Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0134; FRL-11402-01-OCSPP]
 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Final rule.
 SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of linuron in or on alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay. Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
 DATES: This regulation is effective January 23, 2024. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before March 25, 2024, 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-2022-0134, is available at 
                        *https://www.regulations.gov*
                         or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room and OPP Docket is (202) 566-1744. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket 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: 
                        *RDFRNotices@epa.gov.*


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include: Crop production (NAICS code 111).
                Animal production (NAICS code 112).
                Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
                Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). B. How can I get electronic access to other related information? You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     Office's e-CFR site at 
                    *https://www.ecfr.gov/​current/​title-40.* C. How can I file an objection or hearing request? Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0134 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 March 
                    ( print page 4197)
                    25, 2024. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b). In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0134, by one of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal: 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.
                *Mail:*
                     OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
                *Hand Delivery:*
                     To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at 
                    *https://www.epa.gov/​dockets.* Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at 
                    *https://www.epa.gov/​dockets.* II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance In the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     of March 22, 2022 (87 FR 16133) (FRL-9410-11-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 1F8972) by Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., 2910 N 44th Street, Suite 100, Phoenix, AZ 85018. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.184 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide linuron, in or on alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay at 1.0 and 3.0 parts per million (ppm), respectively. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., the registrant, which is available in the docket, 
                    *https://www.regulations.gov.*
                     Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FDCA 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 linuron including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with linuron follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The toxicological database for linuron is robust and the data requirements are satisfied. With repeated oral dosing in test animals, linuron produces three primary effects: (1) changes in the hematopoietic system in dogs, rats, and mice; (2) changes in the male reproductive system in developing rats; and (3) decreases in T3
                     and T4
                     levels detected in Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) Tier 1 screening assays in rats. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by linuron 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 document 
                    *Linuron. Human Health Risk Assessment for a New Use on Alfalfa*
                     hereinafter “Linuron Human Health Risk Assessment” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0134. B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some 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 linuron used for human risk assessment is shown in the Linuron Human Health Risk Assessment on pages 16-17. C. Exposure Assessment 1. 
                    *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses.*
                     In evaluating dietary exposure to linuron, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing linuron tolerances in 40 CFR 180.184. EPA assessed dietary exposures from linuron 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 linuron. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 
                    ( print page 4198)
                    tolerance-level residues, 100% crop treated (PCT) and incorporated empirical processing factors and default processing factors. ii. 
                    *Chronic exposure.*
                     In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues, average PCT, and incorporated empirical processing factors and default processing factors. The chronic dietary analysis incorporated average PCT data for asparagus (15%), carrots (85%), celery (20%), corn (≤1.0%), cotton (≤1.0%), dry beans/peas (≤1.0%), potatoes (10%), grain sorghum (≤1.0%), soybeans (≤1.0%), and wheat (≤1.0%). iii. 
                    *Cancer.*
                     Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that linuron does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary. iv. 
                    *Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.*
                     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. In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The 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 6 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 available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which linuron 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 linuron in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of linuron. 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 Water Calculator (PWC), a graphical user interface that runs the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM, v 5, November 15, 2006), PRZM-GW, and the Variable Volume Water Body Model (VVWM, 3/6/2014), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of linuron for acute exposures are estimated to be 65 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 40 ppb for ground water, and those for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 47 ppb for surface water and 37 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 65 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 47 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. 3. 
                    *From non-dietary exposure.*
                     The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (
                    *e.g.,*
                     for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Linuron is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure. 4. 
                    *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity.*
                     Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” EPA has not found linuron to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and linuron does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that linuron does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at 
                    *https://www.epa.gov/​pesticides/​cumulative.* D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. 
                    *In general.*
                     Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act (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.
                    ( print page 4199) EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings: i. The toxicity database for linuron is considered adequate. The requirement for the comparative thyroid assay that was required as part of the EDSP to evaluate the potential for increased sensitivity in the young was waived. As a result, the FQPA SF of 10X for linuron has been removed for all exposure routes and durations. ii. Although findings were observed in the acute neurotoxicity study, the concern for neurotoxicity is low since: (1) a clear NOAEL was established and is 5-fold lower than the dose causing potential neurotoxic effects; (2) the selected endpoints for risk assessment are protective of the observed neurotoxicity; (3) no corroborative neuropathology was associated at the LOAEL or higher dose in the acute neurotoxicity study; and (4) there were no other neurotoxic-like effects observed in the linuron database indicating the nervous system is not the most sensitive for linuron. iii. There is evidence of quantitative susceptibility in the two-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats and developmental effects, but not susceptibility, in the rat and rabbit developmental studies; however, concern is low since there are clear NOAELs established for the developmental and offspring effects and the selected endpoints are protective of these effects. iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary (food) exposure assessment utilized conservative upper-bound inputs including assuming 100% of the registered crops treated, and tolerance-level residues for all commodities. The chronic dietary exposure assessment was partially refined, used tolerance-level residues for all commodities and average PCT estimates when available. The drinking water assessment utilized water concentration values generated by models and associated modeling parameters which are designed to produce conservative, health protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations which are not likely to be exceeded. The dietary (food and drinking water) exposure assessment does not underestimate the potential exposure for infants, children, or women of childbearing age. No residential uses are proposed or registered for linuron at this time, so no residential exposure assessment was conducted. 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 linuron will occupy 9.5% of the aPAD for infants, 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 linuron from food and water will utilize 84% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for linuron. 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). A short-term adverse effect was identified; however, linuron is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential exposure. Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for linuron. 4. 
                    *Intermediate-term risk.*
                     Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, linuron is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for linuron. 5. 
                    *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population.*
                     Linuron is considered a Group C carcinogen requiring no quantification of human cancer risk. 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 linuron residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methods are available for the determination of linuron residues of concern in/on plant and livestock tissues. The current enforcement methods determine linuron and all metabolites hydrolyzable to 3,4-dichloroaniline (3,4-DCA). 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: 
                    *residuemethods@epa.gov.* B. International Residue Limits In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not established a MRL for linuron.
                    ( print page 4200) C. Response to Comments EPA received one comment to the notice of filing from March 22, 2022, which opposed the use of linuron on any food. The commenter expressed a general opposition to the use of “toxic chemicals” on food. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that certain pesticide chemicals should not be permitted in our food. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA states that tolerances may be set when the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. The Agency is required by section 408 of the FFDCA to estimate the risk of the potential exposure to these residues. EPA has concluded, based on data submitted in support of the petition and other reliable data, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate human exposure to linuron residues from use on alfalfa. Testing requirements for pesticide tolerances have been specified by rulemaking after allowing for notice and comment by the public and peer review by appropriate scientific bodies. See 40 CFR part 158 for further information. V. Conclusion Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of linuron in or on alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay at 1 and 3 ppm. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 
                    *et seq.*), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 
                    *et seq.*), do not apply. This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 
                    *et seq.*). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). VII. Congressional Review Act Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 
                    *et seq.*), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection
Administrative practice and procedure
Agricultural commodities
Pesticides and pests
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
 Dated: November 7, 2023. Charles Smith, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
 Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows: PART 180—TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD
 1.The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:
                        21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2.In § 180.184, amend the table in paragraph (a) by: a.Adding a heading for the table; and b.Adding in alphabetical order the entries “Alfalfa, forage” and “Alfalfa, hay”. The additions read as follows: § 180.184
  (a) * * * Table 1 to Paragraph (
                                a
                                )
Commodity
Parts per 
                                     millionAlfalfa, forage
1Alfalfa, hay
3*    *    *    *    *


[FR Doc. 2024-01109 Filed 1-22-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P