Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Notices 62445

must be identified by the docket number

[OPP–180983]. No Confidential

Business Information (CBI) should be

submitted through e-mail. Electronic

comments on this notice may be filed

online at many Federal Depository

Libraries. Additional information on

electronic submissions can be found

below in this document.

Information submitted in any

comment concerning this notice may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as (CBI).

Information so marked 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 provided by the

submitter for inclusion in the public

record. Information not marked

confidential may be disclosed publicly

by EPA without prior notice. All written

comments filed pursuant to this notice

will be available for public inspection in

Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall No. 2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA,

from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Andrea Beard, Registration

Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Office location and telephone

number: Floor 6, Crystal Station #1,

2800 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA, (703) 308–8791; e-mail:

beard.andrea@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

(7 U.S.C. 136p), the Administrator may,

at her discretion, exempt a state agency

from any registration provision of

FIFRA if she determines that emergency

conditions exist which require such

exemption. The Applicant has requested

the Administrator to issue a specific

exemption for the use of propazine on

sorghum to control pigweed.

Information in accordance with 40 CFR

part 166 was submitted as part of this

request.

Sorghum is grown as a rotational crop

with cotton and wheat, in order to

comply with the soil conservation

requirements. Propazine, which was

formerly registered for use on sorghum,

was voluntarily canceled by the former

Registrant, who did not wish to support

its re-registration. The Applicants claim

that this has left sorghum growers in

most of Texas with no pre-emergent

herbicides that will adequately control

certain broadleaf weeds, especially

pigweed. Until 1993, the year an

exemption was first requested, growers

were using existing stocks of propazine.

The Applicant states that other available

herbicides have serious limitations on

their use, making them unsuitable for

control of pigweed in sorghum.

Although the original Registrant of

propazine has decided not to support

this chemical through re-registration,

another company has committed to

support the data requirements for this

use. Propazine was once registered for

this use, but has now been voluntarily

canceled and is therefore considered to

be a new chemical.

The Applicant states that, since

growers used existing stocks of

propazine between the time of its

voluntary cancellation and the

availability of propazine under an

emergency exemption, yields have not

shown a decrease. However, the

Applicant claims that significant

economic losses will occur without the

availability of propazine.

The Applicant proposes to apply

propazine at a maximum rate of [1.2 lbs.

active ingredient (a.i.)] (2.4 pts. of

product) per acre, by ground or air, with

a maximum of one application per crop

growing season, on up to 1,823,000

acres of grain sorghum. Therefore, use

under this exemption could potentially

amount to a maximum total of 2,187,600

lbs. of active ingredient (546,900 gal. of

product) in Texas. This is the fourth

time that Texas has applied for this use

of propazine on sorghum under section

18 of FIFRA. Texas was issued

exemptions for this use for the past

three growing seasons.

This notice does not constitute a

decision by EPA on the application

itself. The regulations governing section

18 require publication of a notice of

receipt of an application for a specific

exemption proposing use of a new

chemical (i.e., an active ingredient not

contained in any currently registered

pesticide), or if an emergency

exemption for a use has been requested

in any 3 previous years, and a complete

application for registration of the use

and/or a tolerance petition has not been

submitted to the Agency. Such notice

provides for opportunity for public

comment on the application.

A record has been established for this

notice under docket number [OPP–

180983] (including comments and data

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 a.m. to

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The public

record is located in Room 1132 of the

Public Response and Program Resource

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA.

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.

The official record for this notice, as

well as the public version, as described

above will be kept in paper form.

Accordingly, EPA will transfer all

comments received electronically into

printed, paper form as they are received

and will place the paper copies in the

official record which will also include

all comments submitted directly in

writing. The official record is the paper

record maintained at the address in

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of this

document. Accordingly, interested

persons may submit written views on

this subject to the Field Operations

Division at the address above.

The Agency, accordingly, will review

and consider all comments received

during the comment period in

determining whether to issue the

emergency exemption requested by the

Texas Department of Agriculture.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Pesticides

and pests, Crisis exemptions.

Dated: November 6, 1995.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 95–29252 Filed 12–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[FRL–5340–9]

Notice of Proposed Administrative

Cost Recovery Agreement Under

Section 122(h)(1) of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act, Regarding the Slattery Gas Stove

Site, Brooklyn, NY

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed

administrative agreement and

opportunity for public comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section

122(i) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of

1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42

U.S.C. § 9622(i), the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) Region II
62446 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Notices

announces a proposed administrative

settlement pursuant to Section 122(h)(1)

of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9622(h)(1),

relating to the Slattery Gas Stove Site

(‘‘Site’’) in Brooklyn, Kings County,

New York. This Site is not on the

National Priorities List established

pursuant to Section 105(a) of CERCLA.

This notice is being published to inform

the public of the proposed settlement

and of the opportunity to comment.

The settlement, memorialized in an

Administrative Cost Recovery

Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’), is being

entered into by EPA and Datsun Realty

Corp.; J.B. Slattery & Bros., Inc.;

Abraham Leser; and Solomon Obstfeld

(collectively, the ‘‘Respondents’’).

Under the Agreement, the Respondents

shall pay EPA the sum of $95,000.00, in

partial reimbursement of EPA’s claim

for response costs incurred with respect

to the Site on or prior to November 3,

1994.

DATES: EPA will accept written

comments relating to the proposed

settlement on or before January 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent

to: Eric Schaaf, Chief, New York/

Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of

Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 17th

Floor, New York, N.Y. 10007–1866.

Comments should reference the Slattery

Gas Stove Site and EPA Index No. II–

CERCLA–95–0208. For a copy of the

Agreement, contact the individual listed

below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juan

M. Fajardo, Assistant Regional Counsel,

New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch,

Office of Regional Counsel, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, New

York, 10007–1866, telephone: (212)

637–3179.

Dated: October 30, 1995.

William Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–29741 Filed 12–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5340–5]

Superfund Program; Final Model

CERCLA Past Costs Consent Decree

and Administrative Agreement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Agency is publishing

today the final ‘‘Model CERCLA Section

107 Consent Decree for Recovery of Past

Response Costs’’ and the final ‘‘Model

CERCLA Section 122(h)(1) Agreement

for Recovery of Past Response Costs.’’

These models, developed by the Agency

and the U.S. Department of Justice,

provide guidance for Agency and

Department staff when negotiating

settlement of CERCLA Section 107

claims for recovery of purely past

response costs. The model consent

decree is designed for judiciallyapproved CERCLA Section 107

settlements, and the model agreement is

designed for administrative CERCLA

Section 122(h)(1) settlements. The

Agency is publishing the models in

their entirety, along with the September

29, 1995 joint memorandum of the EPA

and the U.S. Department of Justice

announcing their issuance, to inform

affected members of the public of their

existence and content.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice C. Linett, Mail Code 2272, Office

of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance, Regional Enforcement

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,

D.C. 20460, (202) 260–7116.

Dated: October 26, 1995.

Susan Brown,

Acting Director, Office of Site Remediation

Enforcement.

Memorandum

Subject: Issuance of ‘‘Model CERCLA

Section 107 Consent Decree for

Recovery of Past Response Costs’’

and ‘‘Model CERCLA Section

122(h)(1) Agreement for Recovery of

Past Response Costs’’

From:

Jerry Clifford, Director,

Office of Site Remediation

Enforcement,

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

Bruce S. Gelber, Acting Chief,

Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment and Natural Resources

Division,

U.S. Department of Justice

To:

Regional Counsel, Regions I—X

Regional Waste Management Division

Directors, Regions I—X

Financial Management Officers,

Regions I—X

Assistant Chiefs, Environmental

Enforcement Section

September 29, 1995.

We are pleased to issue the final

versions of two model CERCLA cost

recovery settlement documents: 1)

‘‘Model CERCLA Section 107 Consent

Decree for Recovery of Past Response

Costs’’ (‘‘Model CD’’); and 2) ‘‘Model

CERCLA Section 122(h)(1) Agreement

for Recovery of Past Response Costs’’

(‘‘Model Agreement’’). The Model CD is

to be used as guidance for EPA and DOJ

staff when negotiating CERCLA Section

107 judicial consent decrees for

recovery of past response costs. The

Model Agreement is to be used as

guidance for EPA and DOJ staff when

negotiating CERCLA Section 122(h)

administrative agreements for recovery

of past response costs. Both models are

designed for resolution of purely past

cost claims and are not intended to be

used to resolve claims for future work

or payment of future response costs

(‘‘cashout’’ settlements). Cashout

settlement terms will be provided in

subsequent models.

We encourage our staffs to adhere as

closely as possible to the terms of these

models, subject to modifications needed

to reflect site-specific circumstances.

We believe use of these models will

reduce negotiation timeframes, achieve

nationally consistent settlements,

promote compliance with current

settlement practices and procedures,

and increase the speed of management

review and approval. When seeking

approval of any settlement based upon

one of these models, staff should

identify any significant deviation from

the relevant model and the basis for the

departure. For DOJ staff, these models

are available electronically on the

Section’s work product directory,

EESINDEX, as N:/NET/SS52/UDD/

EESINDEX/CERMODEL/PASTCOST.CD

or PASTCOST.AOC.

We would like to thank all EPA and

DOJ staff who assisted in the

development of these models. If you

have any questions about these models,

please contact Janice Linett of the

Regional Support Division at (703) 978–

3057 or Tom Mariani of the

Environmental Enforcement Section at

(202) 514–4620.

Attachments

cc: Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting

Associate General Counsel, Solid

Waste and Emergency Response

Division,

Stephen D. Luftig, Director, Office of

Emergency and Remedial Response

Jack L. Shipley, Director, Financial

Management Division

Letitia Grishaw, Chief, Environmental

Defense Section

Environmental Protection Agency and

Department of Justice Model Cercla

Section 107 Consent Decree for

Recovery of Past Response Costs

This model and any internal

procedures adopted for its

implementation and use are intended as

guidance for employees of the U.S.

Department of Justice and the U.S.