43120 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of 

operation of this Docket Facility are 

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

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

2. Electronic access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. 

II. Contractor Requirements 

Under these contract numbers, the 

contractor will perform the following: 

Under Contract No. EP-08-H000383, 

The Birnbaum Intrepreting Services will 

provide with Sign Language interpreting 

services. The work will be performed in 

a space to be designated by EPA, 

primarily at EPA Headquarters and 

other Washington, DC area EPA 

facilities. Occasional travel will be 

involved. The sign language personnel 

will report to the location specified by 

the EPA Headquarters Interpreting 

Coordinator, also identified as the 

Project Officer under this contract. The 

contract does not employ any 

subcontractors. 

The OPP has determined that the 

contracts described in this document 

involve work that is being conducted in 

connection with FIFRA, in that 

pesticide chemicals will be the subject 

of certain evaluations to be made under 

this contract. These evaluations may be 

used in subsequent regulatory decisions 

under FIFRA. 

Some of this information may be 

entitled to confidential treatment. The 

information has been submitted to EPA 

under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 of FIFRA 

and under sections 408 and 409 of 

FFDCA. 

In accordance with the requirements 

of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), the contracts with 

Birnbaum Interpreting Services, 

prohibits use of the information for any 

purpose not specified in these contracts; 

prohibits disclosure of the information 

to a third party without prior written 

approval from the Agency; and requires 

that each official and employee of the 

contractor sign an agreement to protect 

the information from unauthorized 

release and to handle it in accordance 

with the FIFRA Information Security 

Manual. In addition, Birnbaum 

Interpreting Services is required to 

submit for EPA approval a security plan 

under which any CBI will be secured 

and protected against unauthorized 

release or compromise. No information 

will be provided to Birnbaum 

Interpreting Services until the 

requirements in this document have 

been fully satisfied. Records of 

information provided to Birnbaum 

Interpreting Services will be maintained 

by EPA Project Officers for these 

contracts. All information supplied to 

Birnbaum Interpreting Services by EPA 

for use in connection with these 

contracts will be returned to EPA when 

Birnbaum Interpreting Services has 

completed its work. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Business 

and industry, Government contracts, 

Government property, Security 

measures. 

Dated: August 19, 2009. 

Oscar Morales, 

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–20606 Filed 8–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8941–2] 

Final EPA Region 4 National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) General Permit for 

Stormwater Discharges From 

Construction Activities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final permit issuance. 

SUMMARY: EPA Region 4 is issuing the 

final National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) general 

permit for stormwater discharges from 

new dischargers engaged in large and 

small construction activities on Indian 

Country Lands within Region 4. 

Hereinafter, this NPDES general permit 

will be referred to as ‘‘permit’’ or ‘‘2009 

construction general permit’’ or ‘‘2009 

CGP.’’ ‘‘New dischargers’’ are those who 

did not file a notice of intent (‘‘NOI’’) to 

be covered under the 2004 construction 

general permit (‘‘2004 CGP’’) before it 

expired. Existing dischargers who 

properly filed an NOI to be covered 

under the 2004 CGP continue to be 

authorized to discharge under that 

permit according to its terms. This 2009 

CGP contains generally the same limits 

and conditions as the National CGP that 

was issued by other EPA regions and 

became effective on June 30, 2008 

(‘‘2008 National CGP’’). EPA Region 4 is 

issuing this CGP for a period not to 

exceed two (2) years and will make the 

permit available to new construction 

activities and unpermitted ongoing 

activities only. 

DATES: The effective date of this permit 

is September 1, 2009 and will expire at 

midnight August 31, 2011. This 

effective date is necessary to provide 

dischargers with the immediate 

opportunity to comply with Clean Water 

Act requirements in light of the 

expiration of the 2004 CGP. In 

accordance with 40 CFR part 23, this 

permit shall be considered issued for 

the purpose of judicial review on 

September 15, 2009. Under Section 

509(b) of the Clean Water Act, judicial 

review of this general permit can be had 

by filing a petition for review in the 

United States Court of Appeals within 

120 days after the permit is considered 

issued for purposes of judicial review. 

Under section 509(b)(2) of the Clean 

Water Act, the requirements in this 

permit may not be challenged later in 

civil or criminal proceedings to enforce 

these requirements. In addition, this 

permit may not be challenged in other 

agency proceedings. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alanna Conley, Water Protection 

Division, Stormwater and Nonpoint 

Source Section, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303; 

telephone number: (404) 562–9443. In 

addition, copies of the permit and fact 

sheet may be downloaded at http:// 

www.epa.gov/region4/water/permits/

stormwater.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

If a discharger chooses to apply to be 

authorized to discharge under the 2009 

construction general permit (‘‘2009 

CGP’’), the permit provides specific 

requirements for preventing 

contamination of stormwater discharges 

from the following construction 

activities: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 43121 

Category Examples of affected entities North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) code 

Industry ................................ Construction site operators disturbing 1 or more acres of land, or less than 1 acre but part of a larger common 

plan of development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb 1 acre or more, and performing 

the following activities: 

Building, Developing and General Contracting ............... 233 

Heavy Construction ......................................................... 234 

EPA does not intend the preceding 

table to be exhaustive, but provides it as 

a guide for readers regarding entities 

likely to be regulated by this action. 

This table lists the types of activities 

that EPA is now aware of that could 

potentially be affected by this action. 

Other types of entities not listed in the 

table could also be affected. To 

determine whether your facility is 

affected by this action, you should 

carefully examine the definition of 

‘‘construction activity’’ and ‘‘small 

construction activity’’ in existing EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) 

and 122.26(b)(15), respectively. If you 

have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed for technical information in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

Eligibility for coverage under the 2009 

CGP would be limited to operators of 

‘‘new projects’’ or ‘‘unpermitted ongoing 

projects.’’ A ‘‘new project’’ is one that 

commences after the effective date of 

the 2009 CGP. An ‘‘unpermitted ongoing 

project’’ is one that commenced prior to 

the effective date of the 2009 CGP, yet 

never received authorization to 

discharge under the 2004 CGP or any 

other NPDES permit covering its 

construction-related stormwater 

discharges. This proposal is limited to 

those areas where EPA Region 4 is the 

permitting authority, including all 

Indian Country Lands within the States 

of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and 

North Carolina. 

II. Background of Permit 

A. Statutory and Regulatory History 

The Clean Water Act (‘‘CWA’’) 

establishes a comprehensive program 

‘‘to restore and maintain the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the 

Nation’s waters.’’ 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). The 

CWA also includes the objective of 

attaining ‘‘water quality which provides 

for the protection and propagation of 

fish, shellfish and wildlife.’’ 33 U.S.C. 

1251(a)(2). To achieve these goals, the 

CWA requires EPA to control the 

discharges through the issuance of 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (‘‘NPDES’’) permits. 

Section 405 of the Water Quality Act 

of 1987 (WQA) added Section 402(p) of 

the CWA, which directed EPA to 

develop a phased approach to regulate 

stormwater discharges under the NPDES 

program. EPA published a final 

regulation in the Federal Register on the 

first phase of this program on November 

16, 1990, establishing permit 

application requirements for ‘‘storm 

water discharges associated with 

industrial activity.’’ See 55 FR 47990. 

EPA defined the term ‘‘storm water 

discharge associated with industrial 

activity’’ in a comprehensive manner to 

cover a wide variety of facilities. 

Construction activities, including 

activities that are part of a larger 

common plan of development or sale, 

that ultimately disturb at least five acres 

of land and have point source 

discharges to waters of the United States 

were included in the definition of 

‘‘industrial activity’’ pursuant to 40 CFR 

122.26(b)(14)(x). Phase II of the 

stormwater program was published in 

the Federal Register on December 8, 

1999, and required NPDES permits for 

discharges from construction sites 

disturbing at least one acre, but less 

than five acres, including sites that are 

part of a larger common plan of 

development or sale that will ultimately 

disturb at least one acre but less than 

five acres, pursuant to 40 CFR 

122.26(b)(15)(i). See 64 FR 68722. EPA 

is issuing the 2009 CGP under the 

statutory and regulatory authority cited 

above. 

NPDES permits issued for 

construction stormwater discharges are 

required under Section 402(a)(1) of the 

CWA to include conditions for meeting 

technology-based effluent limits 

established under Section 301 and, 

where applicable, Section 306. Once an 

effluent limitations guideline or new 

source performance standard is 

promulgated in accordance with these 

sections, NPDES permits are required to 

incorporate limits based on such 

limitations and standards. See 40 CFR 

122.44(a)(1). Prior to the promulgation 

of national effluent limitations and 

standards, permitting authorities 

incorporate technology-based effluent 

limitations on a best professional 

judgment basis. CWA Section 

402(a)(1)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(a)(2)(ii)(B). 

B. Summary of Permit 

EPA noticed the draft 2009 CGP for 

public review and comment on May 7, 

2009. No comments were received from 

the public, and therefore, the 

requirements and provisions of the final 

permit are not different from those 

proposed in the draft permit. 

Construction operators choosing to be 

covered by the 2009 CGP must certify in 

their notice of intent (NOI) that they 

meet the requisite eligibility 

requirements, described in Subpart 1.3 

of the permit. If eligible, operators are 

authorized to discharge under this 

permit in accordance with Part 2. The 

2009 CGP includes conditions and 

limits that are generally identical to the 

2008 National CGP issued by other EPA 

Regional offices, with a few 

requirements carried over from the 2004 

CGP. Note that the 2009 CGP only 

applies to new and unpermitted ongoing 

construction projects. Discharges from 

ongoing projects (or ‘‘existing 

dischargers’’) continue to be covered 

under the existing 2004 CGP. (However, 

EPA clarifies that if an operator of a 

permitted ongoing project transfers 

ownership of the project, or a portion 

thereof, to a different operator, that 

subsequent operator will be required to 

submit a complete and accurate NOI for 

a new project under the 2009 CGP.) 

Dischargers who filed NOIs to be 

authorized under the 2004 permit prior 

to the expiration date will continue to 

be authorized to discharge in 

accordance with EPA’s regulations at 40 

CFR 122.6. Operators of new projects or 

unpermitted ongoing projects seeking 

coverage under the 2009 CGP are 

expected to use the same electronic 

Notice of Intent (eNOI) system that is 

currently in place for the 2004 CGP. 

Permittees must install and implement 

control measures to meet the effluent 

limits applicable to all dischargers in 

Part 3, and must inspect such 

stormwater controls and repair or 

modify them in accordance with Part 4. 

The permit in Part 5 requires all 

construction operators to prepare a 

stormwater pollution prevention plan 

(SWPPP) that identifies all sources of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
43122 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 

pollution, and describes control 

measures used to minimize pollutants 

discharged from the construction site. 

Part 6 details the requirements for 

terminating coverage under the permit. 

C. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the TwoYear Duration of the 2009 CGP? 

The 2009 CGP is effective for a period 

not to exceed two years. As a result of 

recent litigation brought against EPA 

concerning the promulgation of effluent 

limitations guidelines and standards for 

the construction and development 

(‘‘C&D’’) industry, EPA was required by 

court order to propose effluent 

limitations guidelines and new source 

performance standards (hereinafter, 

‘‘effluent guidelines’’) for the C&D 

industry by December 2008, and 

promulgate those effluent guidelines by 

December 2009. See Natural Resources 

Defense Council, et al. v. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, No. 

CV–0408307–GH (C.D. Cal.) (Permanent 

Injunction and Judgment, December 5, 

2006). EPA believes it is appropriate to 

propose a revised National CGP once 

EPA has issued C&D effluent guidelines, 

and therefore proposes a maximum twoyear duration for this permit to better 

coincide with the court-ordered 

deadlines for the C&D rule. EPA intends 

to propose and finalize a new, revised 

National CGP sooner, if the C&D rule is 

promulgated earlier than the date 

directed by the court. 

D. Why Is EPA Using Requirements That 

Are Nearly Identical to the 2004 CGP? 

In consideration that the 2004 CGP 

expired on April 30, 2009, it is 

incumbent upon EPA Region 4 to make 

available a similar general permit that 

provides coverage for any new 

dischargers commencing construction in 

the areas where EPA Region 4 is the 

permitting authority. Without such a 

permit vehicle, the only other available 

option for construction site operators is 

to obtain coverage under an individual 

permit. EPA is issuing a CGP that adopts 

generally the same limits and conditions 

of the 2008 National CGP issued by 

other EPA regions for a limited period 

of time. This action is appropriate for 

several reasons. One main reason, as 

discussed above, is that EPA is working 

on the development of a new effluent 

guideline that will address stormwater 

discharges from the same industrial 

activities (i.e., construction activities 

disturbing one or more acres) as the 

CGP. Because the development of the 

C&D rule and the issuance of the CGP 

are on relatively similar schedules, and 

the C&D rule will establish national 

technology-based effluent limitations 

and standards for construction 

activities, EPA believes that it is more 

appropriate to proceed along two tracks 

to permit construction discharges. The 

first track entails issuing a CGP for a 

limited period of time, not to exceed 2 

years, that contains the 2004 CGP limits 

and conditions, but for only operators of 

new and unpermitted ongoing projects, 

so that such entities can obtain valid 

permit coverage for their discharges. 

The second track involves proposing 

and issuing a revised 5-year CGP that 

incorporates the requirements of the 

new C&D rule after the rule is 

promulgated. 

In addition, EPA believes that issuing 

a substantially revised CGP would be 

impracticable given the number of 

unknowns concerning the outcome of 

the C&D rule. EPA does not believe that 

it would be appropriate to issue a 

permit containing technology-based 

limitations that could be quickly 

outdated, given the timing of a 

promulgation of the C&D rule and 

permit issuance. If EPA had attempted 

to approximate the requirements of the 

new C&D rule and incorporate such 

limits into a new CGP, such a permit 

would presuppose the outcome of the 

C&D rule and potentially conflict with 

the scope and content of the effluent 

limitation guideline. Instead, EPA 

Region 4 has decided to wait the short 

time until after the C&D rule 

promulgation to issue a revised CGP 

that is fully reflective of the new 

effluent limitation guideline. In the 

meantime, during this relatively short 

period of time prior to the C&D rule’s 

promulgation and prior to the issuance 

of the revised CGP that incorporates 

those standards, EPA is proposing to use 

similar permit limits and conditions as 

the 2004 CGP as an effective vehicle to 

control new discharges. EPA notes that 

it has minimized the amount of time 

during which the 2009 CGP will remain 

effective in order to underscore the 

Agency’s intention to issue a revised 

CGP once the C&D rule is finalized. 

E. Significant Changes From 2004 CGP 

As discussed above, the 2009 CGP 

will provide coverage for a period not to 

exceed two years. This permit would 

include similar limits and conditions as 

the 2004 CGP with the following 

noteworthy differences: 

1. Clarification that eligibility for 

coverage under the 2009 CGP is limited 

to operators of new and unpermitted 

ongoing construction projects. 

2. Clarification that operators of 

ongoing permitted construction projects 

are not eligible for coverage under the 

2009 CGP. 

F. Geographic Coverage 

EPA is only authorized to provide 

permit coverage for classes of discharges 

that are outside the scope of a State’s 

NPDES program authorization. The EPA 

Region 4, 2009 CGP replaces the expired 

2004 CGP for operators of new and 

unpermitted ongoing construction 

projects. The geographic coverage and 

scope of the 2009 CGP includes all 

Indian Country Lands within the States 

of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and 

North Carolina, where EPA Region 4 is 

the NPDES permitting authority. There 

is no change in the scope of coverage 

from the 2004 CGP. 

III. Compliance With the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

A. EPA’s Approach to Compliance With 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act for 

General Permits 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

The legal question of whether a 

general permit (as opposed to an 

individual permit) qualifies as a ‘‘rule’’ 

or as an ‘‘adjudication’’ under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

has been the subject of periodic 

litigation. In a recent case, the court 

held that the CWA Section 404 

Nationwide general permit before the 

court did qualify as a ‘‘rule’’ and 

therefore that the issuance of that 

general permit needed to comply with 

the applicable legal requirements for the 

issuance of a ‘‘rule.’’ National Ass’n of 

Home Builders v. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 417 F.3d 1272, 1284–85 (DC 

Cir.2005) (Army Corps general permits 

under Section 404 of the CWA are rules 

under the APA and the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act; ‘‘Each NWP [nationwide 

permit] easily fits within the APA’s 

definition ‘rule.’ * * * As such, each 

NWP constitutes a rule * * *’’). 

As EPA stated in 1998, ‘‘the Agency 

recognizes that the question of the 

applicability of the APA, and thus the 

RFA, to the issuance of a general permit 

is a difficult one, given the fact that a 

large number of dischargers may choose 

to use the general permit.’’ 63 FR 36489, 

36497 (July 6, 1998). At that time, EPA 

‘‘reviewed its previous NPDES general 

permitting actions and related 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 43123 

statements in the Federal Register or 

elsewhere,’’ and stated that ‘‘[t]his 

review suggests that the Agency has 

generally treated NPDES general permits 

effectively as rules, though at times it 

has given contrary indications as to 

whether these actions are rules or 

permits.’’ Id. at 36496. Based on EPA’s 

further legal analysis of the issue, the 

Agency ‘‘concluded, as set forth in the 

proposal, that NPDES general permits 

are permits [i.e., adjudications] under 

the APA and thus not subject to APA 

rulemaking requirements or the RFA.’’ 

Id. Accordingly, the Agency stated that 

‘‘the APA’s rulemaking requirements are 

inapplicable to issuance of such 

permits,’’ and thus ‘‘NPDES permitting 

is not subject to the requirement to 

publish a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking under the APA or any other 

law * * * [and] it is not subject to the 

RFA.’’ Id. at 36497. 

However, the Agency went on to 

explain that, even though EPA had 

concluded that it was not legally 

required to do so, the Agency would 

voluntarily perform the RFA’s smallentity impact analysis. Id. EPA 

explained the strong public interest in 

the Agency following the RFA’s 

requirements on a voluntary basis: 

‘‘[The notice and comment] process also 

provides an opportunity for EPA to 

consider the potential impact of general 

permit terms on small entities and how 

to craft the permit to avoid any undue 

burden on small entities.’’ Id. 

Accordingly, with respect to the NPDES 

permit that EPA was addressing in that 

Federal Register notice, EPA stated that 

‘‘the Agency has considered and 

addressed the potential impact of the 

general permit on small entities in a 

manner that would meet the 

requirements of the RFA if it applied.’’ 

Id. 

Subsequent to EPA’s conclusion in 

1998 that general permits are 

adjudications rather than rules, as noted 

above, the DC Circuit recently held that 

Nationwide general permits under 

Section 404 are ‘‘rules’’ rather than 

‘‘adjudications.’’ Thus, this legal 

question remains ‘‘a difficult one’’ 

(supra). However, EPA continues to 

believe that there is a strong public 

policy interest in EPA applying the 

RFA’s framework and requirements to 

the Agency’s evaluation and 

consideration of the nature and extent of 

any economic impacts that a CWA 

general permit could have on small 

entities (e.g., small businesses). In this 

regard, EPA believes that the Agency’s 

evaluation of the potential economic 

impact that a general permit would have 

on small entities, consistent with the 

RFA framework discussed below, is 

relevant to, and an essential component 

of, the Agency’s assessment of whether 

a CWA general permit would place 

requirements on dischargers that are 

appropriate and reasonable. 

Furthermore, EPA believes that the 

RFA’s framework and requirements 

provide the Agency with the best 

approach for the Agency’s evaluation of 

the economic impact of general permits 

on small entities. While using the RFA 

framework to inform its assessment of 

whether permit requirements are 

appropriate and reasonable, EPA will 

also continue to ensure that all permits 

satisfy the requirements of the CWA. 

Accordingly, EPA has committed to 

operate in accordance with the RFA’s 

framework and requirements during the 

Agency’s issuance of CWA general 

permits (in other words, the Agency has 

committed that it will apply the RFA in 

its issuance of general permits as if 

those permits do qualify as ‘‘rules’’ that 

are subject to the RFA). 

B. Application of RFA Framework to 

Proposed Issuance of CGP 

EPA has concluded, consistent with 

the discussion in Section IV.A above, 

that the issuance of the 2009 CGP could 

affect a handful of small entities. In the 

areas where the CGP is effective (see 

Section II.E), (those areas where EPA is 

the permit authority), a total of 27 

construction projects were authorized 

under the 2004 CGP—some of these 

project could have been operated by 

small entities. However, EPA has 

concluded that the proposed issuance of 

the 2009 CGP is unlikely to have an 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities. The 2009 CGP includes the 

same requirements as those of the 

national 2008 CGP issued by other EPA 

regions. Additionally, an operator’s use 

of the CGP is volitional (i.e., a 

discharger could apply for an individual 

permit rather than for coverage under 

this general permit) and, given the more 

streamlined process for obtaining permit 

coverage, is less burdensome than an 

individual NPDES permit. EPA intends 

to include an updated economic 

screening analysis with the issuance of 

the next national CGP. 

Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 

et seq. 

Dated: August 17, 2009. 

James D. Giattina, Director, 

Water Protection Division, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E9–20595 Filed 8–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0008; FRL–8433–4] 

Tribal Pesticide Program Council; 

Notice of Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Tribal Pesticide Program 

Council (TPPC) will hold a two-day 

meeting on Wednesday, October 14, 

2009 and Thursday, October 15, 2009. 

This notice announces the location and 

times for the meeting and sets forth 

tentative agenda topics. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 and 

Thursday, October 15, 2009 from 9 a.m. 

to 5 p.m. 

To request accommodation of a 

disability, please contact the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON

CONTACT, at least 10 days prior to the 

meeting, to give EPA as much time as 

possible to process your request. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in 

the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) 

4th Floor South Conference Room, One 

Potomac Yard, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, 

Arlington, VA 22202. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Powell, Field and External Affairs 

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–7384; fax number: (703) 308– 

1850; e-mail address: 

powell.mary@epa.gov; or Lillian 

Wilmore, TPPC Administrator, 1595 

Beacon St. #3, Brookline, MA 02446– 

4617; telephone number: (617) 232– 

5742; fax number: (617) 277–1656; email address: NAEcology@aol.com. For 

information about the TPPC, please see 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/tribes/ 

tppc.htm. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be interested in this meeting 

if you are interested in the TPPC’s 

information-exchange relationship with 

EPA regarding important issues in 

Indian country related to human and 

environmental exposure to pesticides 

and insight into EPA’s decision-making 

process. All parties are invited and 

encouraged to participate as 

appropriate. Potentially affected entities 

may include, but are not limited to, 

those who use, or conduct testing of, 

chemical substances under the Federal 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES