52998 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices

Bow, Deer Lodge and Gallatin

Counties, MT, Due: November 10,

1997, Contact: Peri Surenram (406)

683–3900.

EIS No. 970379, FINAL EIS, AFS, OR,

Summit Fire Recovery Forest

Restoration Project, Implementation,

Malheur National Forest, Long Creek

Ranger District, Grant County, OR,

Due: November 10, 1997, Contact:

Robert Hammond (541) 575–3000.

EIS No. 970380, DRAFT EIS, AFS, UT,

Spruce Ecosystem Recovery Project,

Implementation, Dixie National

Forest, Cedar City Ranger District,

Iron County, UT, Due: November 24,

1997, Contact: Phil Eisenhauer (801)

865–3200.

EIS No. 970381, DRAFT EIS, IBR, CA,

Hamilton City Pumping Plant, Fish

Screen Improvement Project, COE

Section 10 and 404 Permits, Central

Valley, Butte, Colusa, Glenn and

Tehama Counties, CA, Due: November

24, 1997, Contact: Lauren Carly (916)

934–7066.

EIS No. 970382, DRAFT EIS, FHW, VA,

Outer Connector Study

Transportation Improvement, from I–

95, US 17 and VA–3, Funding, COE

Section 10 and 404 Permits, Stafford

and Spotsylvania Counties, VA, Due:

November 28, 1997, Contact: Roberto

Fonseca-Martinez (804) 281–5100.

EIS No. 970383, DRAFT EIS, MMS, TX,

LA, Western Planning Area, Proposed

Western Gulf of Mexico 1997–2002 (5-

Year Program) Outer Continental

Shelf (OSC) Oil and Gas Sales 171,

174, 177 and 180, Lease Offering,

Offshore Marine Environmental and

Coastal Counties/Parishes of Texas

and Louisiana, Due: November 24,

1997, Contact: Archie P. Melancon

(703) 787–5471.

EIS No. 970384, DRAFT EIS, FHW, NY,

Judd Road Connector Transportation

Improvements, Funding and COE

Section 404 Permit, Village of New

York Mills, Towns of New Hartford

and Whitestown, Oneida County, NY,

Due: November 24, 1997, Contact:

Harold J. Brown (518) 431–4127.

EIS No. 970385, DRAFT SUPPLEMENT,

NOA, AK, Juneau Consolidated

Facility, Additional Information,

Space for the University of Alaska

Fairbanks School of Fisheries and

Ocean Science (UAF), Possible Site

Lena Point, Fisheries Management

Operation, ‘Vision for 2005’, Juneau,

AK, Due: November 25, 1997, Contact:

John Gorman (907) 586–7641.

EIS No. 970386, FINAL EIS, USN, DC,

Naval Sea Systems Command

Headquarters (NAVSEA), Base

Realignment and Closure Action,

Relocation from Arlington, VA to

Washington Navy Yard (WNY) in

southeast Washington, DC, Due:

November 10, 1997, Contact: Hank

Riek (202) 685–3064.

EIS No. 970387, FINAL EIS, FRC, ME,

Lower Penobscot River Basin

Hydroelectric Project, Application for

Licensing for three hydroelectric

projects: Basin Mills (FERC. No.

10981), Stillwater (FERC. No. 2712)

and Milford (FERC. No. 2534),

Penobscot County, ME, Due:

November 10, 1997, Contact: Ronald

McKitrick (202) 219–2783.

EIS No. 970388, SECOND FINAL

SUPPLE, DOE, NM, Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant Disposal Phase, Updated

Information, Disposal of Transuranic

Waste, Carlsbad, NM, Due: November

10, 1997, Contact: Harold Johnson

(505) 234–7349.

EIS No. 970389, FINAL EIS, BLM, NV,

Florida Canyon Mine Expansion

Project and Comprehensive

Reclamation Plan, Construction and

Operation of New Facilities and

Expansion of Existing Gold Mining

Operations in Imlay Mining District,

Plan-of-Operation Approval and

Right-of-Way Permit Issuance,

Pershing County, NV, Due: November

10, 1997, Contact: Ken Loda (702)

623–1500.

Dated: October 7, 1997.

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance

Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 97–27025 Filed 10–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[PF–768; FRL–5748–5]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

filing of a pesticide petition proposing

a regulation establishing an exemption

from the requirement for a tolerance for

residues of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1,

Cry2 and Cry3 classes of proteins and

the genetic material necessary for the

production of these proteins in or on all

raw agricultural commodities. This

notice includes a summary of the

petition that was prepared by the

petitioner, Monsanto Company.

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket control number PF–768, must be

received on or before November 10,

1997.

ADDRESSES: By mail submit written

comments to: Public Information and

Records Integrity Branch (7506C),

Information Resources and Services

Division, Office of Pesticides Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In

person bring comments to: Rm. 1132,

CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Follow the

instructions under ‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION.’’ No confidential

business information should be

submitted through e-mail.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’

(CBI). CBI should not be submitted

through e-mail. Information marked as

CBI will not be disclosed except in

accordance with procedures set forth in

40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment

that does not contain CBI must be

submitted for inclusion in the public

record. Information not marked

confidential may be disclosed publicly

by EPA without prior notice. All written

comments will be available for public

inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address

given above, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Mendelsohn, Biopesticides and

Pollution Prevention Division (7501W),

Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location and telephone number:

5th floor CS #1, 2800 Crystal Drive,

Arlington, VA 22202, Telephone No.

703–308–8715, e-mail:

mendelsohn.mike@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has

received pesticide petitions as follows

proposing the establishment and/or

amendment of regulations for residues

of certain pesticide chemicals in or on

various food commodities under section

408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Comestic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a.

EPA has determined that these petitions

contain data or information regarding

the elements set forth in section

408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully

evaluated the sufficiency of the

submitted data at this time or whether

the data supports granting of the

petition. Additional data may be needed

before EPA rules on the petition.

The official record for this notice of

filing, as well as the public version, has

been established for this notice of filing

under docket control number [PF–768]

(including comments and data
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices 52999

submitted electronically as described

below). A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of

electronic comments, which does not

include any information claimed as CBI,

is available for inspection from 8:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The official

record is located at the address in

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of this

document.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Comment and data will

also be accepted on disks in

Wordperfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file

format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number [PF–768] and

appropriate petition number. Electronic

comments on this notice may be filed

online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection,

Agricultural commodities, Food

additives, Feed additives, Pesticides and

pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: September 29, 1997.

Janet L. Andersen,

Director, Biopesticides and Pollution

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs

Summaries of Petitions

Petitioner summaries of the pesticide

petitions are printed below as required

by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The

summaries of the petitions were

prepared by the petitioners and

represent the views of the petitioners.

EPA is publishing the petition

summaries verbatim without editing

them in any way. The petition summary

announces the availability of a

description of the analytical methods

available to EPA for the detection and

measurement of the pesticide chemical

residues or an explanation of why no

such method is needed.

Monsanto Company

PP 7F4888

EPA has received a pesticide petition

(PP 7F4888) from the Monsanto

Company, 700 Chesterfield Parkway,

North, St. Louis, MO 63198. The

petition proposes, pursuant to section

408 of the Federal Food, Drug and

Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. section 346a

(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by

establishing an exemption from the

requirement for a tolerance for residues

of the plant pesticides consisting of

Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1, Cry2, and

Cry3 classes of proteins and the genetic

material necessary for the production of

these proteins in or on all raw

agricultural commodities.

EPA has determined that the petition

contains data or information regarding

the elements set forth in section

408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully

evaluated the sufficiency of the

submitted data at this time or whether

the data supports granting of the

petition. Additional data may be needed

before EPA rules on the petition.

Monsanto has stated that analytical

methods of detection and measurement

of the Cry1, Cry2, and Cry3 classes of

proteins are not needed since they are

petitioning for exemptions from the

requirement for a tolerance on the basis

of mammalian safety.

As required by section 408(d) of the

FFDCA, as recently amended by the

Food Quality Protection Act, Monsanto

included in the petition a summary of

the petition and authorization for the

summary to be published in the Federal

Register in a notice of receipt of the

petition. The summary represents the

views of Monsanto; EPA, as mentioned

above, is in the process of evaluating the

petition. As required by section 408

(d)(3), EPA is including the summary as

a part of this notice of filing. EPA may

have made minor edits to the summary

for the purpose of clarity.

This unit summarizes information

cited by Monsanto Company to support

the proposed tolerance exemption for

Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1, Cry2, and

Cry3 classes of proteins and the genetic

material necessary for the production of

these proteins when used as plantpesticide active ingredients.

A. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1, Cry2,

and Cry3 Protein Uses

The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) has approved the commercial use

of the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab,

Cry1Ac, and Cry3A proteins as

expressed in genetically engineered

corn, cotton, and potato, respectively.

The Agency has concluded that these

Cry protein plant pesticides pose no

foreseeable risks to human health and

has granted exemptions from the

requirement of a tolerance for these

substances. A Cry2Aa plant pesticide is

currently under review at EPA.

The first Bacillus thuringiensis Cry

protein exemptions from tolerance were

limited to a specific Cry protein as

expressed in a single crop, such as

Cry3A in potato and Cry1Ac in cotton.

More recently, in approving Monsanto’s

Cry1Ab expressed in corn (61 FR 40340,

August 2, 1996) and Dekalb’s Cry1Ac

expressed in corn (62 FR 17720, April

11, 1997), EPA established a broad

tolerance exemption for Cry1Ab and

Cry1Ac proteins, respectively, in or on

all plant raw agricultural commodities.

In the future, many Bacillus

thuringiensis Cry proteins are expected

to be expressed in a wide variety of

plants for insect protection. This

petition provides the scientific bases for

the generic human health safety

determination that Cry1, Cry2, and Cry3

classes of proteins as expressed in

plants pose no foreseeable human

health risks. Accordingly, all Bacillus

thuringiensis Cry1, Cry2, and Cry3

proteins as expressed in plants are

proposed to be exempt from the

requirement for a tolerance.

B. Product Identity and Chemistry

Bacillus thuringiensis Cry proteins are

named according to their similarity to

established holotype proteins. Cry

proteins with similar amino acid

sequences are grouped together. Cry

proteins with the same Arabic numeral

(e.g., Cry1) share at least a 45 percent

amino acid sequence identity. Those

with the same Arabic numeral and

upper case letter (e.g., Cry1A) share at

least a 75 percent sequence identity.

The same Arabic numeral and upper

and lower case letter (e.g., Cry1Ab)

designates a greater than 95 percent

sequence identity. Therefore, one of the

principal scientific rationales for this

petition is that it applies safety

conclusions from testing one or a few

representative Cry proteins to a broader,

but closely related, group of proteins

proteins that by definition share

significant amino acid sequence

identity.

To qualify for an exemption from

tolerance, amino acid sequence analysis

data must be provided to verify that the

protein has been correctly classified as

belonging to one of the ‘‘exempt’’

classes of Cry proteins (i.e., Cry1, Cry2,

or Cry3). It should also be confirmed

that the Cry protein exhibits no

significant amino acid sequence

homology with known food allergens

based on a comparison with sequences

contained in public domain databases.

Information concerning the Bacillus

thuringiensis holotype protein

nomenclature and a continuously

updated database of Bacillus

thuringiensis holotype proteins can be

found on the world wide web at http:/

/epunix.biols.susx.ac.uk/Home/Neil—

Crickmore/Bt/holo.html.

To ensure that this petition has broad

applicability, it covers Bacillus
53000 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices

thuringiensis Cry proteins that are

naturally occurring or that have been

genetically modified by deletion,

substitution, and/or insertion of amino

acid sequences, provided that the

protein exhibits at least 45 percent

amino acid sequence identity with a Cry

protein from an ‘‘exempt’’ class of Cry

protein. If the protein has been modified

by the insertion of amino acids from a

non-exempt source (e.g., a source other

than a Cry1, Cry2 or Cry3 protein), those

inserted amino acid sequences may

comprise no greater than five percent of

the total amino acid sequence of the Cry

protein.

C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile

There currently exists an extensive

body of scientific data demonstrating

the safety of Cry proteins. A review of

the literature establishes that many

different Cry proteins have been

evaluated in a variety of mammalian

toxicology tests over the past 35 years.

No adverse effects have been observed

in mammals upon oral exposure to any

of these Cry proteins.

Oral dietary exposure is the only

significant route by which humans can

be exposed to Cry protein plant

pesticides. Dermal and inhalation

exposures are anticipated to be

negligible because Cry proteins are

produced within the plant, are not

exuded, and are not volatile. To assess

the implications of human dietary

exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis Cry

proteins, EPA has asked registrants to

submit results of an acute oral

mammalian toxicology study (oral LD50)

and an in vitro digestibility study. These

tests have been conducted using a

microbially produced Bacillus

thuringiensis protein that has been

shown to be equivalent to the plantexpressed protein.

No treatment-related adverse effects

have been observed in any of the acute

oral mammalian toxicity studies

conducted with microbially produced

Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, Cry2A, and Cry3A

proteins. Six oral gavage studies in mice

established the LD50 to be >3,280 mg/kg

to >5,200 mg/kg for these proteins.

Based on these results there is a safety

factor of greater than 50,000 for human

dietary exposure to Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac

proteins in corn or cottonseed, greater

than one million for Cry3A protein in

potato, and greater than two million for

Cry1Ac protein in tomato. Because all of

the testing of Bacillus thuringiensis

plant pesticides has yielded negative

results, no further mammalian

toxicology testing (beyond acute and

digestibility studies) has been required

to support registration and exemptions

from tolerance.

The no observed effect level (NOEL)

for Cry1Ab was > 0.45 mg/kg/day in a

28-day repeated dose oral toxicity study

in mice and > 0.06 mg/kg/day in a 31-

day repeated dose study in rabbits.

Treatment doses in the 28-day and 31-

day studies were estimated to be 1,000

to 4,000 times the maximum anticipated

human exposure from consuming

tomatoes genetically engineered to

produce Cry1Ab (Noteborn et al. Food

Safety of Transgenic Tomatoes

Expressing the Insecticidal Crystal

Protein Cry1Ab from Bacillus

thuringiensis and the Marker Enzyme

APH(3’) II. Med. Fac. Landbouww.

Univ. Gent, 58/4b, 1993). Based on the

lack of toxic effects and the large

margins of safety for both acute and 30-

day exposures, these Cry proteins pose

no foreseeable risks to human health.

Moreover, these proteins are unlikely to

cause endocrine effects because they

exhibit no structural or functional

similarity to estrogen or estrogen-mimic

compounds.

EPA has stated that when proteins are

toxic, they are known to act via acute

mechanisms and at very low dose levels

(Sjoblad et al. ‘‘Toxicological

Considerations for Protein Components

of Biological Pesticide Products,’’

Regulatory Toxicology and

Pharmacology, 15:3-9, 1992). The Cry

proteins tested so far are judged to be

nontoxic to mammals. Monsanto

believes that the acute toxicity data on

these representative Cry proteins and

the extensive data base on microbial

Bacillus thuringiensis products supports

a broader conclusion: All Cry proteins

classified by their amino acid sequence

to be Cry1, Cry2, or Cry3 are highly

unlikely to be toxic to humans.

In the future, crops may be modified

to express significantly higher levels of

Cry proteins than are expressed in the

currently commercialized varieties. This

does not alter the favorable safety

conclusions for Cry proteins. The

existing toxicology studies, showing no

effects at the limit dose, would still

support the exemption from the

requirement for a tolerance and the

conclusion that a tolerance is not

necessary to protect human health.

Further scientific evidence for the

safety of Cry proteins is that they have

been shown to be rapidly degraded

under conditions simulating the human

gastrointestinal tract. Results of seven in

vitro assays conducted with

representative Cry1, Cry2, and Cry3

proteins indicate that the proteins are

rapidly degraded, usually within 30

seconds. These results support the

broader conclusion that members of

these groups of Cry proteins (that share

significant amino acid sequence

identity) are likely to be rapidly

degraded following ingestion by

humans.

The demonstrated rapid degradation

of Cry protein following ingestion

minimizes the potential for an allergenic

reaction. By comparison, food allergens

generally persisted in the

gastrointestinal model, whereas

common food proteins with no

allergenic history degraded rapidly in

simulated gastric fluid (Metcalfe et al.

‘‘Assessment of the Allergenic Potential

of Foods Derived from Genetically

Engineered Crop Plants,’’Critical Rev. in

Food Science and Nutrition, 36(s):S165-

S186, 1996). Searches of allergen

sequence databases have shown no

significant matches with the Cry

proteins. Cry proteins do not share

characteristics often exhibited by known

food allergens. Unlike many known

food allergens, the Cry proteins as

expressed in plants are present in

relatively low concentrations, and are

heat labile. In addition, in the greater

than 30 year history of commercial use,

there have been no reported cases of

allergenic reactions to the microbial

Bacillus thuringiensis products (61 FR

40430, August 2, 1996).

Results of testing microbial Bacillus

thuringiensis preparations for oral

mammalian toxicity over the past 35

years demonstrate the total lack of

acute, subchronic, and chronic oral

toxicity associated with Bacillus

thuringiensis microbial pesticides.

These findings are directly relevant to

this petition because these microbial

preparations contain genes encoded for

the production of at least four different

classes of Cry proteins, including seven

Cry1 proteins and two each of the Cry2,

and Cry3 proteins.

Bacillus thuringiensis microbial

products were first registered in 1961

and have been applied continuously

since then for an expanding number of

uses in agriculture, disease vector

control, and forestry. No reports of

adverse effects have involved or

implicated Cry proteins as the causative

agent, nor have any of these effects been

considered significant in view of the

quality assurance safeguards that are in

place for microbial products. Moreover,

in establishing the existing tolerance

exemptions for Cry protein plant

pesticides, EPA has stated that FIFRA

section 6(a)2 reports claiming allergic

reactions ‘‘were not due to Bacillus

thuringiensis itself or any of the Cry

toxins.’’

The genetic material necessary for the

production of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry

proteins are nucleic acids (DNA) which

comprise the genetic material encoding

the proteins and the regulatory regions
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices 53001

associated with the genes. Regulatory

regions are the genetic material that

control the expression of the genetic

material encoding the Cry proteins, such

as promoters, terminators, introns, and

enhancers. DNA is common to all forms

of plant and animal life, and there are

no known instances of where nucleic

acids have been associated with toxic

effects related to their consumption. No

mammalian toxicity is expected from

dietary exposure to the genetic material

necessary for the production of any

Bacillus thuringiensis proteins,

including the Cry1, Cry2, and Cry3

classes of proteins. EPA has also

proposed an exemption from the

requirement for a tolerance for residues

of nucleic acids produced in plants as

part of a plant pesticide active

ingredient (59 FR 60542, November 23,

1994).

D. Aggregate Exposure

Exposure to Cry1, Cry2, and Cry3

proteins via dermal exposure or

inhalation is unlikely given that these

plant pesticides are contained in the

plant, are not exuded and are not

volatile. Therefore, worker and

bystander exposure resulting from plant

pesticides will be negligible, and would

be unlikely to add measurably to any

worker or bystander exposure resulting

from microbial or other Bacillus

thuringiensis formulations. Movement

of the plant pesticides to drinking water

is highly unlikely given that Cry

proteins are known to rapidly degrade

in the soil.

E. Cumulative Exposure

Consideration of a common mode of

toxicity is not appropriate given that

there is no indication of mammalian

toxicity of Cry proteins in microbial or

other formulations and no information

that indicates that toxic effects would be

cumulative with any other compounds.

Mammals are not susceptible to Cry

proteins. This may be explained, in part,

by the fact that conditions required for

the complex steps in the mode of action

do not exist in mammals. As

anticipated, immunocytochemical

analyses of Cry1A have revealed no

comparable binding sites in mammals.

Monsanto is not aware of any other

substances that may be related, via a

common mechanism of toxicity, to the

proteins that are the subject of the

proposed exemption.

F. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population in general. The

lack of toxicity and the rapid

digestibility of Cry proteins provides

evidence for the lack of toxicity and

allergenicty and supports an exemption

from the requirement of a tolerance for

the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1, Cry2,

and Cry3 classes of proteins. These

proteins have been used in microbial

insecticide formulations that have been

registered by the EPA and commercially

available since the early 1960s.

Accordingly, the available information

supports a finding that there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will

result to the U.S. population in general

form aggregate dietary exposure to the

Cry1, Cry2, and Cry3 classes of proteins.

2. Infants and Children. Bacillus

thuringiensis Cry proteins are expressed

in plants to protect the plant from insect

damage. Therefore, nondietary exposure

to infants and children is not expected.

The lack of toxicity of Cry proteins and

history of safe use of Bacillus

thuringiensis microbial pesticides

provides reasonable certainty that no

harm will result to infants and children

from aggregate dietary exposure to Cry1,

Cry2, and Cry3 classes of proteins.

Accordingly, there is no need to apply

an additional safety factor for infants

and children.

G. Existing Tolerances

Exemptions from the requirement for

a tolerance have been granted by EPA

for Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac and the genetic

material necessary for their production

in all plant raw agricultural

commodities (61 FR 40340, August 2,

1996 and 62 FR 17720, April 11, 1997,

respectively) and for Cry3A and the

genetic material necessary for its

production in potatoes (60 FR 21725,

May 3, 1995).

[FR Doc. 97–27012 Filed 10–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5908–7]

Agency Information Collection

Activities; OMB Responses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

Office of Management and Budget’s

(OMB) responses to Agency clearance

requests, in compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et, seq.). An 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 numbers for EPA’s

regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9

and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandy Farmer (202) 260–2740, please

refer to the appropriate EPA Information

Collection Request (ICR) Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance

Requests

OMB Approvals

EPA ICR No. 1495.04; FIFRA

Reregistration Fees; was approved 09/

19/97; OMB No. 2070–0101; expires 09/

30/2000.

EPA ICR No. 0940.15; Ambient Air

Quality Surveillance Revision; was

approved 09/30/97; OMB No. 2060–

0084; expires 03/31/99.

EPA ICR No. 0184.05; Vehicle

Emission Control Defect Survey

Questionnaire; was approved 08/27/97;

OMB No. 2060–0047; expires 08/31/

2000.

EPA ICR No. 1680.02; Combined

Sewer Overflow Policy; was approved

09/19/97; OMB No. 2040–0170; expires

09/30/2000.

EPA ICR No. 0783.36; Application for

Motor Vehicle Emission Certification

and Fuel Economy Labeling, SFTP

Amendment; was approved 08/27/97;

OMB No. 2060–0104; expires 08/31/98.

EPA ICR No. 1810.01; Obtaining

Unbilled Grant Expenses from Grant

Recipients; was approved 09/15/97;

OMB No. 2030–0037; expires 09/30/

2000.

EPA ICR No. 1797.01; NSPS for

Petroleum Storage Liquid Vessels—40

CFR 60, Subpart K; was approved 09/

22/97; OMB No. 2020–0009; expires 09/

30/2000.

EPA ICR No. 1204.07; Submission of

Unreasonable Adverse Effects

Information under FIFRA Section

6(a)(2); was approved 09/24/97; OMB

No. 2070–0039; expires 09/30/2000.

EPA ICR No. 0278.06; Supplemental

Distribution of a Registered Pesticide

Product; was approved 09/19/97; OMB

No. 2070–0044; expires 09/30/2000.

EPA ICR No. 1214.04; Pesticide

Product Registration Maintenance Fee;

was approved 09/19/97; OMB No. 2070–

0100; expires 09/30/2000.

EPA ICR No. 0155.06; Certification of

Pesticide Applicators—40 CFR Part 171;

was approved 09/30/97; OMB No. 2070–

0029; expires 09/30/2000.

EPA ICR No. 1230.09; Prevention of

Significant Deterioration NonAttainment Area New Source Review;

was approved 09/30/97; expires 09/30/

2000.

EPA ICR No. 1038.09; Invitation for

Bids and Request for Proposals; was

approved 09/30/97; OMB No. 2030–

0006; expires 09/30/2000.