), (b) (8), and (b) (10) as (b) (6), (b) (7), and (b) (8), 
respectively and removing from the table in paragraph (d) the entry for 
``Fumaric acid'' to read as follows:

[[Page 57067]]

Sec. 180.1001  Exemptions from the reqirement of a tolerance.

 * * * * *
     (b) * * *
     (1) The following copper compounds: Bordeaux mixture, basic copper 
carbonate (malachite), copper hydroxide, copper-lime mixtures, copper 
linoleate, copper oleate, copper oxychloride, copper octanoate, copper 
sulfate basic, copper sulfate pentahydrate, cupric oxide, cuprous 
oxide. These compounds are used primarily as fungicides.
 * * * * *


Secs. 180.1010, 180.1018, 180.1030, 180.1031, 180.1034, 180.1055, 
180.1059, 180.1061, 180.1079, 180.1081, and 180.1085  [Removed]

    l. By removing Secs. 180.1010, 180.1018, 180.1030, 180.1031, 
180.1034, 180.1055, 180.1059, 180.1061, 180.1079, 180.1081, and 
180.1085.

PART 185-- [AMENDED]

    2. In part 185:
    a. The aurthority citation for part 185 continues to read as 
follows:
    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 348.

Secs. 185.1650, 185.3600, 185.4250, 185.4300, and 185.4800  [Removed]

    b. By removing Secs. 185.1650, 185.3600, 185.4250, 185.4300, and 
185.4800.

PART 186-- [AMENDED]

    3. In part 186:
    a. The authority citation for part 186 continues to read as 
follows:
    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 348.

Secs. 186.450, 186.850, 186.1650, and 186.2450  [Removed]

    b. By removing Secs. 186.450, 186.850, 186.1650, and 186.2450.

[FR Doc. 98-28486 Filed 10-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F