[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 206 (Monday, October 26, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57062-57067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28486]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 180, 185 and 186
[OPP-300735; FRL-6035-8]
RIN 2070-AB78
Revocation of Tolerances and Exemptions from the Requirement of a
Tolerance for Canceled Pesticide Active Ingredients
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule announces the revocation of tolerances for
residues of the pesticides listed in the regulatory text. EPA is
revoking these tolerances because EPA has canceled the food uses
associated with them. The regulatory actions in this document are part
of the Agency's reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the tolerance reassessment
requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). By
law, EPA is required to reassess 33% of the tolerances in existence on
August 2, 1996, by August 1999, or about 3,200 tolerances.
DATES: This final rule becomes effective January 25, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Joseph Nevola, Special Review Branch, (7508C), Special Review and
Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Office location: Special Review Branch, CM #2, 6th floor, 1921
Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. Telephone: (703) 308-8037; e-mail:
nevola.joseph@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Does this document apply to me?
You may be affected by this document if you sell, distribute,
manufacture, or use pesticides for agricultural applications, process
food, distribute or sell food, or implement governmental pesticide
regulations. Pesticide reregistration and other actions [see FIFRA
section 4(g)(2)] include tolerance and exemption reassessment under
FFDCA section 408. In this document, the tolerance actions are final in
coordination with the cancellation of associated registrations.
Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not
limited to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of Potentially
Category Affected Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Stakeholders................. Growers/Agricultural Workers
Contractors [Certified/
Commercial Applicators,
Handlers, Advisors, etc.]
Commercial Processors
Pesticide Manufacturers
User Groups
Food Consumers
Food Distributors......................... Wholesale Contractors
Retail Vendors
Commercial Traders/Importers
Intergovernmental Stakeholders............ State, Local, and/or Tribal
Government Agencies
Foreign Entities.......................... Governments, Growers, Trade
Groups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this table could also be
affected. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, you can consult with the technical
person listed in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.
[[Page 57063]]
II. How can I get additional information or copies of this or other
support documents?
A. Electronically
You may obtain electronic copies of this document and various
support documents from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://
www.epa.gov/. On the Home Page select ``Laws and Regulations'' and then
look up the entry for this document under ``Federal Register -
Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/homepage/fedrgstr/.
B. In Person or by Phone
If you have any questions or need additional information about this
action, please contact the technical person identified in the ``FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section. In addition, the official record
for this document, including the public version, has been established
under docket control number [insert the appropriate docket number],
(including comments and data submitted electronically as described
below). A public version of this record, including printed, paper
versions of any electronic comments, which does not include any
information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI), is
available for inspection in Room 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson
Davis Hwy., Arlington VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch telephone number is 703-305-5805.
III. Can I challenge the Agency's final decision presented in this
document?
Yes. You can file a written objection or request a hearing by
December 28, 1998 in the following manner:
A. By Paper
Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the document
control number [OPP-300735], may be submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900),
Environmental Protection Agency, room M3708, 401 M St., SW, Washington,
DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and hearing requests shall be
labled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and forwarded to: EPA Headquarters
Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M,
Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any objections and hearing requests
filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the document
control number and submitted to the Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C),
Office of Pesticide Programs, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460. In
person, bring a copy of objections and hearing requests to room 119, CM
#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.
B. Electronically
A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending e-mail to docket@epamail.epa.gov, per the instructions given in ``ADDRESSES''
above. Electronic copies of objections and hearing requests must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. Copies of objections and hearing requests will
also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.1 file format or
ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing requests in
electronic form must be identified by the docket control number [OPP-
300735]. Do not submit CBI through e-mail. Electronic copies of
objections and hearing requests on this rule may be filed online at
many Federal Depository libraries.
IV. What action is being taken?
This final rule revokes the FFDCA tolerances for residues of
certain specified pesticides in or on certain specified commodities.
EPA is revoking these tolerances because they are not necessary to
cover residues of the relevant pesticides in or on domestically treated
commodities or commodities treated outside but imported into the United
States. These pesticides are no longer used on commodities within the
United States and no person has provided comment identifying a need for
EPA to retain the tolerances to cover residues in or on imported foods.
EPA has historically expressed a concern that retention of tolerances
that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods
has the potential to encourage misuse of pesticides within the United
States. Thus it is EPA's policy to issue a final rule revoking those
tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals for which there are no
active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the
proposal demonstrates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or
on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.
EPA is not issuing today a final rule to revoke those tolerances
for which EPA received comments demonstrating a need for the tolerance
to be retained. Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of
these tolerances on the grounds discussed above only if, prior to EPA's
issuance of a section 408(f) order requesting additional data or
issuance of a section 408(d) or (e) order revoking the tolerances on
other grounds, commenters retract the comment identifying a need for
the tolerance to be retained or EPA independently verifies that the
tolerance is no longer needed.
In the Federal Register of January 21, 1998 (63 FR 3057) (FRL-5743-
8), EPA issued a proposed rule for specific pesticides announcing the
proposed revocation of tolerances for canceled active ingredients and
inviting public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance
retention under FFDCA standards. The following comments were received
by the agency in response to the document published in the Federal
Register of January 21, 1998.
Cyhexatin
1. Comment from Elf Atochem North America, Inc. A comment was
received by the Agency from Elf Atochem requesting that the tolerances
for cyhexatin not be revoked. Elf Atochem claimed it has pending
applications for registration including grapes, hops, pome fruit,
strawberries, walnuts and macadamia nuts, submitted data on citrus, and
stated that it is developing data to support stone fruits and almonds,
and wishes to retain the tolerance for milk and for various [fat,
kidney, liver, mbyp (exc. kidney & liver), and meat] tolerances on
cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep, since several of the raw
agricultural commodities (RACs) are fed to livestock.
2. Comment from OXON ITALIA. A comment was received by the Agency
from OXON ITALIA requesting that the tolerance for cyhexatin on citrus
not be revoked. OXON ITALIA stated it is developing residue data for
submission to the Agency. In follow-up correspondence to the Agency,
OXON ITALIA, through its agent, further committed to provide the data
required to maintain the tolerances of cyhexatin on imported citrus
crops.
3. Comment from California Citrus Quality Council. A comment was
received by the Agency from the California Citrus Quality Council
(CCQC) requesting that the tolerance for cyhexatin on citrus not be
revoked. CCQC cited Elf Atochem's submission that indicated data was
being developed and concerns about imports into the United States.
4. Comment from U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee. A
comment was received by the Agency from the
[[Page 57064]]
U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee requesting that the
tolerance for cyhexatin on hops not be revoked, claiming that a section
18 request was submitted for the 1998 growing season in WA, OR, and ID.
Agency response. Because of Elf Atochem's and OXON ITALIA's
interests in developing all data necessary to maintain all existing
tolerances, EPA will not revoke the cyhexatin tolerances in 40 CFR
180.144, 185.1350, and 186.1350 at this time.
Phosphamidon
5. Comment from Washington State Department of Agriculture. A
comment was received by the Agency from the Washington State Department
of Agriculture (WSDA) requesting that the tolerance for phosphamidon
use on apple not be revoked. Further, WSDA claims that existing stocks
may take 6-8 years to exhaust and 2 years to clear trade channels.
6. Comment from Northwest Wholesale, Inc. A comment was received by
the Agency from the Northwest Wholesale Inc. requesting that the
tolerance for phosphamidon use on apple not be revoked and expressed a
concern that existing stocks may take 10 years to exhaust.
Agency response. Although EPA intends to revoke the tolerance for
phosphamidon on apples, the Agency will not revoke that tolerance on
apples in this final rule. The Agency will address the tolerance for
phosphamidon on apples in a subsequent Federal Register document. With
the exception of the tolerance on apple, all other tolerances for
phosphamidon in 40 CFR 180.239 will be revoked.
Phosalone
7. Comment from Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. A comment was received by
the Agency from Rhone-Poulenc requesting that the tolerances for
phosalone be retained for cherries; peaches; plums/prunes; apricots
(stone fruits); apples; pears (pome fruit); nuts, almonds only; and
grapes, so that those commodities could be legally imported into the
United States.
Agency response. EPA will not revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.263 for phosalone use on almond; apple; apricot; cherry; grape;
peach; pear; and plum/prune, at this time. In 40 CFR 180.263, the
Agency will revoke the tolerances for artichokes; Brazil nuts;
butternuts; cashews; cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle, mbyp;
chestnuts; citrus fruits; filberts; goats, fat; goats, meat; goats,
mbyp; hickory nuts; hogs, fat; hogs, meat; hogs, mbyp; horses, fat;
horses, meat; horses, mbyp; Macadamia nuts; nectarines; pecans;
potatoes; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; sheep, mbyp; and walnuts. Also, the
Agency will revoke the tolerances in Sec. 185.4800.
3,4,5-Trimethylphenyl methylcarbamate and 2,3,5-Trimethylphenyl
methylcarbamate [Trimethacarb]
8. Comment from Drexel Chemical Company. A comment was received by
the Agency from Drexel Chemical requesting that the revocation of
tolerances for trimethacarb be delayed because Drexel cannot determine
if all existing stocks of their product labeled for the uses associated
with the subject tolerances have been completely exhausted.
Agency response. Although EPA intends to revoke the tolerances in
40 CFR 180.305 for 3,4,5-Trimethylphenyl methylcarbamate and 2,3,5-
Trimethylphenyl methylcarbamate [Trimethacarb], the Agency will not
revoke those tolerances in this final rule. The Agency will address the
tolerances for trimethacarb in a subsequent Federal Register document.
2-(m-Chlorophenoxy) propionic acid [Cloprop]
9. Comment from the Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii. A
comment was received by the Agency from the Pineapple Growers
Association of Hawaii requesting that the tolerances for cloprop be
retained for five years, three years for use of cloprop on pineapples
and two years for consumption of the resulting canned pineapple
products.
Agency response. EPA will revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.325
for 2-(m-Chlorophenoxy) propionic acid [Cloprop] on pineapple, fodder;
and pineapple, forage; and in Sec. 186.850 on pineapple, bran on the
grounds that these are no longer considered significant livestock
feedsuffs and therefore, the tolerances are not necessary. Although EPA
intends to revoke the tolerance on pineapple; the Agency will not
revoke that tolerance in this final rule. The Agency will address the
tolerance for cloprop on pineapple in a subsequent Federal Register
document. With the exception of that tolerance on pineapple, all other
tolerances for cloprop in 40 CFR 180.325 will be revoked.
Copper linoleate and Copper oleate
10. Comment from Griffin Corporation. A comment was received by the
Agency from Griffin Corporation requesting that the exemption from a
tolerance for copper oleate and copper linoleate in 40 CFR 180.1001 not
be revoked if the revocation covers copper salts of fatty and rosin
acids, which may affect some of their products.
11. Comment from Stewart Marine. A comment was received by EPA from
an agent for Stewart Marine requesting that the exemption from a
tolerance for copper linoleate not be revoked. Stewart Marine expects
to submit a petition for registration of copper linoleate for use as a
pesticide as an antifoulant paint.
12. Comment from WSDA. A comment was received by the Agency from
the WSDA requesting that the exemption from a tolerance for copper
oleate not be revoked.
Agency response. Because Griffin Corporation products which contain
copper salts of fatty and rosin acids would be impacted by revocation
of exemption from a tolerance for copper linoleate and/or copper
oleate, EPA will not revoke the exemption from a tolerance in 40 CFR
180.1001(b)(1) for copper linoleate and copper oleate at this time.
This will also address the concerns expressed by Stewart Marine and
WSDA.
(E,Z)-3,13-Octadecadien-1-ol acetate and (Z,Z)-3,13-Octadecadien-1-ol
acetate [ODDA]
13. Comment from WSDA. A comment was received by the Agency from
the WSDA requesting that the exemption from a tolerance for ODDA in 40
CFR 180.1055 should not be revoked for apricot, cherry, nectarine,
peach, plum, and prune trees.
Agency response. Since ODDA is a lepidopteran pheromone, it will
remain covered under the broader tolerance exemption of 40 CFR 180.1153
Lepidopteran pheromones; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
Therefore, the current tolerance exemptions listed for ODDA under 40
CFR 180.1055 are not needed and will be revoked by the Agency.
Malathion
14. Comment from Interregional Research Project No. 4. A comment
was received by the Agency from Interregional Research Project No. 4.
(IR-4), NJ, stating that the exemption from a tolerance for malathion
in 40 CFR 180.1067 should be retained because a 24(c) registration is
active in California for malathion on listed commodities for use as an
insecticide against the Oriental, Mediterranean, and Mexican fruit
flies.
Agency response. In this final rule, EPA will not revoke the
exemption from a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.1067 for methyl eugenol and
malathion combination. The Agency will address the exemption from a
tolerance for
[[Page 57065]]
malathion under Sec. 180.1067 in a subsequent Federal Register
document.
V. When do these actions become effective?
These actions become effective 90 days following publication of a
final rule in the Federal Register. EPA has delayed the effectiveness
of these revocations for 90 days following publication of a final rule
to ensure that all affected parties receive notice of EPA's action.
Consequently, the effective date is January 25, 1999, except where the
date is otherwise indicated. For this particular final rule, the
actions will affect uses which have been canceled for more than a year.
This should ensure that commodities have cleared the channels of trade.
Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that
are treated with the pesticides subject to this document, and that are
in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be
subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA). Under this section, any residue of these
pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so
long as it is shown to the satisfaction of FDA that, (1) the residue is
present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a
time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and (2) the residue
does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the
application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or
exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully
treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide
was applied to such food.
VI. How do the regulatory assessment requirements apply to this
action?
A. Is this a ``significant regulatory action''?
No. Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a
``significant regulatory action.'' The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that tolerance actions, in general, are not
``significant'' unless the action involves the revocation of a
tolerance that may result in a substantial adverse and material affect
on the economy. In addition, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this
action is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined
by Executive Order 12866. Nonetheless, environmental health and safety
risks to children are considered by the Agency when determining
appropriate tolerances. Under FQPA, EPA is required to apply an
additional 10-fold safety factor to risk assessments in order to ensure
the protection of infants and children unless reliable data supports a
different safety factor.
B. Does this action contain any reporting or recordkeeping
requirements?
No. This action does not impose any information collection
requirements subject to OMB review or approval pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
C. Does this action involve any ``unfunded mandates''?
No. This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain
any ``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
D. Do Executive Orders 12875 and 13084 require EPA to consult with
States and Indian Tribal Governments prior to taking the action in this
notice?
No. Under Executive Order 12875, entitled Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA may
not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates
a mandate upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by those governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA
must provide to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a description
of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of
affected State, local and tribal governments, the nature of their
concerns, copies of any written communications from the governments,
and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In
addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective
process permitting elected officials and other representatives of
State, local and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely
input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant
unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create an unfunded federal mandate on State,
local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable
duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a)
of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
Under Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19,1998), EPA may not
issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly
or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and
that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities,
unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the
direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the
mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide OMB, in a separately identified
section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of
EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal
governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive
Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting
elected and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.
E. Does this action involve any environmental justice issues?
No. This action is not expected to have any potential impacts on
minorities and low income communities. Special consideration of
environmental justice issues is not required under Executive Order
12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
F. Does this action have a potentially significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities?
No. The Agency has certified that tolerance actions, including the
tolerance action in this document, are not likely to result in a
significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for the Agency's determination, along with
its generic certification under section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
[[Page 57066]]
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), appears at 63 FR 55565, October 16, 1998 (FRL-
6035-7). This generic certification has been provided to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
G. Does this action involve technical standards?
No. This tolerance action does not involve any technical standards
that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus
standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note). Section 12(d) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices,
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
H. Are there any international trade issues raised by this action?
EPA is working to ensure that the U.S. tolerance reassessment
program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers
Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) in setting U.S. tolerances and in
reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex Committee on
Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex Alimentarius
Commission, an international organization formed to promote the
coordination of international food standards. When possible, EPA seeks
to harmonize U.S. tolerances with CODEX MRLs. EPA may establish a
tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section
408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain in a Federal Register document the
reasons for departing from the Codex level. EPA's effort to harmonize
with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of
individual REDs. The U.S. EPA is developing a guidance concerning
submissions for import tolerance support. This guidance will be made
available to interested stakeholders.
I. Is this action subject to review under the Congressional Review Act?
Yes. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action
is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 185
Environmental protection, Food additives, Pesticide and pests.
40 CFR Part 186
Environmental protection, Animal feeds, Pesticide and pests.
Dated: September 30, 1998.
Jack E. Housenger,
Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR parts 180, 185, and 186 be
amended as follows:
PART 180-- [AMENDED]
1. In part 180:
a. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
b. In subpart A, in Sec. 180.2, by revising paragraph (a) to read
as follows:
Sec. 180.2 Pesticide chemicals considered safe.
(a) As a general rule, pesticide chemicals other than benzaldehyde
(when used as a bee repellant in the harvesting of honey), ferrous
sulfate, lime, lime-sulfur, potassium sorbate, sodium carbonate, sodium
chloride, sodium hypochlorite, sulfur, and when used as plant
desiccants, sodium metasilicate (not to exceed 4 percent by weight in
aqueous solution) and when used as postharvest fungicide, citric acid,
fumaric acid, oil of lemon, and oil of orange are not for the purposes
of section 408(a) of the Act generally recognized as safe.
* * * * *
Secs. 180.115, 180.118, 180.148, 180.158, 180.159, 180.162, 180.171,
and 180.219 [Removed]
c. In subpart C, by removing Secs. 180.115, 180.118, 180.148,
180.158, 180.159, 180.162, 180.171, and 180.219.
Sec. 180.239 [Amended]
d. By removing from Sec. 180.239, the entries for ``broccoli'';
``cantaloupes''; ``cauliflower''; ``cottonseed''; ``cucumbers'';
``grapefruit''; ``lemons''; ``oranges''; ``peppers''; ``potatoes'';
``sugarcane''; ``tangerines''; ``tomatoes''; ``walnuts''; and
``watermelons''.
Sec. 180.263 [Amended]
e. By removing from Sec. 180.263, the entries for ``artichokes'';
``cattle, fat''; ``cattle, meat''; ``cattle, mbyp''; ``citrus fruits'';
``goats, fat''; ``goats, meat''; ``goats, mbyp''; ``hogs, fat'';
``hogs, meat''; ``hogs, mbyp''; ``horses, fat''; ``horses, meat'';
``horses, mbyp''; ``Nuts''; ``nectarines''; ``potatoes''; ``sheep,
fat''; ``sheep, meat''; and ``sheep, mbyp''.
Sec. 180.306 [Removed]
f. By removing Sec. 180.306.
Sec. 180.319 [Amended]
g. By removing from the table in Sec. 180.319, the entire entry for
``Isopropyl carbanilate (IPC)''.
Sec. 180.321 [Removed]
h. By removing Sec. 180.321.
Sec. 180.325 [Amended]
i. By removing from the table in Sec. 180.325, the entries for
``kidneys, cattle''; ``kidneys, goats''; ``kidneys, hogs''; ``kidneys,
horses''; ``kidneys, sheep''; ``meat (except kidneys), fat, mbyp,
cattle''; ``meat (except kidneys), fat, mbyp, goats'';``meat (except
kidneys), fat, mbyp, hogs''; ``meat (except kidneys), fat, mbyp,
horses''; ``meat (except kidneys), fat, mbyp, poultry''; ``meat (except
kidneys), fat, mbyp, sheep''; ``nectarines''; ``peaches''; ``pineapple,
fodder``; and ``pineapple, forage''.
Secs. 180.326, 180.347, and 180.357 [Removed]
j. By removing Secs. 180.326, 180.347, and 180.357.
k. In subpart D, in Sec. 180.1001, by revising paragraph (b) (1),
removing paragraphs (b) (6) and (b) (9) and redesignating paragraphs
(b) (7), (b) (8), and (b) (10) as (b) (6), (b) (7), and (b) (8),
respectively and removing from the table in paragraph (d) the entry for
``Fumaric acid'' to read as follows:
[[Page 57067]]
Sec. 180.1001 Exemptions from the reqirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The following copper compounds: Bordeaux mixture, basic copper
carbonate (malachite), copper hydroxide, copper-lime mixtures, copper
linoleate, copper oleate, copper oxychloride, copper octanoate, copper
sulfate basic, copper sulfate pentahydrate, cupric oxide, cuprous
oxide. These compounds are used primarily as fungicides.
* * * * *
Secs. 180.1010, 180.1018, 180.1030, 180.1031, 180.1034, 180.1055,
180.1059, 180.1061, 180.1079, 180.1081, and 180.1085 [Removed]
l. By removing Secs. 180.1010, 180.1018, 180.1030, 180.1031,
180.1034, 180.1055, 180.1059, 180.1061, 180.1079, 180.1081, and
180.1085.
PART 185-- [AMENDED]
2. In part 185:
a. The aurthority citation for part 185 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 348.
Secs. 185.1650, 185.3600, 185.4250, 185.4300, and 185.4800 [Removed]
b. By removing Secs. 185.1650, 185.3600, 185.4250, 185.4300, and
185.4800.
PART 186-- [AMENDED]
3. In part 186:
a. The authority citation for part 186 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 348.
Secs. 186.450, 186.850, 186.1650, and 186.2450 [Removed]
b. By removing Secs. 186.450, 186.850, 186.1650, and 186.2450.
[FR Doc. 98-28486 Filed 10-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
