[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17084-17088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06948]



40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0031; FRL-9943-00]

Mandipropamid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.


SUMMARY: This regulation increases existing tolerances for residues of 
mandipropamid in or on potato, wet peel, and the vegetable, tuberous 
and corm subgroup 1C. Syngenta Crop Protection requested these 
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective March 28, 2016. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 27, 2016, 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-2015-0031, 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 (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP 
Docket is (703) 305-5805. 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: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected].


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 
Printing 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-2015-0031 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 27, 2016. 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-2015-0031, 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 

[[Page 17085]]

     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 March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11611) (FRL-9922-
68), 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 
4F8329) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box 
18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.637 
be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide 
mandipropamid in or on potato at 0.08 parts per million (ppm). The 
petition also requested to amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.637 for 
residues of mandipropamid in or on potato, wet peel at 0.12 ppm, and 
amend the current tolerance commodity terminology which contains potato 
from ``vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C,'' to ``vegetable, 
tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C, except potato.'' That document 
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop 
Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the 
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has 
modified the tolerances being established by this document. The reason 
for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

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 mandipropamid including 
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. 
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with mandipropamid 

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 
    Subchronic and chronic studies indicate that the liver is the 
primary target organ for mandipropamid. Liver effects were identified 
in subchronic studies with rats, mice, and dogs. Liver effects 
included: Periportal hypertrophy (rats), increased eosinophilia (rats 
and mice), increased plasma albumin, total protein, cholesterol, and 
gamma-glutamyl transferase (rats), increased liver weights (rats, mice 
and dogs), increased liver enzymes (dogs), increased pigment in 
hepatocytes and Kupffer cells (dogs), and centrilobular hepatocyte 
vacuolation (dogs). In the chronic dog study, increases in microscopic 
pigment in the liver and increased liver enzymes were observed. No 
liver effects were observed in chronic rat and mouse studies up to the 
highest doses tested. Instead, nephrotoxicity was observed in the 
chronic rat study and only decreased body weight and food utilization 
was observed in the chronic mouse study. The findings of liver toxicity 
and nephrotoxicity are consistent with the results from metabolism 
studies where the tissues with the highest levels of radioactivity were 
the liver followed by the kidney.
    No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in the acute or 
subchronic neurotoxicity screening battery. No systemic or dermal 
toxicity was observed following dermal exposure for 28 days up to the 
limit dose.
    No evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility 
was seen in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits or in a 
reproduction study in rats. The only effects observed in fetuses or 
pups were in the two-generation reproduction study, where decreased pup 
body weight was observed in the presence of maternal toxicity 
(decreased body weight, body weight gain, and food utilization). In 
addition, there was a delay in preputial separation in F1 males which 
was considered to be the result of lower body weights.
    There was no evidence of tumors in the carcinogenicity study in 
mice or in the chronic/carcinogenicity study in rats and there was no 
evidence that mandipropamid was mutagenic or clastogenic. Therefore, 
mandipropamid is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to 
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the 
adverse effects caused by mandipropamid as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Mandipropamid: Human 
Health Risk Assessment For Amended Use of the Fungicide on Potato, to 
Replace the Established Tolerance in Tuberous and Corm Vegetable 
Subgroup 1C, and to Revise the Established Tolerance in Potato Wet 
Peel'' on page 30 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0031.

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 no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) 
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified 
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors 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

[[Page 17086]]

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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for mandipropamid used for 
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule 
published in the Federal Register of December 20, 2013 (78 FR 76987) 

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary 
exposure to mandipropamid. EPA considered exposure under the 
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing mandipropamid 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.637. EPA assessed dietary exposures from 
mandipropamid 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.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for 
mandipropamid; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure 
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure 
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What 
We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA 
assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance level residues, 
with the exception of vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C, which 
was assessed at 0.115 ppm, assuming tolerance-level residues of parent 
mandipropamid (0.09 ppm) and including the SYN 500003 metabolite in 
parent-equivalents (at 0.025 ppm).
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 
concluded that mandipropamid does not pose a cancer risk to humans. 
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing 
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use 
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for 
mandipropamid. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for 
all existing and proposed food commodities, except subgroup 1C, as 
described above.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening 
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk 
assessment for mandipropamid in drinking water. These simulation models 
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport 
characteristics of mandipropamid. Further information regarding EPA 
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be 
found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Index Reservoir 
Screening Tool (FIRST) model for surface water and both the Screening 
Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) and Pesticide Root Zone Model 
Ground Water (PRZM GW) models, the estimated drinking water 
concentrations (EDWCs) of mandipropamid for chronic exposures are 
estimated to be 9.0 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 79 
ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly 
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk 
assessment, the water concentration value of 79 ppb was used to assess 
the contribution to drinking water.
    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).
    Mandipropamid 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 mandipropamid to share a common mechanism of 
toxicity with any other substances, and mandipropamid does not appear 
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the 
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that 
mandipropamid 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

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 FQPA Safety 
Factor (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 
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There were no treatment-
related effects observed in dams or fetuses in the developmental 
toxicity studies in rats or rabbits up to the limit dose of 1,000 mg/
kg/day. In the rat reproductive study, decreased pup weight occurred 
only in the presence of comparable maternal toxicity (decreased body 
weight). Therefore, the Agency concludes that there is no increased 
quantitative or qualitative susceptibility to rat or rabbit offspring 
exposed in utero or post-natally to mandipropamid, and there are no 
residual uncertainties with respect to pre- or postnatal exposure.
    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 
    i. The toxicity database for mandipropamid is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that mandipropamid is a neurotoxic 
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study 
or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that mandipropamid results in increased 
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal 
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction 
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure 
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based 
on 100 PCT and

[[Page 17087]]

tolerance-level residues, except for subgroup 1C, as described in 
Section C.1.ii. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the 
ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to 
mandipropamid in drinking water. These assessments will not 
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by mandipropamid.

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. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into 
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and 
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure 
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, 
mandipropamid is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to 
mandipropamid from food and water will utilize 42% of the cPAD for 
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest 
exposure. There are no residential uses for mandipropamid.
    3. Short-and Intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term 
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term 
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water 
(considered to be a background exposure level).
    Both a short- and intermediate-term adverse effects were 
identified; however, mandipropamid is not registered for any use 
patterns that would result in either short- or intermediate-term 
residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed 
based on short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic 
dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or 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 short-term risk), no further 
assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA 
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and 
intermediate-term risk for mandipropamid.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of 
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity 
studies, mandipropamid is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. 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 mandipropamid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid 
chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS)) 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: (410) 305-2905; email address: 
[email protected].

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.
    There is a Codex MRL established on potato at 0.01 ppm. With the 
increased tolerance in subgroup 1C to 0.09 ppm, the U.S. tolerance will 
no longer be in harmonization with Codex's MRL in potato. Harmonization 
with the Codex value is not feasible, given that the Codex MRL is based 
on the foliar use pattern only, and the U.S. tolerance is based on the 
proposed combination of seed piece treatment and foliar uses.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Instead of the proposed tolerance in potato (0.08 ppm), EPA is 
revising the existing tolerance for residues in tuberous and corm 
vegetable subgroup 1C from 0.01 to 0.09 ppm. The proposed tolerance was 
based on a dataset that only included results from trials conducted in 
the U.S. The calculated tolerance in subgroup 1C, based on US and 
Canadian potato field trial data entered into the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) tolerance calculation 
procedure, was 0.07 ppm. However, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 
subgroup 1C of 0.09 ppm, in order to harmonize with Canada's 
recommended MRL.
    The proposed tolerance in potato wet peel (0.12 ppm) was based on 
the average processing factor (2.0X) multiplied by the highest average 
field trial (HAFT) (0.056 ppm). However, the tolerance being 
established (0.15 ppm) is based on the rounding protocol in the User 
Guide for the OECD tolerance calculation procedure.
    It is not appropriate to establish the proposed tolerance in 
tuberous and corm vegetable subgroup 1C (except potato), because potato 
is the only representative commodity for subgroup 1C. For the same 
reason, the proposed separate tolerance in potato is unnecessary.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the existing tolerance for residues of mandipropamid on 
``potato, wet peel'' is modified from 0.03 ppm to 0.15 ppm and the 
existing tolerance on ``vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C'' is 
modified from 0.01 to 0.09 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances 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

[[Page 17088]]

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 16, 2016.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:


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

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

2. In Sec.  180.637, revise the entries for ``Potato, wet peel'' and 
``Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C'' to the table in paragraph 
(a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.637  Mandipropamid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
                                * * * * *
Potato, wet peel............................................        0.15
                                * * * * *
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C...................        0.09

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-06948 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am]