[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: nevola.joseph@epa.gov.
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: tompkins.jim@epa.gov.
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
