63712 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / Notices

forms of information technology, e.g.,

permitting electronic submission of

responses.

Burden Statement: There are 23

sources currently subject to this

standard, and no additional sources are

anticipated during the next three years.

Since most of the reporting

requirements are one-time-only

activities for new sources, these will not

apply to the 23 existing facilities and

consequently, have not been included in

estimating the respondent burden for

this ICR. The total annual burden for all

recordkeeping and monitoring

requirements plus the preparation of

semi-annual reports is estimated to be

5,686 hours technical, 285 hours

managerial, and 568 hours clerical. The

total annual cost associated with this

ICR is $231,561 or approximately

$10,000 per facility per year. This

estimate includes the time needed to

review instructions; develop, acquire,

install, and utilize technology and

systems for the purposes of collecting,

validating, and verifying information,

processing and maintaining

information, and disclosing and

providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

Dated: November 25, 1997.

Elaine G. Stanley,

Director, Office of Compliance.

[FR Doc. 97–31575 Filed 12–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5960–6]

Proposed Settlement Agreement,

Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement;

request for public comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance, with section

113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended

(Act), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby

given of a proposed partial consent

decree, which was lodged with the

United States District Court for the

District of Columbia by the United

States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) on November 19, 1997, to address

a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club. This

lawsuit, which was filed pursuant to

section 304(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7604(a), concerns, among other things,

EPA’s alleged failure to meet a

mandatory deadline under section

112(f)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412(f)(1).

Section 112(f)(1) of the Act relates to a

report to Congress on the risk to public

health remaining, or likely to remain,

from sources subject to hazardous air

pollutant regulation under section 112

of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412, after the

application of technology-based

standards under section 112(d) of the

Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412(d). The proposed

partial consent decree provides that no

later than March 24, 1998, the

Administrator shall sign a notice of

availability of the proposed report, and

that no later than February 1, 1999, the

Administrator shall sign the letter

transmitting the final report to Congress.

For a period of thirty (30) days

following the date of publication of this

notice, the Agency will receive written

comments relating to the proposed

partial consent decree from persons who

were not named as parties or

intervenors to the litigation in question.

EPA or the Department of Justice may

withhold or withdraw consent to the

proposed partial consent decree if the

comments disclose facts or

circumstances that indicate that such

consent is inappropriate, improper,

inadequate, or inconsistent with the

requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or

the Department of Justice determines,

following the comment period, that

consent is inappropriate, the final

partial consent decree will establish the

deadlines listed above for specific

actions under section 112(f)(1) of the

Act.

A copy of the proposed partial

consent decree was lodged with the

Clerk of the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia on

November 19, 1997. Copies are also

available from Phyllis Cochran, Air and

Radiation Division (2344), Office of

General Counsel, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260–7606.

Written comments should be sent to

Diane E. McConkey at the address above

and must be submitted on or before

January 2, 1998.

Dated: November 24, 1997.

Scott C. Fulton,

Acting General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–31571 Filed 12–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPP–00514; FRL–5759–4]

Pesticide Environmental Stewardship

Program Regional Workshops; Open

Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: The Pesticide Environmental

Stewardship Program (PESP) is a

voluntary partnership between the

pesticide user community and EPA.

EPA, in conjunction with the National

Foundation for IPM Education, will

hold two meetings in December to allow

PESP members to discuss pesticide risk

reduction issues of common interest and

to exchange ideas on risk reduction

techniques. Further, the meetings will

serve as an introduction to PESP for

organizations considering membership

and for other parties interested in

pesticide risk reduction. Both meetings

are open to the public.

DATES: The meetings will be held on

December 4, 1997, from 8:30 a.m. to 6

p.m and December 8, 1997, from 8:30

a.m to 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting on December 4

will be held at Skamania Lodge,

Stevenson, WA. The meeting on

December 8 will be held at the

University Club, University of

California, Davis, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Frank W. Ellis, Jr., Office of

Pesticide Programs (7501W),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location, telephone number, and

e-mail address: 5th floor, 2800 Crystal

Drive, Arlington, VA, 703–308–8107; email: ellis.frank@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Begun in

1994 with 23 charter partners, PESP has

grown to include 77 partners

encompassing interests as diverse as

almond growers in California, villages

in the Northeast and utility rights-ofway managers throughout the country

and 15 supporters encompassing

interests as diverse as major food

processors and stormwater management

agencies. Partner organizations