Safe Drinking Water Act Determination; Underground Injection Control Program, Determination of Indian Country Status for Purposes of Underground Injection Control Program Permitting, 66402-66403 [05-21822]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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.
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.
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
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 (https://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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Alternative Consultation Agreement for
Implementation of Optional Alternative
Consultation Procedures (ACA) (https://
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 (https://
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 (https://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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of prospective
determination.
AGENCY:
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
E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM
02NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Notices
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.
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
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 Nov 01, 2005
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66403
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
E:\FR\FM\02NON1.SGM
02NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66402-66403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21822]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 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
