66402 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Notices 

ensure the provisions of the plan can be 

implemented by EPA through the 

labeling and Bulletin approach 

discussed in this Notice. EPA will also 

determine whether the Services need to 

be consulted on the contents of the plan 

before EPA adopts the plan. After the 

necessary reviews EPA will approve or 

disapprove the plan. If approved, EPA 

would then adopt it and could require, 

through Bulletins, that users comply 

with the requirements of the plan, as 

appropriate. 

An alternative plan may be submitted 

to EPA at any time. However, once the 

federally initiated actions are 

implemented within an area, those 

requirements will be effective in that 

area until the alternative plan is 

approved for implementation and EPA 

implements the plan through changes to 

the appropriate Bulletins. Section 24(a) 

of FIFRA reserves to States the authority 

to impose different requirements on 

registered pesticides provided they do 

not permit any sale or use prohibited by 

FIFRA. Accordingly, this Notice is not 

intended to modify any State authority 

to impose additional State requirements 

regarding listed species. 

I. Monitoring 

EPA is committed to improved use of 

existing monitoring data in our risk 

assessments. Federal and State budget 

outlooks make it important that data 

being collected through appropriate 

sources be used to the fullest extent 

possible to maximize efficiencies and 

minimize costs. EPA will continue to 

use, in the most effective manner 

possible, the information being obtained 

by the U.S. Geological Survey to detect 

pesticides in surface water and ground 

water, information provided to EPA’s 

Office of Water under the Clean Water 

and Safe Drinking Water Acts, and 

State- or Tribal-level ground water or 

surface water monitoring resulting from 

State or Tribal pesticide program efforts 

where those results are known to OPP. 

EPA will also use the technical data 

identified during ESA section 7 

consultations with the Services to assist 

in determining if pesticide residues are 

occurring at levels of concern in the 

environment. Where appropriate 

terrestrial monitoring is known to EPA, 

that too will be used in the most 

effective manner possible, to inform 

EPA’s assessments. 

EPA will continue and improve upon 

its cooperation with the Services, States, 

Tribes, and others to use reported 

incidents in which pesticides may have 

had an impact on listed species and 

critical habitat. EPA has been working 

with FWS field offices throughout the 

country, as well as other federal and 

State agencies, to ensure that EPA has 

the best possible information on 

incidents. EPA’s Environmental Fate 

and Effects Division maintains an 

Ecological Incidents Information System 

to house and retrieve this information. 

EPA also gathers incident information 

from registrant reports that are required 

to be submitted under FIFRA section 

6(a)(2). 

EPA also intends to develop a process 

for monitoring the effectiveness of 

Bulletins after the Program has been in 

effect for some time. At that time, the 

Agency will solicit public comment on 

ways to determine whether Bulletins are 

effective at protecting listed species and 

critical habitat. 

J. Implementation Timing 

Endangered Species Protection 

Bulletins will be effective and 

enforceable upon reference to them on 

a product label. EPA will be establishing 

a web site prior to enforceable label 

references appearing on products in the 

market place, that will allow pesticide 

users to determine the appropriate 

Bulletin to follow, if any, as described 

in Unit III.D. 

IV. References 

All references are available for public 

review in the public docket as described 

in Unit I.B. The references used in this 

document are: 

1. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. January 23, 2004. Overview of 

the Ecological Risk Assessment Process 

in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. 

Environmental Protection AgencyEndangered and Threatened Species 

Effects Determinations (http://epa.gov/ 

espp/consultation/ecoriskoverview.pdf). 

2. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 2002. Process for Assessing 

Potential Risks to Endangered and 

Threatened Species and Consultation 

with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

3. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service; and U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. August 5, 2004. Joint 

Counterpart Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 Consultation Regulations; 

Final Rule. 69 FR 47732, codified at 45 

CFR part 402. 

4. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service; and U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. August 2004. 

Alternative Consultation Agreement for 

Implementation of Optional Alternative 

Consultation Procedures (ACA) (http:// 

www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/finalaca.pdf). 

5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

March 1998. Endangered Species 

Consultation Handbook, Procedures for 

Conducting Consultation and 

Conference Activities Under Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act (http:// 

www.fws.gov/endangered/ 

consultations/s7hndbk/s7hndbk.htm.) 

6. Letter of January 26, 2004 from 

Steve Williams, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and William Hogarth, National 

Marine Fisheries Service to Susan B. 

Hazen, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (http://www.fws.gov/ 

endangered/consultations/pesticides/ 

evaluation/pdf). 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Pesticides, 

Endangered species. 

Dated: October 25, 2005. 

Susan B. Hazen, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 

[FR Doc. 05–21838 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7992–9] 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

Determination; Underground Injection 

Control Program, Determination of 

Indian Country Status for Purposes of 

Underground Injection Control 

Program Permitting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of prospective 

determination. 

SUMMARY: EPA must determine whether 

any of the approximately 160 acres of 

land located in the southeast portion of 

Section 8, Township 16N, Range 16W, 

in the State of New Mexico, is part of 

a dependent Indian community under 

18 U.S.C. 1151(b) and, thus, considered 

to be ‘‘Indian country.’’ This 

determination is necessary in order to 

establish whether EPA or the New 

Mexico Environment Department is the 

appropriate agency to issue a particular 

underground injection control permit 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA 

is seeking comments and information 

from the public and all interested 

parties regarding the possible Indian 

country status of this land and is 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Notices 66403 

considering whether to hold a public 

hearing on the matter. 

DATES: Comments and information on 

this matter, and any request that a 

public hearing be held, must be received 

by January 3, 2006. EPA will consider 

all timely comments and information 

that pertain to the Indian country status 

of the land in question. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be submitted to David Albright, Ground 

Water Office Manager, at U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mail 

Code: WTR–9, San Francisco, CA 94105. 

You may also submit comments by fax 

at 415.947.3549 or by e-mail at 

albright.david@epa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Albright, at 

albright.david@epa.gov, or 

415.972.3971. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Hydro 

Resources, Inc. (HRI) proposes to 

operate a uranium in-situ leach mine on 

an approximately 160-acre parcel of 

land located in the southeast portion of 

Section 8, Township 16N, Range 16W in 

the State of New Mexico (‘‘Section 8 

land’’). HRI must apply for and receive 

an underground injection control (UIC) 

permit under the Safe Drinking Water 

Act (SDWA) to conduct its mining 

activities. The State of New Mexico has 

been authorized by EPA to administer 

the SDWA UIC program in the State, but 

that authorization does not extend to 

Indian country. Due to the State’s lack 

of authorization in Indian country and 

as a result of a court decision discussed 

below, EPA must determine whether or 

not the Section 8 land is Indian country 

as defined by 18 U.S.C. 1151. EPA is 

seeking comments and information from 

the public and all interested parties 

regarding the Indian country status of 

the land HRI intends to use for its 

mining activities. Additionally, 

recognizing the U.S. Department of the 

Interior’s expertise in these matters, 

EPA is soliciting the views of and 

working with the Department. 

In the late 1980s, HRI sought an UIC 

permit for its property located within 

Section 8. The land is located in an area 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘Eastern 

Agency of the Navajo Nation’’ and the 

Navajo Nation has historically asserted 

that the land in question is a dependent 

Indian community. After considering 

materials submitted by the Navajo 

Nation and the New Mexico 

Environment Department (NMED), EPA 

determined that the Indian country 

status of the Section 8 land was in 

dispute and, thus, that EPA would be 

the appropriate agency to issue the 

SDWA UIC permit. The State of New 

Mexico and HRI challenged EPA’s 

determination with respect to the Indian 

country status of the land in question. 

In 2000, in HRI v. EPA, 198 F.3d 1224 

(10th Cir. 2000), the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld 

EPA’s decision to implement the UIC 

program throughout HRI’s Section 8 

land because the Indian country status 

of that land was in dispute. The Court 

remanded the matter to EPA to make a 

final administrative decision on the 

Indian country status of the disputed 

land. 

Recently NMED received a request 

from HRI for an UIC permit to operate 

a uranium in-situ leach mine in Section 

8. As a result, NMED has formally 

requested that EPA make a decision on 

the Indian country status of the Section 

8 land. EPA’s decision whether the land 

at issue is Indian country will determine 

whether EPA or NMED is the 

appropriate agency to consider the 

permit request from HRI. 

The United States Supreme Court in 

Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie 

Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520 (1998), 

identified two requirements for 

determining whether land constitutes a 

dependent Indian community under 18 

U.S.C. 1151(b): (1) Whether land has 

been validly set aside by the Federal 

government for the use of Indians and 

(2) whether that land is subject to 

federal supervision. Additionally, the 

court in HRI v. EPA noted that, prior to 

Venetie, the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals required a community of 

reference determination as the first step 

in determining a dependent Indian 

community. It also concluded that, 

because the Supreme Court in Venetie 

was not presented with the question of 

the proper community of reference and 

did not speak directly to the propriety 

of a community of reference analysis, 

Tenth Circuit precedent continues to 

require a community of reference 

analysis. 

To ensure EPA has all possible 

relevant information for making its 

determination on the Section 8 land 

status, EPA requests that the public 

submit information on the following 

items: the nature of the area in question; 

Indian and non-Indian land uses; 

relevant aquifer uses; land ownership 

patterns; use of area infrastructure and 

services by Indians and non-Indians; the 

relationship of inhabitants in the area to 

Indian tribes and to the Federal 

government; activities of government 

agencies toward the area; elements of 

cohesiveness manifested either by 

economic pursuits in the area, common 

interests, or needs of inhabitants 

supplied by the locality; whether any 

lands have been set apart for the use, 

occupancy, and protection of dependent 

Indian peoples; whether that land is 

subject to Federal supervision; and any 

other relevant information that might 

assist EPA in making its determination. 

EPA welcomes written comments and 

information from the public and 

interested parties on whether the 

Section 8 land constitutes a dependent 

Indian community in whole or in part. 

At this time, EPA is limiting its analysis 

to the question of whether the Section 

8 land is a dependent Indian 

community and, thus, Indian country 

and will not consider any issues, 

information, or comments regarding the 

permitting of mine operations on the 

Section 8 land. As part of the 

determination process, EPA is also 

consulting with the Navajo Nation. 

If there is sufficient public interest 

and a request is made, EPA may 

consider holding a public hearing to 

elicit further input from the public on 

this matter. Such a hearing would not 

constitute a formal adjudication, but 

rather would provide an informal 

opportunity for the public and 

interested parties to provide additional 

comments and information. 

Dated: October 24, 2005. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 05–21822 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Public Information 

Collection(s) Being Submitted for 

Review to the Office of Management 

and Budget 

October 19, 2005. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burden 

invites the general public and other 

Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection(s), as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104–13. 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid control 

number. No person shall be subject to 

any penalty for failing to comply with 

a collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that 

does not display a valid control number. 

Comments are requested concerning (a) 

whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the