Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0161-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Pesticide Tolerances: Buprofezin
Posted Date: 2019-08-29T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45426-45434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18365]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0161; FRL-9997-41]

Buprofezin; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of 
buprofezin in or on multiple commodities which are identified and 
discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project No. 4 
(IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective August 29, 2019. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received

[[Page 45427]]

on or before October 28, 2019, 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-2018-0161, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory 
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency 
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public 
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP 
Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and 
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division 
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone 
number: (703) 305-7090; email address: 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 Government 
Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a 
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a 
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided 
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify 
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0161 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 
October 28, 2019. 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-2018-0161, by one of 
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand 
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the 
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along 
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 24, 2018 (83 FR 34968) (FRL-9980-
31), 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 
7E8654) by IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State 
University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, 
NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by 
establishing tolerances for residues of buprofezin, 2-(1,1-
dimethylethyl)iminotetrahydro-3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-1,3,5-
thiadiazin-4-one in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: 
Fig at 0.70 parts per million (ppm), Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, 
except head lettuce and radicchio at 35 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, 
subgroup 4-16B at 60 ppm; Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-
16 at 12.0 ppm; Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 35 ppm; Celtuce 
at 35 ppm; Fennel, Florence at 35 ppm; Kohlrabi at 12.0 ppm; Tropical 
and subtropical, small fruit, edible peel, subgroup 23A at 5.0 ppm; 
Tropical and subtropical, small fruit, inedible peel, subgroup 24A at 
0.30 ppm; Cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.35 ppm; Fruit, citrus, group 10-
10 at 2.5 ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12-12, except apricot and peach at 
2.0 ppm; Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 
13-07F at 2.5 ppm and Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.05 ppm. The petition 
also requested to remove the established tolerances for residues of 
buprofezin in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Acerola 
at 0.30 ppm; Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 12.0 ppm; 
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 60 ppm; Cotton, undelinted seed 
at 0.35 ppm; Fruit, citrus, group 10 at 2.5 ppm; Fruit, stone, group 
12, except apricot and peach at 1.9 ppm; Grape at 2.5 ppm; Longan at 
0.30 ppm; Lychee at 0.30 ppm; Nut, tree group 14 at 0.05 ppm; Olive at 
3.5 ppm; Olive, oil at 4.8 ppm; Pistachio at 0.05 ppm; Spanish lime at 
0.30 ppm; Turnip, greens at 60 ppm; Vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, 
group 4, except head lettuce and radicchio at 35 ppm; and Wax jambu at 
0.30 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared 
by Nichino America, Inc., the registrant, which is available in the 
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received on the 
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has 
modified the levels at which some of the tolerances are being 
established and has corrected some of the commodity definitions to be 
consistent with Agency nomenclature. 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.''

[[Page 45428]]

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 buprofezin including exposure 
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's 
assessment of exposures and risks associated with buprofezin 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 primary organs of buprofezin toxicity are the liver and the 
thyroid. In subchronic toxicity studies in rats, increased microscopic 
lesions in liver and thyroid, increased liver weights, and increased 
thyroid weight in males were seen. In chronic studies in the rat, an 
increased incidence of follicular cell hyperplasia and hypertrophy in 
the thyroid of males were reported. In chronic studies in the dog, 
increased relative liver weights were reported in females. Effects 
observed in a 24-day dermal toxicity study in rats included 
inflammatory infiltrate of the liver and an increase in acanthosis and 
hyperkeratosis of the skin in females. Following inhalation exposure of 
rats, the adrenal gland was the target of buprofezin toxicity (i.e., 
increased weight and microscopic findings of minimal hypertrophy of the 
cortex).
    The developmental toxicity study in the rat showed reduced 
ossification and reduced pup weight at maternally toxic doses (death, 
decreased pregnancy rates, increased resorption rates). No 
developmental toxicity was observed in the rabbit at or below 
maternally toxic dose levels. The reproductive toxicity study showed 
decreased pup body weights at dose levels where liver effects 
(increased relative and/or absolute liver weights) and decreased body 
weight gains were observed in the parental generations. In contrast, 
evidence of post-natal offspring sensitivity was observed in the 
comparative thyroid toxicity assay (CTA) study. Rat pups experienced 
decreased body weight during early lactation and increased thyroid 
stimulating hormone (TSH) levels at a dose that did not elicit toxicity 
in the dams. Higher doses were required to elicit maternal toxicity 
which included increased serum TSH concentration, decreased serum T4 
levels and histopathological findings in the thyroid (increased 
follicular cell height and follicular cell hypertrophy). Pre-natal 
sensitivity was not evident in the CTA study as fetal toxicity 
(increased thyroid weight in males and increased TSH levels in males 
and females) was observed only at maternally toxic doses.
    EPA has classified buprofezin into the category of ``Suggestive 
Evidence of Carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human 
carcinogenic potential'' based on liver tumors in female mice only. 
Buprofezin was negative in in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays. 
The Agency noted findings from the published literature indicate that 
buprofezin causes cell transformation and induces micronuclei in vitro, 
but determined that, in the absence of a positive response in an in 
vivo micronucleus assay, buprofezin may have aneugenic potential which 
is not expressed in vivo. The Agency has determined that the cRfD is 
protective for carcinogenic effects.
    Aniline is a substance that may be formed in food from buprofezin 
and its aniline-containing metabolites as a result of cooking but is 
toxicologically different from buprofezin and its other metabolites. 
EPA has classified aniline as a B2-probable human carcinogen with an 
oral cancer slope factor of 5.7 x 10-3 (mg/kg/
day)-1 which is considered very conservative for cancer 
assessment of aniline. The Agency did not identify any other oral 
endpoint.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the 
adverse effects caused by buprofezin as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Buprofezin. Human Health 
Risk Assessment for Proposed New Uses on Figs and Greenhouse-Grown 
Peppers and the Establishment of Permanent Tolerances in/on Fig and 
Tolerance Conversions to Leafy Greens, Subgroup 4-16A, Except Head 
Lettuce and Radicchio; Brassica, Leafy Greens, Subgroup 4-16B; 
Vegetable, Brassica, Head and Stem, Group 5-16; Leaf Petiole Vegetable 
Subgroup 22B; Celtuce; Florence Fennel; Kohlrabi; and Tolerance 
Expansions to All Members of Fruit, Citrus Group 10-10; Fruit, Stone, 
Group 12-12; Nut, Tree, Group 14-12; Tropical and Subtropical, Small 
Fruit, Edible Peel, Subgroup 23A; Tropical and Subtropical, Small 
Fruit, Inedible Peel, Subgroup 24A; Cottonseed Subgroup 20C; and Fruit, 
Small, Vine Climbing, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit, Subgroup 13-07F'' on 
pages 59-63 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0161.

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 http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for buprofezin and aniline 
used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

[[Page 45429]]

  Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Buprofezin and Aniline for Use in Human Health Risk
                                                   Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD for risk     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors          assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population  An acute RfD for the general population including infants and children was
 including infants and children).   not selected because the effects observed in the animal studies that could
                                    be attributed to a single day exposure were not applicable to the general
                                    population.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13 to 49    NOAEL = 200 mg/kg/    Acute RfD = 2.0 mg/  Developmental Toxicity Study--Rat.
 years of age).                     day.                  kg/day.             Developmental LOAEL = 800 mg/kg/
                                   UFA = 10x...........  aPAD = 2.0 mg/kg/     day based on reduced ossification
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 & decreased fetal body weight.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........
Chronic dietary (All populations)  LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day  Chronic RfD = 0.033  Comparative Thyroid Toxicity
                                   UFA = 3x............   mg/kg/day.           Analysis (CTA) Study--rats.
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.033 mg/kg/  Offspring LOAEL = 10.0 mg/kg/day
                                   FQPA SF = 10x (UFL).   day.                 based on significantly decreased
                                                                               pup body weight ([darr]8-13% in
                                                                               males during LD 4-10 and [darr]8-
                                                                               9% in females during LD 4-7)
                                                                               compared to controls and
                                                                               increased TSH levels on LD 4 and
                                                                               LD 21 ([uarr]23-34% in males).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer--Buprofezin (Oral, dermal,  ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human
 inhalation).                       carcinogenic potential''. The cRfD is considered protective of the cancer
                                    effects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer--Aniline (Oral, dermal,     B2--probable human carcinogen with an oral cancer slope factor of 5.7 x 10-3
 inhalation).                       (mg/kg/day)-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. NOAEL = no-
  observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose.
  UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in
  sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary 
exposure to buprofezin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing buprofezin tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.511. EPA assessed dietary exposures from buprofezin 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 buprofezin.
    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; 2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA 
assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities. Total 
residues of concern in crop commodities (i.e., buprofezin and the BF4 
Conjugate (2-(2-hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethylimino)-3-isopropyl-5-phenyl-
1,3,5-thiadiazinan-4-one) which is not detectable by data collection 
methods but which may be estimated from metabolism data) were based on 
tolerance level residues of buprofezin and available metabolism/
magnitude of the data to estimate other residues of concern. Given the 
potential for BF9 (3-isopropyl-5-phenyl-1,3,5-thiadiazinan-2,4-dione) 
and BF12 (1-isopropyl-3-phenylurea) to concentrate to a greater degree 
than buprofezin in processed commodities, Dietary Exposure Evaluation 
Model (DEEM) default processing factors were retained for all 
commodities, except for tomato paste and puree, which were reduced 
based on empirical data. Based on the submitted lemon metabolism data, 
which indicated that residues of concern are primarily found in/on the 
peel, the maximum theoretical concentration factor for peel was used to 
estimate residues of concern in citrus peel. Total residues of concern 
in meat (i.e., buprofezin and BF2 (2-tert-butylimino-5-(4-
hydroxyphenyl)-3-isopropyl-1,3,5-thiadiazinan-4-one)) and milk (i.e., 
buprofezin and BF23 (N-(4-hydroxyphenyl) acetamide)) were based on the 
feeding study data which were used to establish meat and milk 
tolerances. Based on the submitted data, which indicated a 5x 
concentration of residues into milk cream and fat and a Log 
Kow of 4.31, a default 25x concentration factor was applied 
for milk fat.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure 
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/
WWEIA (2003-2008). A partially refined chronic dietary analysis was 
conducted using the same residue estimates used for the acute dietary 
analysis and average PCT estimates when available.
    iii. Cancer. Buprofezin: Based on the data summarized in Unit 
III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate 
for assessing cancer risk to buprofezin. Cancer risk was assessed using 
the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic 
exposure.
    Aniline: EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure and 
risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on the 
weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data. If 
quantitative cancer risk assessment is appropriate, Cancer risk may be 
quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If sufficient 
information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available, a 
threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer RfD is calculated 
based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic mode of action 
data are not available, or if the mode of action data determines a 
mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope factor approach 
is utilized. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 
concluded that aniline should be classified as ``Probable human 
carcinogen'' and a linear approach has been used to quantify cancer 
risk. A refined cancer dietary analysis was conducted for this

[[Page 45430]]

assessment using percent crop treated estimates when available along 
with USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data for buprofezin. 
In addition, residues of aniline from the B4 conjugate was estimated 
using a cooking residue study.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. 
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and 
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in 
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been 
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require 
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after 
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, 
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels 
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins 
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under 
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later 
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data 
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary 
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a 
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop 
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate 
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food 
consumption in a particular area, and the exposure estimate does not 
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any 
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate 
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require 
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency estimated the PCT for registered uses as follows:
    The acute dietary exposure analyses assumed 100 PCT. Average PCT 
was used for the following crops for refinement of the chronic 
analyses: Almond 1%, apple 2.5%, apricot 10%, broccoli 5%, Brussels 
sprout 2.5%, cabbage 5%, cantaloupe 5%, cauliflower 10%, cherry 2.5%, 
cotton 1%, grapefruit 5%, grape 5%, lemon 2.5%, lettuce 10%, nectarine 
5%, olive 2.5%, orange 2.5%, peach 5%, pear 10%, pepper 2.5%, pistachio 
10%, plum/prune 5%, pomegranate 15%, pumpkin 1%, spinach 1%, squash 1%, 
strawberry 15%, tomato 1%, walnut 1%, and watermelon 2.5%. These 
average PCT data were also used to refine the cancer dietary exposure 
analysis for buprofezin-derived aniline.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States 
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service 
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and California Department of 
Pesticide Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) for the 
chemical/crop combination for the most recent 10 years. EPA uses an 
average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis and a maximum PCT for 
acute dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figures for each existing 
use is derived by combining available public and private market survey 
data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding up 
to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT 
is less than 1% or less than 2.5%. In those cases, the Agency would use 
less than 1% or less than 2.5% as the average PCT value, respectively. 
The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported 
within the most recent 10 years of available public and private market 
survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple 
of 5%, except where the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case, 
the Agency uses less than 2.5% as the maximum PCT.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening 
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk 
assessment for buprofezin in drinking water. These simulation models 
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport 
characteristics of buprofezin. Further information regarding EPA 
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be 
found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model version 5 and Variable 
Volume Water Model (PRZM5/VVWM) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground 
Water (PRZM GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations 
(EDWCs) of buprofezin for acute exposures are estimated to be 78.8 
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and for chronic exposures are 
estimated to be 19 ppb for surface water. There was no breakthrough of 
buprofezin into ground water during a 100-year simulation using the 
PRZM-GW model. Buprofezin, therefore, is not expected to be detected in 
shallow ground water. For aniline, the Agency has determined that there 
is no expectation of buprofezin-derived aniline in drinking water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly 
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk 
assessment, the water concentration value of 78.8 ppb was used to 
assess the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk 
assessment, the water concentration of value 19 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).
    Buprofezin 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.''
    In 2016, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs released a guidance 
document entitled ``Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment: Framework for 
Screening Analysis'' (https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/pesticide-cumulative-risk-assessment-framework). This document provides guidance on how to screen groups of 
pesticides for cumulative evaluation using a two-step approach 
beginning with the evaluation of available toxicological information 
and if necessary, followed by a risk-based screening approach. This 
framework supplements the existing guidance documents for establishing 
common mechanism groups (CMGs) and conducting cumulative risk 
assessments (CRA). EPA has utilized this framework for buprofezin and 
determined that the available toxicological data suggests buprofezin 
does not share a similar toxicological profile, and thus no common 
mechanism of toxicity, with other pesticides. No further cumulative 
evaluation is necessary for buprofezin.

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

[[Page 45431]]

completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA 
determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety 
will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety 
is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying 
this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10x, or uses a 
different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA 
support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Developmental toxicity 
studies in rats and rabbits and reproduction studies in rats provided 
no indication of increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits following 
in utero exposure or of rats following pre/postnatal exposure to 
buprofezin. However, a comparative thyroid study demonstrated offspring 
susceptibility, but not fetal susceptibility to buprofezin oral 
(gavage) administration. Points of departure (PODs) for risk assessment 
that are derived from this comparative thyroid study are based on the 
most sensitive endpoint of concern.
    3. Conclusion. For exposure scenarios using a NOAEL as POD (i.e., 
acute dietary exposure for females 13 to 49 years of age), EPA has 
determined that the FQPA SF which was previously retained due to data 
deficiency may be reduced to 1x. However, for assessments that use the 
comparative thyroid study to derive a POD (i.e., chronic dietary, 
incidental oral, short-term and intermediate-term dermal, and cancer), 
a FQPA SF of 10x is retained to account for the lack of a NOAEL. That 
decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for buprofezin is complete, with the 
exception of a NOAEL in the comparative thyroid study.
    ii. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in the toxicity 
database.
    iii. There was no evidence in developmental and reproductive 
toxicity studies of quantitative or qualitative sensitivity in the 
young; however, the comparative thyroid study demonstrated enhanced 
sensitivity in pups but not fetuses relative to maternal animals. A 
NOAEL could not be established for rat pups in the comparative thyroid 
study and, as a result, the 10x FQPA SF was retained to account for the 
uncertainty in the offspring sensitivity introduced by the lack of a 
NOAEL.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure 
databases. The dietary food exposure assessment uses conservative 
assumptions which result in protective estimates of dietary exposure. 
The dietary drinking water assessment uses values generated by models 
and associated modeling parameters which are designed to provide 
protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations. These 
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by 
buprofezin.

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 buprofezin will occupy 4.8% of the aPAD at the 95th percentile of 
exposure for females 13 to 49 years old, the only population group of 
concern.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to 
buprofezin from food and water will utilize 51% of the cPAD for 
children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest 
exposure.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term 
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term 
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water 
(considered to be a background exposure level). Short- and 
intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however, buprofezin 
is not registered for any use patterns that would result in either 
short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and 
intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and intermediate-
term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there 
is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic 
dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately 
protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to 
assess short- 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 risk for buprofezin.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Buprofezin: As 
explained in Unit III.A., the Agency has determined that the 
quantification of risk using a non-linear (i.e., RfD) approach will 
adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, 
that could result from exposure to buprofezin. Therefore, based on the 
results of the chronic risk assessment discussed in Unit III.E.2., 
buprofezin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    Aniline: A highly refined cancer dietary exposure and risk 
assessment for buprofezin-derived aniline residues was conducted for 
cooked foods only using an oral cancer slope factor of 5.7 x 
10-3 (mg/kg/day)-1 for aniline. Average residues 
of buprofezin and its aniline-containing metabolites in/on foods prior 
to cooking were estimated using (1) monitoring data for uncooked raw 
agricultural commodities (RACs) provided by USDA PDP, where available, 
(2) an additional factor based on metabolism data (1.8x) to estimate 
aniline-containing metabolites, where needed, and (3) average 
buprofezin PCT data where available. A conversion factor of 18.9%, the 
highest found in the hydrolysis study, was applied to estimate residues 
of buprofezin-derived aniline which may form in food as a result of 
cooking. Only cooked food forms were included in the dietary analysis. 
The highly refined estimated exposure of the highest exposed adult 
population (adults 20 to 49 years old) to buprofezin-derived aniline is 
0.000053 mg/kg/day which results in an upper bound cancer risk estimate 
of 3 x 10-7 and is below the Agency's level of concern.
    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 buprofezin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methods are available in Pesticide Analytical 
Manual Volume I (PAM I) and PAM II for enforcement of buprofezin 
tolerances, including gas chromatography (GC) methods with nitrogen 
phosphorus detection (GC/NPD), and a GC/mass spectrometry (MS) method 
for confirmation of buprofezin residues in plant commodities. The 
validated limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.05 ppm.

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

[[Page 45432]]

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.
    No Codex MRLs have been established for residues of buprofezin in/
on fig.
    Codex has established several MRLs for residues of buprofezin in/on 
other raw agricultural commodities (RACs) included in this petition, 
including cherries, plums, grapes, almonds, and table olives, which are 
harmonized with the U.S. tolerances being established in this action. 
Additionally, Codex has an established MRL on dried grapes (including 
currants, raisins, and sultanas), which is harmonized with the U.S. 
tolerance being established for grape, raisin. Codex has also 
established a more restrictive MRL in/on citrus fruits which is too low 
to harmonize with U.S. tolerances due to significant differences in 
good agricultural practices (GAP).

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The tolerances being established by the Agency differ from the 
requested tolerances as follows:
    All trailing zeroes have been removed from petitioned-for 
tolerances in accordance with Agency policy.
    The following requested commodity definitions have been revised to 
be consistent with Agency nomenclature: Florence fennel is changed to 
fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk; and vegetable, brassica, head 
and stem, group 5-16 is changed to vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, 
group 5-16.
    The petitioned-for tolerance in/on the fruit, stone, group 12-12, 
except apricot and peach at 2.0 ppm which is based on cherry and plum 
data has been revised to fruit, stone, group 12-12, except nectarine 
and peach at 2 ppm. The petitioned-for stone fruit crop group 
conversion from group 12 to 12-12 has resulted in a change of the 
representative commodity for apricot from peach to plum; hence, the 
petitioned-for tolerance was revised to remove the exclusion for 
apricot and the established tolerance in/on apricot (9.0 ppm) is 
removed as inappropriate, thus lowering the tolerance level for apricot 
from 9.0 ppm to the appropriate tolerance level of 2 ppm. Nectarine was 
added to the tolerance exclusion since the higher established tolerance 
in/on peach (9.0 ppm) also covers residues in/on nectarine (40 CFR 
180.1(g)). This does not represent a tolerance level change for 
nectarine.
    The petitioned-for tolerance in/on the citrus crop group 10-10 has 
been revised from 2.5 ppm to 4 ppm. The tolerance level has been 
increased to harmonize with the Canadian MRL for citrus fruit 
commodities. The Canadian MRL was determined using U.S. orange data and 
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 
calculation procedures, while the established U.S. tolerance was 
determined with older tolerance calculation procedures, including the 
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) spreadsheet.
    The petitioned-for tolerance in/on the fruit, small, vine climbing, 
except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F has been revised from 2.5 ppm 
to 1 ppm to harmonize with the currently established Codex and Canada 
MRLs in/on grapes.
    A tolerance of 2 ppm in/on grape, raisin has been be added due to 
the crop group expansion and lowering of the currently established 
tolerance in/on grape (2.5 ppm) to the fruit, small, vine climbing, 
except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F (1 ppm).
    The petitioned-for tolerance in/on leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, 
except head lettuce and radicchio at 35 ppm is changed to leafy greens 
subgroup 4-16A at 35 ppm. The tolerances in/on head lettuce and 
radicchio are covered by the crop subgroup 4-16A tolerance and are 
being increased to 35 ppm to harmonize with the Canadian MRLs for head 
lettuce and radicchio. Currently established separate tolerances in/on 
head lettuce and radicchio at 6.0 ppm are being removed as unnecessary.

D. International Trade Considerations

    In this final rule, EPA is reducing the existing tolerances for the 
commodities of apricot from 9 ppm to 2 ppm and of grape from 2.5 ppm to 
1 ppm. The Agency is reducing the tolerances since data indicate the 
higher tolerance is no longer needed to cover residues from approved 
domestic uses and in order to harmonize the tolerance in/on grapes with 
Codex and Canadian MRLs.
    In accordance with the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, EPA intends to notify the 
WTO of this revision in order to satisfy its obligation. In addition, 
the SPS Agreement requires that Members provide a ``reasonable 
interval'' between the publication of a regulation subject to the 
Agreement and its entry into force to allow time for producers in 
exporting Member countries to adapt to the new requirement. At this 
time, EPA is establishing an expiration date for the existing 
tolerances to allow those tolerances to remain in effect for a period 
of six months after the effective date of this final rule, in order to 
address this requirement. After the six-month period expires, residues 
of buprofezin on apricot and grape cannot exceed the new tolerance 
levels established in this rulemaking.
    This reduction in tolerance levels is not discriminatory; the same 
food safety standard contained in the FFDCA applies equally to 
domestically produced and imported foods. The new tolerance levels are 
supported by available residue data.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of buprofezin in 
or on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 60 ppm; celtuce at 35 
ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.35 ppm; fennel, Florence, fresh 
leaves and stalk at 35 ppm; fig at 0.7 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 
at 4 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 
13-07F at 1 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12, except nectarine and peach 
at 2 ppm; grape, raisin at 2 ppm; kohlrabi at 12 ppm; leaf petiole 
vegetable subgroup 22B at 35 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4-16A at 35 
ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.05 ppm; tropical and subtropical, 
small fruit, edible peel, subgroup 23A at 5 ppm; tropical and 
subtropical, small fruit, inedible peel, subgroup 24A at 0.3 ppm; and 
vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 12 ppm.
    Additionally, the existing tolerances on the following commodities 
are removed as unnecessary due to the establishment of the above 
tolerances: Acerola; Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A; Brassica, 
leafy greens, subgroup 5B; cotton, undelinted seed; fruit, citrus, 
group 10; fruit, stone, group 12, except apricot and peach; lettuce, 
head; longan; lychee; nut, tree group 14; olive; olive, oil; pistachio; 
radicchio; Spanish lime; turnip, greens; vegetable, leafy, except 
Brassica, group 4, except head lettuce and radicchio; and wax jambu. 
Finally, expiration dates are added to the existing tolerances for 
apricot and grape.

[[Page 45433]]

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), nor is it considered a 
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing 
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3, 
2017). 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 tolerances 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: August 16, 2019.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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. In Sec.  180.511, amend the table in paragraph (a) as follows:
0
a. Remove the entry for ``Acerola'';
0
b. Revise the entry for ``Apricot'';
0
c. Remove the entries for ``Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A'' and 
``Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B'';
0
d. Add alphabetically the entries for ``Brassica, leafy greens, 
subgroup 4-16B'' and ``Celtuce'';
0
e. Remove the entry for ``Cotton, undelinted seed'';
0
f. Add alphabetically the entries for ``Cottonseed subgroup 20C''; 
``Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk''; ``Fig''; and ``Fruit, 
citrus, group 10-10'';
0
g. Remove the entry for ``Fruit, citrus, group 10'';
0
h. Add alphabetically the entries for ``Fruit, small, vine climbing, 
except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F'' and ``Fruit, stone, group 12-
12, except nectarine and peach'';
0
i. Remove the entry for ``Fruit, stone, group 12, except apricot and 
peach'';
0
j. Revise the entry for ``Grape'';
0
k. Add alphabetically the entries for ``Grape, raisin''; ``Kohlrabi''; 
``Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B''; and ``Leafy greens subgroup 4-
16A'';
0
l. Remove the entries for ``Lettuce, head''; ``Longan''; ``Lychee''; 
and ``Nut, tree group 14'';
0
m. Add alphabetically the entry for ``Nut, tree, group 14-12'';
0
n. Remove the entries for ``Olive''; ``Olive, oil''; ``Pistachio''; 
``Radicchio''; and ``Spanish lime'';
0
o. Add alphabetically the entries for ``Tropical and subtropical, small 
fruit, edible peel, subgroup 23A'' and ``Tropical and subtropical, 
small fruit, inedible peel, subgroup 24A'';
0
p. Remove the entry for ``Turnip, greens'';
0
q. Add alphabetically the entry for ``Vegetable, Brassica, head and 
stem, group 5-16'';
0
 r. Remove the entries for ``Vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 
4, except head lettuce and radicchio'' and ``Wax jambu''; and
0
s. Add footnote 3.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.511  Buprofezin; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
Apricot \3\.................................................         9.0
 
                                * * * * *
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B......................          60
 
                                * * * * *
Celtuce.....................................................          35
 
                                * * * * *
Cottonseed subgroup 20C.....................................        0.35
 
                                * * * * *
Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk....................          35
Fig.........................................................         0.7
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10..................................           4
 
                                * * * * *
Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,                   1
 subgroup 13-07F............................................
Fruit, stone, group 12-12, except nectarine and peach.......           2
 
                                * * * * *
Grape \3\...................................................         2.5
Grape, raisin...............................................           2

[[Page 45434]]

 
 
                                * * * * *
Kohlrabi....................................................          12
Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B.........................          35
Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A.................................          35
 
                                * * * * *
Nut, tree, group 14-12......................................        0.05
 
                                * * * * *
Tropical and subtropical, small fruit, edible peel, subgroup           5
 23A........................................................
Tropical and subtropical, small fruit, inedible peel,                0.3
 subgroup 24A...............................................
Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16..............          12
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * * * * *
 \3\ This tolerance expires on March 2, 2020.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-18365 Filed 8-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P