[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14014-14019]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06106]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0483; FRL-9923-59]

Dimethomorph; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
dimethomorph in or on papaya at 1.5 parts per million (ppm). BASF
Corporation requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to cover residues of dimethomorph in papaya
imported into the United States; there are currently no U.S.
registrations for pesticides containing dimethomorph that are used on
papaya.

DATES: This regulation is effective March 18, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 18, 2015, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0483, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the

Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions
and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0483 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
May 18, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0483, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75107) (FRL-
9918-90), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
3E8218) by BASF Corporation, P.O. Box, 13528, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be
amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide
dimethomorph, in or on papaya at 1.5 ppm. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by BASF Corporation, the registrant,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No
comments were received on the notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for dimethomorph including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with dimethomorph follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Dimethomorph has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal, or
inhalation route of exposure. It is not an eye or skin irritant, and is
not a skin sensitizer. There is no evidence that dimethomorph is a
developmental, reproductive, carcinogenic, mutagenic or immunotoxic
chemical. Dimethomorph is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic
to humans'' based upon lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and
mice.
    No biologically significant effect was observed in the rat
subchronic oral toxicity study while decreased body weight and
increased incidence of arteritis in male rats and decreased body
weights and increased incidence of ``ground-glass'' foci in livers of
female rats were observed in the rat chronic toxicity study. In the dog
subchronic oral toxicity study, decreased absolute and relative
prostate weights, and slight liver effects were observed. No toxicity
was observed at the limit dose in the rat 28-day dermal toxicity study.
The developmental toxicity studies showed no increased sensitivity to
offspring of either rats or rabbits as demonstrated by

no-observed-adverse-effect-level's (NOAEL) equal to or higher than
those producing toxicity in the maternal animals. Likewise, in the 2-
generation reproduction study, there was no toxicity to the offspring
at doses lower than that causing parental toxicity.
    In an acute neurotoxicity study, functional observational battery
(FOB) findings and reduced motor activity were observed. However, these
findings were considered an impairment of the overall condition of the
animals following treatment, rather than direct neurotoxic effects of
the dimethomorph exposure. No neurotoxic effects were observed in the
subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats and there is no evidence of
neurotoxicity throughout the dimethomorph toxicity database. There was
no evidence of immunotoxicity in the immunotoxicity study.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by dimethomorph as well as the NOAEL and the
lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Dimethomorph:
Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Establishment of a Tolerance
Without U.S. Registration for Papaya on page 9 within the docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0483.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL at which adverse
effects of concern are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors (U/SF)
are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure
level--generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a
reference dose (RfD)--and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-
threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will
lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms
of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a
lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in
risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment
process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for dimethomorph used for
human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.

  Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Dimethomorph for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-49       No appropriate        Not applicable.....  No study selected.
 years of age).                     endpoint was
                                    identified
                                    including
                                    developmental
                                    toxicity studies in
                                    rats and rabbits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General             LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/    Acute RfD = 0.25 mg/ Acute Neurotoxicity Study.
 population).                       day UFA.              kg/day.             LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........  aPAD = 0.25 mg/kg/    reduced motor activity in both
                                   FQPA SFL = 10x......   day.                 sexes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 11 mg/kg/day  Chronic RfD = 0.1    Carcinogenicity study in rats.
                                    UFA = 10x.            mg/kg/day.          LOAEL = 46.3 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.1 mg/kg/     decreased body weight and
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 increases in liver lesions in
                                                                               female rats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)  Classification: ``Not likely'' to be a human carcinogen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population
  adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation
  from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human
  population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to dimethomorph, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing dimethomorph tolerances in 40
CFR 180.493. EPA assessed dietary exposures from dimethomorph in food
as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for dimethomorph. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Nationwide Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat In America (NHANES/WWEIA) conducted from 2003-2008. As to
residue levels in food, EPA made the following assumptions for the
acute exposure assessment: tolerance-level residues for all
commodities, 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities and
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) (ver. 7.81) default processing
factors or empirical processing factors.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data

from the USDA's (NHANES/WWEIA) conducted from 2003-2008 as well. As to
residue levels in food, EPA made the following assumptions for the
chronic exposure assessment: Tolerance-level residues for all
commodities, 100 PCT for all commodities and DEEM (ver. 7.81) default
processing factors or empirical processing factors.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that dimethomorph should be classified as ``not likely'' to
be a human carcinogen based upon lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in
rats and mice. Therefore a cancer risk assessment was not necessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for dimethomorph. Tolerance level residues and/or
100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The drinking water
concentrations have not changed since the last assessment. The Agency
utilized a maximum application rate of 1.4 pound active ingredient/
acre/season (lb ai/A/season) for broccoli (which is the use with the
most exposure and highest PCT area). The groundwater value was
generated using the Screening Concentration in Groundwater (SCI-GROW)
Model and the surface water values were generated using a Tier 1
broccoli model. The surface water estimate was used for both acute and
chronic assessment (81.1 parts per billion (ppb) for acute and 24.7 ppb
for chronic) because these values were higher than the groundwater
value. Since the current petition is for a tolerance in/on imported
papaya, an assessment of the impacts of that use on drinking water was
not required.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Dimethomorph is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found dimethomorph to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and dimethomorph does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
dimethomorph does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The available data did not
provide evidence of increased sensitivity in the offspring based on the
results from developmental studies conducted with rats and rabbits as
well as a 2-generation reproduction study conducted with rats. There
were no toxic effects observed in either the rat developmental toxicity
or the rat 2-generation reproductive toxicity studies at doses that
were lower than doses which produced toxic effects in the parents.
Additionally, no developmental toxicity was demonstrated in the rabbit
developmental toxicity study.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for dimethomorph is complete.
    ii. The available data do not support a determination that
dimethomorph is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a
developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that dimethomorph results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The unrefined acute and chronic dietary risk assessments
used tolerance level residues, included modeled drinking water
estimates, assumed 100 PCT, and incorporated DEEM default processing
factors. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the
groundwater and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
dimethomorph in drinking water. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by dimethomorph.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to dimethomorph will occupy 39% of the aPAD for children 3-5 years old,
the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
dimethomorph from food and water will utilize 25% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for dimethomorph.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Because no
short-term adverse effect was identified, dimethomorph is not expected
to pose a short-term risk.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered

to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect
was identified; however, dimethomorph is not registered for any use
patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure.
Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no
intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has
already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is
at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term
risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary,
and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating
intermediate-term risk for dimethomorph.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, dimethomorph is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to dimethomorph residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    FAMS-002-04 which utilizes high performance liquid chromatography
with ultraviolet detection (HPLC/UV) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for residues of dimethomorph
in/on papaya.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of dimethomorph,
in or on papaya at 1.5 ppm. While no pesticides containing dimethomorph
have been registered in the United States for use on papaya, this
tolerance allows importation of papaya containing permissible residues
of dimethomorph under the FFDCA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This 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 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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 in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 9, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.493 alphabetically add the commodity ``papaya'' to the
table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.493  Dimethomorph; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  * * *                            * * *
Papaya \1\..............................................             1.5

                                  * * *                            * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations as of January 20, 2015.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-06106 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P