Skip to main content
Rule2026-19884

Sodium Salt of Acifluorfen; Pesticide Tolerance

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published
September 29, 2026
Effective
September 29, 2026

Issuing agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of sodium salt of acifluorfen in or on sugar beet. UPL NA, Inc. requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 187 (Tuesday, September 29, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 29, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61324-61328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19884]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0363; FRL-13147-01-OCSPP]


Sodium Salt of Acifluorfen; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of sodium 
salt of acifluorfen in or on sugar beet. UPL NA, Inc. requested this 
tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 29, 2026. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 30, 2026, 
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-2024-0363, is available online at 
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Additional information about dockets 
generally, along with instructions for visiting the docket in person, 
is available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f2a0b6b4a0bc9d869b919781b2978293dc959d84"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="51031517031f3e2538323422113421307f363e27">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

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:
    <bullet> Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    <bullet> Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    <bullet> Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    <bullet> 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 Office of the 
Federal Register's e-CFR site at <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40">https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40</a>.

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. 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-2024-0363 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 November 30, 2026. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of 
objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    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 ``Revised Order Urging Electronic Filing and 
Service,'' dated June 22, 2023, which can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-06/2023-06-22%20-%20revised%20order%20urging%20electronic%20filing%20and%20service.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-06/2023-06-22%20-%20revised%20order%20urging%20electronic%20filing%20and%20service.pdf</a>. 
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 <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/EAB/EAB-ALJ_Upload.nsf/HomePage?ReadForm">https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/EAB/EAB-ALJ_Upload.nsf/HomePage?ReadForm</a>.
    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-2024-0363, by one of 
the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 
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.
    <bullet> Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 
20460-0001.

[[Page 61325]]

    <bullet> Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand 
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the 
instructions at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along 
with more information about dockets generally, is available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 27, 2024 (89 FR 68571) (FRL-
11682-07-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 4F9117) by UPL NA, Inc., P.O. Box 12219, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27709-2219). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.383 be 
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide 
acifluorfen in or on sugar beet roots and sugar beet tops at 0.06 parts 
per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition 
prepared by the petitioner, which is available in the docket. There 
were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition and in 
accordance with its authority under FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA 
is modifying the tolerance expression and is not establishing proposed-
for tolerance in/on sugar beet tops. EPA is also removing the 
established Section 18 emergency exemption tolerances under 40 CFR 
180.383(b) in or on sugar beet, root and sugar beet, leaf at 0.1 ppm. 
The reasons 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 therein, 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 sodium salt of acifluorfen including exposure 
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's 
assessment of exposures and risks associated with sodium salt of 
acifluorfen follows.
    In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal 
Register, EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been 
previously published for tolerance rulemakings for the same pesticide 
chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical 
remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between 
tolerance rulemakings, and EPA considers referral back to those 
sections as sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA 
considered in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.
    EPA has previously published tolerance rulemakings for sodium salt 
of acifluorfen in which EPA concluded, based on the available 
information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would 
result from aggregate exposure to sodium salt of acifluorfen and 
established tolerances for residues of that chemical. EPA is 
incorporating previously published sections from these rulemakings as 
described further in this rulemaking, as they remain unchanged.

A. Toxicological Profile

    For a discussion of the toxicological profile of sodium salt of 
acifluorfen, see Unit III.A. of the final rule published in the Federal 
Register of July 27, 2023 (88 FR 48383) (FRL-11130-01-OCSPP).

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 (LOCs) 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 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 <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides">http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides</a>.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints and points of departure 
for sodium salt of acifluorfen used for human health risk assessment 
can be found in the document, ``Sodium Acifluorfen: Human Health Risk 
Assessment for Proposed Uses and Tolerances on Sugar Beets'' in docket 
ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0363.

C. Exposure Assessment

    For a summary of the assumptions used in assessing exposure of 
sodium salt of acifluorfen, see Unit III.C. of the July 27, 2023 final 
rule.
    1. Dietary exposure. In the July 27, 2023 final rule, EPA assessed 
acute and chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposures to sodium 
salt of acifluorfen from all existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.383, 
including for sugar beet commodities which had higher time-limited 
tolerance levels (0.1 ppm) than the petitioned-for tolerances (0.06 
ppm) in this action. Therefore, no new dietary analyses including 
drinking water were needed.
    2. From non-dietary exposure. Sodium salt of acifluorfen is not 
registered or proposed for any uses that would result in residential 
exposure; therefore, direct exposure in residential settings are not 
expected for adults and children.
    3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of 
toxicity. EPA has not found sodium salt of acifluorfen to share a 
common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and it does not 
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For 
the purposes of this tolerance action, EPA has assumed that sodium salt 
of acifluorfen does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other 
substances.

[[Page 61326]]

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) 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. There is evidence of 
increased susceptibility following in utero exposure to sodium salt of 
acifluorfen in the Sprague Dawley rat developmental toxicity study. 
However, there is low concern for developmental toxicity because the 
effects are well characterized with clear no-observed-adverse-effect 
level (NOAEL) and lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) values 
and the chosen POD for risk assessment for each scenario are protective 
of these effects.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that the 
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the 
FQPA SF were reduced from 10X to 1X. That decision is based on the 
following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for sodium salt of acifluorfen is 
complete.
    ii. The weight of evidence (WOE) suggests that sodium salt of 
acifluorfen is not neurotoxic. This conclusion is based on the 
following: (1) indications of treatment-related toxicity in the acute 
neurotoxicity study (ACN) are well-characterized, and the decreased 
motor activity observed could be an indication of systemic toxicity 
from the bolus dose; (2) the slight effect observed in fetuses in a 
developmental toxicity study with Sprague-Dawley rats (dilated brain 
ventricles) were not reproduced in another developmental toxicity study 
with Wistar rats nor in developmental toxicity studies with rabbits; 
and (3) there was no indication of treatment-related neurotoxicity 
observed in any studies for structurally-related chemicals (fomesafen, 
lactofen, and oxyfluorfen), except for decreased motor activity in an 
acute neurotoxicity study with fomesafen at the same dose where general 
systemic toxicity (body weight loss) was observed.
    iii. There is evidence that sodium salt of acifluorfen results in 
increased susceptibility following exposure in utero rats in the 
Sprague Dawley rat prenatal developmental study. However, there is low 
concern for developmental toxicity because effects are well 
characterized with clear NOAEL/LOAEL values and the chosen PODs for 
risk assessment for each scenario are protective of these effects.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure 
database. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 
100% crop treated assumptions and tolerance-level residues. EPA made 
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water 
modeling used to assess exposure to sodium salt of acifluorfen in 
drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure 
and risks posed by sodium salt of acifluorfen.

E. Aggregate Risk and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide 
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the 
acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and the chronic population 
adjusted dose (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, EPA has concluded that the acute dietary 
exposure to sodium salt of acifluorfen from food and drinking water 
will occupy less than 1% of the aPAD for the general U.S. population 
and all population subgroups. A separate point of departure was 
selected for females 13-49 years old and the risk estimate was 3.9% of 
the aPAD for females 13-49 years old, the population subgroups 
receiving the greatest exposures. There are no residential uses of 
sodium salt of acifluorfen; therefore, the acute aggregate risk is 
equivalent to acute dietary risk estimates, which are below EPA's LOC 
(<100% of aPAD) and not of concern.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic dietary 
exposure to sodium salt of acifluorfen from food and drinking water 
will occupy 87% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1 year old, the 
population subgroup receiving the greatest exposure. There are no 
residential uses of sodium salt of acifluorfen; therefore, the chronic 
aggregate risk is equivalent to the chronic dietary risk estimate, 
which is below EPA's LOC (<100% cPAD) and not of concern.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risks. Short- and intermediate-term 
aggregate exposures take into account short- (1 to 30 days) and 
intermediate-term (30 days to 6 months) residential exposures plus 
chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background 
exposure level). Short- and intermediate-term adverse effects were 
identified; however, sodium salt of acifluorfen is not registered for 
any use patterns that would result in short- or intermediate-term 
residential exposures. 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- or intermediate-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 risks for sodium salt of acifluorfen.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Sodium salt of 
acifluorfen is classified as, ``likely to be carcinogenic to humans at 
high enough doses to cause the biochemical and histopathological 
changes in livers of rodents, but unlikely to be carcinogenic at doses 
below those causing these changes.'' EPA determined that the non-linear 
reference dose (RfD) approach will be protective for chronic effects, 
including carcinogenicity. Because the chronic risk is below EPA's 
level of concern, sodium salt of acifluorfen 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 sodium salt of acifluorfen residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methods are available to enforce the 
tolerances of sodium salt of acifluorfen. The Pesticide Analytical 
Manual (PAM) Volume II lists Method I, a gas chromatography-electron 
capture detector (GC-ECD)

[[Page 61327]]

method for the determination of sodium salt of acifluorfen in plant 
commodities. Identifications are confirmed by Method A, a gas 
chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) method.

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). Codex has not established any MRLs for sodium salt 
of acifluorfen.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    The proposed tolerance for the commodity ``sugar beet, tops'' is 
not needed since it is not considered a significant feed item. This is 
based on the ``revisions of Feedstuffs in Table 1 OPPTS 860.1000 (June 
2008)''. EPA is also revising the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 
180.383(a) to General. Tolerances are established for residues of the 
herbicide sodium acifluorfen (sodium 5-[2-chloro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoate), 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 the sum of acifluorfen acid (5-[2-chloro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid), acifluorfen methyl 
ester (methyl 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoate), 
acifluorfen amine, (5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-
aminobenzoic acid), and acifluorfen amine methyl ester(methyl 5-[2-
chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-aminobenzoate), calculated as the 
stoichiometric equivalent of acifluorfen acid, in or on the commodities 
based on current guidance on tolerance expressions.
    Additionally, in the Federal Register of March 31, 2022 (87 FR 
18717) (FRL-9657-01-OCSPP), EPA established time-limited tolerances for 
residues of sodium salt of acifluorfen in or on beet, sugar, leaves and 
beet, sugar, roots at 0.1 ppm, which expired on December 31, 2024. In 
the Federal Register of October 25, 2024 (89 FR 85067) (FRL-12300-01-
OCSPP), EPA extended the time-limited tolerances for the above 
commodities until December 31, 2027. EPA is therefore removing the 
established tolerances for Section 18 emergency exemption tolerances 
under 40 CFR 180.383(b) in or on sugar beet, root and sugar beet, leaf 
at 0.1 ppm.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of sodium salt 
of acifluorfen in or on ``beet, sugar, roots'' at 0.06 ppm. In 
addition, EPA is removing the established Section 18 emergency 
exemption tolerances under 40 CFR 180.383(b) in or on sugar beet, root 
and sugar beet, leaf at 0.1 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.

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. 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.

C. 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.

D. 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.

E. 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.

F. 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.

G. 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.

H. 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.

I. 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.

J. 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.

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


[[Page 61328]]


    Dated: September 24, 2026.
Charles Smith,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR 
chapter I 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.  180.383 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a):
0
i. Revising the introductory text; and
0
ii. In table 1 to paragraph (a), adding in alphabetical order the entry 
``Beet, sugar, roots''; and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  180.383  Sodium salt of acifluorfen; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the 
herbicide sodium acifluorfen (sodium 5-[2-chloro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoate), including its metabolites 
and degradates, in or on the commodities in the following table. 
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following table 
is to be determined by measuring only the sum of acifluorfen acid (5-
[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid), acifluorfen 
methyl ester(methyl 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-
nitrobenzoate), acifluorfen amine, (5-[2-chloro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-aminobenzoic acid), and acifluorfen amine 
methyl ester(methyl 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-
aminobenzoate), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of 
acifluorfen acid, in or on the commodities.

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beet, sugar, roots.........................................        0.06
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2026-19884 Filed 9-28-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Indexed from Federal Register on September 29, 2026.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.