[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 21, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39068-39072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18610]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 180 and 185

[OPP-300891; FRL-6089-7]
RIN 2070-AB78


Propargite; Revocation of Certain Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule revokes tolerances for residues of the 
pesticide propargite in or on the following commodities: apples; 
apricots; beans, succulent; cranberries; figs; figs, dried; peaches; 
pears; plums (fresh prunes); and strawberries. EPA is revoking these 
tolerances because the uses associated with the tolerances have been 
canceled voluntarily from propargite labels by Uniroyal Chemical 
Company. Uniroyal deleted the uses to address dietary risk concerns 
raised by EPA. 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. This 
document revokes 10 tolerances which will 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: This final rule becomes effective October 19, 1999. Objections 
and requests for hearings, identified by docket control number [OPP-
300891] must be received by EPA on or before September 20, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Objections and hearing requests can be submitted by mail or 
in person. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in Unit V, 
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. To ensure 
proper identification of your objection or hearing request, you must 
identify the docket control number [OPP-300891] in the subject line on 
the first page of your request.

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, telephone number, and e-mail address: Special Review 
Branch, CM#2, 6th floor, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, 
(703) 308-8037; e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an 
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. 
Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not 
limited to:


 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of Potentially
             Categories                 NAICS       Affected Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................        111  Crop production
 
  ..................................        112  Animal production
 
  ..................................        311  Food manufacturing
 
  ..................................      32532  Pesticide manufacturing
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This listing is not exhaustive, but is a guide to entities likely 
to be regulated by this action. The North American Industrial 
Classification System (NAICS) codes will assist you in determining 
whether this action applies to you. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 39069]]

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 action, including the public version, has been established 
under docket control number [OPP-300891], (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 Rm. 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. What Action is being Taken?

A. Action in this Document

    In this final rule, EPA is revoking the FFDCA tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.259 for residues of propargite in or on apples; apricots; beans, 
succulent; cranberries; figs; peaches; pears; plums (fresh prunes); and 
strawberries; and in 40 CFR 185.5000 for residues of propargite in or 
on figs, dried, by removing 185.5000 and transferring the remaining 
tolerances for hops, dried; and tea, dried into section 180.259. EPA is 
revoking these tolerances because registered uses for propargite on 
these commodities have been voluntarily canceled. Thus, the tolerances 
for these commodities are no longer necessary to cover residues of 
propargite in or on domestically treated commodities or commodities 
treated outside but imported into the United States. Propargite is no 
longer used on those specified 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, 1) 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, 2) EPA independently verifies that the 
tolerance is no longer needed, 3) the tolerance is not supported by 
data, or 4) the tolerance does not meet the requirements under FQPA.

B. Background

    Propargite (trade names Comite and Omite) is a pesticide that was 
registered in 1969 for the control of mites on a number of agricultural 
commodities and ornamental plants. EPA classifies propargite as a 
B2 (probable) human carcinogen.
    EPA published a Registration Standard for propargite in 1986, and 
FIFRA reregistration is ongoing. Through the reregistration process, in 
1992 EPA received from Uniroyal Chemical Company, the sole propargite 
registrant in the United States, a market basket survey examining 
residue levels in selected commodities in a nation-wide cross section 
of grocery stores. The survey attempted to better reflect propargite 
residues in these commodities as purchased by consumers. Uniroyal's 
market basket survey, as well as other sampling data used by EPA, 
indicated propargite residues on certain foods such as apples and 
peaches that were far below tolerance levels but nevertheless resulted 
in dietary risks of concern for those foods. Based on this and other 
information, EPA conducted an intensive dietary risk assessment and 
concluded that long-term exposure to propargite posed an unreasonable 
dietary cancer risk to persons who consume propargite-treated foods.
    EPA discussed its risk findings with Uniroyal, which responded in 
an April 5, 1996 letter by requesting, among other things, voluntary 
deletion of the following uses from all applicable propargite labels: 
apples, apricots, cranberries, figs, green beans, lima beans, peaches, 
pears, plums (including plums grown for prune production), and 
strawberries. EPA agreed to this request, and the deletions were 
announced in a Federal Register notice dated May 3, 1996 (61 FR 19936) 
(FRL-5367-4). EPA received comments both supporting and opposing the 
use deletions; those comments were considered prior to the requested 
use deletions taking effect on August 1, 1996. The comments are 
available in the public record under docket number OPP-64029. As part 
of its use-deletion agreement with EPA, Uniroyal also agreed not to 
challenge revocation of tolerances for any of the deleted uses.
    In the Federal Register of February 13, 1997 (62 FR 6750) (FRL-
5381-9), EPA issued a proposed rule for propargite announcing the 
proposed revocation of tolerances for canceled food uses and inviting 
public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance retention 
under FFDCA standards. The tolerance for propargite residues in or on 
figs, dried was among the tolerances proposed for revocation. Although 
food additive regulations for propargite use in or on figs, dried and 
tea, dried had been revoked pursuant to pre-FQPA provisions of FFDCA, 
(61 FR 11994, March 22, 1996) (FRL-5357-7), those revocations were 
stayed (61 FR 25153, May 20, 1996) (FRL-5372-2), and later withdrawn 
(61 FR 50684, September 26, 1996) (FRL-5397-4) subsequent to the 
passage of FQPA. However, not until recently were the tolerances for 
figs, dried and tea, dried reinstated in 40 CFR 185.5000 (64 FR 3044, 
January 20, 1999). Also, proposed tolerance revocations of February 13, 
1997 (62 FR 6750) included a tolerance in 40 CFR 186.5000 for 
propargite residues in or on apple pomace, dried, which has been 
revoked (62 FR 66020, December 17, 1997) (FRL-5753-1).
    The following comments were received by the Agency in response to 
the document published in the Federal Register of February 13, 1997:
    EPA received comments from Uniroyal Chemical and several grower 
groups in response to the proposed rule. All comments, and EPA's 
response to each individual comment, are located in the OPP Docket 
under docket number OPP-300432. In general, the comments stated that 
EPA should use the pre-FQPA approach of setting an effective date (such 
as 3 years from publication of the final rule) for tolerance 
revocations in order to allow legally treated commodities to clear the 
channels of trade, instead of following the approach outlined in FFDCA 
section 408(l)(5) of revoking immediately and

[[Page 39070]]

allowing legally treated foods to clear trade channels.
    Comments cited EPA's statement at the time of the cancellation that 
EPA ``will propose effective dates for the revocations that provide the 
time needed for appropriate and orderly movement of crops already 
legally treated with propargite through the channels of trade.'' 
Immediate revocation, some commenters argued, will cause confusion in 
the marketplace and impose a burden on growers and processors, because 
section 408(l)(5) would require growers and processors to provide 
evidence showing that propargite residues on their commodities resulted 
from legal application. Uniroyal Chemical was particularly concerned 
with the effect of the channels of trade provision on foreign growers 
and processors. Uniroyal contended that requiring such growers to 
document that pesticide applications are lawful under FIFRA is a 
retroactive regulatory requirement.
    EPA believes that revoking the tolerances at this time is 
consistent with its statement at the time of the use deletions. A 
delayed effective date is no longer needed because the statute, as 
amended, provides for the orderly movement through the channels of 
trade of legally treated commodities. Further, EPA does not believe 
that this approach is unduly burdensome to growers. EPA is revoking the 
tolerances almost 3 years after the uses were deleted from propargite 
labels and over 2 years from when the Agency proposed revoking the 
propargite tolerances for these commodities on February 13, 1997 (62 FR 
6750). EPA believes this should be more than adequate, given that very 
few stocks of propargite existed for use even in the 1996 growing 
season. EPA acknowledges that processed commodities may not have 
cleared the channels of trade within that timeframe. However, the 
provisions of FFDCA section 408(l)(5) will provide for the legal 
movement of those commodities through the channels of trade. 
Additionally, it is fairly easy to identify the date the commodity was 
processed. If the commodity was processed before the effective date of 
the tolerance revocation, the presumption will be that any residue of 
propargite is the result of legal application.
    Uniroyal has also raised concerns that this tolerance revocation 
will have unfair impacts on foreign growers and processors. EPA does 
not believe this action will unfairly affect foreign growers and 
processors. When EPA published its May 3, 1996 use deletion notice for 
propargite, foreign and domestic growers and processors were notified 
that EPA intended to revoke the tolerances associated with the deleted 
uses and that such revocation would make unlawful distribution of any 
of the specified foods (including import) containing residues of 
propargite. Subsequent adoption of section 408(l)(5) of the FQPA 
assures that residues of propargite on the specified commodities are 
permitted if the commodities are legally treated under FIFRA, are 
treated prior to expiration of the tolerance, and residues are 
consistent with the tolerance in place at the time of treatment. The 
requirement that food be legally treated under FIFRA imposes no 
obligation on foreign growers because FIFRA does not impose 
requirements on application of pesticides outside the United States. 
Thus, such applications are, by operation of statute, lawful under 
FIFRA. The second requirement, that food be treated prior to expiration 
of the tolerance and be consistent with the tolerance, applies equally 
to domestic and foreign commodities, resulting from time to time in 
different consequences. For example, EPA anticipates that there will be 
no legally treated domestic fresh produce in commerce after the 
tolerance expires. Therefore, after the tolerance expiration date, the 
presence of propargite residues on the subject fresh commodities 
treated in the United States will be presumptively unlawful under 
section 408(l)(5). In contrast, for imported fresh commodities, there 
is no such presumption. Propargite residues on imported fresh 
commodities may be present on imported food after the expiration date 
and may be legal because there is no foreign restriction on use of 
propargite similar to that imposed by the United States. This is 
because propargite residues may be present as the result of a legal 
application prior to expiration of the tolerance. For purposes of 
processed commodities containing residues of propargite, as noted 
earlier, such commodities, whether domestic or imported, will be 
presumptively legal if processed before the expiration date of the 
tolerance.

IV. When Do these Actions Become Effective?

    These actions become effective 90 days following publication in the 
Federal Register. EPA has delayed the effectiveness of these 
revocations for 90 days following publication to ensure that all 
affected parties receive notice of EPA's action. Consequently, the 
effective date is October 19, 1999. For this particular final rule, the 
actions will affect uses which have been canceled for almost 3 years. 
Therefore, commodities should 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 final rule, and that 
are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall 
be subject to FFDCA section 408(l)(5), as established by the FQPA. 
Under section 408(l)(5), 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 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 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 a tolerance. Evidence to show 
that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the 
dates that the pesticide was applied to such food.

V. Can I Submit Objections or Hearing Requests?

    Yes. Any person can file written objections to any aspect of this 
regulation and can also request a hearing on those objections. 
Objections and hearing requests are currently governed by the 
procedures in 40 CFR part 178, modified as needed to reflect the 
requirements of FFDCA section 408(g).

A. When and Where to Submit

    Objections and hearing requests must be mailed or delivered to the 
Hearing Clerk no later than September 20, 1999. The address of the 
Hearing Clerk is Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 
Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

B. Fees for Submission

    1. Each objection must be accompanied by a fee of $3,275 or a 
request for waiver of fees. Fees accompanying objections and hearing 
requests must be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and forwarded to 
EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), 
P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.
    2. EPA may waive any fee when a waiver or refund is equitable and 
not contrary to the purposes of the Act. A request for a waiver of 
objection fees should be submitted to James Hollins, Information 
Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. 
The request for a waiver must be accompanied by a fee of $1,650, unless 
the objector has no financial

[[Page 39071]]

interest in the matter. The fee, if required, must be submitted to the 
address in B.1 of this unit. For additional information on tolerance 
objection fee waivers, contact James Tompkins, Registration Division 
(7505C), at the same mailing address, or by phone at 703-305-5697; or 
e-mail: [email protected].

C. Information to be Submitted

    Objections must specify the provisions of the regulation considered 
objectionable and the grounds for the objections. If a hearing is 
requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual 
issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions 
on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the 
objector. You may claim information that you submit in response to this 
document as confidential 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.

D. Granting a Hearing Request

    A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator 
determines that the material submitted shows the following:
    1. There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact.
    2. There is a reasonable possibility that available evidence 
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more 
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account 
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary.
    3. Resolution of the factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the 
requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested.

VI. How Do the Regulatory Assessment Requirements Apply to this 
Final 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 (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 
Document?

    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 final 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

[[Page 39072]]

55565, October 16, 1998. 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 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 has developed guidance concerning 
submissions 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?

    Yes. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 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, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: July 13, 1999.

Jack E. Housenger,
Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of 
Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR parts 180 and 185 are amended to read 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.


Sec.  180.259 [Amended]

    b. Section 180.259, is amended as follows:
    i. By adding a heading to paragraph (a).
    ii. By redesignating the text after the heading as paragraph 
(a)(1).
    iii. By removing from the table in newly designated paragraph 
(a)(1), the entries for Apples; Apricots; Beans, succulent; 
Cranberries; Figs; Peaches; Pears; Plums (fresh prunes); and 
Strawberries.
    iv. By adding paragraph (a)(2).
    v. By redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c) and revising 
newly designated paragraph (c).
    vi. By adding and reserving with headings paragraphs (b) and (d).


Sec. 180.259  Propargite; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *
    (2) Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide 
propargite (2-(p-tert-butylphenoxy)cyclohexyl 2-propynyl sulfite) in or 
on the following processed foods when present therein as a result of 
the application of this insecticide to growing crops:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Parts
                              Food                                 per
                                                                 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hops, dried....................................................       30
 
Tea, dried.....................................................       10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with 
regional registration, as defined in Sec. 180.1(n), are established for 
residues of propargite in or on the following raw agricultural 
commodities:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Parts
                           Commodity                               per
                                                                 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed................      0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

PART 185--[AMENDED]

    2. In part 185:
    a. The authority citation for part 185 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 348.


Sec. 185.5000 [Removed]

    b. By removing Sec. 185.5000.

[FR Doc. 99-18610 Filed 7-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F