Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Notices 7185 

1The EPA’s call for information for this review 

was issued on February 10, 2012 (77 FR 7149). 

2The EPA held a workshop titled ‘‘Kickoff 

Workshop to Inform EPA’s Review of the Primary 

NO2 NAAQS’’ on February 29 to March 1, 2012 (77 

FR 7149). 

3Prior to development of this draft IRP, EPA’s 

National Center for Environmental Assessment 

prepared a ‘‘Draft Plan for Development of the 

Integrated Science Assessment for Nitrogen 

Oxides—Health Criteria’’ for consultation with 

CASAC (78 FR 26026; 78 FR 27234). Comments 

received during that consultation have been 

considered in preparation of the chapter on the 

development of the integrated science assessment 

in the draft IRP. 

1 Indian country is defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151. 

Consistent with the statutory definition of Indian 

country, as well as Federal case law interpreting 

this statutory language, EPA treats lands held by the 

Federal Government in trust for Indian Tribes that 

exist outside of formal reservations as informal 

reservations, and thus as Indian country. 

The Administrator is to list those air 

pollutants that in her ‘‘judgment, cause 

or contribute to air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare;’’ ‘‘the presence 

of which in the ambient air results from 

numerous or diverse mobile or 

stationary sources;’’ and ‘‘for which . . . 

[the Administrator] plans to issue air 

quality criteria . . .’’ Air quality criteria 

are intended to ‘‘accurately reflect the 

latest scientific knowledge useful in 

indicating the kind and extent of all 

identifiable effects on public health or 

welfare which may be expected from the 

presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient 

air . . .’’ 42 U.S.C. 7408(b). Under 

section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409), the EPA 

establishes primary (health-based) and 

secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for 

pollutants for which air quality criteria 

are issued. Section 109(d) requires 

periodic review and, if appropriate, 

revision of existing air quality criteria. 

The EPA is also required to periodically 

review and, if appropriate, revise the 

NAAQS based on the revised criteria. 

Section 109(d)(2) requires that an 

independent scientific review 

committee ‘‘shall complete a review of 

the criteria . . . and the national 

primary and secondary ambient air 

quality standards . . . and shall 

recommend to the Administrator any 

new . . . standards and revisions of 

existing criteria and standards as may be 

appropriate. . . .’’ Since the early 

1980’s, this independent review 

function has been performed by the 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee (CASAC). 

Presently, the EPA is reviewing the 

primary NAAQS for NO2.1 The draft 

document, announced today, has been 

developed as part of the planning phase 

for the review. This phase began with a 

science policy workshop to identify 

issues and questions to frame the 

review.2 Drawing from the workshop 

discussions, the draft IRP has been 

prepared jointly by EPA’s National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, 

within the Office of Research and 

Development, and EPA’s Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, within 

the Office of Air and Radiation.3 The 

draft IRP presents the current plan and 

specifies the schedule for the entire 

review, the process for conducting the 

review, and the key policy-relevant 

science issues that will guide the 

review. This document will be available 

on the EPA’s Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN) Web site at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/

s_nox_index.html http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_

index.html, accessible in the 

‘‘Documents from Current Review’’ 

section under ‘‘Planning Documents.’’ 

The draft IRP is being made available 

for CASAC review and for public 

comment. Comments should be 

submitted to the docket, as described 

above, by March 13, 2014. Information 

about the CASAC review meeting on 

this planning document, including the 

dates and location, will be published as 

a separate notice in the Federal 

Register. The final IRP will be prepared 

after considering comments from 

CASAC and the public. This draft 

document does not represent and 

should not be construed to represent 

any final EPA policy, viewpoint or 

determination. 

Dated: January 28, 2014. 

Mary E. Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02607 Filed 2–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0037; FRL–9904–18] 

Final EPA Plan for the Federal 

Certification of Applicators of 

Restricted Use Pesticides Within 

Indian Country; Notice of 

Implementation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of 

May 18, 2011, EPA issued a notice of 

intent to implement a Federal program 

to certify applicators of restricted use 

pesticides (RUPs) in Indian country 

where no other certification plan 

applies. The program will be 

administered by EPA. In that notice, 

EPA solicited comments from the public 

on EPA’s Proposed Federal Plan for 

Certifying Applicators of Restricted Use 

Pesticides within Indian Country (EPA 

plan). EPA received comments from 

four commenters. EPA also issued a 

notice of intent to implement a similar 

plan in EPA Region 8, the Proposed 

Federal Plan for Certification of 

Applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides 

Within EPA Region 8 Indian Country 

(EPA Region 8 plan) in the Federal 

Register of April 20, 2011. EPA received 

comments from seven commenters on 

the EPA Region 8 plan. A complete 

summary of the comments and the 

Agency responses is available in the 

docket. EPA has decided to merge these 

plans into one EPA plan and hereby 

implements the final EPA plan. 

Applicators must hold the appropriate 

Federal certification under the final EPA 

plan to apply RUPs in Indian country 

where no other EPA-approved or EPAimplemented certification plan applies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Zinn, Field and External Affairs 

Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 308–7076; email address: 

zinn.nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This notice applies to individuals and 

businesses who are seeking certification 

to apply RUPs as defined by the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) in Indian country 1 where 

no EPA-approved or EPA-implemented 

plan applies. This action may, however, 

be of interest to those involved in 

agriculture and anyone involved with 

the distribution and application of 

pesticides for agricultural purposes. 

Others involved with pesticides and/or 

pest control applications in a nonagricultural setting may also be affected. 

Since other entities may also be 

interested, the Agency has not 

attempted to describe all the specific 

entities that may be affected by this 

action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

The docket for this action, identified 

by docket identification (ID) number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0037, is available 

at http://www.regulations.gov or at the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7186 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Notices 

2Please see section IX of the EPA plan for 

applicator categories recognized under the EPA 

plan, as there are exceptions for sodium cyanide 

capsules used with ejector devices and sodium 

fluoroacetate used in livestock protection collars. 

These exceptions will also apply during the 6- 

months after publication of this notice announcing 

the final EPA plan. 

3Although predicated in part on the applicator’s 

existing valid certification, any use permitted under 

this EPA plan is allowed by and will be enforced 

only under Federal authority. 

Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory 

Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. The 

final EPA plan and application form, 

EPA Form 7100–01, to apply for Federal 

certification under this final EPA plan 

can be found in the docket and at 

http://www2.epa.gov/pesticideapplicator-certification-indian-country. 

II. What action is the agency taking? 

EPA is implementing a Federal 

program to certify applicators of RUPs 

in Indian country where no other EPAapproved or EPA-implemented plan 

applies. This final EPA plan describes 

the process by which EPA will 

implement a program for the 

certification of applicators of RUPs in 

Indian country based upon the 

certification requirements enumerated 

at 40 CFR part 171. The entire final EPA 

plan is included in the docket. 

III. Background 

Under FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., the 

EPA Administrator has the authority to 

classify all registered pesticide uses as 

either ‘‘restricted use’’ or ‘‘general use.’’ 

Under FIFRA, pesticides (or the 

particular use or uses of a pesticide) that 

may generally cause, without additional 

regulatory restrictions, unreasonable 

adverse effects on the environment, 

including injury to the applicator, shall 

be classified for ‘‘restricted use.’’ 7 

U.S.C. 136a(d)(1)(C). If the classification 

is made because of hazards to the 

applicator or other persons, the 

pesticide may only be applied by or 

under the direct supervision of a 

certified applicator. 7 U.S.C. 

136a(d)(1)(C)(i), 136j(a)(2)(F). If the 

classification is made because of 

potential unreasonable adverse effects 

on the environment, the pesticide may 

only be applied by, or under the direct 

supervision of, a certified applicator or 

subject to such other restrictions as the 

EPA Administrator may provide by 

regulation. 7 U.S.C. 136a(d)(1)(C)(ii), 

136j(a)(2)(F). To be certified, an 

individual must be determined to be 

competent with respect to the use and 

handling of the pesticides covered by 

the certification. 7 U.S.C 136i(a). 

It was the intent of Congress that 

persons desiring to use RUPs should be 

able to obtain certification under 

programs approved by EPA, as reflected 

in FIFRA sections 11 and 23. 7 U.S.C. 

136i, 136u. The regulations addressing 

tribal and State development and 

submission of certification plans to EPA 

are contained at 40 CFR part 171. It is 

EPA’s position that tribal and State 

plans are generally best suited to the 

needs of that particular Tribe or State 

and its citizens; however, Tribes and 

States are not required to develop their 

own plans. Where EPA has not 

approved a State or tribal certification 

plan, the Agency is authorized to 

implement an EPA plan for the Federal 

certification of applicators of RUPs 

pursuant to FIFRA sections 11 and 23. 

7 U.S.C. 136i, 136u; 40 CFR 171.11. 

Most of Indian country is not covered 

by an EPA-approved or EPAimplemented plan, and therefore, 

applicators do not have a mechanism to 

become certified. The current lack of 

approved mechanisms for use of RUPs 

in Indian country is a concern to EPA 

for reasons of equity, safety, and 

enforcement. EPA believes the same 

pest control tools that are available in 

State areas should also be available to 

growers in Indian country. Lack of 

access to these pesticides could put 

growers in Indian country at an 

economic disadvantage to growers in 

States, who do have access to these 

pesticides. Without access to 

certification programs, applicators may 

not have the competence needed to 

safely use RUPs, nor would they be 

legally allowed to use them. 

Federal, State, and tribal governments 

may impose additional, different 

requirements on the purchase and 

application of RUPs. Applicators are 

encouraged to research these particular 

requirements to determine how they 

may affect their ability to purchase and 

apply RUPs, and consider any 

restrictions or requirements as they 

decide if this EPA certification will 

serve their needs. 

IV. Summary of the Final EPA Plan 

1. Applicability. EPA intends to 

implement this final EPA plan in Indian 

country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, 

where no other EPA-approved or EPAimplemented plan applies. 

2. Provisions of this EPA plan—a. 

Why is EPA developing an EPA plan? 

The EPA plan will allow the 

certification of applicators and legal use 

of RUPs in those parts of Indian country 

where there are currently no 

mechanisms in place for such 

certification and use. RUPs cannot be 

legally used in Indian country unless 

EPA has explicitly approved a 

mechanism of certification for such an 

area. EPA-approved State plans do not 

cover use of RUPs in Indian country. 

There are very few areas of Indian 

country for which there are approved 

non-Federal plans and only one area 

that is currently covered under a 

Federal plan. 

b. To whom will the EPA plan apply? 

The EPA plan will only apply to 

persons who intend to apply RUPs in 

Indian country not covered by another 

EPA-approved or EPA-implemented 

plan. Tribes may continue to pursue 

options available under 40 CFR 171.10 

for their areas of Indian country, 

including seeking EPA approval of tribal 

plans for such areas under 40 CFR 

171.10(a)(2) or the utilization of a State’s 

certification program under 40 CFR 

171.10(a)(1). An option implemented 

under 40 CFR 171.10 would replace this 

final EPA plan for the relevant area of 

Indian country. 

Applicators must hold the appropriate 

Federal certification under this final 

EPA plan to apply RUPs in Indian 

country where no other EPA-approved 

or EPA-implemented certification plan 

applies. During the 6-months after 

publication of this notice announcing 

this final EPA plan, EPA will allow 

applicators to apply RUPs under the 

final EPA plan in Indian country only 

for the categories for which they already 

have a valid State, tribal, or Federal 

certificate 2 if they submit a complete 

application to the relevant EPA Region 

showing proof of a valid State, tribal, or 

Federal certification.3 Beginning August 

6, 2014, applicators who are covered 

under this EPA plan and have not 

received a written Federal certification 

from the relevant EPA Region are 

prohibited from applying RUPs in 

Indian country located in that EPA 

Region. Failure to hold the appropriate 

Federal certification after August 6, 

2014 may result in Federal enforcement 

action in accordance with FIFRA 

section 12(a)(2)(F). 

c. Certification procedures. The 

appropriate EPA regional office will 

administer this EPA plan for each 

covered area of Indian country. To 

become certified to use RUPs in Indian 

country, applicators must submit an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Notices 7187 

4The area of Indian country where the applicator 

intends to apply must be within, or the border must 

be touching, the State or Tribe that issued the 

underlying Federal, tribal, or State certificate. 

application form, EPA Form 7100–01, to 

the EPA regional office that covers the 

Indian country where they wish to 

apply RUPs, as well as proof of the valid 

Federal, State, or tribal certification 

upon which their Federal certification 

will be based. The final EPA plan and 

form to apply for Federal certification 

under the final EPA plan can be found 

in the docket (see Unit I.B. of this 

notice) and on EPA’s Web site at http:// 

www2.epa.gov/pesticide-applicatorcertification-indian-country. 

The certification on which the Federal 

certificate will be based must be from a 

State or Tribe with a contiguous 

boundary to the relevant area of Indian 

country.4 The EPA regional offices also 

have limited discretion to allow Federal 

certification under the final EPA plan 

based on a valid certification from 

another nearby State or Tribe that is not 

directly contiguous to the area of Indian 

country at issue. The Federal 

certification based on a valid Federal, 

State, or tribal certification, will expire 

when the underlying Federal, tribal, or 

State certificate expires, unless the 

certificate is suspended or revoked. 

In lieu of submitting proof of a valid 

Federal, State, or tribal certification, 

private applicators also have the option 

of completing the online training 

developed by EPA. An interim option to 

use available State training to obtain 

private applicator certification in lieu of 

a valid Federal, State, or tribal 

certificate was developed and included 

in the plan and on the application form 

for private applicator certification. 

However, since EPA has developed 

online training, this option will not be 

used while the online training is 

available. Federal certification under 

this option is valid for 4 years from the 

date of issuance, unless suspended or 

revoked. 

d. Applicator categories. EPA will 

recognize the categories authorized in 

the Federal, State, or tribal certification 

upon which the Federal certification is 

based, and applicators will be 

authorized to apply RUPs in Indian 

country for uses covered by those 

categories. See Unit VI. of this notice for 

specific information on categories for 

sodium cyanide capsules used with 

ejector devices for livestock predator 

control and for sodium fluoroacetate 

used in livestock protection collars. 

e. Implementation. EPA will 

administer routine maintenance 

activities associated with 

implementation of this final EPA plan 

(e.g., application processing, database 

management, recordkeeping) and will 

conduct inspections and take 

enforcement actions as appropriate. 

V. Response to Comments 

EPA received comments from the 

Tribal Pesticide Program Council 

(TPPC); Cherokee Nation; Kashia Band 

of Pomo Indians; the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS); the 

Colorado Department of Agriculture; the 

Montana Department of Agriculture; 

and some pesticide applicators. EPA 

sought comment on several topics for 

the proposed EPA plan and the 

proposed EPA Region 8 plan: Issuing 

Federal certification to applicators with 

certificates from contiguous States or 

Tribes, a request to include a 

notification provision in the EPA plan, 

the private applicator certification 

option, and a suggestion from the Tribes 

to include an opt-out provision in the 

EPA plan. 

All comments on these issues, as well 

as additional comments received, and 

EPA’s responses are available in the 

docket. EPA has also made changes to 

the final EPA plan based on some of the 

comments received. These changes are 

described in Unit VI. of this notice. 

VI. Highlights of Changes Made in the 

Final EPA Plan 

EPA adjusted the final EPA plan 

based on questions and comments 

received on the proposed EPA plan. 

Below are some noteworthy 

clarifications. Please refer to the 

Response to Comments document and 

the final EPA plan for details. 

A. Change to Title 

The title of the final EPA plan has 

been changed from ‘‘Federal Plan for 

Certification of Applicators of Restricted 

Use Pesticides within Indian Country’’ 

to ‘‘EPA Plan for the Federal 

Certification of Applicators of Restricted 

Use Pesticides within Indian Country’’ 

to align it with 40 CFR 171.11 and to 

differentiate it from non-EPA Federal 

agency plans. EPA also merged the EPA 

Region 8 plan with this final EPA plan 

since the plans were very similar in 

nature and goals. Indeed, the EPA 

Region 8 plan, which was developed 

first, was the basis for the national EPA 

plan. Further, the two plans ended up 

with similar expected timeframes for 

implementation. 

B. Notification of Tribes Prior to RUP 

Use 

The Agency received comments 

suggesting the inclusion of a provision 

in the final EPA plan that would require 

applicators to notify a Tribe prior to 

application of RUPs in their Indian 

country. Further, it was suggested that 

EPA should create an ‘‘opt-in’’ process 

for Indian Tribes that want to be 

notified in advance of an RUP 

application on their land. Tribes that 

wanted notification prior to RUP use 

would be expected to identify a contact 

person to whom advance notification of 

a pesticide application should be 

provided. The commenters also believed 

EPA should develop a form for 

applicators to use to notify the Tribes 

about proposed pesticide applications. 

It was also requested that EPA make 

a database publicly available that lists 

applicators with their contact 

information and current certifications 

by State and EPA Region. The database 

would provide Indian Tribes with a 

better sense as to the applicators with 

Federal certificates who might 

potentially apply RUPs in their Indian 

country. 

While some commenters pointed to 

the notification process for soil 

fumigants as a precedent for EPA 

requiring notification of Tribes prior to 

the application of RUPs, the justification 

and authorities that supported the 

notification requirements for soil 

fumigants are not available to support 

applicator notification requirements 

under a Federal certification plan. In the 

case of the soil fumigants, notification is 

required as part of the reregistration risk 

mitigation decision to assure the soil 

fumigants meet the FIFRA registration 

standard. EPA generally has not made 

that determination for other RUPs. 

Under FIFRA section 11, which 

provides the authority for issuing 

Federal certification plans, rulemaking 

is the mechanism required for 

commercial applicator reporting, which 

would include a notification 

requirement. Additionally, FIFRA 

section 11 does not provide EPA 

authority to require any reporting from, 

or recordkeeping by, private applicators. 

Development of a rulemaking to require 

commercial applicators to notify Tribes 

prior to RUP application could take 

several years. EPA does not believe that 

we should delay the benefits of 

proceeding with the final EPA plan 

while rulemaking is considered to 

require commercial applicators to notify 

Tribes prior to use. Therefore, EPA will 

proceed with finalizing this EPA plan at 

this time. As the Agency gains 

experience implementing the final EPA 

plan, the Agency will re-evaluate if 

rulemaking to implement a tribal 

notification requirement is advisable or 

needed. 

In the meantime, to assist Tribes in 

identifying and communicating directly 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7188 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Notices 

with applicators certified under this 

final EPA plan, EPA will implement the 

suggestion to make a database publicly 

available that lists applicators (with 

their location and current certifications) 

by State upon which the Federal 

certification is based. EPA expects to 

implement this recommendation by 

posting a list of federally certified 

applicators at http://www2.epa.gov/ 

pesticide-applicator-certificationindian-country. 

EPA also recognizes that tribal 

notification requirements may exist 

under tribal law. Federal certifications 

issued by EPA under this EPA plan will 

explicitly inform applicators that they 

should take steps to determine if there 

are additional requirements under tribal 

law for RUP application, including 

tribal notification requirements. 

C. Private Applicator Option 

EPA sought comment on the proposed 

private applicator ‘‘no-test’’ certification 

option required by FIFRA section 11. 

There was a concern raised that it may 

be difficult for an applicator to obtain 

the training necessary to apply for a 

private applicator certification if not 

relying on the State certification. In 

addition, several commenters were 

concerned that the training that 

pesticide applicators receive through 

States does not specifically require 

applicators to demonstrate that they are 

competent to apply pesticides in Indian 

country. Also, commenters stated that 

EPA-approved training should include a 

discussion of tribal government, cultural 

practices, natural resources, examples of 

tribal regulations, information about the 

Web site identifying Tribes that want to 

be notified prior to a RUP application, 

and other pertinent tribal information. 

The Agency revised the private 

applicator certification option. For 

individuals seeking certification as a 

private applicator under the final EPA 

plan, EPA will exercise its authority 

contained in 40 CFR 171.11(d)(1) and (e) 

to issue certifications if the applicator 

completes one of two requirements: 

1. The applicator may submit 

documentation of a current and valid 

certification as a private applicator 

authorized to apply federally designated 

RUPs through a Federal plan or an EPAapproved State or tribal plan with a 

contiguous boundary to the relevant 

area of Indian country. The EPA Region 

also has limited discretion to allow 

certification under the plan based on a 

valid certification from another nearby 

State or Tribe that is not directly 

contiguous to the area of Indian country 

at issue. 

2. The applicator may submit 

documentation of completion of the 

online training course provided by EPA. 

An interim option to use available State 

training to obtain private applicator 

certification in lieu of a valid 

certification was developed and 

included on the application form for 

private applicator certification. Since 

EPA has developed online training, this 

option will not be used while the online 

training is available. 

EPA did not include in the online 

training all of the information relevant 

to Indian country requested by 

commenters because of the many 

differences among federally recognized 

Tribes. Rather, EPA indicates that Tribes 

may have more stringent requirements 

and refers applicators to the relevant 

Tribe(s) for details. 

a. Length of certification. A private 

applicator certificate issued under the 

first option will expire at the expiration 

date of the underlying certificate, unless 

suspended or revoked. A private 

applicator certificate issued under the 

second option is valid for 4 years. 

b. Renewal/recertification. 

Applicators may apply to be recertified 

through the options listed in the final 

EPA plan during the 12 months 

preceding the expiration of their current 

certificate. 

D. Categories for Sodium Cyanide 

Capsules Used With Ejector Devices and 

Sodium Fluoroacetate Livestock 

Protection Collars 

While a written comment was not 

submitted on either of the proposed 

plans, several States noted during 

meetings that they would be interested 

in becoming registrants on behalf of a 

Tribe, if the Tribes are interested in 

allowing the sodium cyanide capsules 

used with ejector devices or sodium 

fluoroacetate used in livestock 

protection collars to be used within 

their Indian country. States questioned 

how applications of these products will 

occur if Tribes do not have a pesticide 

program and cannot monitor the usage 

in their Indian country, making them 

ineligible to become a registrant. 

States cannot serve as a registrant of 

these products on behalf of an Indian 

Tribe. Under the terms of the 

registrations for sodium cyanide 

capsules used with ejector devices and 

sodium fluoroacetate used in livestock 

protection collars, the registrant of these 

products must be able to supervise the 

use, and enforce against the misuse, of 

the product. Since the registrant needs 

to be able to supervise the use and 

enforce against the misuse of the 

product, it would not be appropriate for 

the State to act as a registrant, since 

States are not generally approved to 

administer programs in Indian country 

under FIFRA. 

Because a registrant of one of these 

products must have the ability to 

provide a supervisory role in the 

application of these products and be 

able to inspect and enforce against any 

misapplication of the product (see the 

Federal Register of February 10, 1977 

(42 FR 8406)), some Tribes will not have 

the capacity to serve as a registrant of 

these products. If a Tribe is not in a 

position to serve as the registrant but 

would like to allow use of these 

products, that Tribe could work with 

APHIS, which is the only Federal 

agency that is currently a registrant of 

these products. APHIS employees, once 

certified under the EPA plan, can apply 

sodium cyanide capsules used with 

ejector devices and sodium 

fluoroacetate used in livestock 

protection collars within the relevant 

Indian Tribe’s Indian country. EPA 

expects that an agreement between the 

Tribe and APHIS that includes 

application of sodium cyanide capsules 

used with ejector devices and sodium 

fluoroacetate used in livestock 

protection collars will be in effect prior 

to any application. If another Federal 

agency were to become a registrant for 

one or both of these products, it is likely 

there could be a similar arrangement 

between that Federal agency and a Tribe 

seeking applications of these products. 

E. Private Applicator Categories 

Several States asked if EPA would 

allow categories in the Federal plan for 

private applicators. EPA clarified that 

the private applicator Federal certificate 

will reflect any categories found in the 

underlying certificate used to 

demonstrate applicator competence. For 

both private and commercial 

certifications, EPA recognizes that 

underlying certificates issued pursuant 

to different State, tribal, and Federal 

plans may have different categories, and 

therefore the categories recognized by 

the EPA will not be uniform. 

VII. Consultation With Tribal 

Governments 

Given the absence of an EPAapproved certification program in areas 

of Indian country, EPA, consistent with 

its statutory authorities and the Federal 

government’s trust responsibility to 

federally recognized Tribes, has worked 

with Tribes on a government-togovernment basis to develop a 

certification program that will help 

ensure the protection of human health 

and the environment in Indian country. 

EPA consulted with Tribes on 

November 29 and December 13, 2010, to 

help ensure development of a Federal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Notices 7189 

plan that effectively meets their needs 

and those of RUP applicators in Indian 

country. EPA Region 8 also held three 

formal consultations with the Tribes in 

EPA Region 8. In addition to the 

consultations dedicated specifically to 

this EPA plan, EPA has also worked 

closely with the TPPC while developing 

this EPA plan. 

EPA developed the Federal plan in 

consultation with Tribes consistent 

with, among other things, the following 

policies, orders, and guidance: ‘‘EPA 

Policy for the Administration of 

Environmental Programs on Indian 

Reservations,’’ November 8, 1984; 

‘‘Guidance on the Enforcement 

Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian 

Policy,’’ January 17, 2001; Executive 

Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments,’’ November 6, 2000, 

which was reaffirmed by Presidential 

memorandum, ‘‘Tribal Consultation,’’ 

November 5, 2009; and the ‘‘EPA Policy 

on Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribes,’’ May 4, 2011. 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C.3501 et seq.), the 

information collection activities 

described in this notice and the revised 

Information Collection Request (ICR), 

OMB Control No. 2070–0029, were 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget. As part of this process, EPA 

proposed to implement a revised form 

designed specifically for pesticide 

applicators who wish to be certified in 

Indian country. EPA estimates the 

paperwork burden associated with 

completing this form to be 10 minutes 

per response. Under PRA, ‘‘burden’’ 

means the total time, effort, or financial 

resources expended by persons to 

generate, maintain, retain, disclose or 

provide information to or for a Federal 

agency. For this collection it 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. The 

information collection activities and the 

form are included in a separate docket. 

See http://www.regulations.gov, docket 

ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0723. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Business 

and industry, Education, Indians-lands, 

Indians-tribal government, Pesticides 

and pests. 

Dated: January 31, 2014. 

James Jones, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02564 Filed 2–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9906–31–Region–2] 

Proposed CERCLA Settlements 

Relating to the Sherwin-Williams Site 

in Gibbsboro, Camden County, New 

Jersey 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed 

administrative settlement 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’’), notice 

is hereby given by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’), Region 2, of a proposed 

Administrative Settlement Agreement 

for Recovery of Past Response Costs 

(‘‘Agreement’’) pursuant to Section 

122(h)(1) of CERCLA with the SherwinWilliams Company (‘‘Settling Party’’). 

The Settling Party is a potentially 

responsible party, pursuant to Section 

107(a) of CERCLA, and thus is 

potentially liable for response costs 

incurred at or in connection with the 

Sherwin-Williams Site (‘‘Site’’), located 

in Gibbsboro, Camden County, New 

Jersey. Under the Agreement, the 

Settling Party agrees to pay a total of 

$104,000.00 to EPA for past response 

costs. EPA will consider all comments 

received and may modify or withdraw 

its consent to the Agreement if 

comments received disclose facts or 

considerations that indicate that the 

proposed Agreement is inappropriate, 

improper, or inadequate. EPA’s 

response to any comments received will 

be available for public inspection at 

EPA Region 2 offices, 290 Broadway, 

New York, New York 10007–1866. 

DATES: Comments must be provided by 

March 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The Agreement is available 

for public inspection at EPA Region 2 

offices at 290 Broadway, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. Comments 

should reference the Sherwin-Williams 

Site, located in Gibbsboro, Camden 

County, New Jersey, Index Nos. 

CERCLA–02–2014–2002. To request a 

copy of the Agreements, please contact 

the EPA employee identified below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Howard, Assistant Regional Counsel, 

New Jersey Superfund Branch, Office of 

Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 290 Broadway—17th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. Telephone: 212–637–3216, email 

at howard.carl@epa.gov. 

Dated: January 15, 2014. 

Walter E. Mugdan, 

Director, Emergency and Remedial Response 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02608 Filed 2–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 

Farm Credit Administration Board; 

Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting 

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, 

pursuant to the Government in the 

Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of 

the Farm Credit Administration Board 

(Board). 

DATE AND TIME: The regular meeting of 

the Board will be held at the offices of 

the Farm Credit Administration in 

McLean, Virginia, on February 13, 2014, 

from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the 

Board concludes its business. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale 

L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm 

Credit Administration Board, (703) 883– 

4009, TTY (703) 883–4056. 

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit 

Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, 

McLean, Virginia 22102–5090. Submit 

attendance requests via email to 

VisitorRequest@FCA.gov. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further 

information about attendance requests. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of 

this meeting of the Board will be open 

to the public (limited space available), 

and parts will be closed to the public. 

Please send an email to VisitorRequest@

FCA.gov at least 24 hours before the 

meeting. In your email include: Name, 

postal address, entity you are 

representing (if applicable), and 

telephone number. You will receive an 

email confirmation from us. Please be 

prepared to show a photo identification 

when you arrive. If you need assistance 

for accessibility reasons, or if you have 

any questions, contact Dale L. Aultman, 

Secretary to the Farm Credit 

Administration Board, at (703) 883– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES