[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 99 (Monday, May 24, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27947-27951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13057]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP-300867; FRL-6083-1]
RIN 2070-AC18


Diazinon, Parathion, O,O-Diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] 
phosphorodithioate (Disulfoton), Ethoprop, and Carbaryl; Proposed 
Revocation of Tolerances

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

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the proposed revocation of tolerances 
listed in the regulatory text for the insecticides diazinon, parathion, 
O,O-Diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] phosphorodithioate (disulfoton), 
ethoprop, and carbaryl. EPA expects to determine whether any 
individuals or groups want to support these tolerances. The regulatory 
actions in this proposal 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 29 
tolerances and/or exemptions, of which 25 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 July 23, 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 
document. Be sure to identify the appropriate docket control number 
[OPP-300867].
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: 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 25 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 Proposal Apply to Me?

    You may be affected by this proposal 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.........................  Wolesale 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 is intended 
to provide 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 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/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 proposal, including the public version, has been established 
under docket control number [OPP-300867], including comments and data 
submitted electronically as described below. A

[[Page 27948]]

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 Proposal?

A. How and to Whom do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or 
electronically. Be sure to identify the appropriate docket number 
(i.e., [OPP-300867]) in your correspondence.
    1.  By mail. Submit written comments, identified by the docket 
control number [OPP-300867], 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-300867], 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.
    3.  Electronically. Submit your comments and/or data electronically 
by e-mail 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. Comments 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-300867]. 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 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, Public Law 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 may 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 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 as a follow-up 
on canceled pesticides and uses of pesticides and to be consistent with 
Table I ``Raw Agricultural and Processed Commodities and Feedstuffs 
Derived from Crops'' (August, 1996) in the Residue Chemistry Test 
Guidelines: OPPTS 860.1000 (EPA 721-C-96-169). 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 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.
    To assure that all food marketed in the Uninted States is safe, 
under FFDCA, EPA requires the same technical chemistry and toxicology 
data for such import tolerances (tolerances without related U.S. 
registrations) as are required to support U.S. food use registrations 
and any resulting tolerances. In addition, EPA requires residue 
chemistry data (crop field trials) that are representative of growing 
conditions in exporting countries in the same manner that the EPA 
requires representative residue chemistry data from different U.S. 
regions to support domestic use of the pesticide and tolerance. 
Interested parties should contact the EPA for written guidance on 
adapting U.S. residue chemistry data requirements to non-U.S. growing 
conditions in order to support an import tolerance.
    Other tolerances are being proposed for revocation because they are 
no longer regulated feed items. These proposed changes are in 
accordance with Table I in test guideline OPPTS 860.1000. Table I 
contains data on both crops and livestock diets and lists feed 
commodities considered significant in livestock diets. Significant 
feedstuffs account for more than 99 percent of the available annual 
tonnage (on-a dry-matter basis) of feedstuffs used in the domestic 
production of more than 95 percent of beef and dairy cattle, poultry, 
swine, milk, and eggs. EPA has devised criteria to include or exclude 
feedstuffs from Table I. Tolerances are not set for feedstuffs which 
are neither significant nor a human food. Pesticide residues on such 
feedstuffs are governed by tolerances on the commodity from

[[Page 27949]]

which they are derived (62 FR 66020, December 17, 1997)(FRL-5753-1). 
According to Table I, certain commodities are insignificant 
contributors to the livestock diet. In this document, EPA proposes 
tolerance revocations concerning pesticide residues in or on specific 
commodities because those commodities are no longer considered 
significant feed items.

VII. Which Pesticides are Covered by this Action?

    Diazinon is a nonsystemic organophosphate insecticide used to 
control cockroaches, silverfish, ants, and fleas in residential, non-
food buildings. Bait is used to control scavenger yellow jackets in the 
western United States. It is used on home gardens and farms to control 
a wide variety of sucking and leaf eating insects. It is used on rice, 
fruit trees, sugarcane, corn, tobacco, potatoes and on horticultural 
plants. It is also an ingredient in pest strips. Diazinon has 
veterinary uses against fleas and ticks. It is manufactured by 
Novartis, formerly Ciba-Geigy.
    Parathion is a restricted use broad spectrum, organophosphate 
insecticide used to control many insects and mites. It has nonsystemic, 
contact, stomach and fumigant actions. It has a wide range of 
applications on many crops against numerous insect species. It is 
manufactured by Cheminova Agro.
    O,O-Diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] phosphorodithioate, 
(Disulfoton), is a selective, systemic organophosphate insecticide and 
acaricide that is especially effective against sucking insects. It is 
used to control aphids, leafhoppers, thrips, beet flies, spider mites, 
and coffeeleaf miners. It is manufactured by Bayer Corporation.
    Ethoprop is an organophosphate insecticide primarily used for the 
control of nematodes. It is manufactured by Rhone Poulenc.
    Carbaryl is a wide-spectrum carbamate insecticide which controls 
over 100 species of insects. It is also used as a molluscicide and an 
acaricide. Carbaryl works whether it is ingested into the stomach of 
the pest or absorbed through direct contact. It is manufactured by 
Rhone Poulenc.

VIII. What Action is Being Taken?

    This document proposes revocation of FFDCA tolerances for residues 
of certain chemicals on commodities listed in the regulatory text of 40 
CFR part 180 because these commodities are no longer considered 
significant feed items and no longer require tolerances or because no 
registered uses exist. The registrations for these pesticide chemicals 
may have been canceled because the registrant (1) either failed to pay 
the required maintenance fee and/or (2) the registrant voluntarily 
canceled all registered uses of the pesticide. For general guidance on 
tolerances for commodities that are no longer considered significant 
feed items, see 62 FR 66020 (December 17, 1997).
    1. Diazinon. This document proposes to revoke the following 
tolerances established under section 408 of FFDCA for residues of the 
pesticide diazinon ((O,O-diethyl O-[6-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)-4-
pyrimidinyl] phosphorothioate) in or on the following commodities 
listed under 40 CFR 180.153(a): birdsfoot trefoil; birdsfoot trefoil, 
hay; grass (NMT 40 ppm shall remain 24 hours after appli); grass, hay; 
olives; peanuts; peanuts, forage; peanuts, hay; pecans; soybeans; 
soybeans, forage; and sugarcane. On December 27, 1996, these uses were 
voluntarily canceled by the registrant; at which date the Agency 
allowed registrants to sell or distribute products under the previously 
approved labeling for 18 months, or until June 27, 1998. The Agency is 
proposing to revoke the tolerances for these uses effective January 1, 
2000, at which time all existing stocks should have been exhausted and 
all treated commodities should have passed through the channels of 
trade.
    EPA also proposes to revoke diazinon tolerances for beans, forage; 
beans, hay; beans, guar, forage; and pineapples, forage. These 
commodities are no longer considered significant animal feed items and 
therefore no longer need tolerances. This document also proposes to 
revoke the tolerances for boysenberries and dewberries (0.5 ppm each), 
since these commodities are now covered by the tolerance for 
blackberries (also set at 0.5 ppm).
    2. Parathion. Methyl parathion is the methyl homolog of ethyl 
parathion; ethyl parathion is called parathion in the tolerance 
listings in 40 CFR 180.121. Tolerances for methyl parathion residues on 
most crops are included in the (ethyl) parathion tolerances because the 
enforcement analytical method does not distinguish between the two 
chemical species.
    EPA proposes to revoke the tolerances for boysenberries and 
youngberries (both set at 1 ppm), since these commodities are now 
covered by the tolerance for blackberries (also set at 1 ppm).
    3. O,O-Diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] phosphorodithioate 
(Disulfoton). EPA proposes to revoke the disulfoton tolerance for 
pineapples, foliage from 40 CFR 180.183. This commodity is no longer 
considered a significant animal feed item and therefore no longer needs 
a tolerance.
    4. Ethoprop. This document proposes to revoke the following 
tolerances established under section 408 for residues of the pesticide 
ethoprop ((O-ethyl S,S-dipropyl phosphorodithioate) in or on the 
following commodities listed under 40 CFR 180.262: beans, lima, forage; 
beans, snap, forage; pineapples, fodder; pineapples, forage; sugarcane, 
fodder; and sugarcane, forage. These commodities are no longer 
considered significant animal feed items and therefore no longer need 
tolerances.
    5. Carbaryl. This document proposes to revoke the following 
tolerances established under section 408 for residues of the pesticide 
carbaryl in or on avocados, listed under 180.169(e), and maple sap 
listed under 40 CFR 180.169(a). These uses were voluntarily canceled by 
the registrant.
    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 with the exception 
of the revocation of the tolerances for Diazinon, which will become 
effective on January 1, 2000. EPA is proposing these effective dates 
because EPA believes that by these dates 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 the effective dates proposed in this 
document should be reasonable. However, if EPA is presented with 
information that existing stocks would still be available for use after 
the expiration date 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 proposal.
    Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides 
subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the 
tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as 
established

[[Page 27950]]

by FQPA. Under this section, any residues 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 proposal, 
you may also submit an objection. EPA subsequently issues a final rule 
after considering comments that are submitted in response to this 
proposed rule. 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, 
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 data needed and 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 Addressing Health and Safety 
Risks to Children?

    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, among 
other things, 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 (Public Law 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 
Proposal?

    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 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).

[[Page 27951]]

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), Public Law 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 Public Law 
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 in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 18, 1999.

Lois A. Rossi,

 Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of 
Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 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. 321q, 346a and 371.


Sec. 180.121 [Amended]

    b. In Sec.  180.121, Parathion or its methyl homolog; tolerances 
for residues, by removing from the table in paragraph (a) the entries 
for boysenberries and youngberries.

Sec. 180.153 [Amended]

    c. In Sec. 180.153 Diazinon; tolerances for residues, by removing 
from the table in paragraph (a), the entries for beans, forage; beans, 
hay; beans, guar, forage; birdsfoot trefoil; birdsfoot trefoil, hay; 
boysenberries; dewberries; grass (NMT 40 ppm shall remain 24 hours 
after appli); grass, hay; olives; peanuts; peanuts, forage; peanuts, 
hay; pecans; pineapples; soybeans; soybeans, forage; and sugarcane.

Sec. 180.169 [Amended]

    d. In Sec. 180.169 Carbaryl, tolerances for residues, by removing 
from the table in paragraph (a), the entry for maple sap; and by 
removing from paragraph (e), the entry for avocados.

Sec. 180.183 [Amended]

    e. In Sec.  180.183, O,O-Diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] 
phosphorodithioate, tolerances for residues, by removing from the table 
in paragraph (a) the entry for pineapples, foliage.

Sec. 180.262 [Amended]

    f. In Sec.  180.262, Ethoprop, tolerances for residues, by removing 
from the the table in paragraph (a) the entries for beans, lima, 
forage; beans, snap, forage; pineapples, fodder; pineapples, forage; 
sugarcane, fodder; sugarcane, forage.

[FR Doc. 99-13057 Filed 5-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F