Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 1998 / Proposed Rules 3057

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

‘‘ADDRESSES.’’

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

AlliedSignal Inc.: Docket No. 97–ANE–47–

AD.

Applicability: AlliedSignal Inc. (formerly

Allied-Signal Aerospace Company, Garrett

Engine Division and Garrett Turbine Engine

Co.) Model TPE331–8, –10, –11 and –12

series turboprop engines with fuel manifold,

Part Number (P/N) 3102469–1 or –2, repaired

by Hoses Unlimited, Inc. prior to November

20, 1995. These engines are installed on but

not limited to Ayres S2R–G10; Cessna Model

441; Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.

(CASA) C–212 series; Dornier 228 series;

Fairchild SA226 and SA227 series; Jetstream

3101 and 3201 series; Mitsubishi MU–2B

series (MU–2 series); and Twin Commander

Aircraft Corp. Models 695 and 695A aircraft.

Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD)

applies to each aircraft identified in the

preceding applicability provision, regardless

of whether it has been modified, altered, or

repaired in the area subject to the

requirements of this AD. For engines that

have been modified, altered, or repaired so

that the performance of the requirements of

this AD is affected, the owner/operator must

request approval for an alternative method of

compliance in accordance with paragraph (d)

of this AD. The request should include an

assessment of the effect of the modification,

alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe

condition has not been eliminated, the

request should include specific proposed

actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent fuel leakage of the fuel

manifold, resulting in fuel spraying on hot

turbine components, which could result in

an engine fire, accomplish the following:

(a) Check all fuel manifold identification

bands for P/Ns 3102469–1 or –2 and the

Hoses Unlimited, Inc. name, or review engine

and aircraft maintenance records and

purchase receipts to establish the origin and

repairs on all fuel manifolds. If records

indicate that fuel manifolds, P/Ns 3102469–

1 or –2, are not installed in an engine or that

Hoses Unlimited, Inc. has not been used as

a repair facility, no further AD action is

required.

(b) Remove from service all fuel manifolds

with the Hoses Unlimited, Inc. name and P/

Ns 3102469–1 or –2 and replace with a

serviceable fuel manifold in accordance with

the applicable AlliedSignal engine

maintenance manual, at first access to the

fuel manifold assembly, at the next engine

hot section inspection, or 3 years after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

first.

(c) For the purposes of this AD, first access

to the fuel manifold is defined as any repair,

modification, removal, or testing of the fuel

manifold assembly or components of the fuel

manifold assembly.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

January 7, 1998.

James C. Jones,

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–1325 Filed 1–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG–114000–97]

RIN 1545–AV41

Withholding on Interest in the Case of

Sales of Obligations Between Interest

Payment Dates; Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service,

Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public

hearing on proposed regulations.

SUMMARY: This document provides

notice of cancellation of a public

hearing on proposed regulations under

section 1441 regarding the obligation to

withhold on interest paid with respect

to obligations in the case of the sale of

obligations between interest payment

dates.

DATES: The public hearing originally

scheduled for Monday, January 26,

1998, beginning at 10:00 a.m. is

canceled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Slaughter of the Regulations Unit,

Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate),

(202) 622–7190, (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

subject of the public hearing is proposed

regulations under section 1441 of the

Internal Revenue Code. A notice of

proposed rulemaking and notice of

public hearing appearing in the Federal

Register on Tuesday, October 14, 1997

(62 FR 53503), announced that the

public hearing on proposed regulations

under section 1441 of the Internal

Revenue Code would be held on

Monday, January 26, 1998, beginning at

10:00 a.m., in the Commissioner’s

Conference Room, Room 3313, Internal

Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

The public hearing scheduled for

Monday, January 26, 1998, is canceled.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,

Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief

Counsel (Corporate).

[FR Doc. 98–1403 Filed 1–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 180, 185, and 186

[OPP–300551; FRL–5743–8]

Revocation of Tolerances and

Exemptions From the Requirement of

a Tolerance for Canceled Pesticide

Active Ingredients

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

revoke the tolerances and exemptions

from the requirement of a tolerance

listed in this document. EPA is

proposing to revoke these tolerances

and exemptions because there are no

active registrations for the pesticide

chemicals covered by these tolerances

and exemptions.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted to EPA by March 23, 1998.
3058 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 1998 / Proposed Rules

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written

comments to the Public Information and

Records Integrity Branch, Information

Resources and Services Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

In person, deliver comments to Rm.

1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by following

the instructions under Unit V. of this

document. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Jeff Morris, Special Review and

Reregistration Division (7508W),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location, telephone number, and

e-mail address: Special Review Branch,

Crystal Station #1, 3rd floor, 2800

Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA,

Telephone: (703) 308–8029; e-mail:

morris.jeffrey@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Legal Authority

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., as

amended by the Food Quality Protection

Act of 1996 (FQPA), Pub. L. 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 pursuant to section 408, 21 U.S.C.

346(a), as amended. Without a tolerance

or exemption, food containing pesticide

residues is considered to be unsafe and

therefore ‘‘adulterated’’ under section

402(a) of the FFDCA, and hence may not

legally be moved in interstate commerce

(21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 342(a)). For a

pesticide to be sold and distributed, the

pesticide must not only have

appropriate tolerances or exemptions

under the FFDCA, but also must be

registered under section 3 of the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136a.

Under FFDCA section 408(f), if EPA

determines that additional data are

needed to support continuation of a

tolerance, EPA may require that those

data be submitted by registrants under

FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B), by producers

under the Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA) section 4, or by other persons by

order after opportunity for hearing. EPA

intends to use Data Call-In (DCI)

procedures for pesticide registrants, and

FFDCA section 408(f)(1)(C) orders for

non-registrants as its primary means of

obtaining data. In general, EPA does not

intend to use the procedures under

TSCA section 4, because such

procedures generally will not be

applicable to pesticides.

Section 408(f) of the FFDCA states

that if EPA determines that additional

data are needed to support the

continuation of an existing tolerance or

exemption, EPA shall issue a notice

that: (1) Requests that any parties

identify their interest in supporting the

tolerance or exemption, (2) solicits the

submission of data and information

from interested parties, (3) describes the

data and information needed to retain

the tolerance or exemption, (4) outlines

how EPA will respond to the

submission of supporting data, and (5)

provides time frames and deadlines for

the submission of such data and

information.

II. Regulatory Background

It is EPA’s general practice to propose

revocation of tolerances for residues of

pesticide active ingredients for which

FIFRA registrations no longer exist. In

accord with FFDCA section 408,

however, EPA will not revoke any

tolerance or exemption proposed for

revocation if any person will commit to

support its retention, and if retention of

the tolerance will meet the tolerance

standard established under FQPA.

Generally, interested parties commit to

support the retention of such tolerances

in order to permit treated commodities

to be legally imported into the United

States, since raw or processed food or

feed commodities containing pesticide

residues not covered by a tolerance or

exemption are considered to be

adulterated.

Tolerances and exemptions

established for pesticide chemicals with

FIFRA registrations cover residues in or

on both domestic and imported

commodities. To retain these tolerances

and exemptions for import purposes

only, EPA must make a finding that the

tolerances and exemptions are safe. To

make this safety finding, EPA needs

data and information indicating that

there is a reasonable certainty that no

harm will result from aggregate

exposure to the pesticide residues

covered by the tolerances and

exemptions.

EPA determines on a case-by-case

basis the data required to determine that

a tolerance or exemption is safe, and in

general requires the same technical

chemistry and toxicology data for

tolerances without related U.S.

registrations as are required to support

U.S. food-use registrations and any

resulting tolerances or exemptions. (See

40 CFR part 158 for EPA’s data

requirements to support domestic use of

a pesticide and the establishment and

maintenance of a tolerance. At a future

date, EPA will issue its import tolerance

policy.) In most cases, EPA also requires

residue chemistry data (crop field trials)

that are representative of growing

conditions in exporting countries in the

same manner that EPA requires

representative residue chemistry data

from different U.S. regions to support

domestic use of a pesticide and any

resulting tolerance(s) or exemption(s).

Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)

requirements for studies submitted in

support of tolerances and exemptions

for import purposes only are the same

as for domestic purposes; i.e., the

studies are required to either fully meet

GLP standards, or have sufficient

justification presented to show that

deviations from GLP requirements do

not significantly affect the results of the

studies.

Monitoring and enforcement of

pesticide tolerances and exemptions are

carried out by the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) and the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA). This

includes monitoring for pesticide

residues in or on commodities imported

into the United States.

III. Proposed Actions

This document proposes to revoke the

tolerances and exemptions from the

requirement of a tolerance listed at the

regulatory text of this document. EPA is

proposing these revocations because

EPA has cancelled the registrations for

the pesticide chemicals associated with

the tolerances and exemptions, and it is

EPA’s general practice to propose

revocation of those tolerances and

exemptions for residues of pesticide

chemicals for which there are no active

registrations.

IV. Effective Date

EPA proposes that these actions

become effective 30 days following

publication in the Federal Register of a

final rule revoking the tolerances. EPA

is proposing this effective date because

EPA believes that all existing stocks of

pesticide products labeled for the uses

associated with the tolerances proposed

for revocation were exhausted more

than 1 year ago, giving ample time for

any treated fresh produce to clear trade

channels.

Any commodities listed in the

regulatory text of this document that are

treated with the pesticides subject to

this proposal, and that are in the

channels of trade following the

tolerance revocations, shall be subject to

FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established

by FQPA. Under this section, any
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 1998 / Proposed Rules 3059

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 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. Public Comment Procedures

EPA invites interested persons to

submit written comments, information,

or data in response to this proposed

rule. After consideration of comments,

EPA will issue a final rule. Such rule

will be subject to objections. Failure to

file an objection within the appointed

period will constitute waiver of the right

to raise in future proceedings issues

resolved in the final rule.

Comments must be submitted by

March 23, 1998. Comments must bear a

notation indicating the docket number

OPP–300551. Three copies of the

comments should be submitted to either

location listed under ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at

the beginning of this proposal.

This proposal provides 60 days for

any interested person to request that a

tolerance be retained. If EPA receives a

comment to that effect, EPA will not

revoke the tolerance, but will take steps

to ensure the submission of supporting

data and will issue an order in the

Federal Register under FFDCA section

408(f). The order would specify the data

needed, 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. Thereafter, if the data are not

submitted as required, EPA will take

appropriate action under FIFRA or

FFDCA.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this proposal may be

claimed confidential by marking any or

all of that information as CBI. EPA will

not disclose information so marked,

except in accordance with procedures

set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A second

copy of such comments, with the CBI

deleted, also must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record. EPA may

publicly disclose without prior notice

information not marked confidential. A

record has been established for this

proposal under docket number OPP–

300551 (including comments and data

submitted electronically as described

below). A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of

electronic comments, which does not

include any information claimed as CBI,

is available for inspection from 8:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The public

record is located in room 1132 of the

Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch, Information Resources

and Services Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov.

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption.

The official record for this proposal,

as well as the public version, as

described above will be kept in paper

form. Accordingly, EPA will transfer all

comments received electronically into

printed, paper form as they are received

and will place the paper copies in the

official record, which will also include

all comments submitted directly in

writing. The official rulemaking record

is the paper record maintained at the

address in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the

beginning of this proposal.

VI. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of

the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),

E.O. 12866 defines a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as an action that is

likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more, or adversely and

materially affecting a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or state, local, or tribal

governments or communities; (2)

creating serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfering with an action

taken or planned by another agency; (3)

materially altering the budgetary

impacts of entitlement, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)

raising novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or principles set

forth in this Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of E.O. 12866,

EPA has determined that this proposed

rule is not a significant regulatory action

and, since this action does not impose

any information collection requirements

subject to approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),

it is not subject to review by OMB. In

addition, 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), or

require prior consultation as specified

by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093,

October 28, 1993), entitled Enhancing

the Intergovernmental Partnership, or

special considerations as required by

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

February 16, 1994).

B. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. EPA

believes that revocation of a tolerance

after use of the pesticide becomes illegal

in this country will generally not have

a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

In the case of domestically grown

food, the tolerances proposed for

revocation by this proposal will have no

economic impact. The associated

pesticide registered uses have already

been canceled. Since U.S. growers may

no longer use these pesticides on such

crops, revoking the tolerances should

have no effect on food grown in the U.S.

after cancellation of registered uses. As

for food legally treated under FIFRA

before the cancellation occurred, it will

not be considered adulterated if the

residue level complies with the

tolerance in effect at the time of

treatment.

Revocation has a greater potential to

affect foreign-grown food, since the uses

of a pesticide prohibited in the U.S. may

still be lawful in other countries. If

foreign growers use a pesticide on crops

for which there is no tolerance, the food

they grow will be considered

adulterated and subject to detention and

regulatory action when offered for

import or imported into the United

States. However, while revocation may

have an economic effect on foreign

growers that export food to the U.S., the

RFA is concerned only with the effect

of U.S. regulations on domestic small

entities.

Revocation may also have an effect on

domestic importers of foreign-grown
3060 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 1998 / Proposed Rules

food to the extent their suppliers use

pesticides in ways that result in

residues no longer allowed in the U.S.

Theoretically, U.S. importers could face

higher food prices and transactions

costs. However, EPA believes that the

effect on U.S. importers will be

minimal. The revocation of a particular

tolerance is unlikely to have a

significant impact on the price of a

commodity on the international market.

Transaction costs may occur as a result

of having to find alternative suppliers of

food untreated with pesticides for

which tolerances were revoked.

Affected importers, however, would

have the options of finding other

suppliers in the same country or in

other countries, or inducing the same

supplier to switch to alternative pest

controls. Given the existence of these

options, EPA expects any price

increases or transaction costs resulting

from revocations will be minor. As to

the pesticide uses involved in this

action, EPA has reviewed its available

data on imports and foreign pesticide

usage and concludes that there is a

reasonable international supply of food

not treated with these pesticides,

generally within the same countries

from which the relevant commodities

are currently imported.

Moreover, whatever the effect on U.S.

importers of foreign-grown food, EPA

believes that it would be inappropriate

and inconsistent with the purpose of the

RFA to ameliorate that effect. To the

extent any adverse effect occurs, it will

be the result of foreign growers using

pesticides in ways or on crops not

allowed in the U.S. Domestic growers

have no choice but to refrain from using

pesticides in ways or on crops

prohibited by U.S. law. U.S. growers

and those who follow them in the chain

of commerce distributors and

consumers will bear the cost of

complying with U.S. law. For EPA to

somehow address the economic effect of

the revocation on U.S. distributors of

foreign-grown food would potentially

give those distributors a competitive

advantage over distributors of U.S.-

grown food, and that advantage could

potentially translate to a competitive

advantage for foreign growers over

domestic growers. The RFA was enacted

in part to preserve competition in the

marketplace, and it would be perverse

to implement it in a way that creates

competitive inequities, particularly

between U.S. and foreign products.

Finally, EPA notes that potential

increased costs to importers would not

be cognizable as grounds for not

revoking the tolerances.

Based on the above analysis, I certify

that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

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: January 12, 1998.

Lois Rossi,

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 § 180.2, by revising paragraph (a)

to read as follows:

§ 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.

* * * * *

§§ 180.115, 180.118, 180.144, 180.148,

180.158, 180.159, 180.162, 180.171, 180.219,

180.239, 180.263, 180.277, 180.305, and

180.306 [Removed]

c. By removing §§ 180.115, 180.118,

180.144, 180.148, 180.158, 180.159,

180.162, 180.171, 180.219, 180.239,

180.263, 180.277, 180.305, and 180.306.

§ 180.319 [Amended]

d. By removing from the table in

§ 180.319, the entire entry for Isopropyl

carbanilate (IPC).

§§ 180.321, 180.325, 180.326, 180.347,

180.357, 180.374 [Removed]

e. By removing §§ 180.321, 180.325,

180.326, 180.347, 180.357, 180.374.

f. In § 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:

§ 180.1001 Exemptions from the

requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) The following copper compounds:

Bordeaux mixture, basic copper

carbonate (malachite), copper

hydroxide, copper-lime mixtures,

copper oxychloride, copper octanoate,

copper sulfate basic, copper sulfate

pentahydrate, cupric oxide, cuprous

oxide. These compounds are used

primarily as fungicides.

* * * * *

§§ 180.1010, 180.1018, 180.1030, 180.1031,

180.1034, 180.1055, 180.1059, 180.1061,

180.1067, 180.1079, 180.1081, and 180.1085

[Removed]

g. By removing § 180.1010, 180.1018,

180.1030, 180.1031, 180.1034, 180.1055,

180.1059, 180.1061, 180.1067, 180.1079,

180.1081, and 180.1085.

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.

§§ 185.1350, 185.1650, 185.3600, 185.4250,

185.4300, and 185.4800 [Removed]

b. By removing §§ 185.1350, 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.

§§ 186.450, 186.850, 186.1350, 186.1650,

186.2450, and 186.3000 [Removed]

b. By removing §§ 186.450, 186.850,

186.1350, 186.1650, 186.2450, and

186.3000.

[FR Doc. 98–1356 Filed 1–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F