Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 8441 

movement of the citrus fruit to the 

United States and must be intact upon 

arrival of the citrus fruit in the United 

States. 

(c) Monitoring and oversight. (1) The 

Uruguayan NPPO must visit and inspect 

registered places of production monthly, 

starting at least 30 days before harvest 

and continuing until the end of the 

shipping season, to verify that the 

growers are complying with the 

requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) 

of this section. 

(2) In addition to conducting fruit 

inspections at the packinghouses, the 

Uruguayan NPPO must monitor 

packinghouse operations to verify that 

the packinghouses are complying with 

the requirements of paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(3) If the Uruguayan NPPO finds that 

a place of production or packinghouse 

is not complying with the relevant 

requirements of this section, no fruit 

from the place of production or 

packinghouse will be eligible for export 

to the United States until APHIS and the 

Uruguayan NPPO conduct an 

investigation and appropriate remedial 

actions have been implemented. 

(d) Grove monitoring and pest control. 

Trapping must be conducted in the 

places of production to demonstrate that 

the places of production have a low 

prevalence of A. fraterculus and C. 

capitata. If the prevalence rises above 

levels specified in the bilateral 

workplan, remedial measures must be 

implemented. The Uruguayan NPPO 

must keep records of fruit fly detections 

for each trap and make the records 

available to APHIS upon request. The 

records must be maintained for at least 

1 year. 

(e) Orchard sanitation. Places of 

production must be maintained free of 

fallen fruit and plant debris. Fallen fruit 

may not be included in field containers 

of fruit brought to the packinghouse to 

be packed for export. 

(f) Packinghouse procedures. (1) The 

packinghouse must be equipped with 

double self-closing doors at the entrance 

to the packinghouse and at the interior 

entrance to the area where fruit is 

packed. 

(2) Any vents or openings (other than 

the double self-closing doors) must be 

covered with 1.6 mm or smaller 

screening in order to prevent the entry 

of pests into the packinghouse. 

(3) Fruit must be packed within 24 

hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary 

packinghouse or stored in a degreening 

chamber in a pest-exclusionary 

packinghouse. The fruit must be 

safeguarded by an insect-proof screen or 

plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the 

packinghouse and while awaiting 

packing. Fruit must be packed in insectproof cartons or containers, or covered 

with insect-proof mesh or a plastic 

tarpaulin, for transport to the United 

States. These safeguards must remain 

intact until the arrival of the fruit in the 

continental United States or the 

consignment will not be allowed to 

enter the United States. 

(4) During the time the packinghouse 

is in use for exporting citrus fruit to the 

continental United States, the 

packinghouse may only accept fruit 

from registered places of production. 

(5) Culling must be performed in the 

packinghouse to remove any 

symptomatic or damaged fruit. Fruit 

must be practically free of leaves, twigs, 

and other plant parts, except for stems 

that are less than 1 inch long and 

attached to the fruit. 

(6) Fruit must be washed, brushed, 

surface disinfected in accordance with 

part 305 of this chapter, treated with an 

APHIS-approved fungicide in 

accordance with labeled instructions, 

and waxed. 

(g) Treatment. (1) Citrus fruit other 

than lemons may be imported into the 

continental United States only if it is 

treated in accordance with part 305 of 

this chapter for A. fraterculus and C. 

capitata. 

(2)(i) Lemons may be shipped without 

a treatment if harvested green and if the 

phytosanitary certificate accompanying 

the lemons contains an additional 

declaration stating that the lemons were 

harvested green between May 15 and 

August 31. 

(ii) If the lemons are harvested 

between September 1 and May 14, or if 

the fruit is harvested yellow, the lemons 

must be treated in accordance with part 

305 of this chapter for C. capitata. 

(h) Phytosanitary certificate. Each 

consignment of citrus fruit must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate of inspection issued by the 

Uruguayan NPPO stating that the fruit 

in the consignment is free of all 

quarantine insects and has been 

produced in accordance with the 

requirements of the systems approach in 

7 CFR 319.56–58. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 31st day of 

January 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02647 Filed 2–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1206 

[Document No. AMS–FV–12–0041] 

Mango Promotion, Research, and 

Information Order; Nominations of 

Foreign Producers and Election of 

Officers 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule would allow foreign 

producers, from major countries 

exporting mangos to the United States, 

who are not members of a foreign 

producer organization to submit names 

to the Secretary for appointment to the 

National Mango Board (Board). At this 

time, only foreign producer associations 

from major countries exporting mangos 

to the United States can submit names 

to the Secretary for consideration. In 

addition, this proposal seeks to provide 

flexibility to the timing of election of 

officers to the Board. The changes were 

proposed by the Board, which 

administers the program, in accordance 

to the provisions of the Mango 

Promotion, Research, and Information 

Order (Order) which is authorized 

under the Commodity Promotion, 

Research, and Information Act of 1996 

(Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

February 26, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Comments may 

also be sent to the Promotion and 

Economics Division, Fruit and 

Vegetable Program, Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Room 1406– 

S, Stop 0244, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250– 

0244; fax (202) 205–2800. All comments 

submitted should reference the 

document number and title of this 

proposed rule, and will be included in 

the record and made available for public 

inspection. Comments may be viewed 

on the internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or at the above 

office. Please be advised that the 

identity of individuals or entities 

submitting comments will be made 

public on the internet at the above Web 

site. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeanette Palmer, Marketing Specialist, 

Promotion and Economics Division, 

Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, 

USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8442 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

SW., Room 1406–S, Stop 0244, 

Washington, DC 20250–0244; telephone: 

(888) 720–9917; fax: (202) 205–2800; 

email: Jeanette.Palmer@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under the Mango Promotion, 

Research, and Information Order (Order) 

(7 CFR part 1206). The Order is 

authorized under the Commodity 

Promotion, Research, and Information 

Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7411–7425). 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. This rule 

has been designated as ‘‘non-significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has waived the review process. 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. It is not intended to have a 

retroactive effect. 

Section 524 of the Act provides that 

the Act shall not affect or preempt any 

other State or Federal law authorizing 

promotion or research relating to an 

agricultural commodity. 

Under the Act, a person subject to an 

order may file a petition with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (Department) 

stating that an order, any provision of an 

order, or any obligation imposed in 

connection with an order, is not 

established in accordance with the law, 

and requesting a modification of an 

order or an exemption from an order. 

Any petition filed challenging an order, 

any provision of an order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

an order, shall be filed within two years 

after the effective date of an order, 

provision, or obligation subject to 

challenge in the petition. The petitioner 

will have the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. Thereafter, the 

Department will issue a ruling on the 

petition. The Act provides that the 

district court of the United States for 

any district in which the petitioner 

resides or conducts business shall have 

the jurisdiction to review a final ruling 

on the petition, if the petitioner files a 

complaint for that purpose not later 

than 20 days after the date of the entry 

of the Department’s final ruling. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601– 

612), the Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) has considered the economic 

impact of this action on the small 

entities that would be affected by this 

rule. The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory action to scale on businesses 

subject to such action so that small 

businesses will not be 

disproportionately burdened. 

The Small Business Administration 

defines small agricultural producers as 

those having annual receipts of no more 

than $750,000 and small agricultural 

service firms as those having annual 

receipts of no more than $7 million (13 

CFR part 121). First handlers and 

importers would be considered 

agricultural service firms, and the 

majority of mango producers, first 

handlers and importers would be 

considered small businesses. Although 

this criterion does not factor in 

additional monies that may be received 

by producers, handlers and importers of 

mangos, it is an inclusive standard for 

identifying small entities. 

Mango producers are not subject to 

the assessment. First handlers and 

importers who market or import less 

than 500,000 pounds of mangos 

annually are exempt from the 

assessment. Mangos that are exported 

out of the United States are also exempt 

from assessment. Furthermore, while 

domestic and foreign producers are not 

subject to assessment under the Order, 

such individuals are eligible to serve on 

the Board along with importers and first 

handlers. Currently, approximately 

three first handlers and 193 importers 

are subject to assessment under the 

Order. 

U.S. production of mangos is located 

in California, Florida, Hawaii, Texas, 

and Puerto Rico according to the most 

recent U.S. Census of Agriculture 

(Agricultural Census) which was 

conducted in 2007. The Agricultural 

Census does not include California 

production because California has so 

few producers that publishing 

production data would reveal 

confidential information. According to 

the 2007 Agricultural Census published 

by the Department’s National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, the U.S. 

had a total of 2,259 acres of mangos in 

2007, which is the most recent data 

available. Out of the total acreage, 1,212 

acres (54 percent) were in Florida, and 

the remaining 1,047 acres (46 percent) 

were in Hawaii, California, and Texas. 

The Agricultural Census does not 

collect mango production data for 

Puerto Rico. Individual acreage for 

Hawaii, California and Texas are not 

available. U.S. mango acreage rose by 

321 acres between 2002 and 2007. 

Florida saw a decrease of 161 acres 

between 2002 and 2007 census, but 

acres in other States rose by 482 acres. 

Census data is published every five 

years. 

Seven countries account for 99 

percent of the mangos imported into the 

United Sates. These countries and their 

share of the imports (from April 1, 2011, 

through March 31, 2012) are: Mexico (68 

percent); Ecuador (9 percent); Brazil (7 

percent); Peru (7 percent); Guatemala (4 

percent); Haiti (3 percent); and 

Nicaragua (1 percent). For the period 

from April 1, 2011, through March 31, 

2012, the United States imported a total 

of 353,629 tons of mangos, valued at 

$280 million. 

The Board is composed of 18 

members, including eight importers; 

two domestic producers; one first 

handler; and seven foreign producers. 

Nominations and appointments to the 

Board are conducted pursuant to section 

1206.31 of the Order. Nominations for 

the importer, domestic producer, and 

first handler seats are made by U.S. 

importers, domestic producers, and first 

handlers, respectively. Foreign 

producers are nominated by foreign 

producer associations. The Board wants 

to increase the pool of nominees from 

the major countries that export mangos 

to the United States by allowing foreign 

producers who are in areas without a 

producer organization to nominate 

foreign producers to the Board. 

Section 515(b)(2)(C) of the Act states 

the Secretary may make appointments 

from nominations made pursuant to the 

method set forth in the order. The Board 

wants to receive representation from all 

mango growing regions within the major 

mango exporting countries to the United 

States. Section 1206.31(g) of the Order 

limits the nominations for the foreign 

producer seats to the foreign mango 

organizations. At a meeting on 

September 11, 2009, the Board voted (9 

out of 14 in favor) to allow foreign 

producers from the major countries 

exporting mangos to the United States to 

provide nominees directly to the 

Secretary. At a recent Board meeting, 

the Board decided to request this 

change. The proposed change does not 

limit the foreign producer organizations 

ability to submit nominations. It will 

increase the slate of candidates from 

which the Secretary may choose to 

appoint to the Board. It also provides an 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 8443 

opportunity to increase diversity on the 

Board. 

In addition, on July 11, 2012, the 

Board voted unanimously to amend the 

Order to provide the Board flexibility in 

the election of officers. Currently, 

section 1206.34 (b) of the Order requires 

the Board to select a chairperson and a 

vice chairperson at the start of its fiscal 

period. The Board must schedule Board 

meetings around several domestic and 

international growing regions in the 

mango industry. This challenge has 

caused the Board to hold its first 

meeting of the year three months into 

the fiscal year. The language in the 

Order would leave the Board without a 

chairperson for several months. The 

Board had considered changing its fiscal 

year, but it was rejected by Board 

members because the Board’s fiscal year 

flows with the mango production cycle 

which is a calendar year. 

Section 515(c)(3) of the Act allows the 

Board to meet, organize, and select 

among its members its officers as the 

Board determines appropriately. In 

practice, the Board has learned that 

waiting three months into its fiscal year 

to elect officers is impractical. The 

Board believes that electing its officers 

at the last meeting of the fiscal year is 

more advantageous. Therefore, the 

Board proposes to update the Order to 

reflect the particular needs of the mango 

industry and to provide for a more 

efficient management method. 

This rule does not impose additional 

recordkeeping requirements on first 

handlers, importers, or producers of 

mangos. There are no Federal rules that 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this 

rule. 

In accordance with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

regulation (5 CFR part 1320) that 

implements the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements that are 

imposed by the Order have been 

approved previously under OMB 

control number 0581–0093. This rule 

does not result in a change to the 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements previously 

approved. 

We have performed this initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

regarding the impact of this proposed 

amendment to the Order on small 

entities and we invite comments 

concerning potential effects of this 

amendment on small businesses. 

Background 

The Order became effective on 

November 3, 2004, and it is authorized 

under the Act. The Board is composed 

of 18 members, including eight 

importers; two domestic producers; one 

first handler; and seven foreign 

producers. Nominations for the 

importer, domestic producer, and first 

handler seats are made by U.S. 

importers, domestic producers, and first 

handlers, respectively. Foreign 

producers are nominated by foreign 

producer associations. 

Under the Order, the Board 

administers a nationally coordinated 

program of research and promotion 

designed to strengthen the position of 

mangos in the marketplace and to 

establish, maintain, and expand U.S. 

markets for mangos. The program is 

financed by an assessment of three 

quarters of a cent per pound on first 

handlers and importers of 500,000 

pounds or more of mangos annually. 

The Order specifies that first handlers 

are responsible for submitting 

assessments to the Board on a monthly 

basis and maintaining records necessary 

to verify their reporting. Importers are 

responsible for paying assessments on 

mangos imported for marketing in the 

United States through the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection Service of the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 

The Board wants to increase the pool 

of nominees from the major countries 

that export mangos to the United States 

by allowing foreign producers who are 

in areas without a producer organization 

to nominate foreign producers to the 

Board. The Board wants to receive 

representation from all mango growing 

regions within the major countries that 

export mangos to the United States. 

Section 1206.31(g) of the Order limits 

the nominations for the foreign 

producer seats to the foreign mango 

organizations. At a meeting on 

September 11, 2009, the Board voted to 

allow foreign producers from the major 

countries exporting mangos to the 

United States to provide nominees 

directly to the Secretary. At a recent 

meeting, the Board decided to request 

this change. The propose change does 

not limit the foreign producer 

organizations ability to submit 

nominations. It will increase the slate of 

candidates from which the Secretary 

may choose to appoint members to the 

Board. 

This propose change is consistent 

with section 515(b)(2)(C) of the Act 

which states the Secretary may make 

appointments from nominations made 

pursuant to the method set forth in the 

Order. The Board wants to expand its 

slate of candidates for the Secretary’s 

decision for appointment to the Board. 

Accordingly, section 1206.31(g) of the 

Order would be revised to allow foreign 

producers who are not members of a 

producer organization to nominate 

foreign producers to the Secretary for 

consideration for appointment to the 

Board. 

In addition, on July 11, 2012, the 

Board voted unanimously to amend the 

Order to provide the Board flexibility in 

the election of officers. Currently, 

section 1206.34(b) of the Order requires 

the Board to select a chairperson and a 

vice chairperson at the start of its fiscal 

period. The Board must schedule Board 

meetings around several domestic and 

international growing regions in the 

mango industry. This challenge has 

caused the Board to hold its first 

meeting of the year three months into 

the fiscal year. The current procedure in 

the Order would leave the Board 

without a chairperson for several 

months. The Board had considered 

changing its fiscal year, but it was 

rejected because the Board’s fiscal year 

flows with the mango production cycle 

which is a calendar year. 

In practice, the Board has learned that 

waiting three months into its fiscal year 

to elect officers is impractical. The 

Board believes that electing its officers 

at the last meeting of the fiscal year is 

more advantageous. Therefore, the 

Board proposes to update the Order to 

reflect the particular needs of the mango 

industry and to provide for a more 

efficient management method. This 

proposed change is consistent with 

section 515(c)(3) of the Act which 

permits the Board to meet, organize, and 

select among its members its officers as 

the Board determines appropriately. 

This rule would amend section 

1206.34(b) of the Order to provide the 

Board flexibility in the timing to elect 

its officers. 

A 20-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. Twenty days is deemed 

appropriate so that the proposed 

amendments, if adopted, may be 

implemented for the next nomination 

process which begins early Spring 2013 

and to reflect the current practices of the 

election of officers. If this process is not 

in effect by Spring of 2013, then the 

foreign producers without an 

organization would not be able to have 

representation on the Board until the 

year 2015. In addition, this nomination 

revision was disseminated to the mango 

industry which supports this change. 

All written comments received in 

response to this rule by the date 

specified would be considered prior to 

finalizing this action. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also 

found that good cause exists for not 

postponing the effective date of this 

action until twenty days after 

publication in the Federal Register 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8444 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

because a final rule needs to be in effect 

before the Board makes a call for 

nominations for the term of office 

beginning January 1, 2014. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1206 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Advertising, Consumer 

information, Marketing agreements, 

Mango promotion, Reporting and 

recording requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 1206 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 1206—MANGO PROMOTION, 

RESEARCH, AND INFORMATION 

ORDER 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 1206 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7411–7425 and 7401. 

■ 2. In § 1206.31, paragraph (g) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 1206.31 Nominations and appointments. 

* * * * * 

(g) Nominees to fill the foreign 

producer member positions on the 

Board shall be solicited from 

organizations of foreign mango 

producers and from foreign mango 

producers. Organizations of foreign 

mango producers shall submit two 

nominees for each position, and foreign 

mango producers may submit their 

name or the names of other foreign 

mango producers directly to the Board. 

The nominees shall be representative of 

the major countries exporting mangos to 

the United States. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 1206.34, paragraph (b) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 1206.34 Procedure. 

* * * * * 

(b) The Board shall select officers 

from its membership, including a 

chairperson and vice chairperson, 

whose terms shall be one year. The 

chairperson and vice-chairperson will 

conduct meetings throughout the 

period. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 1, 2013. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02615 Filed 2–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Utilities Service 

7 CFR Part 1710 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation 

Loan Program Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment 

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of a 

Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service 

(RUS), has prepared a Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment (PEA) for a 

new program that will implement the 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation 

Loan Program (EE). The PEA is available 

for a 30-day public review and comment 

period. Subsequent to the comment 

period RUS plans to issue a finding of 

no significant impact. 

DATES: Written comments on this Notice 

must be received on or before March 8, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deirdre M. Remley, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, RUS, Water and 

Environmental Programs, Engineering 

and Environmental Staff, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, Stop 1571, 

Washington, DC 20250–1571, 

Telephone: (202) 720–9640 or email: 

deirdre.remley@wdc.usda.gov . The 

PEA is available online at http:// 

www.rurdev.usda.gov/UWP-ea.htm or 

you may contact Ms. Remley for a hard 

copy. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

22, 2008, the U.S. Congress enacted the 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008 (2008 Farm Bill) as Public Law 

110–234. The 2008 Farm Bill amended 

Section 12 to authorize energy audits 

and energy efficiency measures and 

devices to reduce demand on electric 

systems. Section 6101 of the 2008 Farm 

Bill amended Sections 2(a) and 4 of the 

Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) by 

inserting ‘‘efficiency and’’ before 

‘‘conservation’’ each place it appears. 

Under the authority of the ‘‘efficiency’’ 

provisions added to the RE Act by the 

2008 Farm Bill, RUS proposes to amend 

7 CFR part 1710 by adding a new 

subpart H entitled ‘‘Energy Efficiency 

and Conservation Loan Program,’’ 

which expands upon policies and 

procedures specific to loans for a new 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation 

Loan program. The program would 

provide loans to eligible rural utility 

providers (Primary Recipients) who 

would act as intermediaries to make 

Energy Efficiency (EE) loans to 

consumers in the Primary Recipients’ 

service territories (Ultimate Recipients) 

for EE improvements at the Ultimate 

Recipients’ premises. 

This program is funded through 

existing authorizations and 

appropriations. RUS expects that $250 

million per year will be dedicated to the 

EE program. On July 26, 2012, RUS 

published a proposed rulemaking in the 

Federal Register at 77 FR 43723, with 

a 60-day comment period, for the 

subpart H of 7 CFR part 1710, which 

would implement the EE program. The 

final rule will outline the procedures for 

providing loans to eligible Primary 

Recipients who will establish EE 

activities in their service territories and 

to pay reasonable administrative 

expenses associated with their loans 

under the program. The proposed rule 

defines an ‘‘Eligible Borrower’’ (Primary 

Recipient) as an electric utility that has 

direct or indirect responsibility for 

providing retail electric service to 

persons in a rural area. 

Certain financing actions taken by 

RUS are Federal actions subject to 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 

parts 1500–1508), and RUS 

‘‘Environmental Policies and 

Procedures’’ (7 CFR part 1794). There 

are two Federal actions under the new 

EE program being considered in this 

PEA: (1) Loans awarded by RUS to 

Primary Recipients, and (2) loans and 

other EE activities that the Primary 

Recipient executes for the benefit of 

Ultimate Recipients. 

The levels of environmental review 

for RUS actions are classified in 7 CFR 

part 1794, subpart C, Classification of 

Proposals. Both agency actions for the 

EE program are classified in 

§ 1794.22(b)(1) (loan approvals) as 

categorically excluded proposals 

requiring an Environmental Report (ER). 

Due to the limited scope and magnitude 

of most EE loan activities, RUS finds 

that a programmatic environmental 

analysis of the new EE program will 

reduce paperwork, duplication of effort, 

and promote a more efficient decisionmaking process for program 

implementation. RUS reserves the right 

to update this programmatic analysis to 

take additional information into account 

or develop particular elements of the 

analysis more fully as may be warranted 

in individual circumstances. 

In summary, RUS has determined that 

the implementation of the EE program 

would not significantly affect the 

human or natural environment. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS