ethoprop (Mocap) Proposed Tolerance Revocation 5/99
[Federal Register: May 24, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 99)]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
Diazinon, Parathion, O,O-Diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl]
phosphorodithioate (Disulfoton), Ethoprop, and Carbaryl; Proposed
Revocation of Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This document announces the proposed revocation of tolerances
listed in the regulatory text for the insecticides diazinon, parathion,
O,O-Diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] phosphorodithioate (disulfoton),
ethoprop, and carbaryl. EPA expects to determine whether any
individuals or groups want to support these tolerances. The regulatory
actions in this proposal are part of the Agency's reregistration
program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), and the tolerance reassessment requirements of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). By law, EPA is required to
reassess 33% of the tolerances that were in existence on August 2,
1996, by August 1999, or about 3,200 tolerances. The regulatory actions
proposed in this document pertain to the proposed revocation of 29
tolerances and/or exemptions, of which 25 would be counted among
reassessments made toward the August 1999 review deadline of FFDCA
section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 23, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in
person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as
provided in Unit IV of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document. Be sure to identify the appropriate docket control number
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caicedo, Special Review Branch
(7508C), Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location: Special Review Branch,
Crystal Mall 2, 6th floor, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington,
Virginia. Telephone: (703) 308-9399; e-mail: email@example.com.
I. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment?
By law, EPA is required to reassess 33% of the tolerances that were
in existence on August 2, 1996, by August 1999, or about 3,200
tolerances. As of March 1999, EPA has reassessed over 2,400 tolerances.
The regulatory actions proposed in this document pertain to the
proposed revocation of 25 tolerances and/or exemptions, which would be
counted among reassessments made toward the August 1999 review deadline
of FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) of 1996.
II. Does this Proposal Apply to Me?
You may be affected by this proposal if you sell, distribute,
manufacture, or use pesticides for agricultural applications, process
food, distribute or sell food, or implement governmental pesticide
regulations. Pesticide reregistration and other actions [see FIFRA
section 4(g)(2)] include tolerance and exemption reassessment under
FFDCA section 408. Potentially affected categories and entities may
include, but are not limited to:
Examples of Potentially
Category Affected Entities
Agricultural Stakeholders................. Growers/Agricultural Workers
Handlers, Advisors, etc.]
User Groups, Food Consumers
Food Distributors......................... Wolesale Contractors, Retail
Vendors, Commercial Traders/
Intergovernmental Stakeholders............ State, Local, and/or Tribal
Foreign Entities.......................... Governments, Growers, Trade
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather is intended
to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected
by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this table could
also be affected. If you have any questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular entity, you can consult with the person
listed in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.
III. How Can I Get Additional Information or Copies of this or
Other Support Documents?
You may obtain electronic copies of this document and various
support documents from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://
www.epa.gov. On the Home Page select ``Laws and Regulations'' and then
look up the entry for this document under ``Federal Register -
Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.
B. In Person or by Phone
If you have any questions or need additional information about this
action, please contact the technical person identified in the ``FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section. In addition, the official record
for this proposal, including the public version, has been established
under docket control number [OPP-300867], including comments and data
submitted electronically as described below. A
public version of this record (including printed paper versions of any
electronic comments) which does not include any information claimed as
Confidential Business Information (CBI), is available for inspection in
room 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington
Virginia, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
telephone number is 703-305-5805.
IV. How Can I Respond to this Proposal?
A. How and to Whom do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or
electronically. Be sure to identify the appropriate docket number
(i.e., [OPP-300867]) in your correspondence.
1. By mail. Submit written comments, identified by the docket
control number [OPP-300867], to: Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C),
Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
2. In person or by courier. Deliver written comments, identified
by the docket control number [OPP-300867], to: Public Information and
Records Integrity Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.
3. Electronically. Submit your comments and/or data electronically
by e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org. Do not submit any information
electronically that you consider to be CBI. Submit electronic comments
in ASCII file format avoiding the use of special characters and any
form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on standard
computer disks in WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 or ASCII file format. All
comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the
appropriate docket control number [OPP-300867]. You may also file
electronic comments and data online at many Federal Depository
B. How Should I Handle CBI Information in My Comments?
You may claim information you submit in response to this document
as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does
not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record.
Information not marked confidential will be included in the public
docket by EPA without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI
or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult with the technical
person identified in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.
V. What Is a ``Tolerance''?
A ``tolerance'' represents the legally allowed maximum level for
residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities
and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., as
amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the
establishment of tolerances (maximum residue levels), exemptions from
the requirement of a tolerance, modifications in tolerances, and
revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on
raw agricultural commodities and processed foods (21 U.S.C. 346(a)).
Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is
considered to be unsafe and therefore ``adulterated'' under section
402(a) of the FFDCA. If food containing pesticide residues is
considered to be adulterated, you may not distribute the product in
interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 342(a)). For a food-use
pesticide to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have
appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA, but also must be registered
under section 3 of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. et seq.). To retain these tolerances
and exemptions, EPA must make a finding that the tolerances and
exemptions are safe. To make this safety finding, EPA needs data and
information indicating there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide residues covered
by the tolerances and exemptions.
Monitoring and enforcement of pesticide tolerances and exemptions
are carried out by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This includes monitoring for
pesticide residues in or on commodities imported into the United
VI. Why is EPA Proposing the Tolerance Actions Discussed Below?
EPA is proposing a number of these tolerance actions as a follow-up
on canceled pesticides and uses of pesticides and to be consistent with
Table I ``Raw Agricultural and Processed Commodities and Feedstuffs
Derived from Crops'' (August, 1996) in the Residue Chemistry Test
Guidelines: OPPTS 860.1000 (EPA 721-C-96-169). It is EPA's general
practice to propose revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide
active ingredients for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist. EPA
has historically expressed a concern that retention of tolerances not
necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods has the
potential to encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States.
However, in accordance with FFDCA section 408, EPA will not revoke any
tolerance or exemption proposed for revocation if any person
demonstrates a need for the retention of the tolerance, and if
retention of the tolerance will meet the tolerance standard established
under FQPA. Generally, interested parties support the retention of such
tolerances in order to permit treated commodities to be legally
imported into the United States, since raw agricultural commodities or
processed food or feed commodities containing pesticide residues not
covered by a tolerance or exemption are considered to be adulterated.
To assure that all food marketed in the Uninted States is safe,
under FFDCA, EPA requires the same technical chemistry and toxicology
data for such import tolerances (tolerances without related U.S.
registrations) as are required to support U.S. food use registrations
and any resulting tolerances. In addition, EPA requires residue
chemistry data (crop field trials) that are representative of growing
conditions in exporting countries in the same manner that the EPA
requires representative residue chemistry data from different U.S.
regions to support domestic use of the pesticide and tolerance.
Interested parties should contact the EPA for written guidance on
adapting U.S. residue chemistry data requirements to non-U.S. growing
conditions in order to support an import tolerance.
Other tolerances are being proposed for revocation because they are
no longer regulated feed items. These proposed changes are in
accordance with Table I in test guideline OPPTS 860.1000. Table I
contains data on both crops and livestock diets and lists feed
commodities considered significant in livestock diets. Significant
feedstuffs account for more than 99 percent of the available annual
tonnage (on-a dry-matter basis) of feedstuffs used in the domestic
production of more than 95 percent of beef and dairy cattle, poultry,
swine, milk, and eggs. EPA has devised criteria to include or exclude
feedstuffs from Table I. Tolerances are not set for feedstuffs which
are neither significant nor a human food. Pesticide residues on such
feedstuffs are governed by tolerances on the commodity from
which they are derived (62 FR 66020, December 17, 1997)(FRL-5753-1).
According to Table I, certain commodities are insignificant
contributors to the livestock diet. In this document, EPA proposes
tolerance revocations concerning pesticide residues in or on specific
commodities because those commodities are no longer considered
significant feed items.
VII. Which Pesticides are Covered by this Action?
Diazinon is a nonsystemic organophosphate insecticide used to
control cockroaches, silverfish, ants, and fleas in residential, non-
food buildings. Bait is used to control scavenger yellow jackets in the
western United States. It is used on home gardens and farms to control
a wide variety of sucking and leaf eating insects. It is used on rice,
fruit trees, sugarcane, corn, tobacco, potatoes and on horticultural
plants. It is also an ingredient in pest strips. Diazinon has
veterinary uses against fleas and ticks. It is manufactured by
Novartis, formerly Ciba-Geigy.
Parathion is a restricted use broad spectrum, organophosphate
insecticide used to control many insects and mites. It has nonsystemic,
contact, stomach and fumigant actions. It has a wide range of
applications on many crops against numerous insect species. It is
manufactured by Cheminova Agro.
O,O-Diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] phosphorodithioate,
(Disulfoton), is a selective, systemic organophosphate insecticide and
acaricide that is especially effective against sucking insects. It is
used to control aphids, leafhoppers, thrips, beet flies, spider mites,
and coffeeleaf miners. It is manufactured by Bayer Corporation.
Ethoprop is an organophosphate insecticide primarily used for the
control of nematodes. It is manufactured by Rhone Poulenc.
Carbaryl is a wide-spectrum carbamate insecticide which controls
over 100 species of insects. It is also used as a molluscicide and an
acaricide. Carbaryl works whether it is ingested into the stomach of
the pest or absorbed through direct contact. It is manufactured by
VIII. What Action is Being Taken?
This document proposes revocation of FFDCA tolerances for residues
of certain chemicals on commodities listed in the regulatory text of 40
CFR part 180 because these commodities are no longer considered
significant feed items and no longer require tolerances or because no
registered uses exist. The registrations for these pesticide chemicals
may have been canceled because the registrant (1) either failed to pay
the required maintenance fee and/or (2) the registrant voluntarily
canceled all registered uses of the pesticide. For general guidance on
tolerances for commodities that are no longer considered significant
feed items, see 62 FR 66020 (December 17, 1997).
1. Diazinon. This document proposes to revoke the following
tolerances established under section 408 of FFDCA for residues of the
pesticide diazinon ((O,O-diethyl O-[6-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)-4-
pyrimidinyl] phosphorothioate) in or on the following commodities
listed under 40 CFR 180.153(a): birdsfoot trefoil; birdsfoot trefoil,
hay; grass (NMT 40 ppm shall remain 24 hours after appli); grass, hay;
olives; peanuts; peanuts, forage; peanuts, hay; pecans; soybeans;
soybeans, forage; and sugarcane. On December 27, 1996, these uses were
voluntarily canceled by the registrant; at which date the Agency
allowed registrants to sell or distribute products under the previously
approved labeling for 18 months, or until June 27, 1998. The Agency is
proposing to revoke the tolerances for these uses effective January 1,
2000, at which time all existing stocks should have been exhausted and
all treated commodities should have passed through the channels of
EPA also proposes to revoke diazinon tolerances for beans, forage;
beans, hay; beans, guar, forage; and pineapples, forage. These
commodities are no longer considered significant animal feed items and
therefore no longer need tolerances. This document also proposes to
revoke the tolerances for boysenberries and dewberries (0.5 ppm each),
since these commodities are now covered by the tolerance for
blackberries (also set at 0.5 ppm).
2. Parathion. Methyl parathion is the methyl homolog of ethyl
parathion; ethyl parathion is called parathion in the tolerance
listings in 40 CFR 180.121. Tolerances for methyl parathion residues on
most crops are included in the (ethyl) parathion tolerances because the
enforcement analytical method does not distinguish between the two
EPA proposes to revoke the tolerances for boysenberries and
youngberries (both set at 1 ppm), since these commodities are now
covered by the tolerance for blackberries (also set at 1 ppm).
3. O,O-Diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] phosphorodithioate
(Disulfoton). EPA proposes to revoke the disulfoton tolerance for
pineapples, foliage from 40 CFR 180.183. This commodity is no longer
considered a significant animal feed item and therefore no longer needs
4. Ethoprop. This document proposes to revoke the following
tolerances established under section 408 for residues of the pesticide
ethoprop ((O-ethyl S,S-dipropyl phosphorodithioate) in or on the
following commodities listed under 40 CFR 180.262: beans, lima, forage;
beans, snap, forage; pineapples, fodder; pineapples, forage; sugarcane,
fodder; and sugarcane, forage. These commodities are no longer
considered significant animal feed items and therefore no longer need
5. Carbaryl. This document proposes to revoke the following
tolerances established under section 408 for residues of the pesticide
carbaryl in or on avocados, listed under 180.169(e), and maple sap
listed under 40 CFR 180.169(a). These uses were voluntarily canceled by
These revocations will become final unless any person in commenting
on the proposal demonstrates a need for the tolerance to cover residues
in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.
IX. When do These Actions Become Effective?
EPA proposes that these actions become effective 90 days following
publication of a final rule in the Federal Register with the exception
of the revocation of the tolerances for Diazinon, which will become
effective on January 1, 2000. EPA is proposing these effective dates
because EPA believes that by these dates all existing stocks of
pesticide products labeled for the uses associated with the tolerances
proposed for revocation will have been exhausted for more than 1 year;
giving ample time for any treated fresh produce to clear trade
channels. Therefore, EPA believes the effective dates proposed in this
document should be reasonable. However, if EPA is presented with
information that existing stocks would still be available for use after
the expiration date and that information is verified, EPA will consider
extending the expiration date of the tolerance. If you have comments
regarding existing stocks and whether the effective date accounts for
these stocks, please submit comments as described in Unit IV of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this proposal.
Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides
subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the
tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as
by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these pesticides in or on
such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown
to the satisfaction of FDA that, (1) the residue is present as the
result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a
manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and (2) the residue does not exceed
the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to
be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance.
Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records
that verify the dates that the pesticide was applied to such food.
X. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance that
the Agency Proposes to Revoke?
In addition to submitting comments in response to this proposal,
you may also submit an objection. EPA subsequently issues a final rule
after considering comments that are submitted in response to this
proposed rule. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule
within the time period specified, you will have waived the right to
raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the specified time,
issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised again in any
This proposal provides 60 days for any interested person to
demonstrate a need for retaining a tolerance, if retention of the
tolerance will meet the tolerance standard established under FQPA. If
EPA receives a comment to that effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke
the tolerance immediately. However, EPA will take steps to ensure the
submission of any needed supporting data and will issue an order in the
Federal Register under FFDCA section 408(f) if needed. The order would
specify data needed and the time frames for its submission, and would
require that within 90 days some person or persons notify EPA that they
will submit the data. If the data are not submitted as required in the
order, EPA will take appropriate action under FIFRA or FFDCA.
XI. How do the Regulatory Assessment Requirements Apply to this
A. Is this a Significant Regulatory Action Addressing Health and Safety
Risks to Children?
No. Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a
``significant regulatory action.'' The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that tolerance actions, in general, are not
``significant'' unless the action involves the revocation of a
tolerance that may result in a substantial adverse and material affect
on the economy. In addition, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because, among
other things, this action is not an economically significant regulatory
action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Nonetheless, environmental
health and safety risks to children are considered by the Agency when
determining appropriate tolerances. Under FQPA, EPA is required to
apply an additional 10-fold safety factor to risk assessments in order
to ensure the protection of infants and children unless reliable data
supports a different safety factor.
B. Does this Action Contain Any Reporting or Recordkeeping
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
No. Under Executive Order 12875, entitled Enhancing
Intergovernmental Partnerships (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA may
not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates
a mandate upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by those governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA
must provide to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a description
of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of
affected State, local and tribal governments, the nature of their
concerns, copies of any written communications from the governments,
and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In
addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective
process permitting elected officials and other representatives of
State, local and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely
input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant
Today's proposed rule does not create an unfunded Federal mandate
on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any
enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of
section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this proposed
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
Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this proposed rule.
E. Does this Action Involve any Environmental Justice Issues?
No. This proposed rule does not involve special considerations of
environmental-justice related issues pursuant to Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
F. Does this Action Have a Potentially Significant Impact on a
Substantial Number of Small Entities?
No. The Agency has certified that tolerance actions, including the
tolerance actions in this document, are not likely to result in a
significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for the Agency's determination, along with
its generic certification under section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), appears at 63 FR 55565,
October 16, 1998 (FRL-6035-7). This generic certification has been
provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
G. Does this Action Involve Technical Standards?
No. This tolerance action does not involve any technical standards
that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus
standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d)
(15 U.S.C. 272 note). Section 12(d) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices,
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanation when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. EPA invites public comment on this
H. Are There Any International Trade Issues Raised by this Action?
These revocations will not become final if comments are received
which demonstrate the need to maintain the tolerance to cover residues
in or on imported commodities. However, data must be submitted that
support the continued tolerance. The U.S. EPA is developing guidance
concerning data requirements for import tolerance support. This
guidance will be made available to interested persons.
I. Is this Action Subject to Review Under the Congressional Review Act?
No. This action is not a final rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II of Public Law
104-121, 110 Stat. 847), only final rules must be submitted to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
Dated: May 18, 1999.
Lois A. Rossi,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
1. In part 180:
a. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321q, 346a and 371.
Sec. 180.121 [Amended]
b. In Sec. 180.121, Parathion or its methyl homolog; tolerances
for residues, by removing from the table in paragraph (a) the entries
for boysenberries and youngberries.
Sec. 180.153 [Amended]
c. In Sec. 180.153 Diazinon; tolerances for residues, by removing
from the table in paragraph (a), the entries for beans, forage; beans,
hay; beans, guar, forage; birdsfoot trefoil; birdsfoot trefoil, hay;
boysenberries; dewberries; grass (NMT 40 ppm shall remain 24 hours
after appli); grass, hay; olives; peanuts; peanuts, forage; peanuts,
hay; pecans; pineapples; soybeans; soybeans, forage; and sugarcane.
Sec. 180.169 [Amended]
d. In Sec. 180.169 Carbaryl, tolerances for residues, by removing
from the table in paragraph (a), the entry for maple sap; and by
removing from paragraph (e), the entry for avocados.
Sec. 180.183 [Amended]
e. In Sec. 180.183, O,O-Diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl]
phosphorodithioate, tolerances for residues, by removing from the table
in paragraph (a) the entry for pineapples, foliage.
Sec. 180.262 [Amended]
f. In Sec. 180.262, Ethoprop, tolerances for residues, by removing
from the the table in paragraph (a) the entries for beans, lima,
forage; beans, snap, forage; pineapples, fodder; pineapples, forage;
sugarcane, fodder; sugarcane, forage.
[FR Doc. 99-13057 Filed 5-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F