Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 / Notices 29991

information collection request most

recently approved by OMB, from 30,488

hours currently to an estimated 43,466

hours. At the time of the last clearance

of this ICR in May 1995, EPA estimated

the burden for respondents to be 30,488

hours annually, an increase of 12,978

hours from the burden total in the OMB

inventory at the time. The increase in

burden reflects the increase in the

number of petitions requesting a FIFRA

section 18 exemption. Based on

currently available information, this

change represents an increase in annual

respondents from 296 to 422.

According to the procedures

prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12, EPA has

submitted this ICR to OMB for review

and approval. Any comments related to

the renewal of this ICR should be

submitted within 30 days of this

document, as described above.

Dated: May 27, 1998.

Richard T. Westlund,

Acting Director, Regulatory Information

Division.

[FR Doc. 98–14589 Filed 6–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6105–4]

Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and

Equivalent Methods Applications for

Reference or Equivalent Method

Determinations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications.

SUMMARY: Notification is given that the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

has received five new applications for

reference or equivalent method

determinations under 40 CFR part 53.

The applications were received from

Rupprecht and Patashnick Company,

Incorporated, Albany, New York (two

applications); Advanced Pollution

Instrumentation, Incorporated, San

Diego, California; Horiba Instruments

Incorporated, Irvine, California; and

DKK Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frank F. McElroy, Human Exposure and

Atmospheric Sciences Division (MD–

46), National Exposure Research

Laboratory, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711. Phone:

(919) 541–2622, email:

mcelroy.frank@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

accordance with regulations at 40 CFR

part 53, the EPA examines various

methods for monitoring the

concentrations of certain pollutants in

the ambient air. Methods that are

determined to meet specific

requirements for adequacy are

designated as either reference or

equivalent methods, thereby permitting

their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States

and other agencies in determining

attainment of the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards. The EPA is hereby

announcing that it has received five new

applications for reference or equivalent

method determinations under 40 CFR

part 53. Publication of a notice of

receipt of such applications is required

by section 53.5.

On February 3, 1998, EPA received

two applications from the Rupprecht

and Patashnick Company, Incorporated,

25 Corporate Circle, Albany, New York

12203 to determine if methods based on

that Company’s Partisol1-FRM Model

2000 (single) and Partisol-Plus Model

2025 (sequential) PM–10 Air Samplers

should be designated as reference

methods for PM10. The EPA received an

application on February 24, 1998, from

Advanced Pollution Instrumentation,

Incorporated, 6565 Nancy Ridge Drive,

San Diego, California 92121 for an

equivalent method determination for

their Model 400A UV Photometric

Ozone Analyzer. An application was

received on March 26, 1998 from Horiba

Instruments Incorporated, 17671

Armstrong Avenue, Irvine, California

92614 for an equivalent method

determination for Horiba’s Model

APSA-360ACE ambient SO2 monitor.

And on April 14, 1998, the EPA

received an application from DKK

Corporation, 4–13–14, Kichijoji

Kitamachi, Musashino-shi, Tokyo, 180–

8630, Japan for a reference method

determination for DKK’s Model GLN–

114E Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer.

If, after appropriate technical study,

the Administrator determines that any

or all of these methods should be

designated as either reference or

equivalent methods, notice thereof will

be published in a subsequent issue of

the Federal Register.

Thomas A. Clark,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Research

and Development.

[FR Doc. 98–14585 Filed 6–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6104–9]

Proposed Settlement Agreement,

Clean Air Act Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

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 settlement

agreement, which was lodged with the

United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit by the

United States Environmental Protection

Agency (‘‘EPA’’) on April 15, 1998, to

address a lawsuit filed by the Natural

Resources Defense Council. This

lawsuit, which was filed pursuant to

section 307(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7607(b), concerns, among other things,

EPA’s alleged failure to list, and

determine whether to regulate

hazardous air pollutant emissions from,

electric utility steam generating units

under section 112 of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7412. In the proposed settlement

agreement, the EPA agrees to: (i)

Undertake, and publish the results of,

an analysis of the emission reductions

of SO2, NOX, CO2, and mercury (and the

effect on mercury removal costs) that

would be achieved through an array of

strategies to control SO2, NOX, CO2 and

mercury; and, (ii) proposed and

promulgate a new reference test method

for determining the ambient

concentration of mercury in water.

For a period of thirty (30) days

following the date of publication of this

document, EPA will receive written

comments relating to the proposed

settlement agreement from persons who

were not named as parties or interveners

to the litigation in question. EPA or the

Department of Justice may withhold or

withdraw consent to the proposed

settlement agreement 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 settlement

agreement will contain the requirements

listed above.

A copy of the proposed settlement

agreement was lodged with the Clerk of

the United States Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit on April

15, 1998. Copies are also available from

Phyllis Cochran, Air and Radiation Law