[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 30, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39493-39501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-13174]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0555; FRL-13412-01]
Bifenthrin; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
bifenthrin in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. Interregional Project Number 4 (IR-4)
submitted a petition to EPA requesting that EPA establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of this pesticide in or on the
identified commodities.
DATES: This regulation is effective June 30, 2026. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 31, 2026,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of this document).
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0555, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Additional information about dockets generally, along with
instructions for visiting the docket in person, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Director, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-1030; email address:
[email protected].
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
[[Page 39494]]
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:
Crop production (NAICS code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?
EPA is issuing this rulemaking under section 408 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(A)(i) 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.'' FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) 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. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C)
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. . .''
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. If you fail to file an objection to the
final rule within the time period specified in the final rule, you will
have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule.
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 the docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2023-0555 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 August 31, 2026.
The EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), in which the
Hearing Clerk is housed, urges parties to file and serve documents by
electronic means only, notwithstanding any other particular
requirements set forth in other procedural rules governing those
proceedings. See ``Order Urging Electronic Filing and Service,'' dated
December 3, 2025, which can be found at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-12/2025-12-03-order-urging-electronic-filing-and-service.pdf. Although the EPA's regulations require submission via U.S.
Mail or hand delivery, the EPA intends to treat submissions filed via
electronic means as properly filed submissions; therefore, the EPA
believes the preference for submission via electronic means will not be
prejudicial. When submitting documents to the OALJ electronically, a
person should utilize the OALJ e-filing system at https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/eab/eab-alj_upload.nsf.
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 at https://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. If you wish to
include CBI in your request, please follow the applicable instructions
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#rules and clearly
mark the information that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance
In the Federal Register of January 13, 2025 (90 FR 2661) (FRL-
11682-11), 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
3E9078) by the Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 1730
Varsity Drive, Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.442 be amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the insecticide bifenthrin, in or on the raw agricultural
commodities: celtuce at 3 ppm; citrus, oil at 0.75 ppm; clover, forage
(regional tolerance) at 7 ppm; clover, hay (regional tolerance) at 30
ppm; coffee, green bean at 0.05 ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.5
ppm; edible podded bean subgroup 6-22A at 0.6 ppm; edible podded pea
subgroup 6-22B at 0.6 ppm; fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalks at
3 ppm; kiwifruit, fuzzy at 1.5 ppm; kohlrabi at 0.6 ppm; leaf petiole
vegetable subgroup 22B at 3 ppm; pulses, dried shelled bean, except
soybean, subgroup 6-22E at 0.3 ppm; pulses, dried shelled pea subgroup
6-22F at 0.3 ppm; rapeseed subgroup 20A at 0.05 ppm; safflower at 0.2
ppm; succulent shelled bean subgroup 6-22C at 0.05 ppm; succulent
shelled pea subgroup 6-22D at 0.05 ppm; Swiss chard at 3 ppm; tropical
and subtropical, palm fruit, edible peel, subgroup 23C at 3 ppm; and
vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 except cabbage at 0.6
ppm.
Additionally, the petition requested, upon approval of the above
tolerances, to remove the existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.442 in or
on brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A, (except cabbage) at 0.6 ppm;
cotton, undelinted seed at 0.5 ppm; leafy petioles subgroup 4B at 3.0
ppm; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C at 0.15
ppm; pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B at 0.05 ppm;
rapeseed, seed at 0.05 ppm; and vegetable, legume, edible podded,
subgroup 6A at 0.6 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by IR-4, the petitioner, which is available in the
docket, https://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 is
establishing some tolerances as requested and some that vary from what
was requested. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit
IV.C.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
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 bifenthrin including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with bifenthrin is
summarized in this unit.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as
[[Page 39495]]
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. The database of experimental toxicology studies
available for bifenthrin provides a robust characterization of the
hazard potential for adults and children. The bifenthrin database is
considered complete for risk assessment.
Bifenthrin has been evaluated for a variety of toxic effects in
guideline experimental toxicity studies. Predominantly, behavioral
changes characteristic of Type I pyrethroids, such as muscle tremors,
were seen in most of the bifenthrin experimental toxicology studies,
consistent with its mode-of-action (MOA) to activate sodium channels.
This observation was noted in several bifenthrin toxicology studies
across various species at different durations, and different routes of
exposure and lifestages. The published acute Wolansky study provided
robust data on locomotor activity, due to the fact that it utilized
nine dose groups and a benchmark dose data analysis method to address
dose spacing effects.
The Wolansky study is considerably conservative, using the most
sensitive rat strain, plus gavage dosing utilizing a vehicle and volume
producing the most adverse responses (i.e., 1 mL/kg corn oil). Muscle
tremors were observed in nearly all experimental studies in all species
and durations; however, motor activity was not measured in most of
these studies. The decreased locomotor activity observed in the acute
Wolansky study was the most sensitive endpoint identified in the study
and therefore, was selected as the endpoint for acute dietary and
short-term incidental oral risk assessment. In the acute Wolansky
study, tremors were not observed at doses less than 8 mg/kg of
bifenthrin, while decreased motor activity was significant at doses of
4 mg/kg and above. Further, the Wolansky study monitored the toxicology
at the time of peak effects, unlike most of the guideline studies.
Additional effects seen in one or more studies included: muscle
twitching, decreased grip strength, altered landing foot splay,
depressed respiration, increased grooming counts, loss of muscle
coordination, staggered gait, exaggerated hind limb flexion, and
convulsions at high doses. Decreased body weight and food consumption
were also noted in repeat-dosing dietary studies. There was no clear
evidence in the database that either gender was more sensitive to
bifenthrin.
Clinical signs of neurotoxicity were also reported in the route-
specific dermal and inhalation toxicity studies. In a 21-day dermal
study in rabbits, loss of muscle coordination and increased incidence
of tremors were seen at the highest dose tested (442 mg/kg/day) and in
a 21-day dermal study in rats, a staggered gait and exaggerated limb
flexion was noted at 93 mg/kg/day. In a 28-day inhalation study in
rats, increased tremors and increased respiration were seen at the
highest concentration tested (0.0196 mg/L/day).
Bifenthrin has been evaluated for potential developmental effects
in the rat (following gavage and dietary administration) and in the
rabbit (gavage administration). Maternal toxicity included neurological
effects (tremors in rats and rabbits; head and forelimb twitching in
rabbits). There were no developmental effects of biological
significance in either species. A Developmental Neurotoxicity (DNT)
study is available, which establishes a clear no observed adverse
effect level (NOAEL) for the adult and offspring toxicity. The NOAEL in
adults and offspring is similar in magnitude, and the lowest observed
adverse effect level (LOAEL) are based on the clinical signs of
neurotoxicity (dams had tremors and convulsions, offspring had
increased grooming counts). Based on targeted testing in the DNT study
for common endpoints for bifenthrin, there was no increase in
sensitivity in rat pups. However, the Agency has reviewed existing
pyrethroid data and concludes that the DNT is not a particularly
sensitive study for comparing the sensitivity of young and adult
animals to pyrethroids. The reproductive toxicity of bifenthrin was
examined in a two-generation reproduction dietary study in the rat.
Tremors were noted only in females of both generations, with one
parental generation rat observed to have clonic convulsions, and no
observed effects in the offspring. Overall, there is no indication of
increased juvenile sensitivity specifically to bifenthrin.
Bifenthrin has low acute toxicity via the dermal (Category III) and
inhalation routes (Category III-IV) of exposure and has high acute
toxicity via the oral route (Category I). It is not a skin irritant
(Category IV) but is a moderate eye irritant (Category III) and is a
dermal sensitizer.
Bifenthrin is classified as ``Group C--Possible Human Carcinogen,''
based on an increased incidence of urinary bladder tumors in mice.
However, EPA has determined that quantification of risk using a non-
linear approach (i.e., reference dose (RfD)) will adequately account
for all chronic toxicity, including potential carcinogenicity, that
could result from exposure to bifenthrin for the following reasons.
First, the bladder tumors may not be uncommon in Swiss Webster mice and
are not likely to be malignant. Second, these tumors were observed only
in male mice at the highest dose. Third, no evidence of carcinogenicity
was observed in bifenthrin carcinogenicity studies in rats. Finally,
there is a low concern for mutagenicity based on the overall results of
the available mutagenicity tests of bifenthrin.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by bifenthrin, as well as the NOAEL and the
LOAEL from the toxicity studies, can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Bifenthrin. Human Health
Risk Assessment for the Section 3 Registration of Bifenthrin on Clover
(Grown For Seed); Coffee; Fuzzy Kiwifruit; Safflower; Tropical And
Subtropical Palm Fruit (Subgroup 23C); and Crop Group Expansions/
Conversions for Brassica, Head and Stem Vegetables (Group 5-16);
Kohlrabi; Succulent Peas and Beans (Subgroups 6-22A, B, C, and D);
Dried Beans and Peas (Subgroups 6-22E and F); Rapeseed (Subgroup 20A);
Cottonseed (Subgroup 20C); Leaf Petiole Vegetables (Subgroup 22B);
Celtuce; Florence Fennel; and Swiss Chard.'' in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2023-0555.
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 NOAEL and 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 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.
[[Page 39496]]
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for bifenthrin used for
human risk assessment can be found in the document titled ``Bifenthrin.
Human Health Risk Assessment for the Section 3 Registration of
Bifenthrin on Clover (Grown For Seed); Coffee; Fuzzy Kiwifruit;
Safflower; Tropical And Subtropical Palm Fruit (Subgroup 23C); and Crop
Group Expansions/Conversions for Brassica, Head and Stem Vegetables
(Group 5-16); Kohlrabi; Succulent Peas and Beans (Subgroups 6-22A, B,
C, and D); Dried Beans and Peas (Subgroups 6-22E and F); Rapeseed
(Subgroup 20A); Cottonseed (Subgroup 20C); Leaf Petiole Vegetables
(Subgroup 22B); Celtuce; Florence Fennel; and Swiss Chard.'' in docket
ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0555.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary Exposure From Food and Feed Uses
In evaluating dietary exposure to bifenthrin, EPA considered
exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing
bifenthrin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.442. EPA assessed dietary exposures
from bifenthrin 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 bifenthrin. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA used USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP)
monitoring data, field trial data, and empirical processing factors,
where available, and incorporated percent crop treated (PCT) estimates
in the refined acute dietary exposure assessment.
ii. Chronic Exposure
A chronic dietary endpoint has not been selected for bifenthrin
because repeated exposure does not result in a POD lower than that
resulting from acute exposure; therefore, the acute dietary risk
assessment is protective of chronic dietary risk. However, a refined
chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted to determine the
background exposure of food plus drinking water to support the
bifenthrin aggregate risk assessment. The assessment was refined using
point estimates derived from PDP monitoring data, field trial data, PCT
data, and empirical processing factors.
iii. Cancer
As discussed in Unit III.A., EPA has determined that the acute RfD
will adequately account for all repeated exposure/chronic toxicity,
including potential carcinogenicity, which could result from exposure
to bifenthrin. A separate cancer exposure assessment was not conducted.
iv. Anticipated Residue and Percent Crop Treated (Pct) Information
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data
and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues
in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
Condition A: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
Condition B: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
Condition C: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
The acute dietary assessment used the following maximum PCT
estimates: almonds: 40%, apples: 10%; artichokes: 65%; avocados: 2.5%;
beans (snap, bush, pole, string): 60%; blueberries: 40%; broccoli: 25%;
cabbage: 45%; caneberries: 50%; canola (oil rapeseed): 25%;
cantaloupes: 55%; carrots: 10%; cauliflower: 45%; celery: 45%; chicory:
10%; citron: 10%; citrus hybrids: 10%; corn: 15%; cotton: 25%;
cucumbers: 35%; dry beans/peas: 10%; eggplants: 45%; grapefruit: 2.5%;
grapes, raisin: 2.5%; grapes, table: 2.5%; grapes, wine: 10%; honeydew:
90%; kumquats: 10%; lemons: 2.5%; lettuce: 20%; lima beans: 40%; limes:
10%; pomelos: 10%; okra: 45%; oranges: 10%; peanuts: 20%; pears: 2.5%;
peas (fresh/green/sweet): 50%; pecans: 20%; peppers: 35%; pistachios:
55%; pomegranates: 50%; potatoes: 15%; pumpkins: 30%; soybeans: 15%;
spinach: 15%; squash: 25%; strawberries: 70%; sunflowers: 2.5%; sweet
corn: 50%; tangerines: 5%; tomatoes: 45%; walnuts: 40%; watermelons:
30%.
The following average PCT estimates for bifenthrin were used to
refine the chronic dietary exposure assessment for the following crops:
almonds: 35%, apples: 2.5%; artichokes: 35%; avocados: 1%; beans (snap,
bush, pole, string): 40%; blueberries: 35%; broccoli: 15%; cabbage:
30%; caneberries: 30%; canola (oil rapeseed): 15%; cantaloupes: 45%;
carrots: 2.5%; cauliflower: 15%; celery: 20%; chicory: 2.5%; citron:
2.5%; citrus hybrids: 2.5%; corn: 10%; cotton: 20%; cucumbers: 15%; dry
beans/peas: 5%; eggplants: 35%; grapefruit: 1%; grapes, raisin: 1%;
grapes, table: 1%; grapes, wine: 2.5%; honeydew: 80%; kumquats: 2.5%;
lemons: 2.5%; lettuce: 10%; lima beans: 15%; limes: 2.5%; pomelos:
2.5%; okra: 35%; oranges: 2.5%; peanuts: 10%; pears: 1%; peas (fresh/
green/sweet): 25%; pecans: 10%; peppers: 20%; pistachios: 50%;
pomegranates: 30%; potatoes: 10%; pumpkins: 15%; soybeans: 10%;
spinach: 1%; squash: 20%; strawberries: 50%; sunflowers: 1%; sweet
corn: 40%; tangerines: 2.5%; tomatoes: 35%; walnuts: 30%; watermelons:
15%.
A default of 100% CT was used for all livestock and game
commodities, freshwater finfish, and all other registered uses where no
maximum/average PCT estimates were available. All other commodities
included for depicting food handling establishment (FHE) uses were
refined with the upper bound estimate of 4.65% for non-fumigant
treatments made in FHEs.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the California Department
of Pesticide Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) for the
chemical/crop combination for the most recent 10 years. EPA uses an
average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
[[Page 39497]]
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining
available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging
across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for
those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those
cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum
PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the recent 10 years of available public and private market
survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple
of 5%.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition A, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions B and C, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have reliable information available on the regional consumption of
food to which bifenthrin may be applied in a particular area.
2. Dietary Exposure From Drinking Water
The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the
dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for bifenthrin in
drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the
physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of bifenthrin.
Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in
pesticide exposure assessment can be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks.
The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) were
incorporated directly into the dietary assessment; water residues were
incorporated in the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the
Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) into the food categories
``water, direct, all sources'' and ``water, indirect, all sources.''
Ground water EDWCs were calculated with Pesticide in Water Calculator
(PWC) 2 for citrus as the highest exposure scenarios using chemical
input parameters from previous drinking water assessments. Citrus
continues to generate no breakthrough for EDWCs despite the increased
annual application rates in the proposed labels. Therefore, the EDWC
used in the dietary exposure assessment (acute and chronic) is the
bifenthrin limit of solubility of 0.000014 ppm, i.e., the maximum
possible residues that could occur in drinking water based on the
chemical properties of the compound.
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). Bifenthrin is currently registered for the following
uses that could result in residential exposures: Lawns/turf, indoor
environments, gardens/trees, pets (dog shampoo), termiticide and
indoor/outdoor surface treatment for various residential and commercial
premises.
Residential exposures are not expected from the proposed new uses;
however, there are existing residential uses that have been previously
assessed. Non-occupational exposures from spray drift (dermal [adults
and children] and incidental oral [children only]) are expected to be
short-term (1 to 30 days) only. Occupational (dermal and inhalation)
handler and post-application exposure is expected to be both short- and
intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) based on information provided on the
proposed labels. These uses were assessed previously, remain current,
and are not of concern (i.e., margins of exposure (MOEs) > the level of
concern (LOC)).
A quantitative non-occupational spray drift assessment was not
conducted for bifenthrin because the proposed use pattern is likely to
result in spray drift exposures (i.e., aerial, groundboom, and
airblast) that are equal to or less than those assessed in the previous
bifenthrin exposure and risk assessment conducted in support of
registration review. The previous spray drift assessment concluded that
there were no risk estimates of concern at the edge of the field for
bifenthrin based on the use patterns assessed and are protective of the
currently proposed use patterns.
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.''
The Agency is required to consider the cumulative risks of
chemicals sharing a common mechanism of toxicity. The Agency has
determined that the pyrethroids and pyrethrins share a common mechanism
of toxicity (https://www.regulations.gov; EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0489-0006).
As explained in that document, the members of this group share the
ability to interact with voltage-gated sodium channels ultimately
leading to neurotoxicity. In 2011, after establishing a common
mechanism grouping for the pyrethroids and pyrethrins, the Agency
conducted a cumulative risk assessment (CRA) which is available at
https://www.regulations.gov; EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0746. In that document,
the Agency concluded that cumulative exposures to pyrethroids (based on
pesticidal uses registered at the time the assessment was conducted)
did not present risks of concern. For information regarding EPA's
efforts to evaluate the risk of exposure to this class of chemicals,
refer to https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/pyrethrins-and-pyrethroids.
Since the 2011 CRA, for each new pyrethroid and pyrethrin use, the
Agency has conducted a screen to evaluate any potential impacts on the
CRA prior to registration of that use. A new turf use for the
pyrethroid, tau-fluvalinate, was assessed after completion of the
cumulative, which did impact the worst-case non-dietary risk estimates
identified in the 2011 CRA for the turf scenario (H. DeLeon, D450820,
16-DEC-2019). However, EPA has determined that the overall finding
(i.e., that the pyrethroid cumulative risk is below the Agency's level
of concern) would not change upon registration of this new use.
The new uses of bifenthrin proposed by IR-4 will not significantly
impact the cumulative assessment because dietary exposures make a minor
contribution to total pyrethroid exposure relative to residential
exposures in the 2011 cumulative risk assessment. Therefore, the
results of the 2011 CRA are still valid and there are no cumulative
risks
[[Page 39498]]
of concern for the pyrethroids/pyrethrins.
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 are
available to EPA to support the choice of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and Postnatal Sensitivity
Bifenthrin has been evaluated for potential developmental effects
in the rat (following gavage and dietary administration) and in the
rabbit (gavage administration). Maternal toxicity included neurological
effects (tremors in rats and rabbits; head and forelimb twitching in
rabbits). There were no developmental effects of biological
significance in either species. A DNT study was available, which
establishes a clear NOAEL for the adult and offspring toxicity. The
NOAEL in adults and offspring is similar in magnitude, and the LOAELs
are based on the clinical signs of neurotoxicity (dams had tremors and
convulsions, offspring had increased grooming counts). Based on
targeted testing in the DNT study for common endpoints for bifenthrin,
there was no increase in sensitivity in rat pups. However, the Agency
has reviewed existing pyrethroid data and concludes that the DNT is not
a particularly sensitive study for comparing the sensitivity of young
and adult animals to pyrethroids. Some literature studies indicated
susceptibility for other pyrethroids, but in context, these studies
were conducted at relatively high doses, which may not reflect
environmental exposures. The reproductive toxicity of bifenthrin was
examined in a 2-generation reproduction dietary study in the rat.
Tremors were noted only in females of both generations, with one
parental generation rat observed to have clonic convulsions, and no
observed effects in the offspring. Overall, there is no indication of
increased juvenile sensitivity specifically to bifenthrin.
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. No new information has been available since the last assessment;
therefore the Agency concludes that the default 10X FQPA safety factor
can be reduced to 1X for all populations for the pyrethroid pesticides.
More information regarding the FQPA SF can be found in the 2021 rule
(86 FR 68150) (FRL-8945-01-OCSPP).
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 bifenthrin
will occupy 12% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population
group receiving the greatest exposure. The acute aggregate risk
assessment combines exposures to bifenthrin in food and drinking water
only and is equivalent to the acute dietary assessment. There are no
acute aggregate risks estimates of concern.
2. Chronic Risk
The chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposure assessment
for bifenthrin was conducted solely for the purpose of obtaining an
average dietary exposure estimate for use in the short-term aggregate
assessment. The population subgroup with the highest chronic dietary
exposure estimate is children 1 to 2 years old (0.000123 mg/kg/day). A
chronic aggregate risk assessment was not conducted since single dose
and repeat dosing bifenthrin studies show that repeat exposures do not
result in lower PODs (i.e., there is no evidence of increasing toxicity
with an increased duration of exposure). Therefore, only acute and
short-term aggregate risk assessments are conducted for bifenthrin, and
these are protective of scenarios in which exposure occurs for longer
durations.
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). Bifenthrin is currently
registered for uses that could result in short-term residential
exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to
aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term
residential exposures to bifenthrin.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 520 for adults
(treated gardens). The short-term aggregate assessment for children 1
to less than 2 years old resulted in an MOE of 170 (high contact lawn
activities). The short-term aggregate assessment for children 6 to less
than 11 years old and children 11 to 16 years old resulted in MOEs of
1,600 (treated gardens) and 7,500 (golfing), respectively. Because
EPA's level of concern for bifenthrin is an MOE of 100 or lower, these
MOEs are not of concern.
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). While there
is potential intermediate-term residential exposure, because the single
dose and repeat dosing bifenthrin studies show that repeat exposures do
not result in lower points of departure, the residential assessments
are conducted as a series of acute exposures, and the same endpoint is
used regardless of duration. Therefore, the short-term aggregate
assessment is considered protective of any intermediate-term exposures.
5. Aggregate Cancer Risk for U.S. Population
EPA has concluded that the acute RfD will adequately account for
all repeated exposures, including carcinogenicity, which could result
from exposure to bifenthrin.
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
bifenthrin residues.
[[Page 39499]]
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with an
electron capture detector (GC/ECD) analyses for determining bifenthrin
residues in both plant and livestock commodities) 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.
EPA is establishing tolerance levels that are not harmonized with
Codex MRLs for the following commodities/subgroups: kohlrabi;
vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16, except cabbage; and
vegetable, legume, pea, edible podded, subgroup 6-22B.
For kohlrabi, vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16,
except cabbage, and vegetable, legume, pea, edible podded, subgroup 6-
22B tolerances, harmonization to the corresponding Codex MRLs is not
possible as the Codex MRLs are lower than the established tolerances
for these groups. Reducing the U.S. tolerance would put U.S. growers at
risk of having violative residues despite legal use of the pesticide
according to the label.
EPA is establishing tolerances for cottonseed subgroup 20C; milk;
milk fat; ruminant (cattle, goat, and sheep) and horse fat; ruminant
and horse meat byproducts; rapeseed subgroup 20A; vegetable, legume,
pea, succulent shelled, subgroup 6-22D; vegetable, legume, pulse, bean,
dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6-22E; and vegetable, legume,
pulse, pea, dried shelled, subgroup 6-22F that are harmonized with the
corresponding Codex MRLs.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
Several revisions to the petitioned-for tolerances are explained in
this section. Tolerance determinations were based on use of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Maximum
Residue Limit (MRL) calculation procedures for plant commodities or
anticipated residue calculations for livestock commodities.
Additionally, international harmonization and data translations were
considered where appropriate.
Following the OECD Rounding Classes, EPA is establishing a
tolerance of 0.8 ppm for fruit, citrus, group 10-10, oil rather than
the proposed tolerance of 0.75 ppm. Also, EPA is establishing the
tolerance for tropical and subtropical, palm fruit, edible peel,
subgroup 23C based on the date field trials, which differs from the
proposed tolerance. Because the decline data for date showed increasing
residues past the label-indicated preharvest interval (PHI), the
highest residue, found at the 20-day PHI, was selected for use in
tolerance determination for that trial; this resulted in a tolerance of
4 ppm, rather than the proposed tolerance of 3 ppm.
Several commodity definitions have also been updated to align with
the U.S. EPA Health Effects Division (HED) Preferred Tolerance
Vocabulary, including fennel, florence, fresh leaves and stalk; fruit,
citrus, group 10-10, oil; safflower, seed; vegetable, brassica, head
and stem, group 5-16, except cabbage; vegetable, legume, bean, edible
podded, subgroup 6-22A; vegetable, legume, bean, succulent shelled,
subgroup 6-22C; vegetable, legume, pea, edible podded, subgroup 6-22B;
vegetable, legume, pea, succulent shelled, subgroup 6-22D; vegetable,
legume, pulse, bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6-22E; and
vegetable, legume, pulse, pea, dried shelled, subgroup 6-22F.
EPA is establishing the tolerance at different levels than
requested for: kohlrabi; vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-
16, except cabbage; vegetable, legume, bean, edible podded, subgroup 6-
22A; and vegetable, legume, pea, edible podded, subgroup 6-22B, to
harmonize with the corresponding Canadian MRLs. The proposed tolerance
for kohlrabi is 0.6 ppm; EPA is establishing the tolerance at 0.9 ppm.
For crop group 5-16, the proposed tolerance is 0.6 ppm; EPA is
establishing the tolerance at 0.9 ppm. For both subgroup 6-22A and
subgroup 6-22B, the proposed tolerance is 0.6 ppm; EPA is establishing
the tolerance for both subgroups at 0.8 ppm.
Finally, EPA is increasing the tolerances for milk, milk fat,
ruminant and horse fat, and ruminant and horse meat byproducts due to
the increased dietary burden resulting from the new uses. Although
adjustments to these tolerances were not requested in the petition
submitted, EPA has stated that before establishing tolerances in raw
agricultural commodities, EPA considers the possibility of residues in
livestock commodities, e.g., meat, and meat byproducts, from animals
eating those treated commodities (40 CFR 180.6(a)). Where the data show
that there are residues in livestock feed commodities, EPA will
establish the tolerances on the raw agricultural feed item only where
the tolerances can be established on the livestock items at the same
time (40 CFR 180.6(b)). The commodity definitions for milk and milk fat
have also been separated and updated to align with the HED Preferred
Tolerance vocabulary. More information on these tolerance
determinations can be found in the document titled ``Bifenthrin. Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Section 3 Registration of Bifenthrin on
Clover (Grown For Seed); Coffee; Fuzzy Kiwifruit; Safflower; Tropical
And Subtropical Palm Fruit (Subgroup 23C); and Crop Group Expansions/
Conversions for Brassica, Head and Stem Vegetables (Group 5-16);
Kohlrabi; Succulent Peas and Beans (Subgroups 6-22A, B, C, and D);
Dried Beans and Peas (Subgroups 6-22E and F); Rapeseed (Subgroup 20A);
Cottonseed (Subgroup 20C); Leaf Petiole Vegetables (Subgroup 22B);
Celtuce; Florence Fennel; and Swiss Chard.'' in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2023-0555.
V. Conclusion
Tolerances are established for residues of bifenthrin, in or on the
following commodities: cattle, fat at 3 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at
0.2 ppm; celtuce at 3 ppm; coffee, green bean at 0.05 ppm; cottonseed
subgroup 20C at 0.5 ppm; fennel, florence, fresh leaves and stalk at 3
ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10, oil at 0.8 ppm; goat, fat at 3 ppm;
goat, meat byproducts at 0.2 ppm; horse, fat at 3 ppm; horse, meat
byproducts at 0.2 ppm; kiwifruit, fuzzy at 1.5 ppm; kohlrabi at 0.9
ppm; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 3 ppm; milk at 0.2 ppm;
milk, fat at 3 ppm; rapeseed subgroup 20A at 0.05 ppm; safflower, seed
at 0.2 ppm; sheep, fat at 3 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at
[[Page 39500]]
0.2 ppm; Swiss chard at 3 ppm; tropical and subtropical, palm fruit,
edible peel, subgroup 23C at 4 ppm; vegetable, brassica, head and stem,
group 5-16, except cabbage at 0.9 ppm; vegetable, legume, bean, edible
podded, subgroup 6-22A at 0.8 ppm; vegetable, legume, bean, succulent
shelled, subgroup 6-22C at 0.05 ppm; vegetable, legume, pea, edible
podded, subgroup 6-22B at 0.8 ppm; vegetable, legume, pea, succulent
shelled, subgroup 6-22D at 0.05 ppm; vegetable, legume, pulse, bean,
dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6-22E at 0.3 ppm; and
vegetable, legume, pulse, pea, dried shelled, subgroup 6-22F at 0.3
ppm. The following regional tolerances are established for clover,
forage at 7 ppm and clover, hay at 30 ppm.
The following tolerances are removed as unnecessary due to the
establishment of the above tolerances: brassica, head and stem,
subgroup 5A, except cabbage at 0.6 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.5
ppm; leafy petioles subgroup 4B at 3.0 ppm; milk, fat (reflecting 0.1
ppm in whole milk) at 1.0 ppm; pea and bean, dried shelled, except
soybean, subgroup 6C at 0.15 ppm; pea and bean, succulent shelled,
subgroup 6B at 0.05 ppm; rapeseed, seed at 0.05 ppm; and vegetable,
legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A at 0.6 ppm. EPA is also removing, as
a housekeeping measure, the tolerance for Groundcherry, since that
expired on June 1, 2022, and is no longer effective.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/regulations/and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it establishes or modifies a
pesticide tolerance or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408 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.
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply
because actions that establish a tolerance under FFDCA section 408 are
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because it does not contain any
information collection activities.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
Since tolerance actions 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 RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., do not apply to this
action.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more (in 1995 dollars and adjusted annually for inflation) as described
in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any
State, local, or Tribal governments or on the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will
not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because tolerance actions like this one are exempt from
review under Executive Order 12866. However, EPA's 2026 Policy on
Children's Health applies to this action. This rule finalizes tolerance
actions under the FFDCA, which 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 . .
. '' (FFDCA 408(b)(2)(C)). The Agency's consideration is summarized in
Unit III.D.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355)
(May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action does not involve technical standards that would require
Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. 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: June 26, 2026.
Charles Smith,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD
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. Amend Sec. 180.442 by revising the table in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.442 Bifenthrin; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
[[Page 39501]]
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls........................................... 2.0
Apple, wet pomace....................................... 1.5
Artichoke, globe........................................ 1.0
Avocado................................................. 0.5
Banana \1\.............................................. 0.1
Beet, garden, roots..................................... 0.45
Beet, garden, tops...................................... 15
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G..................... 3
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B.................. 4
Bushberry subgroup 13-07B............................... 1.8
Cabbage................................................. 4.0
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A............................... 1
Cattle, fat............................................. 3
Cattle, meat byproducts................................. 0.2
Cattle, meat............................................ 0.5
Celtuce................................................. 3
Coffee, green bean...................................... 0.05
Coriander, dried leaves................................. 25
Coriander, leaves....................................... 6.0
Coriander, seed......................................... 5.0
Corn, field, forage..................................... 3.0
Corn, field, grain...................................... 0.05
Corn, field, stover..................................... 5.0
Corn, pop, grain........................................ 0.05
Corn, pop, stover....................................... 5.0
Corn, sweet, forage..................................... 3.0
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed.......... 0.05
Corn, sweet, stover..................................... 5.0
Cottonseed subgroup 20C................................. 0.5
Egg..................................................... 0.05
Fennel, florence, fresh leaves and stalk................ 3
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10.............................. 0.05
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10, oil......................... 0.8
Fruit, pome, group 11-10, except mayhaw................. 0.9
Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 0.3
subgroup 13-07F........................................
Goat, fat............................................... 3
Goat, meat byproducts................................... 0.2
Goat, meat.............................................. 0.5
Grain, aspirated fractions.............................. 70
Herb subgroup 19A....................................... 0.05
Hog, fat................................................ 1.0
Hog, meat byproducts.................................... 0.10
Hog, meat............................................... 0.5
Hop, dried cones........................................ 10.0
Horse, fat.............................................. 3
Horse, meat byproducts.................................. 0.2
Horse, meat............................................. 0.5
Kiwifruit, fuzzy........................................ 1.5
Kohlrabi................................................ 0.9
Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B..................... 3
Lettuce, head........................................... 3.0
Mayhaw.................................................. 1.4
Milk.................................................... 0.2
Milk, fat............................................... 3
Nut, tree, group 14-12.................................. 0.05
Peach subgroup 12-12B................................... 0.7
Peanut.................................................. 0.05
Pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B.......................... 0.5
Pomegranate............................................. 0.5
Poultry, fat............................................ 0.05
Poultry, meat byproducts................................ 0.05
Poultry, meat........................................... 0.05
Radish, tops............................................ 4.5
Rapeseed subgroup 20A................................... 0.05
Safflower, seed......................................... 0.2
Sheep, fat.............................................. 3
Sheep, meat byproducts.................................. 0.2
Sheep, meat............................................. 0.5
Soybean, hulls.......................................... 0.50
Soybean, refined oil.................................... 0.30
Soybean, seed........................................... 0.2
Spinach................................................. 0.2
Sunflower subgroup 20B.................................. 0.05
Swiss chard............................................. 3
Tea, dried \1\.......................................... 30
Tomato subgroup 8-10A................................... 0.3
Tropical and subtropical, palm fruit, edible peel, 4
subgroup 23C...........................................
Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16, except 0.9
cabbage................................................
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9............................ 0.4
Vegetable, legume, bean, edible podded, subgroup 6-22A.. 0.8
Vegetable, legume, bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6- 0.05
22C....................................................
Vegetable, legume, pea, edible podded, subgroup 6-22B... 0.8
Vegetable, legume, pea, succulent shelled, subgroup 6- 0.05
22D....................................................
Vegetable, legume, pulse, bean, dried shelled, except 0.3
soybean, subgroup 6-22E................................
Vegetable, legume, pulse, pea, dried shelled, subgroup 6- 0.3
22F....................................................
Vegetable, root, subgroup 1B except sugar beet and 0.10
garden beet............................................
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C............... 0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
Table 2 to Paragraph (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clover, forage.......................................... 7
Clover, hay............................................. 30
Grass, forage........................................... 4.0
Grass, hay.............................................. 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-13174 Filed 6-29-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P