[Federal Register: September 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 180)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53201-53202]
[DOCID:fr18se07-25]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28649; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-10]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Wheatland, WY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at
Wheatland, WY. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to
accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP)
at Phifer Airfield. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the
safety and management of aircraft operations at Phifer Airfield,
Wheatland, WY.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-
28649; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-10, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Area Office, System Support Group, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2007-28649 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-10) and be submitted in
triplicate to Docket Operations (see

ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit
comments through the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2007-28649 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-10''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM's

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov.

or the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Area, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at
Wheatland, WY. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to
accommodate aircraft using the new RNAV (GPS) SIAP at Wheatland Phifer
Airfield. This action would enhance the safety and management of
aircraft operations at Phifer Airfield, Wheatland, WY.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15,
2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended].

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order
7400.9P, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1,
2006, and effective September 15, 2006 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM WY E5 Wheatland, WY [New]

Wheatland, Phifer Airfield, WY
    (Lat. 43[deg]03 20 N., long. 104[deg]55 43 W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9-mile radius of Phifer Airfield, WY and within 4 miles
north and 4 miles south of the Phifer Airfield, WY 080[deg] radial
extending from the 9-mile radius to 12.90 miles east of the Phifer
Airfield, WY.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 20, 2007.
Clark Desing,
Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Area.
 [FR Doc. E7-18332 Filed 9-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 205 (Monday, October 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73091-73092]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25648]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-30-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Keyspan to
BUG 792110 to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-31-000.
    Applicants: Questar Overthrust Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Off-System Services to be
effective 11/17/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-32-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: MGAG Mini Expansion Filing to
be effective 12/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-33-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Equitrans' Clean-Up Filing--
October 2016 to be effective 11/17/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20161017-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-34-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10/18/16 Negotiated Rates--
Consolidated Edison Energy Inc. (RTS) 2275-09 to be effective 11/1/
2016.
    Filed Date: 10/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20161018-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-35-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 10/18/16 Negotiated Rates--
Wells Fargo Commodities, LLC (RTS) 7810-02 to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20161018-5036.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/31/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 18, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25648 Filed 10-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


March 31, 2003 1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR AN INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST ( ICR)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a). Title of the Information Collection Title: Tolerance Petitions for Pesticides on Food/ Feed Crops and New Inert Ingredients EPA ICR No. 0597.08 OMB Control No. 2070 0024 1( b). Short Characterization/ Abstract The use of pesticides to increase crop production often results in pesticide residues in or on the crop. To protect the public health from unsafe pesticide residues, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) sets limits on the nature and level of residues permitted pursuant to section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA)( Attachment A). A pesticide may not be used on food or feed crops unless the Agency has established a tolerance ( maximum residue limit) for the pesticide residues on that crop, or established an exemption from the requirement to have a tolerance.

It is EPA's responsibility to ensure that the maximum residue levels likely to be found in or on food/ feed are safe for human consumption through a careful review and evaluation of residue chemistry and toxicology data. In addition it must ensure that adequate enforcement of the tolerance can be achieved through the testing of submitted analytical methods. Once the data are deemed adequate to support the findings, EPA will establish the tolerance or grant an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

There are basically three types of tolerance actions:

( 1). Permanent tolerance ( or an exemption from the requirement for a permanent tolerance) for residues which would result from a pesticide use registered under FIFRA. These tolerances can be established for raw and processed foods and they can address both active and inert ingredients in pesticides. The vast majority of these actions are taken in response to petitions, but the Agency may also initiate such actions. As indicated previously, this ICR only applies to the information collection activities associated with tolerance petitions, not Agency initiated actions.

( 2). Temporary tolerance ( or an exemption from the requirement for a temporary tolerance) to permit the sale of commodities containing residues resulting from authorized experimental use of an unregistered pesticide. In the absence of such a tolerance or exemption, all such commodities must be destroyed. In submitting an application for Experimental Use Permit ( EUP), the applicant may also request that the Agency establish a tolerance or an exemption from the tolerance requirement. This ICR does not cover EUP related March 31, 2003 2 tolerance information collection activities, which are covered by the ICR entitled, " Application for Experimental Use Permit ( EUP) to Ship and Use a Pesticide for Experimental Purposes Only" ( OMB Control # 2070 0040, EPA ICR # 276).

( 3). Time limited tolerance ( or an exemption from the requirement for a time limited tolerance) to permit the sale of commodities containing residues resulting from a pesticide whose use was authorized under Section 18 of FIFRA. Under FIFRA § 18, EPA may allow States to use a pesticide for an unregistered use for a limited time if EPA determines that emergency conditions exist. FQPA requires EPA to establish tolerances to cover all pesticide residues in food, even residues resulting from emergency uses. Although the Agency initiates these tolerance actions, these actions are taken in response to petitions for the Agency to issue an action under FIFRA § 18. This ICR does not cover information collection related to FIFRA § 18 tolerance activities, which is collected under the ICR entitled, " Application and Summary for an Emergency Exemption for Pesticides" ( OMB Control # 2070 0032, EPA ICR # 596).

This ICR only applies to the information collection activities associated with the submission of a petition for a tolerance action. While EPA is authorized to set pesticide tolerances, the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA) is responsible for their enforcement. Food or feed commodities found to contain pesticide residues in excess of established tolerances are considered adulterated, and are subject to seizure by FDA, and may result in civil penalties.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection 2( a). Need/ Authority for the Collection The tolerances for pesticide residues in food or feed are set primarily under the authority of section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), as amended. The Agency takes these tolerance actions either on its own initiative pursuant to FFDCA § 408( e) or in response to a petition filed pursuant to FFDCA § 408( d). The regulations covering tolerances are contained in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) Part 180. Actual listings of individual tolerances by chemical are also found in Part 180 ( Attachment B).

Under FFDCA § 408( d), any person may file a petition with EPA, proposing the issuance of a regulation establishing, modifying, or revoking ( a) a tolerance for a pesticide chemical residue in or on food, or ( b) an exemption from the requirement to have a tolerance for such residue. The Agency publishes a notice of receipt for such petitions in order to provide an opportunity for public comment on the request, and then either issues a final regulation, or a notice denying the petitioner's request. FFDCA § 408( d)( 4) directs the Agency to issue a final regulation after considering the petitioner's request.

Under FFDCA § 408( e), at any time the Agency may issue a regulation establishing, modifying, suspending, or revoking ( a) a tolerance for a pesticide chemical residue in or on food, March 31, 2003 3 or ( b) an exemption from the requirement to have a tolerance for such residue. When initiating such actions, FFDCA § 408( e)( 2) requires the Agency to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to provide an opportunity for public comment.

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 ( FQPA), which amended the two primary statutes regulating pesticides, i. e., FFDCA and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA), requires that tolerances be set at a level to ensure that there be " a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure." Among other things, FQPA requires EPA to consider a number of factors when setting such tolerances or registering pesticide products, including: 1) special protection for infants and children; 2) aggregate exposure and risk from foods and other known sources, such as drinking water and household pesticide use; 3) consideration of common mechanisms of toxicity ( some chemicals have different molecular structures but cause deleterious effects in the same manner); and 4) consideration of endocrine disruptor effects.

The collection of information covered by this ICR is needed to ensure that the statutory requirements related to tolerances can be met by the public and EPA. Food or feed commodities found to contain residues of a pesticide without or in excess of established tolerances are considered adulterated, and are subject to seizure by FDA, and may result in civil penalties.

2( b). Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The FQPA directs the Agency to consider aggregate exposures from dietary and nonoccupational sources when assessing the risks of a chemical and setting tolerances. In addition to dietary exposure, such sources as drinking water and residential lawn care use need to be considered. EPA must make the statutory determination that the resulting pesticide residues in food or feed will result in a reasonable certainty of no harm effects of human health from aggregate exposure through dietary, non occupational, and drinking water routes of exposure before establishing the tolerance.

EPA is applying the FQPA standard to all tolerances for newly registered chemicals and food uses. In addition, FQPA has set a schedule for reassessing all 10,000 existing tolerances under this new standard by 2006. FQPA did not provide for a phase in period for many of the new requirements which had not previously been a part of EPA's risk assessment process. Although EPA does not require registrants to submit any additional information under this ICR, the FQPA provisions requires EPA to consider additional information in order to make the necessary regulatory decisions. Petitioners who submitted data to the Agency prior to passage of FQPA were therefore encouraged to supplement their original submissions with additional information. Respondents submitting new petitions may want to submit supplemental information. Section 408 of FFDCA requires petitioners submit " an information summary of the petition and of the data, information and arguments submitted or cited in support of the petition." To allow for the most efficient processing and review of tolerance petitions, the Agency has provided a description of the types of information that EPA considers helpful in the appendices to Pesticide Registration ( PR) Notice No. 97 1, Attachment D. March 31, 2003 4 PR Notice 97 1 applies to most applicants with registration applications, non cropdestruct experimental use permit applications, and tolerance or tolerance exemption petitions pending within the Agency. It also applies to most future applicants seeking new or amended pesticide registrations and all actions involving synthetic chemicals, antimicrobial, biochemical and microbial pesticides. However, the notice does not apply to applicants seeking fast track " metoo registrations or amendments not involving new uses.

EPA uses the data collected to set the tolerance. The Agency's Risk Managers review all regulatory aspects of each petition, coordinate scientific review of supporting data, and prepare the public notices and rules necessary to establish a tolerance or an exemption. The Agency's Residue Chemists review the residue data submitted to determine if the nature and magnitude of likely residues are adequately characterized, and ensure that acceptable analytical methods are available to enforce the tolerance once established. The Agency's Toxicologists review the toxicology data to evaluate the potential effects of the residues on health, and assess the cumulative dietary significance of residues of the pesticide on other crops and commodities, and the likelihood of exposure to particularly sensitive sub populations. As a result of these reviews, EPA is able to make the statutory determination that the resulting pesticide residues in food or feed will not cause unreasonable adverse dietary effects on human health.

3. Non Duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a). Non duplication To avoid potential overlap between the requirement of developing data in support of a tolerance petition and the development of data for a FIFRA registration, EPA allows the use of data required to support a tolerance petition that are already archived in EPA records for use as part of a FIFRA registration of a pesticide to be used in a like manner and in the same use pattern.

3( b). Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB In proposing to renew this ICR, EPA published a Federal Register ( FR) Notice ( Attachment E) that provided a 60 day public notice and comment period that ended on December 31, 2002 . No comments were received in response to this notice.

3( c). Consultations In order to reduce the petition processing time, the Agency often conducts pre filing conferences to identify and resolve possible problem issues on petitions. However once a petition is filed, consultation and/ or dialogue between the petitioner and the EPA occurs on an informal, ongoing " as needed" basis. Most dialog occurs at the time of a re submission to correct a deficiency and the subsequent review of the petition data. Our experience has been that when any sort of a problem arises, whether it is technical, administrative, or of any other nature, the participants have ample opportunity and do not hesitate to contact the Agency. March 31, 2003 5 During the preparation of this ICR renewal, EPA staff contacted the following representatives of pesticide registrants by e mail and asked them for their assessment of the burden estimates in the ICR:

Russell Schneider Monsanto Co. St. Louis, MO russell. p. schneider@ monsanto. com Greg Watson Syngenta Crop Protection Greensboro, NC 336 632 2993 Don Carlson FMC Corp. donald. carlson@ fmc. com Jack Cain DuPont cain. jack@ dupont. com Paul Cain Bayer cain. paul@ bayerus. com Hoyt Jamerson IR 4 jamerson. hoyt@ epa. gov The representatives from DuPont, Bayer, FMC, and IR 4 did not respond. The responses from Monsanto and Syngenta are included in this supporting statement as Attachment F. The representatives of both Monsanto and Syngenta both noted that it was difficult to estimate the burdens for preparing petitions because their complexity can vary immensely. Both respondents also noted that obtaining burden estimates for preparing the studies needed for a tolerance petition would be very resource intensive, especially since CropLife America is currently conducting a survey of its members to obtain the same information. Since the results of that survey are not expected to be completed until later in 2003, too late for the renewal cycle for this ICR, the Agency asked respondents to provide estimates only for the administrative preparation of tolerance petitions and not to include the cost of data production.

Mr. Watson of Syngenta commented that the burden hours for reading regulations and otherwise preparing to submit a tolerance petition should include reviewing previous petitions submitted to EPA, and that hours for maintaining information should include time to maintain electronic archives in addition to the required records maintenance based on paper. The Agency believes that these specific activities are not associated with paperwork burdens imposed by law or regulation. EPA believes those activities are based on Syngenta's corporate decisions and are part of their " customary and usual" business practices.

Syngenta estimated that it submits an average of ten tolerance petitions per year, with each petition taking an average of 6 hours to prepare. For the same activity, they estimate that the technical work on each petition is approximately 9 hours, and that clerical activities involve about 2 hours per petition. Syngenta's estimates indicate that the Agency may have significantly overestimated the paperwork burden.

It is interesting to note that while Syngenta commented on the estimates for all activities March 31, 2003 6 except conducting the field trial, Monsanto commented only on that activity. Monsanto noted that the approximately 1,300 hours estimated in the ICR for the paperwork involved in generating the data to support a petition was a reasonable estimate of the cost of one crop residue study, but that estimates could vary widely depending on the type of data needed. For instance, preparation of a reduced risk rationale or compilation of complete toxicological or environmental fate data might result in far higher estimates.

The Agency considered the comments of both petitioners carefully and decided to leave its estimates unchanged given the difficulty cited by both Syngenta and Monsanto to assess average burdens. Indeed, the Agency has encountered similar difficulties. Syngenta's estimates may well accurately reflect the actual burdens involved in preparing and submitting a typical petition. However, the Agency also notes that the company has many years of experience submitting petitions and therefore may have developed efficiencies not shared by other respondents.

While EPA reviewed the burden estimates that Monsanto submitted, the Agency felt that these estimates reflected more difficult and complex tolerance petitions associated with more unusual situations rather than those associated with a " typical" tolerance petition." We must also note that, as stated in Section 6 of this Supporting Statement, the estimates identified by the Agency apply only to the paperwork burdens of the required activities. The technical burdens ( such as the actual conduct of scientific trials) may be substantially higher than the paperwork burdens identified here. Therefore, EPA decided not to use the higher Monsanto burden estimates when calculating the ICR. The Agency looks forward to reviewing the results of CropLife America's member survey and hopes that the survey data will better inform our burden estimates when we next seek to renew this ICR.

3( d). Effects of Less Frequent Collection Not applicable. This activity is conducted only once per " event," so a less frequent collection is not possible.

3( e). General Guidelines Due to the statutory mandate for the permanent retention of supporting chemistry and toxicological data related to pesticides, the data included in petitions must be maintained for the life of the pesticide. This mandate exceeds the PRA guideline that records be retained for no more than three years.

When this information collection activity was re approved in 2000, OMB directed the Agency to submit additional analysis of non labor costs associated with this collection. Regrettably, the Agency cannot provide the information to OMB at this time because the information necessary to be appropriately analyzed for OMB's purposes is not available. As Syngenta, Monsanto, and the Agency have noted, these costs may vary greatly from chemical to chemical, petition to petition, and costs associated with testing requirements vary from test guideline to test guideline. The presentation of averages or proxy estimates for these costs would March 31, 2003 7 not be appropriate at this time as the Agency would be forced to present skewed and inaccurate information. However, EPA is evaluating potential methodologies that will enable the Agency to estimate the non labor costs in the future. As discussed with OMB, since this task is complicated and will result in changes to other ICRs, EPA will develop and seek comment on a proposed method that would then be incorporated into this ICR when it is finalized.

OMB's regulations require agencies to provide a statement indicating whether the proposed collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e. g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and an explanation of the decision ( 5 CFR 1320.5( a)( iii)( E)). In December 2001, EPA announced that registrants now have the option to electronically submit underlying study data required by the Agency in support of the tolerance petition process. At this time, OPP is not offering a fully electronic submission option. Neither OPP nor the Agency's Office of Environmental Information have developed the information technology approaches that would adequately protect FIFRA Confidential Business Information submitted over the Internet via EPA's Central Data Exchange portal.

Ordinarily, petitioners would be required to submit 3 paper copies of study data to EPA. Under this hybrid option, petitioners need only submit 2 two paper copies if they submit the required study data in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format ( PDF) on a compact disc. Once EPA staff have become familiar with the electronic submission process and the technology, OPP believes that this option will allow the Agency to achieve operating efficiencies in the regulation of pesticides through the promotion and facilitation of the electronic submission process, including the delivery, review, data interchange capability and archiving of data supporting the petitions. The time normally required for OPP to complete its review of the data should be shortened, thereby allowing faster regulatory decision making.

The Agency also believes that, once petitioners have become familiar with the electronic submission process and the technology, they would be able to prepare their data submissions in less time. OPP expects that petitioners will spend less time and money preparing copies and sending their submissions using the hybrid paper electronic submission option, and stand to benefit from the efficiencies that EPA expects to experience during data reviews.

OPP began piloting electronic data submission with the pesticide registrant community in 1999, engaging a number of firms including Bayer, BASF, Dow AgroSciences, Syngenta and Aventis. During this process, OPP developed extensive guidance and has made it available to the participants on the OPP Internet site ( see Attachment G). As part of its outreach efforts, OPP held a joint workshops on electronic data submission with the American Crop Protection Association ( now CropLife America) in 2000 and 2002. OPP has also worked closely with Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA) through a joint North American Free Trade Agreement project to ensure compatible procedures. OPP and PMRA will jointly hosted an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development workshop on electronic data submission last year to share information on the electronic technologies in use by regulatory agencies. EPA has not yet estimated any cost savings or burden reduction associated with the March 31, 2003 8 electronic submission option as the level and extent of industry participation has not yet been determined.

3( f). Confidentiality Trade secret or confidential business information ( CBI) is frequently submitted to the EPA in this program because submissions usually include the manufacturing process, product formulation, and supporting data. When such information is provided to the Agency, the information is protected from disclosure under FIFRA Section 10. CBI data submitted to the EPA is handled strictly in accordance with the provisions of the FIFRA Confidential Business Information Security Manual.

3( g). Sensitive Questions Not applicable. No information of a sensitive or private nature is requested in this information collection activity.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a). Respondents/ NAICS Codes Respondents to this information collection activity include anyone who files a petition asking the Agency to take a specific tolerance action. Although such petitions typically come from those businesses engaged in the manufacturing of pesticides, the Agency may also receive petitions from other entities, including the Interregional Research Project No. 4 ( IR 4), third party registrants, grower groups, importers or other governments, and concerned citizens.

Although it is impossible to identify all the North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes for all of the potential respondents, the NAICS code assigned to this program is 325320 ( Pesticide and other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing).

4( b). Information Requested ( i) Data Items, Including Record Keeping Requirements In addition to a cover letter and fee, a tolerance petition must include the following nine parts: March 31, 2003 9 Chemical identity The name, chemical identity, and composition of the pesticide chemical. If the pesticide chemical is an ingredient of a pesticide, the complete quantitative formula of the resulting pesticide product should be submitted. The submission of this information does not restrict the application of any tolerance or exemption granted to the specific formula( s) submitted.

Chemical use The amount, frequency, and time of application of the pesticide chemical.

Safety reports Include reports of investigations made with respect to the safety of the pesticide chemical. These reports should include, when necessary, detailed data derived from appropriate animal or other biological experiments in which the methods used and the results obtained are clearly set forth.

Residue test results The results of tests on the amount of residue remaining, including description of the analytical method used. ( See 40 CFR 180.34 for further information about residue tests.)

Residue removal Practicable methods for removing residue that exceeds any proposed tolerance.

Proposed tolerance Proposed tolerances for the pesticidal chemical if specific tolerances are being proposed.

Grounds for petition Reasonable grounds in support of the petition.

Supplemental information Analysis of factors relevant to the provisions of FQPA, specifically, aggregate exposure, children's exposure, special sensitivities, cumulative effects and endocrine disruptor effects.

Summary An informative summary of the petition or application, including a summary of the supporting data, information, accompanying rationales, and a statement providing permission to publish such summary. This summary should indicate how approval of the petition will meet the statutory determination required of " reasonable certainty of no harm."

There are no forms associated with this information collection. The data compiled should be submitted as separate sections, suitably identified. If data has already been submitted with an earlier application, the present petition may incorporate it by reference. The petition must be submitted in triplicate. The petitioner must also show that the pesticide is already registered for the related food or feed use, or that an application for the registration of a pesticide for the related food or feed use has been submitted pursuant to section 3 of FIFRA. March 31, 2003 10 ( ii) Respondent Activities In order for a tolerance to be established for a pesticide product, a respondent ( petitioner) must do the following:

Review regulations Read applicable FFDCA provisions and related tolerance regulations;

Conduct tests Conduct any toxicological or residue chemistry studies and develop analytical methods required in order to provide the EPA with the data necessary to make a decision to accept or reject a tolerance petition and review the requested data for accuracy/ appropriateness;

Prepare correspondence Generate petition correspondence, including preparing a informative summary to be published in the Federal Register;

Review Agency comment If applicable, read any Agency notice of petition deficiency;

Respond to Agency comment Submit supplemental information or petition, or request that petition be filed as submitted; and Maintain records Store, file and maintain the information submitted.

5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities Upon receipt of a tolerance petition, EPA performs the following activities:

Log Receipt Log petition and associated fee.

Review petition Screen petition, fee, and supporting data for completeness and acceptability; resolve any deficiencies with petitioner.

Prepare Federal Register notice Upon acceptance, publish notice of filing in Federal Register.

Review data Review supporting residue chemistry, toxicology data and other assessments received.

Test analytical methods Test proposed analytical methods in EPA laboratories, if they are new or modified. March 31, 2003 11 Integrate review Integrate data reviews and determine adequacy; resolve any deficiencies with petitioner, make registration decision.

Prepare decision document Prepare decision document, Federal Register Notice with rule establishing the tolerance( s) or exemption( s).

Maintain records Record all actions and decisions in official records.

5( b). Collection Methodology and Management Specific studies submitted as part of petition are catalogued and archived as they are received. When the Agency review is complete, the remaining portions of the petition record, including correspondence subsequent to filing and all reviews, notices, and other materials created by EPA in the course of its review, are catalogued and archived. All petition materials are retained permanently.

5( c). Small Entity Flexibility At times, small entities seek a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for pesticide residues resulting from registered uses. These actions are usually initiated for minor crop uses for which the pesticide registrant is unwilling to seek a tolerance or for residues on commodities which are not grown in the United States and therefore for which there is no U. S. registrant, such as import tolerances. In such cases, the EPA can reduce the burden and cost to small entities by adjusting the range of data requirements to be commensurate with the extent of pesticide use. The Agency also uses this type of regulatory flexibility to set tolerances for residues on commodities which are not grown in the United States.

5( d). Collection Schedule Not applicable. This is not a scheduled collection. A petition is required only once for each raw or processed commodity on which the pesticide is used.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6( a). Estimating Respondent Burden The respondent burden reflected in this ICR is for petition requests for new tolerance actions. This ICR does not reflect burden associated with the Agency's pesticide tolerance reassessment program. The bulk of tolerance reassessment activities are conducted through the reregistration program. As a result, the respondent burden associated with the FQPA standards for tolerance reassessment activities have been estimated as part of the Data Generation for Pesticide Reregistration ICR ( OMB No. 2070 0107; EPA ICR No. 1504) for active ingredients and Data Acquisition for Registration ICR ( OMB No. 2070 0122; EPA ICR No. 1503) for inert ingredients, and are not included in this ICR. March 31, 2003 1It is important to note that these numbers represent the number of petitions that were received, not the number of tolerance actions that were requested per petition.

12 Since 1995, the Agency has allowed for the use of a single petition to request a tolerance action( s) for a group of similar crops, or " Crop Groupings," rather than submitting individual petitions on a crop by crop basis. In reviewing some of the petitions, it is apparent that many petitioners take advantage of this flexibility, including in the petition requests for several tolerance actions. Some have sought as many as 15 crops per petition, including crop groupings. The Agency calculated that during the years 2000 2002, there were on average nine crops/ uses per petition. In addition, the FQPA amendments allow anyone to submit a petition, where previously only registrants could submit the petition.

Two types of burden on respondents are considered in this analysis: administrative burden and technical burden. The respondents' administrative burden is defined as the time spent to prepare and submit a petition to the Agency. It includes the time spent working with the Agency throughout the petition process, gathering the required data ( such as the safety reports, residue test data, residue removal data), gathering supplemental information, drafting the grounds for the petition, reviewing and submitting the petition. The technical burden includes the labor needed to actually derive the test data which involves designing the test, performing it, compiling test data and summarizing the results. For the purposes of calculating paperwork burden, only the technical burden related to the documentation of the test results, complying with good laboratory standards in conducting the tests, and storing testing information in files are included in the burden estimates for this ICR.

To quantify the administrative burden, the Agency estimated the amount of labor as a percentage of the total test costs. The Agency assumed that respondents would expend approximately two percent of the total test cost for administrative paperwork burden. This percentage represents an estimate obtained from expert opinion, industry sources, and proprietary data. The Agency assumed that the value of this time is equally divided among management and technical staff members.

The methodology for calculating the technical burden differs from the administrative burden. One third of the total test cost represents labor. Management, technical and clerical comprise the labor staff. A proportional labor rate is used to calculate the number of hours. Approximately 70 percent is technical, 20 percent management, and 10 percent clerical.

This ICR estimates that an average of 150 tolerance petitions will be submitted to the Agency each year for the next three years. The estimate has not changed from the previous ICR and is based on an average of the number of petitions received for fiscal years 2000 ( 156), 2001 ( 131), and 2002 ( 159) 1. The Agency estimates that the average paperwork burden associated with the submission of a single tolerance petition is 1,726 hours. Assuming that the Agency will receive an average 150 tolerance petitions each year for the next 3 years, the Agency estimates that the overall annual paperwork burden will be 258,900 hours. March 31, 2003 13 Table 1 B ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN/ COST ESTIMATES ACTIVITIES BURDEN HOURS ( per petition) COSTS ( per petition)

Mgmt. $ 130/ hr Tech. $ 88/ hr Cler. $ 40/ hr Total Hours Total Costs a) Review FFDCA regulations CFR citation; PRN 97 1 25 48 24 97 $ 8,434 b) Conduct Field Trial 252 1,080 25 1,357 $ 128,800 c) Prepare Petition 42 30 116 188 $ 12,740 d) Read Notice of any petition deficiency 1 1 1 3 $ 258 e) Prepare response 2 44 12 58 $ 4,612 f) Maintain information 1 8 14 23 $ 1,394 TOTAL BURDEN 323 1,211 192 1,726 $ 156,238 ANNUAL BURDEN: 1,726 total hours x 150 petitions = 258,900 hours 6( b). Estimating Respondent Costs The overall annual cost associated with this information collection, based on an estimate of 150 petitions per year, is estimated to be $ 23,435,700. For respondents, the value of labor per hour for management, technical, and clerical is $ 130, $ 88, and $ 40, respectively. As part of this ICR renewal, EPA increased its previously estimated labor rates for respondents by factoring in an inflation cost index of 1.056 based on the Gross Domestic Product. These labor rates are fully loaded and include benefits and overhead costs. Using the Agency's burden estimate and the fully loaded labor rates, the Agency estimates the applicant costs to be approximately $ 156,238 per response.

ANNUAL COSTS: ( a) Management  323 hours x $ 130 x 150 applicants $ 6,298,500 ( b) Technical  1211 hours x $ 88 x 150 applicants $ 15,985,200 ( c) Clerical  192 hours x $ 40 x 150 applicants $ 1,152,000 TOTAL $ 23,435,700 These labor burden estimates represent the average time and costs. Some tolerance petitions will require less effort and more complicated petitions will require more of each. The analysis assumes that one respondent will generate the data for a given petition. If a consortium takes responsibility for the petition, the burden and cost will be distributed across members of the consortium. March 31, 2003 14 6( c). Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The Agency needs to process, review and document their evaluation of the tolerance petitions. Each year, the Agency may spend 345,000 hours for 150 petitions in labor burden. Agency labor rates are based on Office of Personnel Management salary tables for federal employees for the years 1999 through 2001 and include benefits and overhead costs, as well as locality pay for the Washington, DC Baltimore area. Estimates for the Agency's burden are provided below.

Table 2 B ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN/ COST ESTIMATES COLLECTION ACTIVITIES BURDEN HOURS ( per year) COSTS ( per year)

Mgmt. $ 96/ hr. Tech. $ 70/ hr Cler. $ 33/ hr Total Hours Total Costs a) Log petition and associated fee 0 8 0 8 $ 560 b) Screen petition request for completeness 1 2 0 3 $ 236 c) Draft and publish Federal Register notice 1 4 0 5 $ 376 d) Review Residue Chemistry and Toxicology data 200 1,642 3 1845 $ 134,239 e) Verify new analytical methods in EPA Lab. and resolve any deficiencies 34 223 1 258 $ 18,907 f) Integrate Data Reviews 67 100 2 169 $ 13,498 g) Prepare decision document and Federal Register Notice 4 4 2 10 $ 730 h) Record actions in official records. 0 0 2 2 $ 66 TOTAL BURDEN 307 1983 10 2300 $ 168,612 ( a) Management  307 hours x $ 96 x 150 petitioners $ 4,420,800 ( b) Technical  1,983 hours x $ 70 x 150 petitioners $ 20,821,500 ( c) Clerical  10 hours x $ 33 x 150 petitioners $ 49,500 TOTAL $ 25,291,800 March 31, 2003 15 6( d). Bottom Line Burden Hours And Cost Tables Table 3 B MASTER TABLE: Total Annual Burden Hours and Costs Total Annual petitions Annual Burden Hours Annual Costs per petition Total per petition Total Respondents ( Petitioners) 150 1726 258,900 $ 147,538 $ 23,435,700 Agency 150 2300 345,000 $ 147,001 $ 25,291,800 6( e). Reasons for Change in Burden Respondent costs for this ICR have increased due to increases in labor rates for both respondents and Agency personnel. As a result, there is an increase of $ 1,305,000 in the estimated total annual respondent cost ( from $ 22,130,700 to $ 23,435,700). This change is an adjustment.

6( f). Burden Statement The total estimated annual respondent paperwork burden to comply with this information collection activity is 258,900 hours. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, " burden" means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For this collection, it is the time reading the regulations, planning the necessary data collection activities, conducting tests, analyzing data, generating reports and completing other required paperwork, and storing, filing, and maintaining the data. The agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this information collection appear at the beginning and the end of this document. In addition OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

Send comments regarding burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden to: Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit the requested information or forms to this address. The requested information should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the Federal Register Notice seeking comment on this ICR. Please reference this document by the OMB Control No. 2070 0024 in all correspondence. March 31, 2003 16 Attachments to the Supporting Statement ATTACHMENT A: FFDCA Sections 402, 406, 408, and 409 ( 21 U. S. C. Sections 342, 346, 346a, and 348, respectively)  available electronically at http:// uscode. house. gov/ usc. htm.

ATTACHMENT B: 40 CFR Parts 180.7 through 180.41  Tolerances and Exemptions from Tolerances for Pesticide Chemicals in or on Raw Agricultural Commodities  available electronically at http:// www. access. gpo. gov/ nara/ cfr/ cfrhtml_ 00/ Title_ 40/ 40cfr180_ 00. html.

ATTACHMENT C: FIFRA Section 3 ( 7 U. S. C. 136a)  available electronically at http:// www. epa. gov/ epahome/ laws. htm.

ATTACHMENT D: PR Notice 97 1  Agency Actions under the Requirements of the Food Quality Protection Act  available electronically at http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR_ Notices/ pr97 1. html ATTACHMENT E: 67 FR 66392  Tolerance Petitions for Pesticides on Food/ Feed Crops and New Inert Ingredients; Renewal of Pesticide Information Collection Activities and Request for Comments ( published October 31, 2002)  available electronically at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/ EPA PEST/ 2002/ October/ Day 31/ p27704. htm ATTACHMENT F Response to EPA on ICR Burden  Consultation with Monsanto and Syngenta  An electronic copy of this attachment follows in the electronic file for this ICR.

ATTACHMENT G: Electronic Submission Interim Guidance Documents  available electronically at http:// www. epa. gov/ oppfead1/ eds/ esr_ guidance. htm ATTACHMENT H: Display Related to OMB Control # 2070 0024  Listings of Related Regulations in 40 CFR 9.1  An electronic copy of this attachment follows in the electronic file for this ICR. F 1 1 ATTACHMENT F  Forwarded by Jim Tompkins/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 01/ 30/ 03 06: 53 AM

greg. watson@ syngenta. com 01/ 29/ 03 03: 50 PM To: Jim Tompkins/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: Re: Tolerance Petition Burden Estimate Jim,

I have put together an estimate at what you requested in the following table. However, one MAJOR caveat: it is really impossible to look at this on an annual basis, as each year brings a different number of petitions and the complexity of the petition varies immensely ( i. e., aggregate &/ or cumulative assessment). One other point: I have NOT included the time need to prepare a reduced risk rationale; this is a major component of many tolerance petition summaries so please pass this along to the folks working on this.

Just to let you know how I have got to an annual number: we have averaged in the legacy companies of Syngenta about 10 tolerance petitions each year. Each tolerance petition takes a Regulatory Manager an average of 6 hours to prepare ( depending on whether this is a new AI or an existing AI where a previous petition can be used as a basis to begin). Therefore, on an annual basis we average about 60 hours of management time.

The technical work on the petition itself is about 1.5X that of the Regulatory Manager, as calculations of the risk cup need to be done, as do summaries of residue / tox data, etc. so we average about 90 hours of technical time on an annual basis.

Clerical time is limited to binding / printing & copying / preparing the submission, etc. and is about 20 hours per petition so the math comes out to 200 hours on an annual basis.

As for the response to petition deficiencies, this again varies with what you have on the EPA workplan for that year. Since Syngenta has been fairly successful in RR / OP alternative products and we have worked with IR 4, I have increased the estimates to reflect what we normally have had on the workplan. One thing to remember is that responses to EPA reviews of petitions have gotten far more complicated, given the FQPA paradigm changes ( i. e., aggregate assessments including water input, acute & chronic endpoints).

Review of the regulations is about correct; I have increased this to include a review of previous petitions that we have received from EPA. This is one of the best ways to keep current & improve your petitions ( i. e., make changes based on our experience).

Maintain information has gotten more complicated as well, as most companies now have a paper archive BUT an electronic archive as well. I have increased the burden estimates again to reflect this. F 1 2 Table 1 ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN/ COST ESTIMATES ACTIVITIES BURDEN HOURS ( per year) COSTS ( per year) H Mgmt. Tech. Cler. Total Hours a) Review FFDCA regulations CFR citation; PRN 97 1 30 60 20 110 b) Conduct Field Trial*

c) Prepare Petition 60 90 200 350 d) Read Notice of any petition deficiency 3 4 1 8 e) Prepare response 40 65 20 125 f) Maintain information 5 10 25 40 TOTAL BURDEN 138 229 246 633 H respondent did not include/ discuss related paperwork costs * respondent did not include/ discuss paperwork burdens related to field trials Hopefully this will help give you something to work with; please let me know if we need anything further on this.

Best Regards,

Greg Watson NAFTA Herbicide Team Lead, Regulatory Affairs ph 336 632 2993 fax 336 292 6374 F 2 1  Forwarded by Jim Tompkins/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 01/ 29/ 03 10: 48 AM

" SCHNEIDER, RUSSELL P [ AG/ 1920]" < russell. p. schneider@ monsanto. com> 01/ 29/ 03 10: 04 AM To: Jim Tompkins/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: FW: Tolerance Petition Burden Estimate Jim,

Per your request, and knowing it is hard to estimate costs since tolerance petitions can have very wide ( ie., a number of crops with complicated issues) or very limited ( ie., one crop, recent data, no complications) scope, there is really no such thing as an average petition. In addition, it is very much a question of " what do you want to count".

When we look at the estimate provided at the bottom of this document, it includes about 1300 man hours for the technical aspect of generating the data ( ie., about 0.65 person year). This is a reasonable estimate of the cost of one crop residue study. Therefore we can conclude that the tabular estimates there are connected to the data driven incremental addition of one new crop, and the respective food tolerances, to an otherwise complete database for the chemical. In that context, we believe that 188 hours ( ie, 4 weeks) is an overestimate by perhaps a factor of 2 fold. 2 weeks of full time effort is sufficient time to write the petition, write the crop specific directions for use, write the Reasonable Grounds, and formulate the volume. However, this does not include a " Reduced Risk Rationale" or doing the actual technical residue work. However, being wrong by a factor of 2 is reasonably close, and we could live with that error, and if one had a complex situation where there was a lot of historical baggage to explain and document, 4 weeks of effort is not out of the question.

The broader question about generating the toxicology and environmental fate data to support the other aspects of " aggregate Risk Assessment" is much more complicated. Obviously, a complete toxicology and environmental fate data set takes five years to complete at a cost of about $ 20M. If you assume scientists are budgeted at about $ 200K per person year, this translates to about 200,000 hours of technical work. This figure totally swamps the estimates above about a residue study and petition. If we assume that an average pesticide chemical has uses on 5 crops, we could pro rate the core toxicology and e fate across all five, and reduce it to 40,000 hours each, which is still 20 fold greater than the estimated residue data and tolerance petition cost.

There are also rotational crop issues, animal feeding studies, and crop and animal metabolism studies that are not being counted into this. These are big and expensive studies, and would increase the toxicology / e fate estimate immediately by perhaps another 50%.

I hope somewhere in here are the figures you need.

Russ H 1 ATTACHMENT H Display Related to OMB Control # 2070 0024  Listings of Related Regulations in 40 CFR 9.1 As of May 10, 1993, the OMB approval numbers for EPA regulations in Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) appear in a listing in 40 CFR 9.1 ( 58 FR 27472). This listing fulfills the display requirements in section 3507( f) of the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) for EPA regulations. The listing at 40 CFR 9.1 displays this OMB Control number for the following regulations:

Program Title 40 CFR citation Pesticide Registration and Classification Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part 152.50 Good Laboratory Practice Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part 160 Certification of Usefulness of Pesticide Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part 163.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.5 Issuance of Food Additive Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part 177.81 . . . . . . . . . . . 177.92 . . . . . . . . . . . 177.98 . . . . . . . . . . . 177.99 . . . . . . . . . . 177.102 . . . . . . . . . . 177.105 . . . . . . . . . . 177.110 . . . . . . . . . . 177.116 Tolerances and Exemptions from Tolerances for Pesticide Chemicals in or on Raw Agricultural Commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part 180.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 180.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 180.9 . . . . . . . . . . . 180.31 . . . . . . . . . . . 180.32 . . . . . . . . . . . 180.33