[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16874-16880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8635]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 180, 185 and 186

[OPP-300841; FRL-6075-1]
RIN 2070-AB78


Tolerance Revocations for Certain Pesticides

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

[[Page 16875]]

ACTION: Proposed rule.
 SUMMARY: This document announces the proposed revocation of tolerances 
listed in the regulatory text for the herbicides dalapon, fluchloralin, 
metobromuron, paraquat, and sesone; the fungicides zinc sulfate, 
glyodin, and manganous dimethyldithiocarbamate (manam); the 
insecticides coumaphos, hydrogen cyanide and 0-Ethyl S-phenyl 
ethylphosphonodithioate (fonofos); the plant growth regulator N,N-
dimethylpiperidinium chloride (mepiquat chloride); and the food 
additive ethyl formate. Also, this notice proposes to revoke the 
tolerance for residues of the nematocide and insecticide ethoprop in or 
on mushrooms and soybeans; soybeans, forage; and soybeans, hay; and the 
food additive tolerance for residues of the fungicide paraformaldehyde 
in maple syrup. EPA expects to determine whether any individuals or 
groups want to support these tolerances. The regulatory actions in this 
notice 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 that were in existence on August 2, 1996, by August 1999, or 
about 3,200 tolerances. The regulatory actions proposed in this 
document pertain to the proposed revocation of 206 tolerances and/or 
exemptions, which would be counted among reassessments made toward the 
August 1999 review deadline of FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by the 
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 7, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in 
person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as 
provided in Unit IV of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
notice. Be sure to identify the appropriate docket number [OPP-300841].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caicedo, 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, telephone number and e-mail 
address: Special Review Branch, Crystal Mall 2, 6th floor, 1921 
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, Telephone: (703) 308-
9399; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 I. What is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment?

     By law, EPA is required to reassess 33% of the tolerances that 
were in existence on August 2, 1996, by August 1999, or about 3,200 
tolerances. As of March 1999, EPA has reassessed over 2,400 tolerances. 
The regulatory actions proposed in this document pertain to the 
proposed revocation of 206 tolerances and/or exemptions, which would be 
counted among reassessments made toward the August 1999 review deadline 
of FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act 
(FQPA) of 1996.

II. Does this Proposed Rule Apply to Me?

     You may be affected by this proposed rule 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. 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.

III. 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 notice, including the public version, has been 
established under docket control number [OPP-300841], 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 
Virginia, 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.

IV. How Can I Respond to this Notice?

 A. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments To?

     You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or 
electronically. Be sure to identify the appropriate docket number 
(i.e., [OPP-300841]) in your correspondence.
     1. By mail. Submit written comments, identified by the docket 
control number [OPP-300841], to: Public Information and Records 
Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), 
Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
     2. In person or by courier. Deliver written comments, identified 
by the docket control number [OPP-300841], to: Public Information and 
Records Integrity Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 
Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

[[Page 16876]]

     3. Electronically. Submit your comments and/or data electronically 
by email to: [email protected]. Do not submit any information 
electronically that you consider to be CBI. Submit electronic comments 
in ASCII file format avoiding the use of special characters and any 
form of encryption. Comment and data will also be accepted on standard 
computer disks in WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 or ASCII file format. All 
comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the 
appropriate docket control number [OPP-300841]. You may also file 
electronic comments and data online at many Federal Depository 
Libraries.

 B. How Should I Handle CBI Information in My Comments?

     You may claim information that you submit in response to this 
document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does 
not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. 
Information not marked confidential will be included in the public 
docket by EPA without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI 
or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult with the technical 
person identified in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.

V. What Is a ``Tolerance''?

     A ``tolerance'' represents the legally allowed maximum level for 
residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities 
and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., as 
amended by the FQPA of 1996, Pub. L. 104-170, authorizes the 
establishment of tolerances (maximum residue levels), exemptions from 
the requirement of a tolerance, modifications in tolerances, and 
revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on 
raw agricultural commodities and processed foods (21 U.S.C. 346(a)). 
Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is 
considered to be unsafe and therefore ``adulterated'' under section 
402(a) of the FFDCA. If food containing pesticide residues is 
considered to be ``adulterated,'' you can not distribute the product in 
interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 342(a)). For a food-use 
pesticide to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have 
appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA, but also must be registered 
under section 3 of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. et seq.). To retain these tolerances 
and exemptions, EPA must make a finding that the tolerances and 
exemptions are safe. To make this safety finding, EPA needs data and 
information indicating that there is a reasonable certainty that no 
harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide residues 
covered by the tolerances and exemptions.
     Monitoring and enforcement of pesticide tolerances and exemptions 
are carried out by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This includes monitoring for 
pesticide residues in or on commodities imported into the United 
States.

VI. Why Is EPA Proposing the Tolerance Actions Discussed below?

    EPA is proposing a number of these tolerance actions to implement 
the tolerance recommendations made during the Reregistration 
Eligibility Decision (RED) process, and as follow-up on canceled 
pesticides and uses of pesticides. As part of the RED process, EPA is 
required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the 
safety standards under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The 
safety finding determination is found in detail in each RED for the 
active ingredient. REDs propose certain tolerance actions to be 
implemented to meet safety findings and change commodity names and 
groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed copies of the REDs 
may be obtained from EPA's National Center for Environmental 
Publications and Information (EPA/NCEPI), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, 
OH 45242-2419, telephone 1-800-490-9198; fax 513-489-8695 and from the 
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 703-487-4650. Electronic copies of the 
RED are available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/REDs.
     Of the chemicals in this Federal Register Notice, REDs have been 
issued for Paraquat, Coumaphos, and Mepiquat chloride. The REDs for 
Paraquat and Mepiquat chloride were issued after passage of FQPA so 
they contain the Agency's evaluation of the database for these 
pesticides, including requirements for additional data on the active 
ingredients to confirm the potential human health and environmental 
risk assessments associated with current product uses as well as the 
Agency's decisions and conditions under which these uses and products 
will be eligible for registration. A determination of safety by EPA 
includes consideration of (a) potential cumulative effects with 
pesticides that have a common mode of toxicity, (b) aggregate risks 
resulting from exposure to residues in food and drinking water and 
exposure occurring due to pesticide application in residential 
settings, and (c) special sensitivity to children. FFDCA section 
408(b)(2)(C) requires that when determining appropriate tolerances, EPA 
apply an additional ten-fold safety factor for infants and children to 
take into account potential pre- and post-natal toxicity and the 
completeness of data on toxicity and exposure unless a different margin 
of safety, on the basis of reliable data, will be safe for infants and 
children. Retention, reduction, or removal of the ten-fold safety 
factor is based on a weight of evidence evaluation of all applicable 
data. This Federal Register proposal for Paraquat and Mepiquat chloride 
only includes the tolerances proposed for revocation. At a later date, 
EPA will issue a Federal Register proposal for the other tolerance 
reassessments in the Paraquat and Mepiquat chloride REDs. An FQPA 
assessment still remains to be done for Coumaphos since this RED was 
completed before passage of FQPA.
     In addition to implementing the tolerance recommendations found in 
RED documents, this Federal Register notice proposes revocation for 
canceled uses of certain pesticides. Registrations for Dalapon, Ethyl 
Formate, Fluchloralin, Fonofos, Glyodin, Hydrogen Cyanide, Manam, 
Metobromuron, Sesone, and Basic Zinc Sulfate were voluntarily canceled 
by their respective registrants. It is EPA's general practice to 
propose revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide active 
ingredients for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist. 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. 
However, in accordance with FFDCA section 408, EPA will not revoke any 
tolerance or exemption proposed for revocation if any person 
demonstrates a need for the retention of the tolerance, and if 
retention of the tolerance will meet the tolerance standard established 
under FQPA. Generally, interested parties support the retention of such 
tolerances in order to permit treated commodities to be legally 
imported into the United States, since raw agricultural commodities or 
processed food or feed commodities containing pesticide residues not 
covered by a tolerance or exemption are considered to be adulterated.
     For tolerances without U.S. registrations, EPA requires the same

[[Page 16877]]

toxicology and residue chemistry data requirements as are needed to 
support U.S. food-use registrations. For import tolerances, EPA applies 
these data requirements on a case-by-case basis to account for specific 
growing conditions in foreign countries. (See 40 CFR part 158 for EPA's 
data requirements to support domestic use of a pesticide and the 
establishment and maintenance of a tolerance. EPA is developing a 
guidance document concerning data requirements for import tolerance 
support. This guidance will be made available to interested persons). 
In most cases, EPA requires residue chemistry data (crop field trials) 
that are representative of growing conditions in exporting countries in 
the same manner that EPA requires representative residue chemistry data 
from different U.S. regions to support domestic use of a pesticide and 
any resulting tolerance(s) or exemption(s). Good Laboratory Practice 
(GLP) requirements for studies submitted in support of tolerances and 
exemptions for import purposes only are the same as for domestic 
purposes; i.e., the studies are required to either fully meet GLP 
standards, or have sufficient justification presented to show that 
deviations from GLP requirements do not significantly affect the 
results of the studies.

VII. Which Pesticides Are Covered by this Action?

    The following pesticides are covered by this proposed rule:
    1. Basic zinc sulfate is a fungicide used to control blight, brown 
rot, leaf spot, and scab. It was manufactured by FMC Corp. Agricultural 
Products Group, Griffin Corp., Marzone Inc., Puregro Co., Solaris Group 
of The Monsanto Co., Sureco Inc., Tifchem Products Inc., and W.R. Grace 
and Company.
    2. Coumaphos [O,O-Diethyl O-(3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-1-
benzopyran-7-yl) phosphorothioate], trade names CO-Ral, Baymix, Bay 21/
199, Muscatox, Asuntol, Ent-17957, Resitox, is an organophosphate 
insecticide used for control of a wide variety of livestock insects, 
including cattle grubs, screw worms, lice, scabies, flies, and ticks. 
It is used against ectoparasites, which are insects that live on the 
outside of host animals such as sheep, goats, horses, pigs, and 
poultry. It is added to cattle and poultry feed to control the 
development of fly larvae that breed in manure. It is manufactured by 
Bayer Corporation.
    3. Dalapon (2,2-dichloropropionic acid, trade names Dalapon 85 and 
GX Dalapon) is an herbicide used to control Bermuda grass, oxtails, 
Johnson grass, quackgrass, and other perennial and annual grasses, as 
well as cattails and rushes. It was manufactured by Aceto Agriculture 
Chemicals Corp. and by Garden Exchange Ltd.
    4. Ethoprop (O-ethyl S,S-dipropyl phosphorodithioate, trade name 
Mocap) is a nematocide and insecticide used to control aphids, beetles, 
billbugs, grubs, nematodes, rootworms, weevils, and wireworms. It is 
manufactured by Rhone-Poulenc AG Company.
    5. Ethyl formate is a food additive used to control the flour 
beetle, Indian meal moth, and raisin moth. It was manufactured by Coast 
Laboratories and by International Minerals and Chemical Corporation.
    6. Fluchloralin (N-(2-chloroethyl)-1-a,a,a-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N-
propyl-p-toluidine, trade name Basalin) is a selective herbicide used 
to control broadleaf weeds, crabgrass, oxtails, goosegrass, Johnson 
grass, and pigweed. It was manufactured by BASF Corporation.
    7. O-Ethyl S-phenyl ethylphosphonodithioate (Fonofos, trade names 
Dyfonate, N-2790, Ent-25,796, Stauffer N-2790) is a soil applied 
organophosphate insecticide. It was manufactured by Zeneca Ag Products.
    8. Glyodin (2-heptadecyl-2-imidazoline acetate or 2-heptadecyl-2-
imidazoline (base)) is a fungicide used to control black rot, black 
spot, brown rot, leaf spot, powdery mildew, scab, and sooty blotch. It 
was manufactured by Agway Inc., Grower Service Corp., and Union Carbide 
Corporation.
    9. Hydrogen cyanide is an insecticide and rodenticide fumigant used 
to control beetles, cockroaches, mealworms, mice, moths, rats, and 
weevils. It was manufactured by Degesch America, Inc. and by Fumico 
Incorporated.
    10. Manganous dimethyldithiocarbamate (manam, trade names Fundex, 
Tricarbamix, and Niagara niacide) is a fungicide used to control leaf 
spot, rust and scab. It was manufactured by Aceto Agriculture Chemicals 
Corp., ELF Atochem North America Inc., and FMC Corp. Agricultural 
Products Group.
    11. Metobromuron (N'-(4-bromophenyl)-N-methoxy-N-methylurea) is a 
selective herbicide used to control barnyard grass, carpetweed, 
chickweed, crabgrass, goose grass, pigweed, and ragweed. It was 
manufactured by Aceto Agriculture Chemicals Corporation.
    12. N,N-dimethylpiperidinium chloride (mepiquat chloride, trade 
name Pix) is a plant growth regulator. It is manufactured by BASF 
Corporation.
    13. Paraformaldehyde (trade names Flomor, Ma-pel, Sapflo) is a 
fungicide and bacteriocide used to control pathogenic fungi, pathogenic 
bacteria, and mold/mildew. It is manufactured by Lamb Natural Flow, 
Inc., Sugar Bush Supply Co., and Reynolds Sugar Bush Incorporated.
    14. Paraquat (trade names Cyclone, Gramoxone, and Surefire) is a 
herbicide used to control a broad spectrum of emerged weeds. It is 
manufactured by Zeneca Ag Products.
    15. Sesone (sodium 2,4-dichlorophenoxyethyl sulfate) is a herbicide 
used to control barnyard grass, carpetweed, chickweed, crabgrass, 
foxtail, and pigweed. It was manufactured by Landia Chemical Co. and by 
Tifchem Products Incorporated.

VIII. What Action Is Being Taken?

     This notice proposes revocation of all FFDCA tolerances for 
residues of the herbicides dalapon, 40 CFR 180.150, 185.1500, and 
186.1500; fluchloralin, Sec. 180.363; metobromuron Sec. 180.250; and 
sesone, Sec. 180.102; the fungicides basic zinc sulfate, Sec. 180.244; 
glyodin, Sec. 180.124; and manganous dimethyldithiocarbamate, 
Sec. 180.161; the insecticides fonofos, Sec. 180.221; and hydrogen 
cyanide, Sec. 180.130; and the food additive ethyl formate, 
Sec. 180.520; because no registered uses exist. The registrations for 
these pesticide chemicals were canceled because the registrant failed 
to pay the required maintenance fee and/or the registrant voluntarily 
canceled all registered uses of the pesticide.
    For the following pesticides, certain tolerances for specific 
commodities are proposed to be removed.
    1. Ethoprop. The following tolerances for residues in 40 CFR 
180.262(a) on mushrooms; soybeans; soybeans, forage; and soybeans, hay 
are being proposed for revocation for Ethoprop because uses no longer 
exist for mushrooms, and the registrant voluntarily canceled the 
soybean uses.
    2. Paraformaldehyde. The paraformaldehyde tolerance in 40 CFR 
185.4650 for residues in maple syrup is being proposed for revocation 
because the use was voluntarily canceled by the registrant.
    3. Coumaphos. The tolerances in 40 CFR 180.189 for residues of 
coumaphos for residues on eggs; poultry, fat; poultry, meat 
byproducts(mbyp); and poultry, meat are being proposed for revocation 
because these uses were voluntarily canceled by the registrant.
    4. N,N-dimethylpiperidinium chloride. This notice also proposes 
revocation of FFDCA tolerances in 40 CFR 180.384 for residues of the 
plant

[[Page 16878]]

growth regulator N,N-dimethylpiperidinium chloride (mepiquat chloride) 
in or on cotton, forage because it is no longer considered a 
significant livestock feed item. Tolerances on eggs; milk; poultry, 
fat; poultry, mbyp; poultry, meat are being proposed for revocation 
because there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues and 
therefore a tolerance is unnecessary (40 CFR 180.6(b)). The tolerance 
for cottonseed meal is being revoked because it will be covered within 
the reassessed raw agricultural commodities tolerance.
    5. Paraquat. EPA proposes to revoke the tolerances for rye grain 
and oat grain in 40 CFR 180.205(a) because no registered uses exist. 
The Agency proposes to revoke the tolerances for poultry, fat; meat; 
and poultry, mbyp in 40 CFR 180.205(a) because data indicate that no 
residues are expected. The statement of policy is given in 40 CFR 
180.6(a)(3). In such cases, the Agency proposes to revoke the existing 
tolerances because they are unnecessary. Also, the Agency proposes to 
revoke the tolerances for bean straw; hops, fresh; hop vines; lentil, 
hay; peanut, vines; and sunflower, seed hulls in 40 CFR 180.205(a) 
because they are no longer considered raw agricultural commodities.
     It is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of those 
tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals for which there are no 
active registrations. These revocations will become final unless any 
person in commenting on the proposal demonstrates a need for the 
tolerance to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic 
commodities legally treated.

IX. When Do These Actions Become Effective?

     EPA proposes that these actions become effective 90 days following 
publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. EPA is proposing 
this effective date because EPA believes that by this date all existing 
stocks of pesticide products labeled for the uses associated with the 
tolerances proposed for revocation will have been exhausted for more 
than 1 year; giving ample time for any treated fresh produce to clear 
trade channels. Therefore, EPA believes revocation after a 90-day 
period should be reasonable. However, if EPA is presented with 
information that there are existing stocks still available for use and 
that information is verified, EPA will consider extending the 
expiration date of the tolerance. If you have comments regarding 
existing stocks and whether the effective date accounts for these 
stocks, please submit comments as described in Unit IV of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.
     Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this notice that 
are treated with the pesticides subject to this notice, and that are in 
the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be 
subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by 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.

X. What Can I Do If I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance That 
the Agency Proposes to Revoke?

     In addition to submitting comments in response to this proposed 
rule, you may also submit an objection. EPA subsequently issues a final 
rule after considering the comments that are submitted in response to 
this notice. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within 
the time period specified, you will have waived the right to raise any 
issues resolved in the final rule. After the specified time, the issues 
resolved in the final rule cannot be raised again in any subsequent 
proceedings.
     This proposal provides 60 days for any interested person to 
demonstrate a need for retaining a tolerance, if retention of the 
tolerance will meet the tolerance standard established under FQPA. If 
EPA receives a comment to that effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke 
the tolerance immediately. However, EPA will take steps to ensure the 
submission of any needed supporting data and will issue an order in the 
Federal Register under FFDCA section 408(f) if needed. The order would 
specify the data needed, the time frames for its submission, and would 
require that within 90 days some person or persons notify EPA that they 
will submit the data. If the data are not submitted as required in the 
order, EPA will take appropriate action under FIFRA or FFDCA.

XI. 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 
Intergovernmental Partnerships (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

[[Page 16879]]

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 proposed 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 proposed 
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 proposed 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 proposed rule.

E. Does this Action Involve Any Environmental Justice Issues?

     No. This proposed rule does not involve special considerations of 
environmental-justice related issues pursuant to 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 actions 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 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 doing 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, 
explanation when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards. EPA invites public comment on this 
conclusion.

H. Are There Any International Trade Issues Raised by this Action?

    These revocations will not become final if comments are received 
which demonstrate the need to maintain the tolerance to cover residues 
in or on imported commodities. However, data must be submitted that 
support the continued tolerance. The U.S. EPA is developing guidance 
concerning data requirements for import tolerance support. This 
guidance will be made available to interested persons.

I. Is this Action Subject to Review under the Congressional Review Act?

     No. This action is not a final rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) 
of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II of Pub. 
L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847), only final rules must be submitted to the 
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller 
General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal 
Register.

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 pest.

40 CFR Part 186

     Environmental Protection, Animal feeds, Pesticide and pest.

    Dated: March 31, 1999.

Lois Rossi,

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. 321(q), 346a and 371.

Secs. 180.102, 180.124, 180.130, 180.150, and 180.161 [Removed]

     b. By removing Secs. 180.102, 180.124, 180.130, 180.150 and 
180.161.
     c. Section 180.189 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 180.189   Coumaphos; tolerances for residues.

     Tolerances for residues of the insecticide coumaphos (O,O-diethyl 
0-3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo- 2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphorothioate and 
its oxygen analog (O,O-diethyl 0-3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo- 2H-1-
benzopyran-7-yl phosphate) in or on raw food commodities as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat................................................          1.0
Cattle, meat...............................................          1.0

[[Page 16880]]

 
Cattle, mbyp...............................................          1.0
Goat, fat..................................................          1.0
Goat, meat.................................................          1.0
Goat, mbyp.................................................          1.0
Hog, fat...................................................          1.0
Hog, meat..................................................          1.0
Hog, mbyp..................................................          1.0
Horse, fat.................................................          1.0
Horse, meat................................................          1.0
Horse, mbyp................................................          1.0
Milk, fat (=n in whole milk)...............................          0.5
Sheep, fat.................................................          1.0
Sheep, meat................................................          1.0
Sheep, mbyp................................................          1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 180.205 [Amended]

    d. By removing from Sec. 180.205(a), Paraquat, the entries for bean 
straw; hops, fresh; hop vines; lentil, hay; oat grain; peanut, vines; 
poultry, fat; poultry, meat; poultry, mbyp; rye grain, and sunflower, 
seed hulls.

Secs. 180.221, 180.244, and 180.250 [Removed]

    e. By removing Secs. 180.221, 180.244, and 180.250.

Sec. 180.262 [Amended]

    f. By removing, from Sec. 180.262(a), Ethoprop; tolerances for 
residues, the entry for mushrooms.

Sec. 180.363 [Removed]

    g. By removing Sec. 180.363.

 Sec. 180.384 [Amended]

    h. By removing from Sec. 180.384(a), N,N-dimethylpiperidinium 
chloride; tolerances for residues, the entries for cotton forage; 
cottonseed; cottonseed meal; eggs; milk; poultry, fat; poultry, mbyp; 
and poultry, meat.

Sec.  180.520 [Removed]

    i. By removing Sec.  180.520.

PART 185--[AMENDED]

     1. In part 185:
     a. The authority citation for part 185 continues to read as 
follows:
    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a, 348.

Secs. 185.1500 and 185.4650 [Removed]

     b. By removing Secs.  185.1500 and 185.4650.

 PART 186--[AMENDED]

    1. In part 186:
    a. The authority citation for part 186 continues to read as 
follows:
    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342, 348, and 371.

Secs. 186.1500 [Removed]

     b. By removing Sec. 186.1500.

[FR Doc. 99-8635 Filed 4-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F