[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 30, 2026)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 39512-39516] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2026-13193] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0354; FRL-13239-01-OCSPP] Epyrifenacil; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of epyrifenacil (CASRN 353292-31-6) in or on corn, field (forage, grain, stover); rapeseed, seed; soybean (forage, hay, seed); wheat (forage, grain, hay, straw). Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), Valent 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 rule is effective on 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-2022-0354, is available at https://www.regulations.gov. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/. 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; 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 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. 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 docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP- 2022-0354 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 Administrative Law Judges Division (ALJD), 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 ALJD electronically, a person should utilize the ALJD e-filing system at https://yosemite.epa.gov///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 [[Page 39513]] follow the applicable instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/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 June 26, 2023 (88 FR 41395) (FRL-10841- 05-OCSPP), 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 PP2F8983) by Valent, P.O. Box 5075, San Ramon, CA 94583. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide epyrifenacil, ethyl [(3-{2-chloro-4- fluoro-5-[3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-dihydropyrimidin- 1(2H)-yl]phenoxy{time} -2-pyridyl)oxy]acetate, in or on canola, field corn, soybean, wheat at 0.01ppm. A summary of the petition prepared by Valent, the registrant, is available in the docket, ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0354, at 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 has modified several tolerances for the listed commodities for harmonization with the upcoming registrations by Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA). The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.B and IV.C. III. Final Tolerance Action A. 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 epyrifenacil including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with epyrifenacil follows. B. 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. Repeated dose oral toxicity studies with epyrifenacil are available for rats, mice, and dogs. Across durations, the mouse was the most sensitive species, followed by the rat and then the dog. Male mice were more sensitive than female mice. The target organs/tissues identified following exposure to epyrifenacil were the liver and blood. Liver effects in mice and rats included an increase in liver weights, hepatocellular hypertrophy, and degeneration/necrosis. In blood, there is a mild decrease in red blood cell parameters resulting in secondary increased erythropoiesis in the bone marrow and increased extramedullary hematopoiesis in the spleen. Hematological changes, typically of a mild and adaptive nature, occurred at doses where more observable and notable liver-related effects were seen, highlighting the liver's heightened sensitivity as the primary/target organ. In a subchronic (90-day) inhalation study in rats, adverse portal of entry effects included degenerative and inflammatory changes occurring in the upper respiratory tract (turbinates and pharynx). In a 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats, no adverse effects were observed in both sexes up to the limit dose (1000 mg/kg/day). Epyrifenacil showed no evidence of neurotoxicity in the available studies in rats. In vitro studies found no evidence of genotoxicity or mutagenicity for parent epyrifenacil or its metabolites. In the rat developmental study, adverse developmental toxicity (increased presence of supernumerary ribs in the cervical region) was observed at a higher dose than maternal toxicity. There is evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility in the two-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats. In that study, adverse parental toxicity included bile duct hyperplasia and hepatocellular necrosis in males. In the offspring, at the same dose, there was increased mortality and moribundity in F1 males, which was accompanied by clinical observations (pale and cool extremities and/or body) and reduced body weights. Additionally, adverse hematological changes in F1 males and F2 females presented as severely decreased red blood cell parameters indicative of anemia. Reproductive toxicity included delayed sexual maturation in F1 males and females. Epyrifenacil has low acute oral (Category III), dermal (Category III), and inhalation toxicity (Category IV). It is minimally irritating to the eye and skin (Category IV) and is not a skin sensitizer (see Table A.2.1 for details). In vivo studies with metabolites focused on S-3100-DP-Me, S-3100- PR, 4''-OH-S-3100-CA, S-3100-CA-RD, and S-3100-DA. Results from these dietary studies in mice included adverse liver effects and adaptive hematological effects (lower erythrocyte count, hematocrit, and hemoglobin) in both sexes at doses >=229.3 mg/kg/day. In vitro genotoxicity battery testing in S-3100-DA, S-3100-PR, S-3100-BFP, S- 3100-DP, and S-3100-CA-UR showed no evidence of genotoxicity. Overall findings from repeat dose studies conducted with metabolites concluded that they were less toxic than the parent compound. A quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis was conducted using Derek Nexus (v2.5.2, kb 2022 2.0) on the parent compound, which found no carcinogenicity/mutagenicity alerts. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by epyrifenacil 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 https://www.regulations.gov in the document ``Epyrifenacil: Human Health Risk Assessment for the Section 3 Registration of the New Herbicide Active Ingredient Epyrifenacil on Field Corn, Canola, Soybean, Wheat, Fallow Land, Bare Ground, and Non-crop Areas'' at page 21 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0354. [[Page 39514]] C. 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 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 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 https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. A summary of the toxicological endpoints for epyrifenacil used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit. D. Exposure Assessment 1. Dietary Exposure From Food and Feed Uses In evaluating dietary exposure to epyrifenacil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from epyrifenacil 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. An endpoint was identified for acute dietary exposure for the female 13-49 years old population subgroup only; therefore, no acute dietary risk assessment was performed for any other population subgroups. EPA conducted an unrefined acute dietary exposure risk assessment using recommended tolerance-level and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities. The female 13-49 years old population subgroup occupied <1% of the acute population-adjusted dose (aPAD). ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the 2005-2010 food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America. As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted an unrefined chronic dietary exposure risk assessment using recommended tolerance-level and 100 PCT for all commodities. The chronic dietary risk for the highest exposed population subgroup, all infants, utilizes 53% of the cPAD, which isbelow HED's LOC (<100% cPAD). iii. Cancer. Epyrifenacil is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans below doses that induce hepatocellular injury''. This is based on an acceptable tumorigenic MOA for liver tumors in male mice that posed no concern for mutagenicity. The cPAD is protective of potential carcinogenic effects. Therefore, a separate cancer dietary assessment was not required. iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for epyrifenacil. Tolerance level residues and/or 100% PCT were used for all food commodities. 2. Dietary Exposure From Drinking Water The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for epyrifenacil in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of epyrifenacil. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm. Based on the Pesticide in Water Calculator (version 2.001; Sept 2020), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC) of epyrifenacil for acute exposures are estimated to be 2.6 micrograms per liter ([mu]g/L) for surface water and 8.1[mu]g/L for ground water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments, EDWCs are estimated to be 1.2 [mu]g/L for surface water and 6.3 [mu]g/L for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the EDWC of 8.1 [mu]g/L was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the EDWC of 6.3 [mu]g/L 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). Epyrifenacil is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf. 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.'' Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to epyrifenacil and any other substances, and epyrifenacil does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that epyrifenacil has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. 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 (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 factor. 2. Prenatal and Postnatal Sensitivity No evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility was seen in rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies. Adverse developmental toxicity in rats (extra supernumerary ribs in the cervical region) was observed at the highest dose [[Page 39515]] tested (200 mg/kg/day), which was higher than the dose eliciting maternal toxicity. However, in the two-generation reproductive toxicity study there is evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility at 20.04/22.63 mg/kg/day (M/F) in the offspring (increased mortality and moribund animal counts seen in the post-lactation F1 males). No mortality or moribund animal counts were seen in the parental generation (F0) at the same dose as other adverse effects in the offspring. The degree of concern for these effects in infants and children is low because the PODs selected for risk assessment are protective of these effects. 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: the toxicity database is adequate to characterize potential pre- and postnatal risk for infants and children; although there were offspring and reproductive effects in the reproductive toxicity study, they occurred in the presence of parental toxicity; there were developmental effects in the developmental study in rats; however, these effects occurred at doses above maternal toxicity; there were no potential signs of neurotoxicity observed in the epyrifenacil database, including the acute neurotoxicity or subchronic neurotoxicity studies; clear NOAELs/LOAELs are established for the rat developmental and reproductive studies; and the PODs selected for risk assessment purposes are protective of the developmental and offspring effects seen in the database. 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 aPAD and 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 epyrifenacil will occupy <1% of the aPAD for females 13-49 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 epyrifenacil from food and water will utilize 53% of the cPAD for all infants, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for epyrifenacil. 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 there are no residential exposures, no short-term adverse effect was identified, therefore, epyrifenacil 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). Because no intermediate-term adverse effect was identified, epyrifenacil is not expected to pose a intermediate-term risk. 5. Aggregate Cancer Risk for U.S. Population Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, epyrifenacil 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 epyrifenacil residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methodology for plant commodities (Method RM- 52C-2b, which uses a high-performance liquid chromatography method with tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC/MS/MS), and soybean and corn oil commodities (LC/MS/MS method, Method RM-52C-1a), are 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 (MRL) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). Codex 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 an MRL for epyrifenacil. C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances Based on the submitted processing studies, no separate tolerances for residues are being established for processed commodities as the proposed tolerances for corn, soybean, and wheat raw agricultural commodities cover the processed commodities. The Agency is correcting commodity definitions for rapeseed, seed; field corn grain; and wheat grain, and is establishing tolerances in/on rapeseed, seed; field corn grain; soybean seed; and wheat grain at 0.005 ppm. The Agency determined that a tolerance for field corn hulls is not necessary as it is no longer considered a feed item. V. Conclusion Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of epyrifenacil, ethyl [(3-{2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)- 3,6-dihydropyrimidin-1(2H)-yl]phenoxy{time} -2-pyridyl)oxy]acetate, in or on corn, field (forage, grain, stover); rapeseed, seed; soybean (forage, hay, seed); wheat (forage, grain, hay, straw) at 0.005 ppm. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. [[Page 39516]] 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 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 tolerances 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. Therefore, 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. Add Sec. 180.731 to subpart C to read as follows: Sec. 180.731 Epyrifenacil; tolerances for residues. General. Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide epyrifenacil, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only epyrifenacil, ethyl 2-[[3-[2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4- (trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluorophenoxy]-2- pyridinyl]oxy]acetate in or on the commodity. Table 1 to Sec. 180.731 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Parts per Commodity million ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Corn, field, forage......................................... 0.005 Corn, field, grain.......................................... 0.005 Corn, field, stover......................................... 0.005 Rapeseed, seed.............................................. 0.005 Soybean, forage............................................. 0.005 Soybean, hay................................................ 0.005 Soybean, seed............................................... 0.005 Wheat, forage............................................... 0.005 Wheat, grain................................................ 0.005 Wheat, hay.................................................. 0.005 Wheat, straw................................................ 0.005 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [FR Doc. 2026-13193 Filed 6-29-26; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P